The regulations in 7 CFR part 319 prohibit or restrict the importation of certain plants and plant products into the United States to prevent the introduction of plant pests. The regulations contained in “Subpart—Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, Bulbs, Seeds, and Other Plant Products,” §§ 319.37 through 319.37-14 (referred to below as the regulations), restrict, among other things, the importation of living plants, plant parts, and seeds for propagation.

Under § 319.37-2(b)(2) of the regulations, the importation from all foreign places except Canada of any naturally dwarf or miniature form of tree or shrub exceeding 305 mm (approximately 12 inches) in length from the soil line is prohibited, unless the plants are imported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for experimental or scientific purposes in accordance with § 319.37-2(c). Because the regulations do not explicitly prohibit the importation of naturally dwarf plants under 305 mm in length or artificially dwarfed plants, and because the regulations do not contain restrictions particular to their importation, such plants may be imported into the United States if they are accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate of inspection. Such plants are also subject to inspection and, if necessary, treatment for plant pests, at the port of first arrival in the United States, and under § 319.37-8, such plants must be free of sand, soil, earth, or other growing media.

On April 20, 2001, we published in the Federal Register (66 FR 20208-20211, Docket No. 00-042-1) a proposal to amend the regulations by requiring artificially dwarfed plants that are imported into the United States to have been grown under certain conditions in nurseries registered with the government of the country where the plants were grown. We proposed this action in order to protect against the introduction of longhorned beetles and other plant pests into the United States.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending June 19, 2001. We received four comments by that date. They were from State agricultural officials, agricultural trade organizations, and an environmental advocacy group. The comments are discussed below.

Comment: The relationship between the proposed rule and another proposed rule involving penjing from China is not clear.

Response: This rule is worldwide in scope and is intended to increase and clarify the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS's) requirements regarding the importation of all artificially dwarfed plants eligible for importation under current regulations. Current regulations allow the importation of artificially dwarfed plants only if they are bare-rooted and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate. The requirements contained in this rule are intended to clarify what type of plant may be considered an artificially dwarfed plant for the purposes of the regulations, so as to eliminate the possibility that field-grown plants could be imported into the United States under the requirements for artificially dwarfed plants.

In our proposed rule regarding the importation of penjing from China (See 65 FR 56803-56806, Docket No. 98-103-1), we proposed to allow, under certain conditions, the importation in growing media of five genera of artificially dwarfed plants from China.

Comment: Several experts have questioned whether annual inspection by an exporting country's plant protection agency is sufficient to ensure greenhouses are pest-free. Inspections should take place once every 6 months rather than once every 12 months.

Response: We proposed to require that artificially dwarfed plants be grown in a registered nursery for at least 2 years, and that the nursery where they were grown be inspected for any evidence of pests and found free of pests of quarantine significance to the United States at least once every 12 months by the plant protection service of the country where the plants were grown. Several comments that we received indicated that the commenters assumed that we had proposed to require that the plants be grown in a greenhouse at the nursery. Rather, we had simply proposed to require that the plants be grown in a nursery. Based on the apparent support among commenters for a requirement that plants be grown in a greenhouse for 2 years, we have added a requirement in this final rule based on the comments we received. We believe that requiring artificially dwarfed plants to be grown in a greenhouse or screenhouse, in conjunction with the other requirements described in the proposed rule, will reduce the risk that imported artificially dwarfed plants could become infested with quarantine pests.

Under this change, in addition to the requirements described in the proposed rule, imported artificially dwarfed plants must be grown in a greenhouse or screenhouse. The greenhouse or screenhouse must have screening with openings of not more than 1.6 mm on all vents and openings, and all entryways must be equipped with automatic closing doors. These screening and entryway requirements will help ensure that pests of concern are excluded from the structures in which the artificially dwarfed plants are grown. The phytosanitary certificate accompanying imported artificially dwarfed plants must state that the above requirements have been met. We are making this change to provide added assurance that longhorned beetles are not able to access and infest foreign-grown artificially dwarfed plants that are intended for export to the United States.

Regarding the timing of inspections, we believe that annual inspections are sufficient to ensure that nurseries are practicing appropriate phytosanitary measures, and to ensure that nurseries meet the conditions described in this document and the proposed rule.

Comment: Why did the proposed rule not address naturally dwarf or miniature forms of tree or shrubs smaller than 305 mm? The pest risk posed by naturally dwarf plants does not differ greatly from risk posed by artificially dwarfed plants, and the scientific rationale for different regulatory treatment of each is not clear.

Response: The current regulations in § 319.37(b)(2) prohibit the importation of naturally dwarf plants that are larger than 305 mm. Naturally dwarf or miniature forms of tree or shrubs smaller than 305 mm are subject to inspection as a condition of entry into the United States, and must be bare-rooted and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate.

The proposed rule was intended to address the apparently increased pest risk posed by imported plants labeled or manifested as artificially dwarfed plants. As stated in our proposed rule, we believe that many plants that have recently been imported into the United States that have been labeled or manifested as artificially dwarfed plants may in fact be field-collected plants that are produced quickly in their country of origin for mass export. These plants include species that, historically, have not been imported as artificially dwarfed plants and that may not be given the same meticulous care and safeguards as traditional artificially dwarfed plants such as bonsai and penjing.

Essentially, the proposed rule was intended to clarify what type of plant could be considered an artificially dwarfed plant for the purposes of the regulations, so as to eliminate the possibility that field-grown plants could be imported into the United States under the requirements for artificially dwarfed plants. We have not proposed to amend the requirements for naturally dwarf plants because there is no evidence to suggest that the pest risk associated with imported naturally dwarf plants has increased in a manner corresponding to the risk associated with plants following the artificially dwarfed plant pathway. Because naturally dwarf plants must be 305 mm or less in height to be eligible for importation, and since such plants do not have large woody stems into which longhorned beetles could bore, we do not believe such plants serve as suitable hosts for longhorned beetles.

Comment: What height limitation is applied to imported artificially dwarfed plants? It appears that a 305 mm height limitation currently applies to artificially dwarfed plants, and that the proposal would not change that limitation. If under existing regulations there is no height restriction for artificially dwarfed plants, a reasonable height restriction should be considered to facilitate more effective inspection.

Response: The 305 mm height restriction contained in § 319.37(b)(2) applies only to naturally dwarf plants. At present, no height restrictions apply to imported artificially dwarfed plants. Further, the regulations in § 319.37(b)(6) prohibit the importation of any plants (other than stem cuttings, cactus cuttings, artificially dwarfed plants, palms, and plants whose growth habits simulate palms) that are larger than 460 mm.

We agree that there is a need to consider adopting a height restriction to facilitate the effective inspection of artificially dwarfed plants. We intend to address this issue in a subsequent rulemaking.

Comment: Is there any track record for pest interceptions associated with naturally dwarf plants?

Response: APHIS's pest interception records do not distinguish between naturally dwarf and artificially dwarfed plants. However, inspection personnel have not reported detections of the pests addressed by this rule (longhorned beetles, specifically) on naturally dwarf plants. Further, as stated earlier in this document, we do not believe naturally dwarf plants serve as suitable hosts for longhorned beetles.

Comment: How were the mitigation measures selected? There is no discussion of pests under consideration, except to identify them as longhorned beetles and other dangerous plant pests. Will these measures provide adequate assurance that risks are being reduced to an acceptable level? Can an acceptable level of risk be more clearly defined and communicated?

Response: As stated earlier in this document, the proposed mitigation measures were intended to clarify what type of plant could be considered an artificially dwarfed plant for the purposes of the regulations, so as to eliminate the possibility that field-grown plants could be imported into the United States under the requirements for artificially dwarfed plants. We believe these measures are necessary because field-grown plants that are labeled or manifested as artificially dwarfed plants appear to present a higher risk of introducing longhorned beetles into the United States than do traditionally grown artificially dwarfed plants. We believe that the requirements contained in the rule will significantly reduce the risk that imported artificially dwarfed plants could be infested with these longhorned beetles.

Comment: The list of pests considered in the pest risk assessment is not complete and the mitigation measures in the proposed rule are not adequate to exclude pests of economic significance.

Response: Again, the proposed rule was intended to address the risk posed by field-grown plants that are labeled or manifested as artificially dwarfed plants and that have served as pathways for the introduction of longhorned beetles into the United States. We are confident that the mitigation measures contained in this rule will accomplish that goal. We are not aware of any pests of quarantine significance associated with genuine artificially dwarfed plants that pose risks to U.S. agriculture that are not mitigated by existing phytosanitary measures ( i.e. , that the plants be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, that they are bare-rooted upon importation, and that they are subject to inspection upon arrival in the United States).

