The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the approval design and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA, therefore, finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.

Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. CE188.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

On November 7, 2001, Rockwell Collins, Incorporated, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52498 made an application to the FAA for a new Supplemental Type Certificate for the Raytheon Aircraft Model B300/B300C airplanes. The airplane is currently approved under TC No. A24CE. The proposed modification incorporates the installation of the Rockwell Collins ProLine 21 Display System. The ProLine 21 system will replace the EFIS originally installed on the airplane. Like the original EFIS, the new system has the potential to be vulnerable to high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF) external to the airplane.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, § 21.101, Rockwell Collins must show that the Raytheon Model B300/B300C aircraft meets the following provisions, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change to the Raytheon Model B300/B300C. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate Data Sheet A24CE are as follows:

Certification Basis FAR Part 23 effective February 1, 1965, as amended by Amendments 23-1 through 23-34; Federal Aviation Regulations part 36 effective December 1, 1969, as amended by Amendment 36-1 through 36-15; SFAR 27 effective February 1, 1974, as amended by Amendments 27-1 through 27-6 and Exemption No. 5077 from compliance with § 23.207(c). Federal Aviation Regulations part 23, §§ 23.201, 23.203, and 23.205 through Amendment 23-45 (S/N FN-1 and up only). Effective January 20, 1994, Federal Aviation Regulations § 23.1457 as amended by Amendment 23-35. Exemption 5599 from compliance with § 23.53(c)(1), for use of ground minimum control speed (V MCG ) for determination of takeoff decision speed (V1), (Serials FL-111, FM-9, FN-2 and after, or prior airplanes modified by Beech Kit No. 130-3004).

Compliance with ice protection has been demonstrated in accordance with § 23.1419 when ice protection equipment is installed in accordance with the Equipment List. Equivalent Safety Findings: § 23.781(b) for shape of the propeller control knob; § 23.1305(g) for use of fuel low pressure warning annunciators in lieu of the fuel pressure indicators; § 23.1321(d) for the basic “T” instrument panel arrangement.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards because of novel or unusual design features of an airplane, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 after public notice and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with 14 CFR part 21 § 21.101.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model already included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101.

Rockwell Collins will incorporate certain novel and unusual design features into the Raytheon Model B300/B300C airplane for which the airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for protection from the effects of HIRF. These features, including EFIS, are susceptible to the HIRF environment and were not envisaged by the existing regulations for this type of airplane.

Protection of Systems from High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF): Recent advances in technology have given rise to the application in aircraft designs of advanced electrical and electronic systems that perform functions required for continued safe flight and landing. Due to the use of sensitive solid state advanced components in analog and digital electronics circuits, these advanced systems are readily responsive to the transient effects of induced electrical current and voltage caused by the HIRF. The HIRF can degrade electronic systems performance by damaging components or upsetting system functions.

Furthermore, the HIRF environment has undergone a transformation that was not foreseen when the current requirements were developed. Higher energy levels are radiated from transmitters that are used for radar, radio, and television. Also, the number of transmitters has increased significantly. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined.

The combined effect of the technological advances in airplane design and the changing environment has resulted in an increased level of vulnerability of electrical and electronic systems required for the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Effective measures against the effects of exposure to HIRF must be provided by the design and installation of these systems. The accepted maximum energy levels in which civilian airplane system installations must be capable of operating safely are based on surveys and analysis of existing radio frequency emitters. These special conditions require that the airplane be evaluated under these energy levels for the protection of the electronic system and its associated wiring harness. These external threat levels, which are lower than previous required values, are believed to represent the worst case to which an airplane would be exposed in the operating environment.

These special conditions require qualification of systems that perform critical functions, as installed in aircraft, to the defined HIRF environment in paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed value using laboratory tests, in paragraph 2, as follows:

(1) The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational capability of the installed electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is exposed to the HIRF environment defined below:

(2) The applicant may demonstrate by a system test and analysis that the electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions can withstand a minimum threat of 100 volts rms per meter, electrical field strength, from 10 kHz to 18 GHz. When using this test to show compliance with the HIRF requirements, no credit is given for signal attenuation due to installation.

A preliminary hazard analysis must be performed by the applicant, for approval by the FAA, to identify either electrical or electronic systems that perform critical functions. The term “critical” means those functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. The systems identified by the hazard analysis that perform critical functions are candidates for the application of HIRF requirements. A system may perform both critical and non-critical functions. Primary electronic flight display systems, and their associated components, perform critical functions such as attitude, altitude, and airspeed indication. The HIRF requirements apply only to critical functions.

