The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay certification of the airplane and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance; however, the FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.

We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these special conditions. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions in light of the comments we receive.

If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you.

On June 1, 2001, Schwartz Engineering Company, 116 Kestrel Drive, Spring Branch, Texas 78070, applied for a supplemental type certificate (STC) to modify a Boeing Model 737-79U IGW airplane (BBJ serial number 29441). The Model 737-79U IGW is one of the Boeing Business Jet (BBJ) variants of Model 737 airplanes. It is a large transport category airplane powered by two CFM 56 engines, with a maximum takeoff weight of 171,000 pounds. The modified 737-79U IGW airplane (BBJ serial number 29441) operates with a 2-pilot crew, up to 2 flight attendants, and can hold up to 11 passengers.

The modification incorporates the installation of an electrically heated surface, called a cooktop. Cooktops introduce high heat, smoke, and the possibility of fire into the passenger cabin environment. These potential hazards to the airplane and its occupants must be satisfactorily addressed. Since existing airworthiness regulations do not contain safety standards addressing cooktops, special conditions are therefore issued.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Schwartz Engineering Company must show that the Boeing Model 737-79U IGW airplane (BBJ serial number 29441), as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate Data Sheet No. A16WE, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate Data Sheet No. A16WE are part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-77, with reversions to earlier Amendments, voluntary compliance to later Amendments, special conditions, equivalent safety findings, and exemptions listed in the type certificate data sheet.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (that is, part 25 as amended) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 737-79U IGW airplane (BBJ serial number 29441) modified by Schwartz Engineering Company because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, this Boeing Model 737-79U IGW airplane (BBJ serial number 29441) must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of part 34 and the noise certification requirements of part 36.

Special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38, and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101(b)(2).

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should Schwartz Engineering Company apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

As noted earlier, the modification of the Boeing Model 737-79U IGW airplane (BBJ serial number 29441) will include installation of a cooktop in the passenger cabin. Cooktops introduce high heat, smoke, and the possibility of fire into the passenger cabin environment. The current airworthiness standards of part 25 do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards to protect the airplane and its occupants from these potential hazards. Accordingly, this system is considered to be a novel or unusual design feature.

Currently, ovens are the prevailing means of heating food on airplanes. Ovens are characterized by an enclosure that contains both the heat source and the food being heated. The hazards represented by ovens are thus inherently limited, and are well understood through years of service experience. Cooktops, on the other hand, are characterized by exposed heat sources and the presence of relatively unrestrained hot cookware and heated food, which may represent unprecedented hazards to both occupants and the airplane.

Cooktops could have serious passenger and airplane safety implications if appropriate requirements are not established for their installation and use. These special conditions apply to cooktops with electrically powered burners. The use of an open flame cooktop (for example natural gas) is beyond the scope of these special conditions and would require separate rulemaking action. The requirements identified in these special conditions are in addition to those considerations identified in Advisory Circular (AC) 25-10, “Guidance for Installation of Miscellaneous Non-required Electrical Equipment,” and those in AC 25-17, “Transport Airplane Cabin Interiors Crashworthiness Handbook.” The intent of these special conditions is to provide a level of safety that is consistent with that on similar airplanes without cooktops.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 737-79U IGW airplane (BBJ serial number 29441) modified by Schwartz Engineering Company. Should Schwartz Engineering Company apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the Boeing Model 737-79U IGW airplane (BBJ serial number 29441) modified by Schwartz Engineering Company. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

The substance of the special conditions for this airplane has been subjected to notice and comment procedure in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. Because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the supplemental type certification basis for the Boeing Model 737-79U IGW airplane (BBJ serial number 29441) modified by Schwartz Engineering Company:

1. Means, such as conspicuous burner-on indicators, physical barriers, or handholds, must be installed to minimize the potential for inadvertent personnel contact with hot surfaces of both the cooktop and cookware. Conditions of turbulence must be considered.

2. Sufficient design means must be included to restrain cookware while in place on the cooktop, as well as representative contents (soups or sauces, for example) from the effects of flight loads and turbulence.

(a) Restraints must be provided to preclude hazardous movement of cookware and contents. These restraints must accommodate any cookware that is identified for use with the cooktop.

(b) Restraints must be designed to be easily utilized and effective in service. The cookware restraint system should also be designed so that it will not be easily disabled, thus rendering it unusable.

(c) Placarding must be installed which prohibits the use of cookware that cannot be accommodated by the restraint system.

3. Placarding must be installed which prohibits the use of cooktops (that is, power on any burner) during taxi, takeoff, and landing (TTL).

4. Means must be provided to address the possibility of a fire occurring on or in the immediate vicinity of the cooktop caused by materials or grease inadvertently coming in contact with the burners.

5. The surfaces of the galley surrounding the cooktop, which would be exposed to a fire on the cooktop surface or in cookware on the cooktop, must be constructed of materials that comply with the flammability requirements of Part III of Appendix F of part 25. This requirement is in addition to the flammability requirements typically required of the materials in these galley surfaces. During the selection of these materials, consideration must also be given to ensure that the flammability characteristics of the materials will not be adversely affected by the use of cleaning agents and utensils used to remove cooking stains.

6. The cooktop must be ventilated with a system independent of the airplane cabin and cargo ventilation system. Procedures and time intervals must be established to inspect and clean or replace the ventilation system to prevent a fire hazard from the accumulation of flammable oils. These procedures and time intervals must be included in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA). The ventilation system ducting must be protected by a flame arrestor.

7. Means must be provided to contain spilled foods or fluids in a manner that will prevent the creation of a slipping hazard to occupants and will not lead to the loss of structural strength due to airplane corrosion.

8. Cooktop installations must provide adequate space for the user to immediately escape a hazardous cooktop condition.

9. A means to shut off power to the cooktop must be provided at the galley containing the cooktop and in the cockpit. If additional switches are introduced in the cockpit, revisions to smoke or fire emergency procedures of the AFM will be required.

10. A readily deployable cover must be provided to cover the cooktop during taxi, takeoff, and landing (TT&L) operation. The deployment of the cover must automatically shut off power to the cooktop.

A proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD for ECF Model AS332L and AS332L1 helicopters was published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2002 (67 FR 5526). That action proposed to require adding the limitations contained in SUP.10.14, Ski Installation, to the Limitations section of the RFM, requiring certain speed limitations for helicopters with skis installed.

The Direction Generale De L'Aviation Civile (DGAC), the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on ECF Model AS332L and AS332L1 helicopters equipped with “SEFA” skis. ECF issued Supplement, SUP.10.14, Ski Installation, Normal Revision 2, Issue 2, dated June 2001 to the applicable RFM. The DGAC classified these RFM supplements as mandatory and issued AD No. 2001-316-079(A), dated July 25, 2001. The DGAC advises incorporating the Ski Installation Supplement into the applicable RFM before the next flight and complying with the Vne and the maximum taxiing speed limitations to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in France.

These helicopter models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to the applicable bilateral agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

The FAA estimates that 3 helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 10 minutes per helicopter to add the flight manual supplement, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $30.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas.

On Tuesday, April 2, 2002, the FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71 to establish Class D and modify Class E airspace at Marquette, MI (67 FR 15502). The proposal was to establish Class D airspace, and modify Class E airspace, to support the operation of a Federal Contract Tower, and to provide a safer operating environment after the tower is closed. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, and Class E airspace areas extending upward from the surface of the earth in paragraph 6002, of FAA Order 7400.9J dated August 31, 2001, and effective September 16, 2001, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class D airspace and modifies Class E airspace at Marquette, MI, to support the operation of a Federal Contract Tower, and to provide a safer operating environment after the tower is closed. The areas will be depicted on appropriations aeronautical charts.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

In Consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

On Tuesday, April 2, 2002, the FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71 to modify Class E airspace at Jackson, OH. (67 FR 15503). The proposal was to modify controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth to contain Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations in controlled airspace during portions of the terminal operation and while transiting between the enroute and terminal environments.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9J dated August 31, 2001, and effective September 16, 2001, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the order.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies Class E airspace at Jackson, OH, to accommodate aircraft executing instrument flight procedures into and out of James A. Rhodes Airport. The area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore this, proposed regulation—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

On Tuesday, April 2, 2002, the FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71 to modify Class E airspace at Tecumseh, MI (67 FR 15504) The proposal was to modify controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth to contain Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations in controlled airspace during portions of the terminal operation and while transiting between the enroute and terminal operation and while transiting between the enroute and terminal environments.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceedings by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class E airpspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9J dated August 31, 2001, and effective September 16, 2001, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the order.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies Class E airspace at Tecumseh, MI, to accommodate aircraft executing instrument flight procedures into and out of Tecumseh Products Airport. The area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore this, proposed regulation—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

This rule constitutes notice that all references to the Office of Chief Counsel for Export Administration or Chief Counsel for Export Administration in any documents, statements, or other communications, in any form or media, and whether made before, on, or after the effective date of this rule, shall be deemed to be references to the Office of Chief Counsel for Industry and Security or Chief Counsel for Industry and Security, respectively. Any actions undertaken in the name of or on behalf of the Office of Chief Counsel for Export Administration or Chief Counsel for Export Administration, whether taken before, on, or after the effective date of this rule, shall be deemed to have been taken in the name of or on behalf of the Office of Chief Counsel for Industry and Security or the Chief Counsel for Industry and Security, respectively.