Comment: Due to the pest risk associated with artificially dwarfed plants, APHIS should not allow imports of field-grown artificially dwarfed plants even when bare-rooted. Furthermore, APHIS should not allow greenhouse-grown plants to be rooted in the field.

Response: As stated in our proposed rule, in the last 3 years, APHIS has detected increasing numbers of longhorned beetles associated with imported plants following the artificially dwarfed plant pathway. We would like to clarify that the requirements contained in this final rule for importing artificially dwarfed plants are designed to address the risk posed by these longhorned beetles, which are wood-boring pests that are difficult to detect by visual inspection. We believe that the proposed regulations address the increased pest risk posed by longhorned beetles and other wood-boring pests. Further, we are confident that our inspectors are capable of identifying other pests on bare-rooted artificially dwarfed plants by visual inspection at the port of entry.

Also, as stated above, we proposed to require artificially dwarfed plants to be grown in a nursery, but did not specify that the artificially plants be grown in a greenhouse at the nursery. However, in this document, based on public comments, we are requiring imported artificially dwarfed plants to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate stating, among other requirements, that the plants have been grown for at least 2 years in a greenhouse or screenhouse in approved nurseries that are inspected annually. We have not prohibited artificially dwarfed plants from being grown in fields prior to their 2-year greenhouse/screenhouse growth period because we believe that the requirements of this rule are sufficient to ensure that plants eligible for importation into the United States are protected against infestation by longhorned beetles.

Comment: The proposed rule is flawed because it allows propagative material that may be infested with pests to be placed in sterile media in a pest-free greenhouse setting. At the instant a field-grown plant is placed in sterile growing media, the media is no longer sterile, and such a requirement does not mitigate the risk posed by soil-borne pests and pathogens. It is absolutely essential to start with clean propagative material. Nematode testing should be included as part of the import requirements for artificially dwarfed plants due to the risk for root nematodes associated with field-grown plants that are moved into greenhouses under the regulations. All field-grown plants should be washed completely free of soil using clean, pressurized water from a known nematode-free source prior to potting in sterile media and containers.

Response: As stated earlier in this document, this rule was intended to address the risk posed by wood-boring pests such as longhorned beetles. If, in the future, we determine that imported artificially dwarfed plants pose a significant risk of introducing soil-borne pests and pathogens into the United States, we will address the issue at that time. At present, we are confident that the requirement that imported artificially dwarfed plants be bare-rooted, coupled with the inspection procedures we use, will enable us to detect nematodes if they are indeed present on imported artificially dwarfed plants.

Comment: APHIS should require that imported plants be defoliated as well as bare-rooted. Such a provision would ensure that additional pests do not hitchhike on the plants.

Response: Pests are capable of hitchhiking on a wide variety of imported plants. To address the risk posed by hitchhiking pests, imported plants are subject to inspection at the port of entry. We are confident that our inspection procedures are adequate to detect such pests on imported commodities, and do not believe that defoliating plants would substantively improve inspections of imported plants.

Comment: Given that the regulations contain an exception for plants from Canada, what safeguards are in place, or could be put in place, to address the risk of transshipment through Canada of plants that would no longer be directly enterable into the United States if the proposed rule is adopted?

Response: Propagative material, whether grown in, or transhipped through Canada must either (1) be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate of inspection, or (2) in the case of greenhouse-grown plants that meet the applicable conditions of § 319.37-4(c), be accompanied by a certificate of inspection in lieu of a phytosanitary certificate. Both types of certificate include a declaration of the plants' origin.

Comment: Does APHIS have sufficient resources to ensure that imported plants are grown under the conditions specified in the proposed rule? The proposed rule puts an extreme reliance on the infrastructure of foreign regulatory agencies. Many countries simply do not have the infrastructure or resources to provide the kind of regulatory oversight that was envisioned by the proposed rule.

Response: This rule requires the plant protection organization of the exporting country to certify on the phytosanitary certificate accompanying plants imported into the United States that imported artificially dwarfed plants have been grown and inspected according to APHIS requirements. When plants are presented for importation into the United States, we verify that the phytosanitary certificate accompanying the plants contains all the required declarations.

The certification requirements contained in the regulations are in addition to our port of entry inspections, not in lieu of them. Because the United States is a signatory party of international agreements such as the World Trade Organization Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and the International Plant Protection Convention, we are obligated to consider foreign certifications as equivalent to our own unless there are documented reasons to consider them otherwise. Under these circumstances, APHIS believes that the proposed requirements will provide adequate protection against the introduction of plant pests into the United States.

One commenter requested additional plant quarantine action to control the spread of Phythophthora ramorum, the fungus that causes what has commonly been referred to as Sudden Oak Death. This matter is outside the scope of this rulemaking action, but we have restricted the interstate movement of Sudden Oak Death host articles in an interim rule published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2002 (67 FR 6827-6837, Docket No. 01-054-1), and intend to address the importation of Sudden Oak Death host articles from foreign countries in an upcoming rulemaking.

Finally, we have made several nonsubstantive editorial changes for the sake of clarity.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the changes discussed in this document.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

In this document, we are amending the regulations for importing plants and plant products by requiring artificially dwarfed plants that are imported into the United States to have been grown under certain conditions in greenhouses or screenhouses within nurseries registered with the government of the country where the plants were grown. This action is necessary to protect against the introduction of longhorned beetles into the United States.

The requirements of this rule are intended to prevent the introduction of longhorned beetles into the United States. A recent APHIS study on the importation of solid wood packing material from China has shown that production losses resulting from a widespread Asian longhorned beetle infestation in the United States could total in excess of $27.4 billion.

The art of miniature (or artificially dwarfed) plant gardening is a recent phenomenon in the United States. Because it is a highly time consuming and very labor intensive activity, it is practiced by a relatively small number of U.S. nurseries and households. The size of these artificially dwarfed plants range from 4 inches to 60 inches in height, with prices ranging from $10 to more than $10,000. The median price of an artificially dwarfed plant is close to $100, and its value increases with age, regardless of size.

Plants that have been imported from Asia represent approximately 80 percent of the value of the entire artificially dwarfed plant market. Such imports come predominantly from Japan, the People's Republic of China, and the Republic of Korea. The remaining 20 percent of value corresponds to plants that have been domestically produced. With respect to volume, 20 percent of the artificially dwarfed plants available in the U.S. market are imported from Asia, and the rest are domestically produced. Domestically produced artificially dwarfed plants are the smallest, simplest, and most inexpensive ones. Plants produced in and imported from Asian countries are the largest, most elaborate, and most expensive.

In 1997, the U.S. National Arboretum in Washington, DC, surveyed U.S. nurseries that sell artificially dwarfed plants, as well as other businesses related to the growing of artificially dwarfed plants. A summary of the results of the survey was published in the American Nurseryman Magazine in April 1999. According to that survey, in 1997, there were at least 366 artificially dwarfed plant-related businesses in the United States. Based on that survey, artificially dwarfed plant businesses can be divided into two categories: Full-service nurseries and specialty companies focusing on one product.

Full-service nurseries may carry a wide range of artificially dwarfed plants in varying sizes, including some that they have developed themselves and others they have purchased or have imported from Asia. Many of these businesses also sell pots for these plants, as well as related tools and books. On the other hand, specialty companies may produce one product, such as plants, pots, or tools, or may be limited to teaching or publishing.

The survey identified 97 full service artificially dwarfed plant nurseries (see table below). These entities ranged from relatively small family owned and operated enterprises to a few large companies.

The 1997 survey found that artificially dwarfed plant-related businesses were fairly well distributed throughout the United States. However, the largest concentrations were in the Southeast (107) and the Southwest (102), including California. The Northeast had 84 artificially dwarfed plant-related businesses. The Midwest had 37 related businesses, and the Northwest had 26.

According to Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines, a small business involved in the sale or importation of artificially dwarfed plants or related products is one having less than $6 million of annual receipts from sales (see NAICS codes 444220, “Nursery and Garden Centers,” and 453110, “Florists”).

There are between 20 to 50 importers of artificially dwarfed plants in the United States, with the number varying each year. However, on average, this number is closer to 20. All of them can be considered small entities according to the SBA definition. We do not expect that this final rule will significantly affect the price of imported artificially dwarfed plants or have a significant effect on importers of artificially dwarfed plants.

Most of the businesses engaged in the production and distribution of artificially dwarfed plants and related materials are family owned and operated. Approximately 99 percent of these firms are considered small according to SBA criteria. There is no reason to believe that these entities would be significantly affected by implementation of this rule because the price of imported artificially dwarfed plants is not expected to change significantly.