Compliance with HIRF requirements may be demonstrated by tests, analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or any combination of these. Service experience alone is not acceptable since normal flight operations may not include an exposure to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a system with similar design features for redundancy as a means of protection against the effects of external HIRF is generally insufficient since all elements of a redundant system are likely to be exposed to the fields concurrently.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Raytheon Model B300/B300C airplanes. Should Rockwell Collins apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

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

The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA, therefore, finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.

Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. CE193.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

On September 16, 2002, S-TEC Corporation, One S-TEC Way, Mineral Wells Airport, Mineral Wells, Texas 76067, made an application to the FAA for a new Supplemental Type Certificate for the Raytheon (Beech) 65-90, 55-A90, 65-A90-1, 65-A90-4, B90, and C90 airplane models. They have also identified future STC projects that need the special conditions. All models are currently approved under the type certification basis listed in the paragraph headed “Type Certification Basis.” The proposed modification incorporates a novel or unusual design feature, such as digital avionics consisting of an EFIS that is vulnerable to HIRF external to the airplane.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, § 21.101, S-TEC Corporation must show that affected airplane models, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate Numbers listed below or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the original “type certification basis” and can be found in the Type Certificate Numbers listed below. In addition, the type certification basis of airplane models that embody this modification will include § 23.1301 of Amendment 23-20; §§ 23.1309, 23.1311, and 23.1321 of Amendment 23-49; and § 23.1322 of Amendment 23-43; exemptions, if any; and the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards because of novel or unusual design features of an airplane, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 after public notice and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101(b)(2) of Amendment 21-69.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model already included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101.

S-TEC Corporation plans to incorporate certain novel and unusual design features into an airplane for which the airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for protection from the effects of HIRF. These features include EFIS, which are susceptible to the HIRF environment, that were not envisaged by the existing regulations for this type of airplane.

Protection of Systems from HIRF: Recent advances in technology have given rise to the application in aircraft designs of advanced electrical and electronic systems that perform functions required for continued safe flight and landing. Due to the use of sensitive solid state advanced components in analog and digital electronics circuits, these advanced systems are readily responsive to the transient effects of induced electrical current and voltage caused by the HIRF. The HIRF can degrade electronic systems performance by damaging components or upsetting system functions.

Furthermore, the HIRF environment has undergone a transformation that was not foreseen when the current requirements were developed. Higher energy levels are radiated from transmitters that are used for radar, radio, and television. Also, the number of transmitters has increased significantly. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined.

The combined effect of the technological advances in airplane design and the changing environment has resulted in an increased level of vulnerability of electrical and electronic systems required for the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Effective measures against the effects of exposure to HIRF must be provided by the design and installation of these systems. The accepted maximum energy levels in which civilian airplane system installations must be capable of operating safely are based on surveys and analysis of existing radio frequency emitters. These special conditions require that the airplane be evaluated under these energy levels for the protection of the electronic system and its associated wiring harness. These external threat levels, which are lower than previous required values, are believed to represent the worst case to which an airplane would be exposed in the operating environment.

These special conditions require qualification of systems that perform critical functions, as installed in aircraft, to the defined HIRF environment in paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed value using laboratory tests, in paragraph 2, as follows:

(1) The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational capability of the installed electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is exposed to the HIRF environment defined below:

(2) The applicant may demonstrate by a system test and analysis that the electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions can withstand a minimum threat of 100 volts per meter peak electrical field strength from 10 kHz to 18 GHz. When using this test to show compliance with the HIRF requirements, no credit is given for signal attenuation due to installation.

A preliminary hazard analysis must be performed by the applicant, for approval by the FAA, to identify either electrical or electronic systems that perform critical functions. The term “critical” means those functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. The systems identified by the hazard analysis that perform critical functions are candidates for the application of HIRF requirements. A system may perform both critical and non-critical functions. Primary electronic flight display systems, and their associated components, perform critical functions such as attitude, altitude, and airspeed indication. The HIRF requirements apply only to critical functions.