1. This final rule has been determined to be exempt from review for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

2. This rule does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as the term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this rule involves a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 5 U.S.C. or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. ) are not applicable.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM. Publishing a NPRM, which would incorporate a comment period before a final rule could be issued, would be contrary to public safety interests since immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the public from aerial fireworks and because there will be numerous spectator craft in the area.

For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

These regulations are required to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters because of the inherent danger associated with the aerial fireworks for the Beaufort Water Festival July 12th Fireworks Display on the Beaufort River, Beaufort, SC. The event sponsor expects approximately 120 spectator craft to observe the show. The fireworks barge will be located in approximate position 32°25.593′ N, 080°40.292′ W (NAD 83). This rule creates a regulated area that will prohibit non-participant persons and vessels from entering the regulated area during the event without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979) because it minimally impacts navigation. The regulated area will only be in effect for one hour, vessels will still be able to transit the waterway around the regulated area, and vessels may be allowed to enter the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

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

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Beaufort River from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 12, 2002. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it minimally impacts navigation. The rule will only be in effect for one hour, vessels will still be able to transit the waterway around the regulated area, and vessels may be allowed to enter the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small entities may contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance in understanding and participating in this rulemaking. We also have a point of contact for commenting on actions by employees of the Coast Guard. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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

A rule has implication for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this action and has determined pursuant to figure 2-1, paragraph 34(h) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, that this action is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation.

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

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

This Supplementary Information section is organized as follows:

We are deleting from the list of area designations in 40 CFR part 81, all of the designations for TSP in the state of Michigan (§ 81.323). Area designations which indicate the attainment status of each affected area with respect to the PM NAAQS already exist, and the TSP area designations are no longer needed.

In 1971, EPA promulgated primary and secondary NAAQS for particulate matter to be measured as TSP. Section 107(d) of the 1977 Amendments to the Act authorized each State to submit to the Administrator a list identifying the attainment status designations (attainment, unclassifiable and nonattainment) for TSP areas in the state. In 1978, EPA published the original list of all area designations pursuant to section 107(d)(2) (commonly referred to as “section 107 areas”), including those designations for TSP, in 40 CFR part 81.

One of the purposes stated in the Act for the section 107 areas is for implementation of the statutory requirements of air quality PSD. The PSD provisions of part C of the Act generally apply in all section 107 areas that are designated attainment or unclassifiable (40 CFR 52.21(i)(3)). Under the PSD program, States must ensure that emissions from major stationary sources are controlled sufficiently by applying the best available control technology. Also, it must be shown that such controlled emissions from the new or modified source will not cause or contribute to air pollution that violates the NAAQS. Moreover, the air quality in an attainment or unclassifiable area is not allowed to deteriorate beyond prescribed maximum allowable increases in pollutant concentrations, referred to as “increments.”

On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 242634), EPA revised the particulate matter NAAQS, replacing the TSP indicator with the PM indicator. On the same date, EPA promulgated final regulations under 40 CFR part 51 for State implementation of the revised NAAQS (52 FR 24672). In the preamble to that action, EPA announced that, because of the importance of the section 107 area designations to the applicability of the TSP increments, it would retain the TSP designations beyond the date on which EPA approves a State's revised PM State Implementation Plan (SIP). This would protect the applicability of the TSP increments until a PM increment system could be established.

The 1990 Amendments to the Act contained several pertinent provisions relating to or affecting the TSP area designations. Under section 107(d)(4)(B) of the amended Act, Congress established by operation of law the first nonattainment area designations for PM, and mandated that areas not initially defined as nonattainment are considered to be unclassifiable. Moreover, section 107(d)(4)(B) provided that any designation for particulate matter (measured in terms of TSP) that the Administrator promulgated prior to the date of enactment of the 1990 Amendments shall remain in effect for purposes of implementing the maximum allowable concentrations of particulate matter (measured in terms of TSP) increments until the Administrator determines that such designation is no longer necessary for that purpose.

On June 3, 1993 (58 FR 31622), under the authority of section 166(f) of the Act, EPA published the final rulemaking replacing the TSP increments with equivalent PM increments. As a result, the PSD increments and NAAQS will be measured by the same indicator. As stated at 58 FR 31635, for States already having delegated authority to implement the Federal PSD regulations “EPA will eliminate the TSP designations when the PM increments become effective under § 52.21 on June 3, 1994.” The EPA has delegated to the state of Michigan the authority to implement the PSD program. The delegation agreement provides for automatic adoption of the revised PM increments once the increments become effective.

Because TSP designations are no longer necessary, as described above, and the PSD regulations contained in 40 CFR 52.21 (the Federal PSD program) govern the review and approval of permits to construct and operate major stationary sources in Michigan, EPA is taking action to delete all TSP area designations in the state of Michigan.

The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective September 9, 2002 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by August 9, 2002. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. We will then address all public comments received in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective September 9, 2002.

Under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (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 nor does it 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, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action 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). 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 Clean Air 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 a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires federal agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Absent a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA 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, and has determined that the rule's requirements do not constitute a taking. 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 September 9, 2002. 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).)

This Supplementary Information section is organized as follows:

We are deleting from the list of area designations in 40 CFR part 81, all of the designations for TSP in the state of Minnesota (§ 81.324). Area designations which indicate the attainment status of each affected area with respect to the PM NAAQS already exist, and the TSP area designations are no longer needed.

In 1971, EPA promulgated primary and secondary NAAQS for particulate matter to be measured as TSP. Section 107(d) of the 1977 Amendments to the Act authorized each State to submit to the Administrator a list identifying the attainment status designations (attainment, unclassifiable and nonattainment) for TSP areas in the state. In 1978, EPA published the original list of all area designations pursuant to section 107(d)(2) (commonly referred to as “section 107 areas”), including those designations for TSP, in 40 CFR part 81.

One of the purposes stated in the Act for the section 107 areas is for implementation of the statutory requirements of air quality PSD. The PSD provisions of part C of the Act generally apply in all section 107 areas that are designated attainment or unclassifiable (40 CFR 52.21(i)(3)). Under the PSD program, States must ensure that emissions from major stationary sources are controlled sufficiently by applying the best available control technology. Also, it must be shown that such controlled emissions from the new or modified source will not cause or contribute to air pollution that violates the NAAQS. Moreover, the air quality in an attainment or unclassifiable area is not allowed to deteriorate beyond prescribed maximum allowable increases in pollutant concentrations, referred to as “increments.”

On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 242634), EPA revised the particulate matter NAAQS, replacing the TSP indicator with the PM indicator. On the same date, EPA promulgated final regulations under 40 CFR part 51 for State implementation of the revised NAAQS (52 FR 24672). In the preamble to that action, EPA announced that, because of the importance of the section 107 area designations to the applicability of the TSP increments, it would retain the TSP designations beyond the date on which EPA approves a State's revised PM State Implementation Plan (SIP). This would protect the applicability of the TSP increments until a PM increment system could be established.

The 1990 Amendments to the Act contained several pertinent provisions relating to or affecting the TSP area designations. Under section 107(d)(4)(B) of the amended Act, Congress established by operation of law the first nonattainment area designations for PM, and mandated that areas not initially defined as nonattainment are considered to be unclassifiable. Moreover, section 107(d)(4)(B) provided that any designation for particulate matter (measured in terms of TSP) that the Administrator promulgated prior to the date of enactment of the 1990 Amendments shall remain in effect for purposes of implementing the maximum allowable concentrations of particulate matter (measured in terms of TSP) increments until the Administrator determines that such designation is no longer necessary for that purpose.

On June 3, 1993 (58 FR 31622), under the authority of section 166(f) of the Act, EPA published the final rulemaking replacing the TSP increments with equivalent PM increments. As a result, the PSD increments and NAAQS will be measured by the same indicator. As stated at 58 FR 31635, for States already having delegated authority to implement the Federal PSD regulations “EPA will eliminate the TSP designations when the PM increments become effective under § 52.21 on June 3, 1994.” The EPA has delegated to the state of Minnesota the authority to implement the PSD program. The delegation agreement provides for automatic adoption of the revised PM increments once the increments become effective.

Because TSP designations are no longer necessary, as described above, and the PSD regulations contained in 40 CFR 52.21 (the Federal PSD program) govern the review and approval of permits to construct and operate major stationary sources in Minnesota, EPA is taking action to delete all TSP area designations in the state of Minnesota.