The requirements that imported artificially dwarfed plants be grown in greenhouses or screenhouses in registered nurseries—and not collected from open fields—could affect the number of artificially dwarfed plants imported during the short term. Plants imported from Asia are predominantly higher valued and nursery-grown, and comprise only 20 percent of U.S. sales by quantity, but 80 percent of sales by value. This rule will not likely have a significant effect on the number of higher-valued plants imported from Asia. However, since artificially dwarfed plants that are not grown in accordance with the conditions in this rule are prohibited importation into the United States, it is possible that some U.S. producers could benefit from decreased competition. Nevertheless, the effect of this final rule on those nurseries is expected to be insignificant, given the small number of affected imports.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Dornier Model 328-100 and -300 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on April 18, 2002 (67 FR 19132). That action proposed to require inspecting the identification plate on the fire extinguisher bottle in the auxiliary power unit (APU) to verify if the correct actuating cartridge has been installed, and replacing the existing actuating cartridge of the fire extinguisher bottle with the correct actuating cartridge, if necessary. That action also proposed to require removing the fire extinguisher bottle equipped with the actuating cartridge from the APU, and reinstalling the fire extinguisher bottle equipped with the correct actuating cartridge into the APU.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal.

Since the language in Note 3 of the proposed AD is regulatory in nature, that note has been redesignated as paragraph (b) of this final rule. Additionally, the new paragraph clarifies that the referenced service bulletin affects Model 328-300 series airplanes.

The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the change described previously. The FAA has determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

The FAA estimates that 88 Model 328-100 and -300 series airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will be provided by the manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $5,280, or $60 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

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

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A300-600 and A310 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on April 3, 2002 (67 FR 15762). That action proposed to require replacement of certain symbol generator units (SGUs) in the electronic flight instrument system with new, improved SGUs, and modification of associated equipment and wiring.

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

The Air Transport Association (ATA) of America, on behalf of its members, generally supports the intent of the proposed AD. However, one commenter has suggested revising the cost estimate specified in the proposed AD. These comments and FAA responses are as follows:

• The commenter states that, although the proposed AD specifies a labor rate of $60 per hour, the commenter's labor rate is $98 per hour.

We point out that our estimate of $60 per work hour is the current burdened labor rate established for use by the Office of Aviation Policy, Plans, and Management Analysis. (The burdened labor rate includes the actual labor cost, overhead, administrative expenses, etc.) Because the labor rate used in our calculations accounts for the variations in costs among those in the airline industry, we consider that $60 per work hour is appropriate. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

• The commenter considers that 7 instead of the 4 work hours cited in the proposed AD is needed to accomplish the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-34-6132, dated May 17, 2001 (which is referenced in the proposed AD as an appropriate source of service information). The commenter also considers that the cost estimate in the proposed AD of $710 per airplane for labor and parts is significantly underestimated. The commenter also states that Airbus Service Bulletin A300-34-6132 references Thompson-CSF Sextant (also referred to as Thales) Service Bulletin 961266-34-038, which specifies 8 work hours for shop labor per each SGU, or $2,352 per airplane; and shop materials at $2,126 per each SGU, or $6,380 for three SGUs per airplane.

We partially concur with these comments. First, we point out that our estimate of 4 work hours, as specified in the proposed AD, is based on the estimate specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-34-6132. However, we agree that it is necessary to include additional costs for the bench modification. Those costs are included in the Thompson-CSF Sextant service bulletin, which specifies 1 work hour per SGU to perform the bench modification, for a total of 3 work hours for each airplane. We do not agree with the commenter's estimate of 8 work hours per SGU for the bench modification because no substantiation was provided for such a figure. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions typically does not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up; planning time; or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Because incidental costs may vary significantly from operator to operator, they are almost impossible to calculate.

Second, we agree that the cost estimate of $710 per airplane should be increased, based on additional costs for the bench modification. Although we inadvertently failed to include the costs for the bench modification in the proposed AD, that action was part of the modification action required by the proposed AD. We note that the Thompson-CSF Sextant service bulletin is referenced in Airbus Service Bulletins A310-34-2157 (which is referenced in the proposed AD as an appropriate source of service information) and A300-34-6132 as an additional source of service information.

Based on this information, we have revised the cost estimate in the final rule to specify 7 instead of 4 work hours and to include an additional $6,810 for shop materials. In addition, we have added a new Note 2 to the final rule to specify the Thompson-CSF Sextant service bulletin as an additional source of service information, and have renumbered the succeeding notes accordingly.

One commenter states that the “Replacement and Modification section,” paragraph (a) of the proposed AD, is obsolete. The commenter adds that, although paragraph (a) of the proposed AD requires installing SGU part number (P/N) 9612660321, that P/N was recently removed from the Illustrated Parts Catalog and replaced by P/N 9612660420.

We do not agree that the replacement and modification action is obsolete for the airplanes cited in the applicability of the proposed AD. We point out that the airplanes operated by the commenter, United Parcel Service (UPS) Airlines, incorporate Airbus Industrie Modification 12100. As noted in the applicability of the NPRM, airplanes incorporating Airbus Industrie Modification 12100 are not included in the applicability. We also point out that (P/N) 9612660420 is unique to the UPS Airlines airplanes that have incorporated Airbus Modification 12100, and that P/N 9612660420 is specified in their customized Illustrated Parts Catalog. In light of this, no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

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

The FAA estimates that 142 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. We estimate that it will take approximately 7 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required SGU replacement and modification of associated equipment and wiring (including the bench modification), and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $7,280 per airplane (including the kit modification). Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,093,400, or $7,700 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

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

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

The Coast Guard is implementing a permanent special local regulation in 33 CFR 100.1101, for a marine event. The following special local regulation will be enforced in the month of September:

Thunderboat Regatta. This special local regulation will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. on September 20, 2002 until 5:30 p.m. on September 22, 2002.

These special local regulations permit Coast Guard control of vessel traffic in order to ensure the safety of spectator and participant vessels. In accordance with the regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101, all persons and/or vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The “official patrol” consists of any Coast Guard, public, state or local law enforcement and sponsor-provided vessels assigned or approved, by Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District to patrol each event. No spectators shall anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for such entry by or through an official patrol vessel. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a spectator must come to an immediate stop. Vessels must comply with all directions given, failure to do so may result in a citation.

The City of Baltimore will sponsor the Defender's Day fireworks display on September 14, 2002 over the waters of the Patapsco River, Baltimore, Maryland. The fireworks display will be launched from a barge positioned within the regulated area. A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather nearby to view the aerial display. In order to ensure the safety of spectators and transiting vessels, 33 CFR 100.515 will be in effect for the duration of the event. Under provisions of 33 CFR 100.515, a vessel may not enter the regulated area unless it receives permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Spectator vessels may anchor outside the regulated area but may not block a navigable channel.

In addition to this notice, the maritime community will be provided extensive advance notification via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

On August 18, 2000, we published a notice of request for comment entitled “Notification of Arrival: Addition of Charterer or Cargo Owner to Required Information” (65 FR 50481). The notice sought to enhance the Coast Guard's understanding of the role of charterers and cargo owners in influencing the quality of shipping. We received 16 comments, which were summarized in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (66 FR 21710, May 1, 2001). The NPRM proposed including the charterer information, but not the cargo owner information. After publication of the NPRM, we received 10 letters containing 21 comments on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested and none was held.

The Coast Guard initiated the Port State Control program in April 1994 because of concerns raised over the steady increase in the number of substandard non-U.S. flagged vessels visiting U.S. waters. The program's goal is the elimination of substandard vessels from U.S. waters. To meet this goal, we developed a risk-based targeting matrix that evaluated a foreign vessel's Flag State, owner, operator, classification society, vessel type, and its compliance history. The matrix allowed limited Coast Guard resources to be directed to those vessels that posed the greatest risk to safety and the environment. The matrix's basis is derived from information obtained as part of a vessel's notification of arrival, required by 33 CFR part 160, subpart C. The Captain of the Port (COTP) uses the matrix as a tool to score each arriving foreign vessel. The COTP then prioritizes boardings based on each vessel's score. If a vessel is determined to be substandard, it is detained until the deficiencies are corrected. Although the number of detentions of substandard vessels fell from 547 in 1997 to 193 in 2000, there are still too many substandard vessels calling on U.S. ports.

The Coast Guard knows that many companies chartering vessels to move their cargo go to great lengths to ensure that the vessels they charter are sound and pose minimal risks. In other cases, individuals or corporations select a vessel based solely on the cost of chartering the vessel, foregoing any examination of the vessel's condition, safety, and casualty history. It is the Coast Guard's opinion these two scenarios demonstrate the value of collecting the arriving vessel's charterer as one more factor in the Port State Control matrix.

We received 10 comment letters containing 21 comments in response to the NPRM (66 FR 21710, May 1, 2001) and our proposed amendments to the advance notification requirements in 33 CFR part 160, subpart C.