Compliance with HIRF requirements may be demonstrated by tests, analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or by any combination of these. Service experience alone is not acceptable since normal flight operations may not include an exposure to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a system with similar design features for redundancy as a means of protection against the effects of external HIRF is generally insufficient since all elements of a redundant system are likely to be exposed to the fields concurrently.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to one modification to the airplane models listed under the heading “Type Certification Basis.” Should S-TEC Corporation apply to extend this modification to include additional airplane models, the special conditions would extend to these models as well under the provisions of § 21.101.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features of one modification to several models of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

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

On October 9, 2002, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued AD 2002-21-06, amendment 39-12912 (67 FR 65298, October 24, 2002), which applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 airplanes. That AD requires revisions to the Airplane Flight Manual; installation of inspection aids on the wing upper surfaces; and, among actions, other actions, installation of an overwing heater blanket system or primary upper wing ice detection system, and installation of a heater protection panel or an equipment protection device on certain overwing heater blanket systems. That AD also requires disabling the anti-ice systems for the upper wing surface on certain airplanes. The actions requires by that AD are intended to prevent ice ingestion into one or both engines and consequent loss of thrust from one or both engines; and damage to the upper wing skin surface and its structure, due to prolonged short-circuit electrical arcing of certain anti-ice systems.

The FAA notes that an inadvertent transpositions of paragraph identifiers occurred in paragraphs (1)(2)(i) and (1)(2)(ii) of AD 2002-21-06. Paragraph (1) of that AD specifies information regarding alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) for the requirements of that AD. Specifically, paragraph (1)(2)(i) states that installation of a non-skid, striped triangular symbol per Option 5 of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD80-30-059, Revision 4 through Revision 7, is approved as an AMOC with paragraphs (b) and (i)(2) of that AD. While paragraph (i)(2) of that AD is a correct reference, the reference to paragraph (b) is incorrect and should read paragraph “(c)” of the AD. Conversely, paragraph (1)(2)(ii) of that AD states that revision of the Configuration Deviation List (CDL) Appendix of the AFM by inserting a copy of CDL Appendix, Section I, Page 2A, dated March 10, 1993, into the AFM, is approved as an AMOC with paragraphs (c) and (i)(3) of the AD. While paragraph (i)(3) of that AD is correct reference, the reference to paragraph (c) is incorrect and should read paragraph “(b)” of that AD.

The FAA has determined that a correction to AD 2002-21-06 is necessary to revise incorrect paragraph references in paragraphs (1)(2)(i) and (1)(2)(ii) of that AD. This correction specifies the appropriate paragraphs for which the specified AMOCs apply.

This document corrects the errors and correctly adds the AD as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13).

The AD is reprinted in its entirety for the convenience of affected operators. The effective date of the AD remains November 8, 2002.

Since this action only corrects two incorrect paragraph references for AMOCs, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, the FAA has determined that notice and public procedures are unnecessary.

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2002-24-05, amendment 39-12970, applicable to certain Boeing Model 727 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on December 3, 2002 (67 FR 71808). That AD requires detailed inspections to detect cracking and corrosion of the upper chord of the rear spar of the wing; and repair, if necessary. That AD also requires detailed inspections to detect and permanently repair any cracking that has been previously repaired by stop-drilling.

As published, the applicability section of the AD specifies, “Model 727 series airplanes, serial numbers 1 through 1832 inclusive; certificated in any category.” Identification of the airplanes was inadvertently specified as “serial numbers 1 through 1832 inclusive.” The correct identification if “line numbers 1 through 1832 inclusive.”

Since no other part of the regulatory information has been changed, the final rule is not being republished in the Federal Register .

The effective of this AD remains December 18, 2002.

On November 23, 2002, the FAA issued emergency AD 2002-24-51, which is applicable to all Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes; Model 747 series airplanes; and Model 757 series airplanes.

The FAA has received reports indicating that two fuel tank pumps from different Model 747 series airplanes showed evidence of extreme localized overheating of parts in the priming and vapor pump section of the fuel pump. The priming and vapor pump section of the pump is open to the fuel tank via the pump inlet line and the vapor vent of the pump. The cause of this overheating is believed to be friction between the pump parts; however, the specific cause of the friction is unknown at this time.

One of the two pumps was an override/jettison pump of the inboard main tank. The pump had been removed so that X-ray inspections specified in AD 2002-19-52, amendment 39-12900 (67 FR 61253, September 30, 2002), could be performed. The pump had been installed on the airplane for 6,000 flight hours. Since scoring was found on the inducer housing of the pump, the pump was disassembled, at which time evidence of severe overheating of the priming and vapor pump section was found. The Stellite (cobalt/chrome/nickel/iron alloy) end plates of the priming and vapor section of the pump were blued and cracked from thermal stress, and the steel pump shaft in that same area was also blued. According to the pump manufacturer, bluing of the steel and/or Stellite materials is evidence of temperatures in excess of 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit. It is believed that such temperatures could only be reached during dry running of the pump. The previous operational history of this pump is under investigation to determine how dry running could have occurred. Adjacent areas of the shaft were blackened. In addition, the aluminum bearing housing adjacent to the back side of the end plate had melted.