The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective September 9, 2002 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by August 9, 2002. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. We will then address all public comments received in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective September 9, 2002.

Under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (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 nor does it 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, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action 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). 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 Clean Air 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 a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires federal agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Absent a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA 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, and has determined that the rule's requirements do not constitute a taking. 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 September 9, 2002. 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).)

You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_40/40cfr180_00.html, a beta site currently under development.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket ID number OPP-2002-0047. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

This final rule revokes the FFDCA tolerances for the combined residues of oxadixyl and its desmethyl metabolite in or on specified commodities listed in the regulatory text because oxadixyl is no longer registered under FIFRA for uses on those commodities. The tolerances revoked with an expiration/revocation date by this final rule are not needed after the expiration date to cover the combined residues of oxadixyl and its desmethyl metabolite in or on domestically treated commodities or commodities treated outside but imported into the United States. While all sale and distribution of existing stocks of oxadixyl (except for the purposes of shipping such stocks for export consistent with section 17 of FIFRA or for proper disposal) is permitted until September 27, 2002, no oxadixyl use on those specified commodities within the United States is expected after the spring of 2003, and no one commented that there was a need for EPA to retain the tolerances to cover residues in or on imported foods. EPA has historically expressed a concern that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods has the potential to encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States. Thus, it is EPA's policy to issue a final rule revoking those tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person commenting on the proposal demonstrates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated.

In the Federal Register of February 6, 2002 (67 FR 5548) (FRL-6817-4), EPA issued a proposed rule to revoke the tolerances listed in this final rule. Also, the February 6, 2002 proposal invited public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance retention under FFDCA standards. No comments were received by the Agency.

On November 1, 2001 (66 FR 55158) (FRL-6808-4), EPA published in the Federal Register a cancellation order for all oxadixyl product registrations effective September 27, 2001. Although the manufacture of oxadixyl products ended years ago and the registrants know of no products in channels of trade, the cancellation order allowed a period of 1 year from September 27, 2001, to permit all sale and distribution of existing stocks (except for the purposes of shipping such stocks for export consistent with section 17 of FIFRA or for proper disposal). The Agency believes that existing stocks of oxadixyl will be exhausted by the spring of 2003. Because no active registrations exist and because no comments expressed a need to retain these tolerances for import purposes, EPA is revoking all tolerances in 40 CFR 180.456 for the combined residues of oxadixyl and its desmethyl metabolite, with an expiration/revocation date of September 27, 2003. The Agency believes that this date allows sufficient time for any oxadixyl-treated food commodities to pass through the channels of trade.

For FQPA reassessment purposes, EPA counts “Grass, forage, fodder and hay, group” as 3 tolerances (grass, forage; grass, fodder; and grass, hay) and a total of 14 tolerances as reassessed. In the interim, before the tolerance expires and to conform to current Agency practice, EPA is revising tolerance commodity terminology names in 40 CFR 180.456 as follows: for “Brassica (cole) leafy vegetables group” to “vegetable, brassica, leafy, group”; “cereal grains group (except wheat)” to “grain, cereal, group, except wheat”; “cotton seed” to “cotton, undelinted seed”; “cucurbit vegetables group” to “vegetable, cucurbit, group”; “fruiting vegetables (except cucurbits) group” to “vegetable, fruiting, group”; “leafy vegetables (except Brassica vegetables) group” to “vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group”; “nongrass animal feeds (forage, fodder, straw, and hay) group” to “animal feed, nongrass, group”; “peas” to “pea”; “root and tuber vegetables group” to “vegetable, root and tuber, group”; “soybeans” to “soybean”; and “sunflower seed” to “sunflower, seed.”

It is EPA's general practice to propose revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist. EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as “import tolerances,” are necessary to allow importation into the United States of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse.

EPA is revoking the tolerances for oxadixyl with an expiration/revocation date of September 27, 2003. EPA believes that by this date all existing stocks of pesticide products labeled for the uses associated with the tolerances proposed for revocation will have been exhausted and that there is ample time for any treated food commodities to clear trade channels. Therefore, EPA believes the revocation/expiration dates in this document are reasonable.

Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that are treated with the pesticide subject to this final rule, and that are in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by the FQPA. Under this section, any residue of this pesticide in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of FDA that: (1) The residue is present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and (2) the residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from a tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates that the pesticide was applied to such food.

By law, EPA is required by August 2002 to reassess 66% or about 6,400 of the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996. EPA is also required to assess the remaining tolerances by August 2006. As of June 25, 2002, EPA has reassessed over 5,140 tolerances. The oxadixyl tolerance depicted as “Grass, forage, fodder and hay, group” is counted as three tolerances because at the start of FQPA, the Agency's Tolerance Index System listed grass, forage; grass, fodder; and grass, hay tolerances for oxadixyl. In this rule, EPA is revoking all oxadixyl tolerances, which count as 14 reassessments toward the August 2002 review deadline of FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by FQPA in 1996.

EPA is working to ensure that the U.S. tolerance reassessment program under FQPA does not disrupt international trade. EPA considers Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) in setting U.S. tolerances and in reassessing them. MRLs are established by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, a committee within the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international organization formed to promote the coordination of international food standards. When possible, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with Codex MRLs. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain in a Federal Register document the reasons for departing from the Codex level. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual REDs. EPA has developed guidance concerning submissions for import tolerance support (65 FR 35069, June 1, 2000) (FRL-6559-3). This guidance will be made available to interested persons. Electronic copies are available on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/. On the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” then select “Regulations and Proposed Rules” and then look up the entry for this document under “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number OPP-2002-0047 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before September 9, 2002.

1. Filing the request . Your objection must specify the specific provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.

Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. C400, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 260-4865.

2. Objection/hearing fee payment . If you file an objection or request a hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i) or request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33(m). You must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please identify the fee submission by labeling it “Tolerance Petition Fees.”

EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement “when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.” For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at tompkins.jim@epa.gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

3. Copies for the Docket . In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit IV.A., you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion in the official record that is described in Unit I.B.2. Mail your copies, identified by docket ID number OPP-2002-0047, to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB described in Unit I.B.2. You may also send an electronic copy of your request via e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov. Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.

A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

This final rule will revoke tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this type of action (i.e., a tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this final 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). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), the Agency previously assessed whether revocations of tolerances might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This analysis was published on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), and was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticide listed in this rule, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Specifically, as per the 1997 notice, EPA has reviewed its available data on imports and foreign pesticide usage and concludes that there is a reasonable international supply of food not treated with oxadixyl. Furthermore, for the pesticide named in this final rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present revocations that would change EPA's previous analysis.

In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA 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” is 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 rule 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 rule.

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

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_40/40cfr180_00.html, a beta site currently under development.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket ID number OPP-2002-0113. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305--5805.

EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, is establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide halosulfuron, methyl 5-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonylaminosulfonyl-3-chloro-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate, in or on tomato at 0.05 part per million (ppm). This tolerance will expire and is revoked on June 30, 2005. EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register to remove the revoked tolerance from the Code of Federal Regulations.

Section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under section 18 of FIFRA. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on section 18 related tolerances to set binding precedents for the application of section 408 and the new safety standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having received any petition from an outside party.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that “emergency conditions exist which require such exemption.” This provision was not amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). EPA has established regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

Recently, EPA has received objections to a tolerance it established for halosulfuron on a different food commodity. The objections were filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and raised several issues regarding aggregate exposure estimates and the additional safety factor for the protection of infants and children. Although these objections concern separate rulemaking proceedings under the FFDCA, EPA has considered whether it is appropriate to establish the emergency exemption tolerance for halosulfuron in or on tomato while the objections are still pending.

Factors taken into account by EPA included how close the Agency is to concluding the proceedings on the objections, the nature of the current action, whether NRDC's objections raised frivolous issues, and the extent to which the issues raised by NRDC had already been considered by EPA. Although NRDC's objections are not frivolous, the other factors all support establishing this tolerance at this time. First, the objections proceeding is not near to conclusion. NRDC's objections raise complex legal, scientific, policy, and factual matters and EPA has just initiated a 60 day public comment period on them. [67 FR 41628-41635, June 19, 2002] Second, the nature of the current actions are extremely time-sensitive as they address emergency situations. Third, the issues raised by NRDC are not new matters but questions that have been the subject of considerable study by EPA and comment by stakeholders. Accordingly, EPA is proceeding with establishing the tolerances for halosulfuron in or on tomato.

Yellow ( Cyperus esculentus ) and purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus ) are very difficult to control warm season, perennial weeds that reproduce by seeds and nutlets. They have high reproductive potential and can be very competitive with tomatoes during crop establishment. In addition to crop competition nutsedge plants can penetrate the plastic mulch used in tomato culture destroying the plastic and allowing entrance of other pest species.