We received four comments supporting the rule. Of those, two commenters stated publishing a list of substandard vessels could enhance vessel compliance with safety and pollution standards by deterring the chartering of substandard vessels. One indicated the rule would improve the Port State Control initiative by bringing greater transparency to the Coast Guard's ability to target specific vessels for inspections. One stated the rule would allow the Coast Guard to build a database to properly assess if some companies are frequently associated with chartering substandard vessels.

We received four comments addressing ownership differences. One asked if the rule would regulate time charterers, voyage charterers, or both. The commenter said charterers are not normally responsible for, and have no direct control over the condition of vessels that they charter. According to the commenter, changing the regulation will not help the Coast Guard ensure vessels are operated safely. We disagree. The rule will apply to all charterers that are responsible for chartering the majority of a vessel's cargo carrying capacity. When a charterer is contracting for the services of a vessel to carry goods, that individual or organization has the greatest amount of control in selecting a vessel in suitable condition to make a voyage to the United States. For example, if the vessel is substandard, the charterer can opt to not enter into a charterer agreement.

We received three comments addressing the definition of “charterer”, with two asking for a clarification in defining the term. Of those, one stated the definition could create confusion and uncertainty in determining the type of charterer. One comment said only the “head charterer” should be listed because that would identify the most important “charterer” and reduce the complication of listing every “charterer”. We agree with the comment's intent. We have modified the language to alleviate any confusion as to whose identity we are seeking. The Coast Guard is requiring only the identity of the individual or organization that contracts for the majority of a vessel's cargo carrying capacity. The person or organization that contracts for this amount of space has control over vessel selection and, therefore, the condition of the vessel they choose to hire. It is not our intent to capture minor space charterers who are not involved in vessel selection. We also added explicit reference to the “types” of charters that are subject to this change.

We received two comments in support of not collecting information on cargo owners, which were included in our August 2000 request for comments. Both agreed that the frequent changes in ownership of given cargo would overly complicate the reporting effort. In response to our request for comments, we received numerous negative comments opposed to the collection of cargo owner information. Based on these responses, we elected not to propose collecting cargo owner information in the NPRM, or in this final rule.

We received two comments that stated the charterer of a vessel is generally considered confidential and commercial proprietary information. Of those, one stated publishing a list of charterers associated with detentions would not improve compliance, but instead hurt sensitive marketplaces such as the Great Lakes and that the marketplace will detract a charterer from substandard vessel usage instead of forcing better compliance. The Coast Guard disagrees. Anyone involved in the selection and chartering of a vessel to carry cargo to the United States is subject to analysis to determine if their business practices pose an environmental threat. Additionally, the charterer information is being provided to the government, not to the public. Any subsequent release to the public, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), for example, would be analyzed to ensure no actual proprietary information is released.

One commenter addressed applicability involving certain vessel operations. The commenter stated vessels conducting operations, such as drilling or construction on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), do not have a “charterer” under the rule's definition. The commenter also said each vessel arriving at an OCS facility is contracted for its crew and services by a “lessee” or “permitee”, not for its capacity to transport cargo to a port. In cases involving vessels that do not have charterers in accordance with the definition of this subpart, a vessel need only provide all other pre-arrival notification information.

One commenter asked that bareboat chartering agreements not fall under the definition of “charterer” because it is already included in the existing Notification of Arrival requirements. The commenter stated under bareboat agreements, the charterer is the “legal and de facto operator.” We agree. Bareboat, or demise charterer agreements are not part of the “charterer” definition in this subpart. Bareboat and demise charterers are further discussed in 46 CFR 169.107, amended by final rule, published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2002 (67 FR 34756).

One commenter indicated that time and voyage charterers should be considered “charterers” as part of the Notification of Arrival requirements because those agreements are comparable to “single charterer—single vessel—single cargo” scenarios. We agree with the comment's intent. The purpose of this rulemaking is to identify the single entity responsible for selecting a vessel for a particular voyage. Thus, we are looking to capture charterer information for the type of agreement described by the commenter.

One commenter said the definition is too broad and would create multiple “charterers” among liner carriers who are sharing space on the same voyage. The commenter stated the Coast Guard should only be interested in “the carrier directly responsible for the mechanical operation of the specific vessel arriving in a U.S. port.” We agree. Our definition of charterer, provided in § 160.203, captures the individual (or corporation) who charters for the majority of a vessel's cargo capacity. Thus, anyone chartering less than the majority would not be included in this rule. If, however, one individual contracts for a majority of the vessel and then subcharters the vessel's available cargo space, the original contractor is the charterer we want to identify.

One commenter indicated adding the charterer's name would be a potential problem and could do more harm than good, but did not go into specifics. Without more information regarding the problem mentioned by the commenter, we are unable to give a specific response. The Coast Guard reiterates its belief that collecting charterer information will increase the effectiveness of the Port State Control matrix.

One commenter asked the Coast Guard to look into the duplication of reporting requirements in regard to mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs). The commenter recommended we add language to the rule to this effect: if your vessel meets the requirements of 33 CFR 146.202, you are also in compliance with 33 CFR part 160. We disagree. The reporting requirements contained in 33 CFR 146.202 are specifically for operations on the Outer Continental Shelf and do not apply to arrival and departure from ports within the United States.

One commenter stated the Coast Guard is seeking information on the majority of a vessel's cargo capacity instead of the individual goods being delivered to a port. The commenter said the rule would not stop charterers from seeking substandard vessels to reduce their transportation cost. We disagree. We are seeking information on the individual or organization that contracts for the majority of a vessel's cargo carrying capacity. It is our contention that this individual or organization has the power of vessel selection in the process and, therefore, can exercise the option of choosing a vessel that is not substandard.

One commenter said the Coast Guard's Port State Control matrix has been successful in identifying substandard vessels and has reduced accidents and pollution, but identifying the charterer for every vessel is unnecessary. We disagree. Collecting charterer information will enhance our ability to utilize limited resources to enforce our Port State Control program more effectively.

One commenter supports the temporary collection of charterer information stating the collection should be for at least one year and only for internal use by the Coast Guard. The commenter stated there should be a clear connection between the requirement and the desired result. The commenter also said that the rule would not help the Coast Guard in identifying substandard vessels. We disagree. The object of the program is to identify charterers that continually use substandard vessels to carry cargo. When scored according to their history, charterers that fit into the high-risk category will have their vessels targeted for boarding.

One commenter asked that the Great Lakes be considered separately in regard to this rule. According to the commenter, more than 80 percent of the vessels using the Great Lakes Waterway system are already known by the Marine Safety Office Buffalo and the Saint Lawrence Seaway agencies, who would know what vessels throw up a “red flag” because of the vessels' regular use of the Lakes. We disagree. This rule seeks information on charterers, not vessels. The Coast Guard is adding an important element, the charterer, to the targeting matrix. This additional information will allow the Coast Guard to further utilize its limited resources in the most judicious manner.

One commenter stated a charterer should not be responsible or liable for the conditions over which they have no control. The commenter added that voyage charterers, in particular, have little or no role in a vessel's compliance with the international standards. With the Great Lakes being a small system, the commenter indicates enhancing the PSC matrix would be unnecessary. We disagree. When an individual or organization seeks to charter a vessel for the purpose of carrying cargo to the United States, they have the option of ensuring that the vessel they charter is in suitable condition to be in compliance with all U.S. laws and international accords.

In our August, 2000, NPRM for this rulemaking, we proposed amending the permanent requirements in 33 CFR part 160. On October 4, 2001, however, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule entitled, “Temporary Requirements for Notification of Arrival in U.S. Ports” (66 FR 50565). That temporary rule suspended the majority of the sections we had proposed amending and added temporary sections in their place. That temporary rule was amended on November 19, 2001, and January 18, 2002 (66 FR 57877; 67 FR 2571) and on May 30, 2002, was extended until September 30, 2002 (67 FR 37682). On June 19, 2002, the Coast Guard published an NPRM (67 FR 41659) proposing to make permanent changes to the notice of arrival requirements. Then on July 23, 2002, we proposed an additional extension of the temporary rule (67 FR 48073). The temporary rule, therefore, could be effective until the permanent changes are published, perhaps until March 31, 2003. We have decided, therefore, to make the changes to the currently effective “temporary” sections in 33 CFR part 160 instead of to the suspended permanent sections, as proposed in our NPRM. The changes made by this rule will then be incorporated into the permanent sections in 33 CFR part 160 when those revisions are completed.

With this final rule allowing the Coast Guard to enforce the new requirement for charterer information, we also recognize that the various names used for different charterer scenarios adds to some of the confusion regarding this requirement. In order to clarify this rulemaking, we added definitions for time and voyage charters into the regulations, and we offer the following explanations of various types of charterers:

• Time Charterer. The party who hires a vessel for a specific amount of time. The owner and his crew manage the vessel, but the charterer selects the ports of destination.