The other pump was an override/jettison pump of the center tank, which had been removed from a Model 747-400 series airplane due to a low pressure warning received in the flight deck. The pump had been installed on the airplane for 3,500 flight hours. The pump was found with the thermal fuses of the electrical motor winding open, which indicates an overheat condition in the motor section. Such overheating may be due to the pump rotor dragging or locking. Evidence of severe overheating of the priming and vapor pump section was found. The end plates of the priming and vapor section of the pump were blued and cracked from thermal stress, and the pump shaft in that same area was blued.

Such overheating of the parts in the priming and vapor pump section of the fuel pump provides an ignition source in the fuel tank during dry running of the pump, which could result in fire/explosion of the fuel tank.

The pumps involved in the two reports described previously have the same part numbers as those that were addressed in AD 2002-19-52. The fuel pumps installed on Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900; Model 747; and Model 757 series airplanes are all potentially affected since the pumps are almost identical in design.

In light of these reports, we find that procedures must be included in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to require the flightcrew to maintain certain minimum fuel levels in the center fuel tanks, and to prohibit the use of the horizontal stabilizer fuel tank (for Model 747-400 series airplanes) and certain center auxiliary fuel tanks (on Model 747 series airplanes). Those procedures specify crew monitoring of fuel levels and shutoff of center fuel tank pumps at specified levels that ensure the pump inlet remains covered during pump operation. Covering the pump inlet prevents fuel vapors from coming into contact with potentially overheated parts in the priming and vapor pump section of the fuel pump, and likely prevents the overheating condition itself. Those procedures also require deactivation of the horizontal stabilizer tank on Model 747-400 series airplanes and certain auxiliary fuel tanks of Model 747 series airplanes because the small size of the tank and the high flow rate of the pumps make it impractical to effectively apply an early shutoff procedure.

Since the unsafe condition described is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, the FAA issued emergency AD 2002-24-51 to revising the AFM to require the flightcrew to maintain certain minimum fuel levels in the center fuel tanks, and to prohibit the use of the horizontal stabilizer fuel tank (for Model 747-400 series airplanes) and certain center auxiliary fuel tanks (on Model 747 series airplanes).

Some operators may already have accomplished the AFM revisions required by this AD since those revisions are identical to the AFM revisions required by AD 2002-19-52. However, the terminating action ( i.e. , X-ray inspections of the fuel pumps) provided by AD 2002-19-52 allows operators to remove those AFM revisions. The unsafe condition addressed in AD 2002-19-52 was caused by chafed wiring, so the terminating action for that AD is not effective in eliminating the unsafe condition addressed in this AD. Therefore, for operators that have accomplished the terminating action specified in AD 2002-19-52, this new AD requires that those AFM revisions be reinstated.

This is considered to be interim action until final action is identified, at which time the FAA may consider further rulemaking.

Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required, notice and opportunity for prior public comment thereon were impracticable and contrary to the public interest, and good cause existed to make the AD effective immediately by individual notices issued on November 23, 2002, to all known U.S. owners and operators of all Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes; Model 747 series airplanes; and Model 757 series airplanes. These conditions still exist, and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to all persons.

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002-NM-309-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

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

On November 24, 2002, the FAA issued emergency AD 2002-24-52, which is applicable to all Boeing Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes.

On November 23, 2002, the FAA issued emergency AD 2002-24-51, applicable to all Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes; Model 747 series airplanes; and Model 757 series airplanes. That AD was prompted by reports indicating that two fuel pumps from different Model 747 series airplanes showed evidence of extreme localized overheating of parts in the priming and vapor pump section of the fuel pump. Such overheating provides an ignition source in the fuel tank during dry running of the pump, which could result in fire/explosion of the fuel tank.

AD 2002-24-51 reinstated operating limitations originally imposed by AD 2002-19-52, amendment 39-12900 (67 FR 61253, September 30, 2002). Specifically for Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes, AD 2002-24-51 includes a provision that prohibits fueling and use of the horizontal stabilizer tank “* * * if a placard prohibiting its use is installed.” (That phrase appears in the first paragraph of the required operating limitation.)

Since the issuance of that AD, we have become aware that the reference to placards in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) revision for Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes should not have been restated because, unlike AD 2002-19-52, AD 2002-24-51 does not require installation of placards. Therefore, if an operator has done the terminating actions specified in AD 2002-19-52 and removed the placards required by that AD, the limitation imposed by AD 2002-24-51 would not prohibit fueling and use of the horizontal stabilizer tank. This would be contrary to the intent of AD 2002-24-51.