Halosulfuron will allow preemergence or post emergence applications to control emerged nutsedge plants before they can flower or form nutlets to propagate themselves. It can be used in the plant rows or between the plant rows. The alternative chemicals consist of methyl bromide whose production is being phased out, metam sodium, pebulate, and napropamide. The last three chemicals can only be applied preplant incorporated or preemergence and do not provide season long control of nutsedge. Cultivation and hand weeding only help to further distribute the plants and nutlets. Deep plowing can provide suppression the first time it is used but subsequent plowing operations bring the old tubers back up to germinate. The states of Florida and Georgia claim that yield losses of tomatoes due to purple and yellow nutsedge infestations can be as high as 20 to 30% compared to the next best alternative.

EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of halosulfuron on tomato for control of purple and yellow nutsedge in Florida and Georgia. After having reviewed the submission, EPA concurs that emergency conditions exist for these States.

As part of its assessment of this emergency exemption, EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of halosulfuron in or on tomato. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA decided that the necessary tolerance under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address an urgent non-routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing this tolerance without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in section 408(l)(6). Although this tolerance will expire and is revoked on June 30, 2005, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on tomato after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide is applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level that was authorized by this tolerance at the time of that application. EPA will take action to revoke this tolerance earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.

Because this tolerance is being approved under emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether halosulfuron meets EPA's registration requirements for use on tomato or whether a permanent tolerance for this use would be appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that this tolerance serves as a basis for registration of halosulfuron by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor does this tolerance serve as the basis for any State other than Florida and Georgia to use this pesticide on this crop under section 18 of FIFRA without following all provisions of EPA's regulations implementing section 18 as identified in 40 CFR part 166. For additional information regarding the emergency exemption for halosulfuron, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-5754-7).

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of halosulfuron and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2), for a time-limited tolerance for residues of halosulfuron in or on tomato at 0.05 ppm. EPA's assessment of the dietary exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by halosulfuron-methyl are discussed in Unit II.A. of the final rule on halosulfuron-methyl pesticide tolerances published in the Federal Register for September 29, 2000 (65 FR 58424) (FRL-6746-2). A summary of the toxicological dose and endpoints for halosulfuron-methyl for use in this human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule on halosulfuron-methyl pesticide tolerances published in the Federal Register of December 26, 2001 (66 FR 66333) (FRL-6816-8).

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been established (40 CFR 180.479) for the residues of halosulfuron, in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities. The established tolerances include tree nuts (crop group 14); pistachio nutmeat; almond hulls; sugarcane; corn (sweet, kernel+cob with husks removed, field grain, fodder, forage, pop); rice (grain, straw); and cotton (gin by-products and undelinted seed). Additionally, tolerances are established (40 CFR 180.479(a)(1)) for residues of halosulfuron-methyl and its metabolites determined as 3-chloro-1-methyl-5-sulfamoylpyrazole-4-carboxylic acid (also referred to as CSA, expressed as parent equivalents) at 0.1 ppm in or on meat by-products of cattle, goats, hogs, horses and sheep. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from halosulfuron in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure . Acute dietary risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a one day or single exposure. The Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM®) analysis evaluated the individual food consumption as reported by respondents in the USDA 1989-1992 nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. The following assumptions were made for the acute exposure assessments: Tolerance level residues and 100 percent crop-treated for all commodities.

ii. Chronic exposure .In conducting this chronic dietary risk assessment the DEEM® analysis evaluated the individual food consumption as reported by respondents in the USDA 1989-1992 nationwide CSFII and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. The following assumptions were made for the chronic exposure assessments: Tolerance level residues and 100 percent crop-treated for all commodities.

iii. Cancer . Halosulfuron is classified as a “Not Likely” human carcinogen. Therefore, risk assessments to assess cancer risk were not completed.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water . The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for halosulfuron in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical characteristics of halosulfuron.

The Agency uses the Generic Estimated Environmental Concentration (GENEEC) or the Pesticide Root Zone/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) to estimate pesticide concentrations in surface water and SCI-GROW, which predicts pesticide concentrations in ground water. In general, EPA will use GENEEC (a tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a tier 2 model) for a screening-level assessment for surface water. The GENEEC model is a subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific high-end runoff scenario for pesticides. GENEEC incorporates a farm pond scenario, while PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment in place of the previous pond scenario. The PRZM/EXAMS model includes a percent crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the maximum percent crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin.

None of these models include consideration of the impact processing (mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this stage is to provide a coarse screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is highly unlikely that drinking water concentrations would ever exceed human health levels of concern.

Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the risk assessment process, the Agency does not use estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) from these models to quantify drinking water exposure and risk as a percent of the Reference dose (%RfD) or percent of population adjusted dose (%PAD). Instead, drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) are calculated and used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food, and from residential uses. Since DWLOCs address total aggregate exposure to halosulfuron they are further discussed in the aggregate risk sections below.

Based on the GENEEC and SCI-GROW models the EECs of halosulfuron for acute exposures are estimated to be 8.3 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.065 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 1.7 ppb for surface water and 0.065 ppb for ground water.

3. From non-dietary exposure . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Halosulfuron is currently registered for use on the following residential non-dietary sites: Residential turfgrass and landscaped areas.

Short- and intermediate-term exposure may occur for residential handlers and for postapplication activities. Exposure for adults is expected for handler and postapplication exposure. Residential post-application dermal and oral exposure is expected for infants and children. Adults may be exposed through skin contact with treated surfaces (dermal exposure), while children may be exposed through skin contact as well as orally, through hand-to-mouth exposure and through object-to-mouth exposure (putting grass in their mouth). Exposure estimates for adult handlers' and children's postapplication exposure to halosulfuron-methyl are based on the Agency's Draft Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Exposure Assessments (12/18/1997) and its interim revisions, and data from the review of Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force Chemical Handler Exposure Studies. Chronic exposures for the residential uses are not expected based on the use pattern.

4. Cumulative exposure to substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether halosulfuron has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, halosulfuron does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that halosulfuron has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the final rule for Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997).

1. In general . FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a margin of exposure (MOE) analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans.

2. Conclusion . There is a complete toxicity database for halosulfuron and exposure data are complete or are estimated based on data that reasonably accounts for potential exposures. The Agency has determined that the 10X FQPA Safety factor for enhanced sensitivity to infants and children can be reduced to 1X. The decision is based upon the following reasons: There was no indication of increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits to in utero and/or postnatal exposure to halosulfuron-methyl. In the prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, effects in the offspring were observed only at or above treatment levels which resulted in evidence of parental toxicity.

The Agency determined that the requirement of a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats did not warrant an application of additional safety factors because: (1) The alterations observed in the fetal nervous system occurred in only one species (in rats and not in rabbits); (2) the fetal effects which will be investigated in the required developmental neurotoxicity study were seen only at a dose of 750 mg/kg/day which is close to the Limit-Dose (1,000 mg/kg/day); (3) there was no evidence of clinical signs of neurotoxicity, brain weight changes, or neuropathology in the subchronic or chronic studies in rats; (4) the developmental neurotoxicity study is required only as confirmatory data to understand what the effect is at a high exposure (dose) level; (5) exposure assessments do not indicate a concern for potential risk to infants and children based on the results of the field trial studies and the very low application rate (~ 0.06 lbs. active ingredient per acre). Detectable residues are not expected in foods. Consequently, there is no concern that the level of 750 mg/kg/day would be approached.

To estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food, drinking water, and residential uses, the Agency calculates DWLOCs which are used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water (EECs). DWLOC values are not regulatory standards for drinking water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses. In calculating a DWLOC, the Agency determines how much of the acceptable exposure (i.e., the population adusted dose (PAD)) is available for exposure through drinking water [e.g., allowable chronic water exposure (mg/kg/day) = cPAD - (average food + chronic non-dietary, non-occupational exposure)]. This allowable exposure through drinking water is used to calculate a DWLOC.

A DWLOC will vary depending on the toxic endpoint, drinking water consumption, and body weights. Default body weights and consumption values as used by the EPA's Office of Water are used to calculate DWLOCs: 2L/70 kg (adult male), 2L/60 kg (adult female), and 1L/10 kg (child). Default body weights and drinking water consumption values vary on an individual basis. This variation will be taken into account in more refined screening-level and quantitative drinking water exposure assessments. Different populations will have different DWLOCs. Generally, a DWLOC is calculated for each type of risk assessment used: acute, short-term, intermediate-term, chronic, and cancer.

When EECs for surface water and groundwater are less than the calculated DWLOCs, EPA concludes with reasonable certainty that exposures to halosulfuron in drinking water (when considered along with other sources of exposure for which EPA has reliable data) would not result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk at this time. Because EPA considers the aggregate risk resulting from multiple exposure pathways associated with a pesticide's uses, levels of comparison in drinking water may vary as those uses change. If new uses are added in the future, EPA will reassess the potential impacts of halosulfuron on drinking water as a part of the aggregate risk assessment process.