• Voyage Charterer. The party who hires a vessel for a single voyage. The owner and his crew manage the vessel, but the charterer selects the ports of destination.

• Demise Charterer. A legally binding document for a term of one year or more under which, for the period of the charter, the party who leases or charters the vessel, known as the bareboat or demise charterer, assumes legal responsibility for all of the levels of ownership, including insuring, manning, supplying, repairing, fueling, maintaining, and operating the vessel. The term “bareboat or demise charterer” is synonymous with “owner pro hac vice”. This information is captured through the submission of the owner/operator information for the Advance Notice of Arrival.

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 (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).

The regulatory baseline for this final rule is the existing requirements in 33 CFR part 160. On October 4, 2001, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule entitled, “Temporary Requirements for Notification of Arrival in U.S. Ports” (66 FR 50565). The temporary final rule suspended the sections of which this rulemaking amends until September 30, 2002. Also, on May 30, 2002, the Coast Guard published an NPRM (67 FR 37682) proposing to amend the suspended sections by making permanent the provisions of the temporary final rule.

The population of vessels affected by the final rule will also be modified by a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Notification of Arrival in U.S. Ports” published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2002 (67 FR 41659), which proposes to further amend requirements for the Notification of Arrival. The proposed rule removed reporting exemptions for vessels under the Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Rescue System (AMVER), certain vessels operating solely on the Great Lakes, and vessels operating on a regularly scheduled route. The evaluation for this final rule considers the cost for submitting the charterer information for this new population of vessels.

The cost of the final rule to industry is presented in Table 1. The estimate of the number of arrivals is based on average annual arrivals for 1998 and 1999. The “Non-AMVER/Non-Great Lakes” number of arrivals is for those non-exempt vessels covered by existing Notification of Arrival requirements in 33 CFR part 160 and were included in the evaluation of the proposed rule for charterers. The AMVER and Great Lakes number of arrivals is the new population of vessels that would be required to submit Notifications of Arrival under the proposed rule published on June 19, 2002. These vessels would also be required to complete the information on vessel charterer under this final rule. We estimate that including the information for the charterer will require 1 minute (0.017 hours) to complete on the Notification of Arrival form, at a cost of $43 per hour.

As shown, this rule is estimated to cost approximately $50,000 annually. Under the proposed rule for “Notification of Arrival in U.S. Ports” published June 19, 2002, vessel owners and operators could now consolidate multiple arrivals in U.S. ports in a single Notification of Arrival (where previously they could not). Consequently, the number of arrivals presented in Table 1 may overstate the actual number of annual arrivals in U.S. ports that will have individual reports. The arrivals in Table 1, therefore, represent the “worst-case” scenario and the costs of the final rule are conservative estimates.

Over the next 10 years, the Present Value (PV) cost of the final rule is $367,697 (2002-2011, 7 percent discount rate, 2002 dollars).

The potential benefits of the final rule are not quantifiable, but include the following: (1) U.S. waters will experience increased safety; (2) U.S. waters will experience a decrease in damage to property and the environment; (3) the Coast Guard will target substandard vessels traveling U.S. waters that pose safety and environmental risks; (4) the Coast Guard will spend less effort on compliant vessels; (5) the Coast Guard will spend more effort examining previously unboarded vessels; (6) the Coast Guard will have more information on foreign vessels traveling U.S. waters; (7) the Coast Guard and vessel owners will have better understanding of the risks posed by foreign vessels; and (8) the degrees of liability would be clarified.

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

The final rule does not include any special provisions for small entities. However, the burden required by this rule is so minimal (only 1 minute per Notification of Arrival) that the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.

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 calls for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), “collection of information” comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar actions. The title and description of the information collections, a description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection.

Title: Notification of Arrival: Addition of Charterer to Required Information.

Summary of the Collection of Information: This rule amends 33 CFR 160.203, 160.T208, and 160.T212 to include the name of the vessel's charterer as part of the information required for vessels bound for ports or places in the United States. This collection of information will add minimal burden to the information collection described in OMB 2115-0557, Advance Notice of Vessel Arrival and Departure. The new collection of information estimate is based on the current collection, which is accounted for in the temporary rule published October 4, 2001, and the NPRM published June 19, 2002.

Use of Information: The Coast Guard will use the information collected to identify those vessels that pose the highest risks to U.S. waterways and ports, and target those vessels for inspection.

Description of the Respondents: The respondents are vessel crews traveling U.S. waterways and hailing U.S. ports that must report an Advance Notification of Arrival.

Number of Respondents: The existing OMB-approved collection number of respondents is 10,367 (respondents are owners/operators of the vessels calling on U.S. ports annually). This final rule will not increase the number of respondents.

Frequency of Response: Owners/operators of vessels making calls in U.S. ports will submit Notification of Arrival reports as necessary. The existing OMB-approved collection number of responses is 68,139. This final rule will not increase the frequency of response.

Burden of Response: The existing OMB-approved collection burden of response is 74 minutes (1.233 hours) (burden of response is the time required to complete the paperwork requirements of the rule for a single response). This final rule will increase the burden of response by 1 minute (0.017 hours) for a net total of 75 minutes (1.250 hours).

Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The existing OMB-approved collection total annual burden is 174,179 hours (total annual burden is the time required to complete the paperwork requirements of the rule for all responses). This final rule will increase the total annual burden by 1,136 hours for a net total of 175,315 hours.

As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we submitted a copy of this rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection of information.

We analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The existing advance notice of arrival regulation in 33 CFR 160.213, which is issued under Title I of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, is preemptive of any State rule that would also require the vessel to provide the State, or one of its political subdivisions, advance notice of arrival. ( See, U.S. v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.CT 1135 (2000)). However, the Coast Guard has, in numerous instances, through Memoranda of Agreement with an interested State, cooperated with the States and agreed to provide the information contained in the advance notice of arrival to the States. It will continue to do so.

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

This rule 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 risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 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 that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

We considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This rule is a procedural regulation that does not have any environmental impact. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

On February 6, 2001, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Traffic Separation Scheme: In Prince William Sound, Alaska” in the Federal Register (67 FR 5538). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested and none was held.

The Prince William Sound (Alaska) Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) is an internationally recognized routing measure used to minimize the risk of collision by separating vessels, through traffic lanes, into opposing streams of traffic. The original TSS in Prince William Sound ran from the vicinity of Cape Hinchinbrook through Prince William Sound and into the Valdez Arm (the entrance to Port Valdez). The International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted this TSS in 1992. It is reflected on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) nautical chart 16700 and in “Ships Routeing,” Seventh Edition 1999, International Maritime Organization.

On August 26, 1999, we published the results of a study in the Federal Register (64 FR 4662), which concluded that modifications to the original TSS were needed to improve vessel traffic management and safety and to reduce the risk of drift groundings.

This rule amends the original TSS in Prince William Sound by adopting the following amendments, as implemented by IMO on June 1, 2001:

1. Establishing a precautionary area southeast of Cape Hinchinbrook at the entrance to Prince William Sound.

2. Straightening the Prince William Sound portion of the TSS to eliminate a course change.

3. Establishing a precautionary area at the Bligh Reef Pilot Station. This precautionary area divides the present TSS into two separate traffic separation schemes—a Prince William Sound traffic separation scheme and a Valdez Arm traffic separation scheme. The new Valdez Arm TSS is slightly wider than the Valdez Arm portion of the original TSS.

Since IMO has already adopted and implemented the proposed traffic separation schemes and precautionary areas in its “Ships” Routeing Guide,” this rule aligns title 33, part 167, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with that guide.

We have made one change, a minor one, to the proposed regulatory text presented in the NPRM. This change should have no impact on the mariner, other than to avoid confusion, and is explained as follows.

In § 160.60(b) of the NPRM, we proposed to enlarge the Valdez Narrows Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Special Area to include the portion of the TSS located in the Valdez Arm. This would have given the Commanding Officer of the VTS the authority to direct vessels into the separation zone if, for example, the traffic lanes became partially blocked by ice from the Columbia Glacier. Enlarging the Valdez Narrows VTS Special Area as proposed also meant that the existing regulations for the current special area would apply to the newly included geographic area. We re-analyzed this proposal and determined that the regulations for the Valdez Narrows VTS Special Area are not appropriate for the new, enlarged special area. Were we to make the regulations applicable to this new, enlarged area, we might confuse the mariner transiting to and from the Port of Valdez. Therefore, instead of enlarging the existing Valdez Narrows VTS Special Area, we have decided to create a separate Valdez Arm VTS Special Area. ( See new § 161.60(b) in this final rule.) The geographic area encompassed by the two separate VTS Special Areas is identical to that of the enlarged Valdez Narrows VTS Special Area originally proposed in the NPRM. Mariners who transit to and from the Port of Valdez are very familiar with the Valdez Narrows VTS Special Area as it exists today. Leaving it as it is and creating a new Valdez Arm VTS Special Area will have no substantive effect on the mariner, other than to avoid confusion. In fact, the new regulation will be transparent to the mariners as they transit to and from the Port of Valdez.

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). We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. The costs and benefits of this rule are summarized below:

Vessel operators would incur the minimal cost of plotting new coordinates on their existing charts or purchasing updated charts when available.

The amendments to the TSS in Prince William Sound, Alaska, will increase the margin of safety for all vessels accessing the Port of Valdez. The new Precautionary Areas and amended traffic lanes will decrease the chance of collisions, allisions, and drift groundings were a vessel to become disabled. Vessels transiting the Prince William Sound TSS should experience cost savings through decreased operational costs, because the new transit lanes in the Sound are shorter.

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

This rule will have a reduced economic impact on vessels operated by small entities. The rule amends an existing TSS. This action improves safety for commercial vessels using the TSS by reducing the risk of collisions, allisions, and drift groundings. Vessels that tend to use the TSS's are commercial vessels, such as tankers. These vessels are usually large and capable of operating in an offshore environment. Vessels voluntarily transiting the TSS will transit 1.5 to 2.5 nautical miles fewer per trip. The reduced transit distance results in decreased vessel operating costs, which would positively affect the overall cost of the complete voyage.

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If this rule affects your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult George Detweiler, Coast Guard, Marine Transportation Specialist, at 202-267-0574.

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

A rule has implications 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.

Title I of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (33 U.S.C. 1221 et. seq. ) (PWSA) authorizes the Secretary to promulgate regulations to designate and amend traffic separation schemes (TSS's) to protect the marine environment. In enacting PWSA in 1972, Congress found that advance planning and consultation with the affected States and other stakeholders was necessary in the development and implementation of a TSS. Throughout the development of the TSS in Prince William Sound, we consulted with the Valdez Marine Operators Committee (VMOC), the affected State and Federal pilot's associations, vessel operators, users, and all affected stakeholders. The VMOC includes individuals who represent the interests of local commercial shipping and industry, as well as members from the Regional Citizens Advisory Council, and the State of Alaska. The VMOC was an active participant in various meetings with the Coast Guard and has contributed to this rulemaking.

Presently, there are no Alaska State laws or regulations concerning the same subjects as are contained in this proposed rule. We understand that the State does not contemplate issuing any such rules. However, it should be noted, that by virtue of the PWSA authority, the TSS in this rule will preempt any state rule on the same subject.

In order to be applicable to foreign flag vessels on the high seas, TSS's must be submitted to, approved by, and implemented by IMO. The Coast Guard is the principal United States agency responsible for advancing the interests of the United States at IMO. In this role, we work with all interested parties to advance the goals of this TSS to make Prince William Sound more safe and environmentally secure.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would 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 would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

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

We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(i), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This rule adjusts an existing traffic separation scheme. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, requires that the EPA develop standards for Underground Storage Tanks (UST) systems as may be necessary to protect human health and the environment, and procedures for approving State programs in lieu of the Federal program. EPA promulgated State program approval procedures at 40 CFR part 281. Program approval may be granted by EPA pursuant to RCRA section 9004(b), if the Agency finds that the State program: is “no less stringent” than the Federal program for the seven elements set forth at RCRA section 9004(a)(1) through (7); includes the notification requirements of RCRA section 9004(a)(8); and provides for adequate enforcement of compliance with UST standards of RCRA section 9004(a). Note that RCRA sections 9005 (information-gathering) and 9006 (Federal enforcement) by their terms apply even in states with programs approved by EPA under RCRA section 9004. Thus, the Agency retains its authority under RCRA sections 9005 and 9006, 42 U.S.C. 6991d and 6991e, and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions to undertake inspections and enforcement actions in approved states. With respect to such an enforcement action, the Agency will rely on Federal sanctions, Federal inspection authorities, and Federal procedures rather than the state authorized analogues to these provisions.

The UST program in Nebraska is implemented jointly by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) and the Nebraska State Fire Marshal (NSFM). Section 81-15, 118 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes (N.R.S.) designates NDEQ as the lead agency for the UST program, but specifies that NSFM will conduct preventative activities under an interagency agreement with NDEQ.

The State of Nebraska initially submitted a state program approval application to EPA by letter dated December 15, 2000. Additional information was provided by Nebraska on March 21, 2001. EPA evaluated that information as well as other issues and determined the application package met all requirements for a complete program application. On December 5, 2001, EPA notified Nebraska that the application package was complete.

The Nebraska program provides for regulation of both petroleum and hazardous substance tanks. Nebraska also regulates UST systems used to store fuel solely for use by emergency power generators, regulates certain USTs used to store heating oil, regulates any tank used for consumptive on-site purposes and not for resale, requires registration of permanently abandoned systems, regulates above ground storage tanks for those tanks to be eligible for reimbursement from the state cleanup fund, imposes licensing and certification requirements on tank installation and removal contractors, licenses and imposes a remedial action fee on certain refiners and suppliers, and requires any person who deposits regulated substances in a tank to make certain notifications to owners and operators of UST systems, and subjects UST systems previously closed between December 22, 1988 and January 1, 1989 to being directed to close in accordance with the state closure requirements. However, these parts of the Nebraska program are broader in scope than the Federal program and are not included in this final approval. Additionally, the Nebraska program is not as broad as the federal program because Nebraska does not regulate tank systems installed between December 22, 1988 and January 1, 1989 as new tank systems. However, for tank systems installed within this 9-day window, through the Nebraska and EPA Memorandum of Agreement included in the State Program Approval application, EPA has agreed to assume all related enforcement responsibilities.

On March 7, 2002, EPA published a tentative decision announcing its intent to grant Nebraska final approval. Further background on the tentative decision to grant approval is available by contacting Linda Garwood, EPA Region 7, ARTD/USTB, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101, (913) 551-7268.

Along with the tentative determination, EPA announced the opportunity for public comment. Also, EPA provided notice that a public hearing would be provided but only if significant public interest on substantive issues was shown. EPA did not receive any significant comments and no public hearing was held.

I conclude that the State of Nebraska's application for final approval meets all the statutory and regulatory requirements established by Subtitle I of RCRA. Accordingly, Nebraska is granted final approval to operate its UST program. The State of Nebraska now has the responsibility for managing all regulated UST facilities within its borders and carrying out all aspects of the UST program, except with regard to Indian lands, where EPA will retain and otherwise exercise regulatory authority. Nebraska also has primary enforcement responsibility, for the UST's it regulates, although EPA retains the right to conduct inspections under Section 9005 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991d, and to take enforcement actions under Section 9006 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991e.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 9004 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this action authorizes pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same reason, this action does not have tribal implications within the meaning of Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). It does not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State underground storage tank program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Under RCRA 9004, EPA grants approval of a State's program as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State program application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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

The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection is provided.

Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of changed conditions or new scientific or technical data.

The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 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 BFEs 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 BFEs, 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.

The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

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

The Administrator for Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because modified BFEs 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.

This interim 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 modified Base Flood Elevations are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified Base Flood Elevation determinations are available for inspection is provided.

Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of changed conditions or new scientific or technical data.

The modifications are made pursuant to Section 201 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.

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 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 interim 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.

FEMA makes final determinations listed below of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed. The proposed BFEs and proposed modified BFEse 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 BFEs and proposed modified BFEs 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.

FEMA 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 FIRM available at the address cited below for each community.

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

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 Administrator of the 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.

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.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-297, adopted July 17, 2002, and released August 2, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-198, MM Docket No. 01-200, MM Docket No. 01-202, MM Docket No. 01-203; MM Docket No. 01-204, MM Docket No. 01-236, MM Docket No. 01-237, MM Docket No. 01-238, and MM Docket No. 01-239, MM Docket No. 01-240, MM Docket No. 01-270, MM Docket No. 01-272, and MM Docket No. 01-274, adopted July 24, 2002, and released August 2, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554.

The Commission, at the request of Jeraldine Anderson, allots Channel 264A at Dilley, Texas, as the community's second local FM transmission service. See 16 FCC Rcd 15801 (2001). Channel 264A can be allotted at Dilley in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements a city reference coordinates. The coordinates for Channel 264A at Dilley are 28-40-02 North Latitude and 99-10-13 West Longitude. Although concurrence has been requested for Channel 264A at Dilley, notification has not been received. If a construction permit is granted prior to the receipt of formal concurrence in the allotment by the Mexican government, the construction permit will include the following condition: “Operation with the facilities specified for Dilley herein is subject to modification, suspension or, termination without right to hearing, if found by the Commission to be necessary in order to conform to the 1992 USA-Mexico FM Broadcast Agreement.”