1. Acute risk . Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food to halosulfuron will occupy 1% or less of the aPAD for all population subgroups in DEEM® including females 13 years and older, infants and children. In addition, despite the potential for acute dietary exposure to halosulfuron in drinking water, after calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to conservative model EECs of halosulfuron in surface and ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the aPAD, as shown in the following Table 2:

2. Chronic risk . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to halosulfuron from food will utilize less than 1% of the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) for all population subgroups in DEEM® including the U.S. population, infants and children. There are no residential uses for halosulfuron that result in chronic residential exposure to halosulfuron. Based on the use pattern, chronic residential exposure to residues of halosulfuron is not expected. In addition, despite the potential for chronic dietary exposure to halosulfuron in drinking water, after calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to conservative model EECs of halosulfuron in surface and ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD, as shown in the following Table 3:

3. Short-term risk . Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Halosulfuron is currently registered for use(s) that could result in short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and water and short-term exposures for halosulfuron.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded that food and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of 4,500 for adults for both handler and postapplication exposures and 2,800 for infants and children for dermal and incidental oral exposures. These aggregate MOEs do not exceed the Agency's level of concern for aggregate exposure to food and residential uses. In addition, short-term DWLOCs were calculated and compared to the EECs for chronic exposure of halosulfuron in ground water and surface water. After calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to the EECs for surface and ground water, EPA does not expect short-term aggregate exposure to exceed the Agency's level of concern, as shown in the following Table 4:

4. Intermediate-term risk . Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account non-dietary, non-occupational exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Halosulfuron is currently registered for use(s) that could result in intermediate-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and water and intermediate-term exposures for halosulfuron.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that food and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of 1,700 for adults and 1,100 for infants and children. These aggregate MOEs do not exceed the Agency's level of concern for aggregate exposure to food and residential uses. In addition, intermediate-term DWLOCs were calculated and compared to the EECs for chronic exposure of halosulfuron in ground water and surface water. After calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to the EECs for surface and ground water, EPA does not expect intermediate-term aggregate exposure to exceed the Agency's level of concern, as shown in the following Table 5:

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population . Halosulfuron is classified as a “Not Likely” human carcinogen. Therefore, risk assessments to assess cancer risk were not completed.

6. Determination of safety . Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to halosulfuron residues.

Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Calvin Furlow, PRRIB, IRSD (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-5229; e-mail address: furlow.calvin@epa.gov.

There is neither a Codex proposal, nor Canadian or Mexican maximum residue limits, for residues of halosulfuron in or on tomatoes, therefore harmonization is not an issue.

A maximum of 0.094 pounds halosulfuron may be applied per acre per season. A total of 2 applications per season may be made. The preharvest interval (PHI) is 30 days.

Therefore, the tolerance is established for residues of halosulfuron, methyl 5-[(4,6- dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonylaminosulfonyl-3-chloro-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate, in or on tomato at 0.05 ppm.

Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) provides essentially the same process for persons to “object” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket control number OPP-2002-0113 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before September 9, 2002.

1. Filing the request . Your objection must specify the specific provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.

Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. C400, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 260-4865.

2. Tolerance fee payment . If you file an objection or request a hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i) or request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33(m). You must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please identify the fee submission by labeling it “Tolerance Petition Fees.”

EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement “when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.” For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at tompkins.jim@epa.gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

3. Copies for the Docket . In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VII.A., you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion in the official record that is described in Unit I.B.2. Mail your copies, identified by the docket control number OPP-2002-0113, to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB described in Unit I.B.2. You may also send an electronic copy of your request via e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov. Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.

A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

This final rule establishes a time limited tolerance under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, 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). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a FIFRA section 18 exemption under FFDCA section 408, such as the [tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA 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” is 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 rule 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 rule.

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

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register ”—Environmental Documents. You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_40/40cfr180_00.html, a beta site currently under development.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket ID number OPP-2002-0117. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, is establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide mesotrione, 2-[4-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzoyl]-1,3-cyclohexanedione, in or on sweet corn, sweet corn forage, and sweet corn stover at 0.01, 0.50, and 2.0 part per million (ppm), respectively. These tolerances will expire and are revoked on June 30, 2004. EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register to remove the revoked tolerances from the Code of Federal Regulations.

Section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under section 18 of FIFRA. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on section 18 related tolerances to set binding precedents for the application of section 408 and the new safety standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having received any petition from an outside party.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....”

Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that “emergency conditions exist which require such exemption.” This provision was not amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). EPA has established regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

Due to an unusually warm winter, a non-routine and urgent situation has occurred in Wisconsin due to volunteer potatoes. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of mesotrione on sweet corn for control of volunteer potatoes in Wisconsin. After having reviewed the submission, EPA concurs that emergency conditions exist for this State.

As part of its assessment of this emergency exemption, EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of mesotrione in or on sweet corn. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA decided that the necessary tolerance under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address an urgent non-routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing these tolerances without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in section 408(l)(6). Although these tolerances will expire and are revoked on June 30, 2004, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerances remaining in or on sweet corn, sweet corn forage, and sweet corn fodder after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide is applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level that was authorized by these tolerances at the time of that application. EPA will take action to revoke these tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.

Because these tolerances are being approved under emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether mesotrione meets EPA's registration requirements for use on sweet corn or whether permanent tolerances for this use would be appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that these tolerances serve as a basis for registration of mesotrione by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor do these tolerances serve as the basis for any State other than Wisconsin to use this pesticide on this crop under section 18 of FIFRA without following all provisions of EPA's regulations implementing section 18 as identified in 40 CFR part 166. For additional information regarding the emergency exemption for mesotrione on sweet corn, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-5754-7).

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of mesotrione and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2), for time-limited tolerances for residues of mesotrione, 2-[4-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzoyl]-1,3-cyclohexanedione, in or on sweet corn, sweet corn forage, and sweet corn stover at 0.01, 0.50, and 2.0 ppm, respectively. EPA's assessment of the dietary exposures and risks associated with establishing these tolerances follows.

The dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological endpoint. However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. An UF of 100 is routinely used, 10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intra species differences.

For dietary risk assessment (other than cancer) the Agency uses the UF to calculate an acute or chronic reference dose (acute RfD or chronic RfD) where the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided by the appropriate UF (RfD = NOAEL/UF). Where an additional safety factor is retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA, this additional factor is applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD by such additional factor. The acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD or cPAD) is a modification of the RfD to accommodate this type of FQPA Safety Factor.

For non-dietary risk assessments (other than cancer) the UF is used to determine the level of concern (LOC). For example, when 100 is the appropriate UF (10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences) the LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of the NOAEL to exposures (margin of exposure (MOE) = NOAEL/exposure) is calculated and compared to the LOC.

The linear default risk methodology (Q * ) is the primary method currently used by the Agency to quantify carcinogenic risk. The Q * approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of cancer risk. A Q * is calculated and used to estimate risk which represents a probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases (e.g., risk is expressed as 1 x 10 -6 or one in a million). Under certain specific circumstances, MOE calculations will be used for the carcinogenic risk assessment. In this non-linear approach, a “point of departure” is identified below which carcinogenic effects are not expected. The point of departure is typically a NOAEL based on an endpoint related to cancer effects though it may be a different value derived from the dose response curve. To estimate risk, a ratio of the point of departure to exposure (MOE cancer = point of departure/exposures) is calculated. A summary of the toxicological endpoints for mesotrione used for human risk assessment is shown in the following Table 1:

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses . Tolerances have been recently established (40 CFR 180.571) for the residues of mesotrione, in or on field corn forage, grain, and stover. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from mesotrione in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure . Acute dietary risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a one day or single exposure. No appropriate study available show any acute dietary effects of concern.

ii. Chronic exposure .In conducting this chronic dietary risk assessment the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM®) analysis evaluated the individual food consumption as reported by respondents in the USDA 1989-1992- nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. The following assumptions were made for the chronic exposure assessments: Residue levels are at the recommended tolerances for field and sweet corn, and 100% of the crop is treated with mesotrione. The %cPAD for the general U.S. population is 2.1% and for the most sensitive population subgroups, Children (1-6 years old), is 5%.

iii. Cancer . Acceptable oral rat and mouse carcinogenicity studies showed no evidence of carcinogenic or mutagenic potential.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water . The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for mesotrione in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical characteristics of mesotrione.

The Agency uses the Generic Estimated Environmental Concentration (GENEEC) or the Pesticide Root Zone/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) to estimate pesticide concentrations in surface water and SCI-GROW, which predicts pesticide concentrations in groundwater. In general, EPA will use GENEEC (a tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a tier 2 model) for a screening-level assessment for surface water. The GENEEC model is a subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific high-end runoff scenario for pesticides. GENEEC incorporates a farm pond scenario, while PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment in place of the previous pond scenario. The PRZM/EXAMS model includes a percent crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the maximum percent crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin.