The Commission, at the request of Jeraldine Anderson, allots Channel 275A at Goree, Texas, as the community's first local aural transmission service. See 16 FCC Rcd 15801 (2001). Channel 275A can be allotted at Goree in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 4.3 kilometers (2.7 miles) northeast to avoid a short-spacing to the licensed and construction permit sites of Station KHXS(FM), Channel 274C1, Merkel, Texas. The coordinates for Channel 275A at Goree are 33-30-00 North Latitude and 99-30-00 West Longitude.

The Commission, at the request of Jeraldine Anderson, allots Channel 299A at Leakey, Texas, as the community's third local FM transmission service. See 16 FCC Rcd 15801 (2001). Channel 299A can be allotted at Leakey in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 13.3 kilometers (8.3 miles) west to avoid short-spacings to the licensed sites of Station KXTN-FM, Channel 298C, San Antonio, Texas, and to the licensed site of Station XHPC-FM, Channel 300B, Piedras, Mexico. The coordinates for Channel 299A at Leakey are 29-41-58 North Latitude and 99-53-41 West Longitude. Although concurrence has been requested for Channel 299A at Leakey, notification has not been received. If a construction permit is granted prior to the receipt of formal concurrence in the allotment by the Mexican government, the construction permit will include the following condition: “Operation with the facilities specified for Leakey herein is subject to modification, suspension or, termination without right to hearing, if found by the Commission to be necessary in order to conform to the 1992 USA-Mexico FM Broadcast Agreement.”

The Commission, at the request of Jeraldine Anderson, allots Channel 221C3 at Sweetwater, Texas, as the community's second local FM transmission service. See 16 FCC Rcd 15801 (2001). Channel 221C3 can be allotted at Sweetwater in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements at city reference coordinates. The coordinates for Channel 221C3 at Sweetwater are 32-28-15 North Latitude and 100-24-20 West Longitude. Although concurrence has been requested for Channel 221C3 at Sweetwater, notification has not been received. If a construction permit is granted prior to the receipt of formal concurrence in the allotment by the Mexican government, the construction permit will include the following condition: “Operation with the facilities specified for Sweetwater herein is subject to modification, suspension or, termination without right to hearing, if found by the Commission to be necessary in order to conform to the 1992 USA-Mexico FM Broadcast Agreement.”

The Commission, at the request of Katherine Pyeatt, allots Channel 285C2 at Arnett, Oklahoma, as the community's first local aural transmission service. See 16 FCC Rcd 16470 (2001). Channel 285C2 can be allotted at Arnett in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 17.6 (11.1 miles) southwest to avoid a short-spacing to the vacant allotment site for Channel 283C1 at Mooreland, Oklahoma. The coordinates for Channel 285C2 at Arnett are 36-02-45 North Latitude and 99-56-22 West Longitude.

The Commission, at the request of Jeraldine Anderson, allots Channel 269C2 at Sayre, Oklahoma, as the community's first local aural transmission service. See 16 FCC Rcd 16470 (2001). Channel 269C2 can be allotted at Sayre in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements at city reference coordinates. The coordinates for Channel 269C2 at Sayre are 35-17-28 North Latitude and 99-38-23 West Longitude.

The Commission, at the request of Jeraldine Anderson, allots Channel 254A at Hebbronville, Texas, as the community's second local FM transmission service. See 16 FCC Rcd 16470 (2001). Channel 254A can be allotted at Hebbronville in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 10.6 kilometers (6.6 miles) west to avoid a short-spacing to the licensed site of Station KGBT-FM, Channel 253C, McAllen, Texas. The coordinates for Channel 254A at Hebrronvillle are 27-20-15 North Latitude and 98-46-45 West Longitude. Although concurrence has been requested for Channel 254A at Hebbronville, notification has not been received. If a construction permit is granted prior to the receipt of formal concurrence in the allotment by the Mexican government, the construction permit will include the following condition: “Operation with the facilities specified for Hebbronville herein is subject to modification, suspension or, termination without right to hearing, if found by the Commission to be necessary in order to conform to the 1992 USA-Mexico FM Broadcast Agreement.”

The Commission, at the request of Jeraldine Anderson, allots Channel 293A at Bruni, Texas, as the community's first local aural transmission service. See 16 FCC Rcd 16470 (2001). Channel 293A can be allotted at Bruni in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 6.8 kilometers (4.2 miles) north to avoid a short-spacing to the licensed site of Station KPSO-FM, Channel 292A, Falfurrias, Texas, the construction permit site of Station KTKY(FM), Channel 293C2, Taft, Texas, and the allotment site for Channel 294A at El Lobo, Mexico. The coordinates for Channel 293A at Bruni are 27-29-12 North Latitude and 98-51-00 West Longitude. Although concurrence has been requested for Channel 293A at Bruni, notification has not been received. If a construction permit is granted prior to the receipt of formal concurrence in the allotment by the Mexican government, the construction permit will include the following condition: “Operation with the facilities specified for Bruni herein is subject to modification, suspension or, termination without right to hearing, if found by the Commission to be necessary in order to conform to the 1992 USA-Mexico FM Broadcast Agreement.”

The Commission, at the request of Charles Crawford, allots Channel 255A at Rison, Arkansas, as the community's first local aural transmission service. See 16 FCC Rcd 16470 (2001). Channel 255A can be allotted at Rison in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 2.2 kilometers (1.4 miles) southwest to avoid a short-spacing to the licensed site of Station KZYP(FM), Channel 257A, Pine Bluff, Arkansas. The coordinates for Channel 255A at Rison are 33-56-30 North Latitude and 92-12-14 West Longitude.

The Commission, at the request of Katherine Pyeatt, allots Channel 221C2 at Matador, Texas, as the community's first local aural transmission service. See 16 FCC Rcd 17210 (2001). Channel 221C2 at can be allotted at Matador in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of .3 kilometers (12.6 miles) east to avoid a short-spacing to the application site for Channel 220C1 at Morton, Texas. The coordinates for Channel 221C2 at Matador are 34-03-56 North Latitude and 100-36-43 West Longitude.

The Commission, at the request of Katherine Pyeatt, allots Channel 244C2 at Turkey, Texas, as the community's first local aural transmission service. See 16 FCC Rcd 17210 (2001). Channel 244C2 can be allotted at Turkey in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 27.1 kilometers (16.9 miles) southeast to avoid a short-spacing to the licensed site of Station KMML-FM, Channel 245C1, Amarillo, Texas. The coordinates for Channel 244C2 at Turkey are 34-10-06 North Latitude and 100-46-46 West Longitude.

The Commission, at the request of Linda Crawford, allots Channel 252A at Richland Springs, Texas, as the community's second local FM transmission service. See 16 FCC Rcd 17210 (2001). Channel 252A can be allotted at Richland Springs in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements at city reference coordinates. The coordinates for Channel 252A at Richland Springs are 31-16-10 North Latitude and 98-56-41 West Longitude. Although concurrence has been requested for Channel 252A at Richland Springs, notification has not been received. If a construction permit is granted prior to the receipt of formal concurrence in the allotment by the Mexican government, the construction permit will include the following condition: “Operation with the facilities specified for Richland Springs herein is subject to modification, suspension or, termination without right to hearing, if found by the Commission to be necessary in order to conform to the 1992 USA-Mexico FM Broadcast Agreement.”

This is a summary of the Commission's Order, ET Docket No. 95-18, FCC 02-221, adopted July 31, 2002, and released August 2, 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. The complete text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, 445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 or TTY (202) 418-7365.

1. This Order immediately suspends for one year, until September 6, 2003, the expiration date for the initial two-year mandatory negotiation period for Phase 1 of the 2 GHz band relocation plan between Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) and Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS), adopted in the Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order (Second Report and Order), 65 FR 48174, August 7, 2000. The provisions of the initial Phase 1 mandatory negotiation period will remain in effect for the duration of this suspension. We retain the option to shorten or lengthen this suspension as circumstances warrant.