None of these models include consideration of the impact processing (mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this stage is to provide a coarse screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is highly unlikely that drinking water concentrations would ever exceed human health levels of concern.

Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the risk assessment process, the Agency does not use EECs from these models to quantify drinking water exposure and risk as a %RfD or %PAD. Instead, drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) are calculated and used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food, and from residential uses. Since DWLOCs address total aggregate exposure to mesotrione they are further discussed in the aggregate risk sections below.

Based on the GENEEC (Version 1.2) and SCI-GROW models the EECs of mesotrione for acute exposures are estimated to be 20 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.15 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 13 ppb for surface water and 0.15 ppb for ground water.

3. From non-dietary exposure . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Mesotrione is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure.

4. Cumulative exposure to substances with a common mechanism of toxicity . Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether mesotrione has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, mesotrione does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that mesotrione has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the final rule for Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997).

1. In general . FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a margin of exposure (MOE) analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans.

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity . There is quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility demonstrated in the oral prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats, mice, and rabbits. Delayed ossification was seen in the fetuses at doses below those at which maternal toxic effects were noted. Maternal toxic effects in the rat were decreased body weight gain during treatment and decreased food consumption and in the rabbit, abortions and GI effects.

5. Conclusion . The FQPA safety factor (10X) is retained in assessing the risk posed because there is quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility of the young exposed to mesotrione in the prenatal developmental toxicity studies in mice, rats, and rabbits and in the multi-generation reproduction study in mice, there is qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of the young exposed to mesotrione in the multi-generation reproduction study in rats; and a Developmental Neurotoxicity Study is required to assess the effects of tyrosinemia on the developing nervous system exposed to mesotrione.

To estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food, drinking water, and residential uses, the Agency calculates DWLOCs which are used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water. DWLOC values are not regulatory standards for drinking water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses. In calculating a DWLOC, the Agency determines how much of the acceptable exposure (i.e., the PAD) is available for exposure through drinking water [e.g., allowable chronic water exposure (mg/kg/day) = cPAD - (average food + chronic non-dietary, non-occupational exposure)]. This allowable exposure through drinking water is used to calculate a DWLOC.

A DWLOC will vary depending on the toxic endpoint, drinking water consumption, and body weights. Default body weights and consumption values as used by the USEPA's Office of Water are used to calculate DWLOCs: 2L/70 kg (adult male), 2L/60 kg (adult female), and 1L/10 kg (child). Default body weights and drinking water consumption values vary on an individual basis. This variation will be taken into account in more refined screening-level and quantitative drinking water exposure assessments. Different populations will have different DWLOCs. Generally, a DWLOC is calculated for each type of risk assessment used: acute, short-term, intermediate-term, chronic, and cancer.

When EECs for surface water and groundwater are less than the calculated DWLOCs, EPA concludes with reasonable certainty that exposures to mesotrione in drinking water (when considered along with other sources of exposure for which EPA has reliable data) would not result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk at this time. Because EPA considers the aggregate risk resulting from multiple exposure pathways associated with a pesticide's uses, levels of comparison in drinking water may vary as those uses change. If new uses are added in the future, EPA will reassess the potential impacts of mesotrione on drinking water as a part of the aggregate risk assessment process.

1. Acute risk . Acute doses and endpoints were not selected for the general U.S. population (including infants and children) or the females (13-50 years old) population subgroup for mesotrione; therefore, an acute dietary exposure analysis was not performed.

2. Chronic risk . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to mesotrione from food will utilize 2.1% of the cPAD for the U.S. population, 4.4% of the cPAD for all infants < 1 year old and 5% of the cPAD for children (1-6 years old). There are no residential uses for mesotrione that result in chronic residential exposure to mesotrione. In addition, despite the potential for chronic dietary exposure to mesotrione in drinking water, after calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to conservative model EECs of mesotrione in surface and ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD, as shown in the following Table 2:

3. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population . Based on the lack of carcinogenic response in rats and mice and the lack of mutagenic effects, and that there are no data in the literature or SAR information to indicate carcinogenic potential, no cancer risk is posed.

4. Determination of safety . Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to mesotrione residues.

Adequate enforcement methodology (high pressure liquid chromatography) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Calvin Furlow, PIRIB, IRSD (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-5229; e-mail address: furlow.calvin@epa.gov.

There are no CODEX, Canadian, or Mexican tolerances/Maximum Residue Levels for mesotrione residues; thus, harmonization is not an issue at this time.

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of mesotrione, 2-[4-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzoyl]-1,3-cyclohexanedione, in or on sweet corn, sweet corn forage, and sweet corn fodder at 0.01, 0.50, and 2.0 ppm, respectively.

Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) provides essentially the same process for persons to “object” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket control number OPP-2002-0117 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before September 9, 2002.

1. Filing the request . Your objection must specify the specific provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.

Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. C400, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 260-4865.

2. Tolerance fee payment . If you file an objection or request a hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i) or request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33(m). You must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please identify the fee submission by labeling it “Tolerance Petition Fees.”

EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement “when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.” For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at tompkins.jim@epa.gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

3. Copies for the Docket . In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VII.A., you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion in the official record that is described in Unit I.B.2. Mail your copies, identified by the docket ID number OPP--2002-0117, to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB described in Unit I.B.2. You may also send an electronic copy of your request via e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov. Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.

A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

This final rule establishes time limited tolerances under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, 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). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a FIFRA section 18 exemption under FFDCA section 408, such as the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq .) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA 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” is 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 rule 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 rule.

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

The Federal Emergency Management Agency makes the final determinations listed below of modified base flood elevations for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Acting Administrator has resolved many appeals resulting from this notification.

The modified base flood elevations are not listed for each community in this notice. However, this rule includes the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified base flood elevation determinations are available for inspection.

The modifications are made pursuant to Section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

The modified base flood elevations are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

These modified elevations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, state or regional entities.

These modified elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings.

The changes in base flood elevations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. National Environmental Policy Act . This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act . The Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required to maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

Regulatory Classification . This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 12612, Federalism . This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform . This rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA or Agency) makes final determinations listed below of base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations for each community listed. The proposed base flood elevations and proposed modified base flood elevations were published in newspapers of local circulation and an opportunity for the community or individuals to appeal the proposed determinations to or through the community was provided for a period of ninety (90) days. The proposed base flood elevations and proposed modified base flood elevations were also published in the Federal Register .

This final rule is issued in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR Part 67.

The Agency has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR Part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Map available at the address cited below for each community.

The base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

The Acting Director, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because final or modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required to establish and maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

This rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA or Agency) makes final determinations listed below of base flood elevations and modified based flood elevations for each community listed. The proposed base flood elevations and proposed modified base flood elevations were published in newspapers of local circulation and an opportunity for the community or individuals to appeal the proposed determinations to or through the community was provided for a period of ninety (90) days . The proposed base flood elevations and proposed modified base flood elevations were also published in the Federal Register.

This final rule is issued in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104 and 44 CFR part 67.

The Agency has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Map available at the address cited below for each community.

The base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environment Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

The Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because final or modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required to establish and maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

This rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, ET Docket 98-80, FCC 02-157, adopted May 23, 2002 and released May 30, 2002. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. It is also available on the Commission's internet site at www.fcc.gov. The complete text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor Qualex International, (202) 863-2893 voice, (202) 863-2898 Fax, qualexint@aol.com email, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554.

1. The Commission is amending parts 15 and 18 of the rules for radio frequency (RF) devices to modify the limits on the amount of RF energy that is permitted to be conducted onto alternating current (AC) power lines. These limits protect against interference to licensed radio services operating below 30 MHz. The rule changes adopted herein harmonize our domestic requirements with the international standards developed by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), International Special Committee on Radio Interference (CISPR). We believe that such harmonization will benefit consumers and manufacturers by providing better interference protection to licensed radio services as well as promoting a global marketplace for RF devices

2. In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), 64 FR 62159, November 16, 1999, the Commission proposed several changes to its regulations for line conducted emissions from parts 15 and 18 devices. It proposed to amend the conducted emission limits for such equipment to make them generally consistent with the international standards specified in IEC/CISPR Publications 11 and 22. The differences between the limits in the rules and the CISPR limits are discussed, in the NPRM. The CISPR limits, including the limits on conducted emissions below 450 kHz, would be applied to all part 15 devices, to all induction cooking ranges and ultrasonic equipment operating under part 18, and to all consumer part 18 devices, including microwave ovens. The Commission proposed to provide a transition period of one year for all new part 15 and 18 devices subsequently authorized under a grant of Certification, a Declaration of Conformity, or Verification. It also proposed to require all products, imported or manufactured three years after the effective date of the new rules, to comply with these standards.

3. In addition to the changes to the conducted emission limits, the Commission proposed an alternative measurement procedure for part 15 intentional radiators operating below 30 MHz, e.g., carrier current systems (CCS), which would permit a demonstration of compliance with applicable radiated emission limits instead of conducted limits. The Commission also proposed to clarify § 15.109(e) of its rules to require measurements of radiated emissions below 30 MHz for part 15 unintentional radiators only when the length of the connecting cable carrying the RF signal is either at least one-fourth of the wavelength of the center frequency of the signal, or is of unknown length. Comments were also requested on whether voltage and current limits on RF signals placed on the AC power line could be employed by CCS devices as an optional method of demonstrating compliance with the radiated limits outside of the AM broadcast band.

4. The Report and Order adopted changes to the rules for power line conducted emissions to make them more effective in controlling interference to communications services and to reduce the burden of these regulations. Specifically, we are amending the conducted emission limits to make them consistent with international CISPR standards. We are also adopting conducted emission limits for part 18 consumer products, such as microwave ovens, that are currently subject only to radiated emission limits. These limits are consistent with the requirements that already exist for certain types of ISM consumer products, such as ultrasonic denture and jewelry cleaners. Finally, we are establishing transition provisions for implementing the new CISPR limits. Harmonizing our rules with international standards will allow manufacturers to produce products for distribution in several markets without any modification, thus reducing costs. This harmonization will be particularly beneficial to small business entities that have limited resources to maintain separate product lines in order to ensure compliance with region or country-specific requirements. Moreover, this will enhance the value of Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRA) for U.S. manufacturers, thereby promoting the growth and international expansion of U.S. industries.

5. The proposal for an alternative measurement procedure for intentional radiators operating on frequencies below 30 MHz and the request for comments to improve the existing testing methodologies and requirements for intentional RF signals transmitted on power lines drew a number of observations and suggestions. We note that there is substantial development under way of new broadband delivery systems that use power line communication technologies. We also note that the IEC/CISPR I committee has established a Task Group to develop limits and methods of measurements for these new technologies. Therefore, in order to allow for a better informed and more complete decision, we are deferring to a further proceeding the consideration of new limits and measurement procedures for CCS devices. We intend to monitor these activities to ensure that future proposed test procedures and limits are harmonized with international standards and would not create an additional testing burden on manufacturers of such equipment. Pending the adoption of new rules based on the international work, our existing requirements for carrier current systems continue to apply to all such devices.

6. The Commission observed that considerable work has been done to develop conducted emission standards within the CISPR. Notably, CISPR has developed standards for information technology equipment under CISPR Publication 22, and for industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment under CISPR Publication 11. The Commission also noted that there appears to be growing support by both governments and industry for the harmonization of emission standards internationally to promote trade and competition. Harmonized standards can improve economies of scale and thereby reduce costs, to the benefit of consumers. Harmonized standards also tend to reduce testing costs for products marketed internationally.

7. The Commission therefore proposed to apply the limits of CISPR Publication 22 to all Part 15 devices that are currently subject to line conducted emission limits. The Commission noted that the existing part 15 limits are based on quasi-peak measurements, but allow a correction for broadband emissions in order to take into account averaging factors. On the other hand, CISPR Publication 22 specifies separate limits for quasi-peak and average measurements. Adjustments for broadband emissions have already been incorporated into the CISPR limits; therefore, the CISPR quasi-peak limit values are less restrictive than the limits currently in the rules. After taking these factors into account, the CISPR emission limits are slightly more stringent than the current rules below 5 MHz and are approximately equivalent to the current rules above 5 MHz. The Commission noted that, for many years, part 15 has provided the option of complying with either the limits in the rules or the CISPR 22 limits. Due to this practice, many manufacturers' products already comply with the CISPR limits. Therefore, the use of a single set of limits would simplify the rules and promote harmonization, without generally causing an undue burden on manufacturers.

8. The Commission continues to believe that the harmonization of our conducted emission limits in part 15 with the limits in CISPR 22 will foster trade and facilitate the growth of U.S. businesses by reducing costs for manufacturers and consumers. The Commission is adopting the CISPR 22 conducted emission limits for all part 15 equipment that are currently subject to the conducted emissions requirements. See 47 CFR 15.107 and 15.207.

9. We also note that the international CISPR line conducted emission standards include separate limits for equipment used in business/industrial (Class A) and residential (Class B) environments. Such an approach is appropriate, because it takes into account the different characteristics affecting interference in each environment, such as the wider separation distances between equipment which occur in business and commercial environments. We believe that the international standards strike a reasonable balance between the need to establish standards to control interference to broadcasting services in the under 30 MHz region of the spectrum, and the need to avoid placing unnecessary constraints on RF devices and ISM equipment. Therefore, we are retaining the definitions of Class A and Class B digital devices, currently specified in the Commission's rules, as necessary in the public interest.

10. In the NPRM, we remarked that the rules exempt incidental radiators and certain digital equipment from the line conducted emission limits. In particular, exemption from specific emission limits is provided for incidental radiators such as electric motors, hair dryers, washing machines, etc.; digital devices used exclusively as an electronic control of power system used by a public utility or an industrial plant; digital devices used exclusively as industrial, commercial, or medical test equipment; digital devices used in appliances; and specialized medical digital devices. Given the large numbers of incidental radiators that would be affected and the overall lack of interference complaints from such devices, mandatory emission limits are not warranted for these devices. We further find no information or evidence in the record that warrants removing or modifying the existing exemptions at this time. Accordingly, we will retain the exemptions in 47 CFR 15.103, as necessary in the public interest.

11. Harmonization of our rules with the CISPR 22 rules will extend the conducted emission limits from the existing lowest frequency of 450 kHz down to 150 kHz. We find that extending the limits to frequencies below 450 kHz is warranted to protect existing, new, and expanded future uses for this region of the spectrum. While there are several types of radio systems operating below 450 kHz, we are particularly concerned about the potential for harmful interference to licensed radio services that are employed for applications involving safety of life and property, such as the Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS). Several governmental entities, such as the Department of Transportation (DOT), US Coast Guard (USCG) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), are using or planning to deploy navigational systems using DGPS with frequencies between 285 and 325 kHz. Therefore, the Commission believes that the adoption of conducted requirements below 450 kHz will not only provide the benefits of international harmonization, but will protect radio services used by systems providing navigation to safety-of-life transportation operations at sea, in the air, and on land.

12. Our existing rules for conducted emission limits for part 18 cover the frequency range from 10 kHz to 30 MHz. See 47 CFR 18.307. The CISPR Publication 11 specifies conducted emission limits from 9 kHz to 30 MHz. In the NPRM, we proposed to harmonize the limits in Part 18 with those specified in CISPR 11. The current limits in part 18 are based on average measurements, except those for RF lighting equipment. CISPR 11 specifies separate limits for quasi-peak and average measurements. The CISPR 11 limit values are somewhat comparable to the FCC limits over the frequency range from 150 kHz to 30 MHz. The Commission indicated that, given the international nature of the marketplace, the use of a single set of limits would simplify the rules and promote harmonization, without causing undue burden to manufacturers.

13. The harmonization of our conducted emission limits in part 18 with the limits in CISPR 11 will foster trade, facilitate growth and international expansion of U.S. businesses and reduce costs, to the benefit of manufacturers and consumers. The Commission believes that the adoption of conducted emission limits for all consumer ISM equipment, including microwave ovens, will promote consistency and uniformity with regard to the treatment of these products. We note that the adoption of the CISPR rules in this proceeding is not based on a response to interference issues, but rather, to promote a global market and harmonization of requirements, which will benefit manufacturers and consumers. Accordingly, we are adopting the conducted emission limits in CISPR 11 for part 18 ultrasonic equipment and induction cooking ranges, and for part 18 consumer devices.

14. We further note that CISPR 11 specifies the use of a 50 μH/50 Ohm LISN, which is a Line Impedance Stabilization Network (LISN), an artificial AC power line network that provides a specified load impedance in a given frequency range. It is used to isolate the equipment from the AC supply and to facilitate measurements, for part 18 ultrasonic and induction cooking equipment rather than the 5 μH/50 Ohm LISN previous specified in the rules. CISPR 11 refers to CISPR 16:1999, Figure 7a, for the impedance curve of the LISN to be used in carrying out the measurements against the specified limits. Accordingly, we are modifying the rules to require a 50 μH/50 Ohm LISN with this impedance curve to be used in determining compliance with part 18 conducted emission limits for ultrasonic and induction cooking equipment.

15. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to require that all newly authorized part 15 and 18 devices be subject to the new line conducted regulations effective one year from the date of publication of the Report and Order in the Federal Register . It also proposed that these new regulations would apply to all part 15 and 18 devices that are imported or manufactured on or after three years from the date of publication of the Report and Order in the Federal Register , regardless of when the products were initially authorized. The Commission expressed its belief that most affected products would be redesigned within this three-year time frame in the course of normal product cycles and that compliance with this proposal therefore would not cause an unreasonable burden on industry.