2. In the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order, 63 FR 69606, December 17, 1998, we allocated 70 megahertz of spectrum for MSS in the 2 GHz band. In the Second Report and Order, we adopted relocation procedures for incumbent BAS facilities at 1990-2025 MHz and incumbent Fixed Service (FS) facilities at 2165-2200 MHz. This relocation plan was modeled after the Commission's earlier Emerging Technologies policies in ET Docket No. 92-9, and requires MSS entrants to provide comparable facilities to BAS and FS incumbents that are relocated prior to the sunset dates specified in the Second Report and Order. The BAS relocation plan calls for a two-phase relocation, each phase beginning with a two-year mandatory negotiation period that will clear the lowest BAS channel then in use in the top 30 Nielsen Designated Market Areas. In the event that an agreement for relocation is not reached by the end of a particular negotiation period, the MSS licensee(s) have the option of relocating BAS incumbents involuntarily. The initial, two-year mandatory negotiation period for Phase 1 commenced upon Federal Register publication of the Second Report and Order on September 6, 2000, and is due to expire on September 6, 2002. As stated in the Second Report and Order, it remains a primary goal to ensure that the transition causes the minimum possible disruption to BAS operations.

3. Subsequent to adoption of the Second Report and Order, we initiated several major rule makings that propose, or seek comment on, alternative uses and new allocations in portions of the 2 GHz band now allocated for MSS. For example, in IB Docket No. 01-185, 66 FR 47621, September 13, 2001, we are seeking comment on proposals that would allow MSS licensees to provide ancillary terrestrial component (“ATC”) operations in the 2 GHz MSS band. In ET Docket No. 00-258, 66 FR 47618, September 13, 2001, we are seeking comment on proposals to support the introduction of new advanced wireless services, including Third Generation (“3-G”) wireless systems in spectrum below 3 GHz, including some of the MSS spectrum in the 2 GHz band. In WT Docket No. 02-55, 67 FR 16351, April 5, 2002, we are exploring various options to improve public safety communications in the 800 MHz band that could include relocating incumbent 800 MHz services to the current MSS allocation in the 2 GHz band. In each of these dockets, we have sought comment on what changes might be needed to the BAS relocation procedures adopted in the Second Report and Order should the proposals affecting the 2 GHz MSS bands be adopted.

4. In the Second Report and Order, we concluded that the adopted negotiation period structure would serve our twin goals of maintaining the integrity of the BAS system operation while providing for early access to the spectrum for MSS providers. We found that the BAS and MSS industries had been aware of this proceeding and closely followed its progress since 1995. In addition, we noted that the spectrum became available for MSS on January 1, 2000, and that ICO had represented that it expected to be ready to begin providing service in 2002. Based upon these factors, among others, we decided that the initial BAS negotiation period should commence immediately upon Federal Register publication of the Second Report and Order, and that a two-year duration for the initial mandatory negotiation period was appropriate.

5. As noted above, subsequent to our establishing the 2 GHz MSS band relocation plans, we specifically sought comment in the MSS Flexibility, Advanced Wireless/3-G, and 800 MHz Public Safety rule making notices on whether to revise the Second Report and Order relocation plan based on the outcome of the proposals in those rulemakings. Because it does not appear that we will be able to act on the respective issues prior to the Phase 1 BAS mandatory negotiation deadline of September 6, 2002, we find it to be in the public interest to continue the negotiating period until we are able to fully address these relocation issues based on the extensive record that these other proceedings have generated. We further find that it is prudent and in the public interest to suspend the expiration of the initial negotiation period under the present circumstances, rather than prejudice our consideration of the relocation issues presented in the pending proceedings. Therefore, we find that the expiration date for the initial Phase 1, two-year mandatory BAS negotiation period should be suspended, effective immediately upon release of this order, for one year until September 6, 2003. We retain the option, however, to shorten or lengthen this suspension as circumstances warrant while we consider further action on this matter in pending proceedings. We also emphasize that the action taken herein is an interim measure and does not prejudice further action in other proceedings. For the duration of this suspension, all other aspects of the initial mandatory BAS negotiation period will continue in force and, as a consequence, BAS incumbents will not be subject to involuntary relocation by MSS licensees in the interim. We will require MSS and BAS licensees to comply with all negotiation requirements and procedures adopted in the Second Report and Order that are applicable to the initial BAS mandatory negotiation period. Because we are not suspending or modifying any other aspect of the BAS or FS relocation plan, MSS and FS licensees in the 2165-2200 MHz band remain free to enter into relocation negotiations under the provisions adopted in the Second Report and Order.

6. On October 22, 2001, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. (MSTV) filed a pleading styled “Motion for Stay of Mandatory Negotiation Period.” The Motion was supported in separate pleadings by the Society of Broadcast Engineers and by Cox Broadcasting, Inc. (jointly with Cosmos Broadcasting Corporation and Media General, Inc.), and was opposed by New ICO Global Communications Ltd., and the Boeing Company.

While NAB's pleading appears to seek a stay of the entire negotiation process delineated in the Second Report and Order, a subsequent ex parte submission by NAB appears to indicate that NAB is not opposed to the requirement for negotiation. Rather, NAB effectively requests an indefinite suspension of the timetables in the negotiation/relocation process. To the extent that NAB's motion would challenge the imposition of the negotiation/relocation process delineated in the Second Report and Order, it must be dismissed as a late-filed Petition for Reconsideration. To the extent that it requests a suspension of the timetables in the negotiation/relocation process, we dismiss it as moot in light of our action. We note that opponents' substantive arguments in opposing NAB's Motion are considered and disposed of in our determination.

7. Authority for issuance of this Order is contained in sections 4(i), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(f), and 303(r), and section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

8. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(f), and 303(r), and section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the expiration date of September 6, 2002, for the initial two-year mandatory BAS negotiation period for Phase 1 set forth in the Second Report and Order in ET Docket No. 95-18 is hereby suspended, effective August 2, 2002, for one year until September 6, 2003.

9. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(f), and 303(r), the Motion for Stay of Mandatory Negotiation Period filed by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. (MSTV), is hereby dismissed.

NHTSA administers a program for reducing motor vehicle theft. The central feature of this program is the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49 CFR part 541. The standard specifies performance requirements for inscribing and affixing vehicle identification numbers (VINs) onto certain major original equipment and replacement parts of high-theft lines of passenger motor vehicles.

The agency is required by 49 U.S.C. 33104(b)(4) to periodically obtain, from the most reliable source, accurate and timely theft data and publish the data for review and comment. To fulfill this statutory mandate, NHTSA has published theft data annually beginning with MYs 1983/84. Continuing to fulfill the “33104(b)(4) mandate, this document reports the final theft data for CY 2000, the most recent calendar year for which data are available.

In calculating the 2000 theft rates, NHTSA followed the same procedures it used in calculating the MY 1999 theft rates. (For 1999 theft data calculations, see 66 FR 39554, July 31, 2001.) As in all previous reports, NHTSA's data were based on information provided to NHTSA by the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The NCIC is a government system that receives vehicle theft information from nearly 23,000 criminal justice agencies and other law enforcement authorities throughout the United States. The NCIC data also include reported thefts of self-insured and uninsured vehicles, not all of which are reported to other data sources.

The 2000 theft rate for each vehicle line was calculated by dividing the number of reported thefts of MY 2000 vehicles of that line stolen during calendar year 2000 by the total number of vehicles in that line manufactured for MY 2000, as reported to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The final 2000 theft data show no change in the vehicle theft rate when compared to the theft rate experienced in CY/MY 1999. The final theft rate for MY 2000 passenger vehicles stolen in calendar year 2000 of 2.89 thefts per thousand vehicles produced, did not change from the rate of 2.89 thefts per thousand vehicles experienced by MY 1999 vehicles in CY 1999. For MY 2000 vehicles, out of a total of 206 vehicle lines, 51 lines had a theft rate higher than 3.5826 per thousand vehicles, the established median theft rate for MYs 1990/1991. ( See 59 FR 12400, March 16, 1994.) Of the 51 vehicle lines with a theft rate higher than 3.5826, 43 are passenger car lines, eight are multipurpose passenger vehicle lines, and none are light-duty truck lines.

On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, NHTSA published the preliminary theft rates for CY 2000 passenger motor vehicles in the Federal Register (67 FR 11161). The agency tentatively ranked each of the MY 2000 vehicle lines in descending order of theft rate. The public was requested to comment on the accuracy of the data and to provide final production figures for individual vehicle lines. The agency did not receive any written comments from the public. As a result, the final theft rates and rankings of vehicle lines did not change from those published in the March 2002 notice.

Further reanalysis of the theft rate data revealed that the number of vehicle lines reported with a theft rate higher than 3.5826 was incorrect. Preliminary theft data for CY 2000 inadvertently reported that there were 45 passenger car lines with theft rates higher than 3.5826. However, NHTSA is correcting the final theft data to report 43 passenger car lines with a theft rate higher than 3.5826 and eight multipurpose passenger car lines with a theft rate higher than 3.5826.

The following list represents NHTSA's final calculation of theft rates for all 2000 passenger motor vehicle lines. This list is intended to inform the public of calendar year 2000 motor vehicle thefts of model year 2000 vehicles and does not have any effect on the obligations of regulated parties under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 331, Theft Prevention.