16. While it appears that complying with the new line conducted emission rules will not pose a significant burden on many, if not most, manufacturers, given that they have already modified their products to allow them to trade in Canada and Europe, there are cases where the new rules will have an impact. Inasmuch as there is no evidence of interference problems from part 15 and part 18 devices that comply with the existing line conducted emission limits, we also believe that extending the transition period for a modest amount of time would not pose serious risks of new interference. Therefore, the Commission will provide an additional one year of transition period for new product models beyond that proposed in the NPRM. Accordingly, we are adopting transition provisions for compliance of part 15 and part 18 devices with the new conducted emission limits as follows: the rules will apply to all new products authorized under parts 15 and 18 of the rules on or after two years from the date of publication of this Report and Order in the Federal Register and will apply to all existing products authorized under parts 15 and 18 of the rules that are manufactured or imported on or after three years from that date.

17. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 1 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review—Conducted Emissions Limits Below 30 MHz for Equipment Regulated under Parts 15 and 18 of the Commission's Rules. 2 The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comments on the IRFA. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in this Report and Order conforms to the RFA. 3

18. By this action, the Commission amends parts 15 and 18 of the rules for radio frequency (RF) devices regarding the amount of RF energy that is permitted to be conducted onto the alternating current (AC) power lines. The purpose of the present limits is to protect against interference to radio services operating below 30 MHz. By the rules adopted herein, these limits are harmonized by incorporating the limits of the international standards developed by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), International Special Committee on Radio Interference (CISPR) into the rules. 4 The Commission anticipates that such harmonization will provide better interference protection to licensed radio services as well as promoting a global marketplace for RF devices, thereby reducing costs for manufacturers and consumers. Most manufacturers are already performing testing to the requirements of the international standards on products sold in the U.S. that are also marketed in regions that have adopted the CISPR standards. Therefore, testing to these limits does not represent a significant burden. Harmonization of our rules with the international standards will allow the same product to be manufactured and marketed without modifications in several countries, thereby enabling economies of scale, which would reduce costs. The comments overwhelmingly support our harmonization action.

19. There were comments on the NPRM, but there were no specific comments addressing small business issues in response to the IRFA.

20. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, herein adopted. 5 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”  6 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. 7 A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 8

21. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to Radio Frequency Equipment Manufacturers (RF Manufacturers). Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to manufacturers of “Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications Equipment.” According to the SBA's regulation, an RF manufacturer must have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business. 9 Census Bureau data indicates that there are 858 companies in the United States that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would be classified as small entities. 10 We believe that many of the companies that manufacture RF equipment may qualify as small entities.

22. Although a large number of Part 15 and Part 18 radio frequency devices are already required to be authorized under the Commission's Certification, Declaration of Conformity, or Verification procedures as a prerequisite to marketing and importation, the adopted rules add a slight amount of new testing and reporting requirements, as explained further:

(a) Microwave ovens are already subject to radiated emission limits in the existing rules. 11 The adopted rules would require microwave ovens and consumer ISM equipment (other than RF lights, induction ranges and ultrasonic equipment) to comply with conducted emission limits. 12

(b) Induction ranges and ultrasonic equipment are already subject to part 18 conducted emission limits, but with the adopted rules, the low frequency range now starts at 9 kHz instead of the previous 10 kHz. 13

The emergency interim rule published January 8, 2002 (67 FR 956), amended and corrected May 1, 2002, (67 FR 21600) and extended May 16, 2002 (67 FR 34860), implements Steller sea lion protection measures and final 2002 harvest specifications for the groundfish fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) and the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). As published, the final rule contains errors regarding the registration process for the Atka mackerel harvest limit area (HLA) directed fishery in the Aleutian Islands subarea. This document corrects these errors.

This action implements a registration process for the 2002 B season harvest limit area (HLA) directed fishery for Atka mackerel. The Council and NMFS intended that two separate lottery processes would be used, one for each of the A and B season Atka mackerel fisheries in the Aleutian Islands subarea and that vessels would be provided the opportunity to participate in the A and/or B season HLA directed fisheries.

January 15, 2002, is specified in the regulations as the cut off date for registering to participate in the HLA directed fishery. This date was intended to ensure that registration was received in time to perform the lottery for vessel platoon assignments and to notify participants of the results before the A season began on January 20. As the regulatory text is currently written, vessels that were not registered by January 15, 2002, would be excluded from participating in both the A and B season HLA directed fishery. The emergency rule did not address the timing or process for the B season lottery. This omission is being corrected by this action.

In order to conduct a B season lottery for the HLA directed fishery and provide all vessels the opportunity to participate, vessels maintaining their Atka mackerel Federal fisheries permit (FFP) endorsement through July 31 will be entered in the lottery to participate in the B season fishery. Vessels that were not used in the A season Atka mackerel HLA directed fishery but that register under § 679.4(b)(5)(vii) by 4:30 p.m., A. l. t., August 1, 2002, may participate in the lottery for the B season HLA directed fishery, which begins September 1, 2002.

Under § 679.7(a)(19), vessels participating in an HLA directed fishery are restricted from other groundfish fishing during the first directed fishery assignment in the season. If the owner of a vessel that was used in the A season HLA directed fishery wishes to participate in a directed fishery for other groundfish species during the B season HLA directed fishery, the owner must have the FFP amended to remove the Atka mackerel HLA directed fishery endorsement before August 1, 2002. Otherwise, the vessel will be entered into the HLA directed fishery lottery and assigned a platoon for the Atka mackerel B season fishery.

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that this correction is necessary for the conservation and management of the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and GOA. The Regional Administrator also has determined that this correction is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. No relevant Federal rules exist that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

This correction has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NMFS prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the total allowable catch specifications portion of the January 8, 2002, emergency interim rule. NMFS also prepared a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for the Steller sea lion protection measures; a notice of availability of the draft SEIS was published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2001 (66 FR 45984). Comments were received and responded to in the final SEIS and the final document was issued November 23, 2001 (66 FR 58734). The final SEIS and EA are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). Based on a comparison of the effects of the other alternatives in the SEIS, NMFS determined that this action meets the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements for Steller sea lion protection and environmental protection without providing extreme economic hardship that was anticipated from the most environmentally desirable alternative. Potential adverse impacts on marine mammals resulting from fishing activities conducted under the emergency interim rule (67 FR 956, January 8, 2002) are discussed in the EA and final SEIS. The correction in this action is within the scope of these NEPA analyses.

A formal section 7 consultation under the ESA was initiated for the emergency interim rule (67 FR 956, January 8, 2002) under the FMPs for the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and the GOA. In a biological opinion dated October 17, 2001, the Director of the Office of Protected Resources determined that fishing activities conducted under the Steller sea lion protection measures implemented by the emergency interim rule (67 FR 956, January 8, 2002) are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. In a memorandum dated December 11, 2001, from the Office of Protected Resources to the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, biological opinions dated December 22, 1999, and December 23, 1999, were extended for 1 year from January 1, 2002, for purposes of the harvest specifications implemented by the January 8, 2002 emergency interim rule. This correction is consistent with the objectives for Steller sea lion protection measures implemented in 2002, the ESA, and other applicable laws, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat in any manner not previously evaluated in prior consultations.

By this action, NMFS is correcting the Steller sea lion protection measures which have been in effect since January 1, 2002, for the BSAI and GOA. This correction clarifies the requirements for registration in the Atka mackerel HLA directed fishery for the B season starting September 1, 2002. Registration for this fishery must be completed by August 1, 2002, to allow NMFS to conduct the lottery and to notify participants of results before the start of the fishery. Because delay in implementing this correction would unnecessarily limit opportunity for participation in the Atka mackerel HLA directed fishery, it is impracticable to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3). For the same reasons, a delay in the effective date is hereby waived pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this correction to the emergency interim rule by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. are not applicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared.

For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended as follows:

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

The 2002 TAC of Pacific ocean perch for the Eastern Aleutian District was established as 3,201 metric tons (mt) by an emergency rule implementing 2002 harvest specifications and associated management measures for the groundfish fisheries off Alaska (67 FR 956, January 8, 2002).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2002 TAC for Pacific ocean perch in the Eastern Aleutian District will be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 2,951 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 250 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance will soon be reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the Eastern Aleutian District of the BSAI.

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

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds that the need to immediately implement this action to avoid exceeding the 2002 TAC of Pacific ocean perch for the Eastern Aleutian District of the BSAI constitutes good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 50 CFR 679.20(b)(3)(iii)(A). These procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because the need to implement these measures in a timely fashion to avoid exceeding the 2002 TAC of Pacific ocean perch for the Eastern Aleutian District of the BSAI constitutes good cause to find that the effective date of this action cannot be delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), a delay in the effective date is hereby waived.

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