Since the unsafe condition described is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, the FAA issued emergency AD 2002-24-52 to continue to require revising the AFM to require the flightcrew to maintain certain minimum fuel levels in the center fuel tanks, and to prohibit the use of the horizontal stabilizer fuel tank. However, this AD removes the reference to placards that was specified in the operating limitations required by AD 2002-24-51.

The compliance time of this AD remains the same as that specified in AD 2002-24-51 (“within 4 days after receipt” of AD 2002-24-51). In addition, paragraph (b) of this AD states that, if an operator has already complied with AD 2002-24-51, it can comply with this AD simply by deleting the phrase “if a placard prohibiting its use is installed” from the first paragraph of the operating limitation required by AD 2002-24-51.

This is considered to be interim action until final action is identified, at which time the FAA may consider further rulemaking.

Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required, notice and opportunity for prior public comment thereon were impracticable and contrary to the public interest, and good cause existed to make the AD effective immediately by individual notices issued on November 24, 2002, to all known U.S. owners and operators of all Boeing Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes. These conditions still exist, and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to all persons.

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002-NM-314-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 2002-08-12, amendment 39-12720 (67 FR 19650, April 23, 2002), which is applicable to certain Airbus Model A330 and A340 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2002 (67 FR 53523). The action proposed to continue to require an inspection of the parking brake operated valve (PBOV) of the main landing gear to identify the part and serial numbers, and follow-on actions if necessary. That action also proposed to require accomplishment of the previously optional terminating action.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

There are approximately 9 airplanes of U.S. registry that are affected by this AD.

The inspection that is currently required by AD 2002-08-12, and retained in this AD, takes approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions is estimated to be $120 per airplane.

The new modification/replacement required by this AD will take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the new requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,160, or $240 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are 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.

Has FAA taken any action to this point? On December 17, 2001, FAA issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain Air Tractor, Inc. (Air Tractor) AT-400, AT-500, and AT-800 series airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on December 27, 2001 (66 FR 66823). The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 2001-10-04 R1 with a new AD that would retain the safe life for the wing lower spar cap and require you to eddy-current inspect the wing lower spar cap immediately prior to the replacement/modification to detect and correct any crack in a bolthole before it extends to the modified center section of the wing. The NPRM also proposed to further reduce the safe life for those AT-400 and AT-500 series airplanes that incorporate or have incorporated Marburger Enterprises, Inc. winglets.

After issuing that NPRM, we received reports of several cracks originating in the outboard 3/8 -inch hole of the main spar lower cap on Air Tractor Models AT—502, AT-502A, and AT-502B airplanes at hours time-in-service (TIS) lower than the established safe life. This caused us to issue AD 2002-11-03, Amendment 39-12764 (67 FR 38371, June 4, 2002). AD 2002-11-03 lowers the safe life for the wing lower spar cap established in AD 2001-10-04 R1 on Air Tractor Models AT-502, AT-502A, AT-502B, and AT-503A airplanes and further reduces the safe life for airplanes that incorporate or have incorporated Marburger Enterprises, Inc. winglets.

We issued a separate AD for the Air Tractor AT-400 and AT-800 series airplanes.

What has happened since AD 2002-11-03 to initiate This action? Field inspections have revealed wings with cracks below the currently established safe life on Air Tractor Models AT 502, AT-502B, and AT-503A airplanes.

In addition, the Applicability of AD 2002-11-03 only covered serial number airplanes of the Models AT-502A and AT-502B that were already manufactured. The Applicability did not account for airplanes manufactured after the issuance of the AD.

What has FAA decided? The FAA has reviewed all available information and determined that:

What does this AD require? This AD will supersede AD 2002-11-03 and will:

You must accomplish these actions in accordance with Snow Engineering Service Letter #197 or #205, both Revised March 26, 2001, as applicable.

In preparation of this rule, we contacted type clubs and aircraft operators to obtain technical information and information on operational and economic impacts. We did not receive any information through these contacts. If received, we would have included, in the rulemaking docket, a discussion of any information that may have influenced this action.

Will I have the opportunity to comment prior to the issuance of the rule? Because the unsafe condition described in this document could result in the wing separating from the airplane during flight, we find that notice and opportunity for public prior comment are impracticable. Therefore, good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

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

How can I be sure FAA receives my comment? If you want us to acknowledge the receipt of your comments, you must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. On the postcard, write “Comments to Docket No. 2002-CE-54-AD.” We will date stamp and mail the postcard back to you.

Does this AD impact various entities? These regulations will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, FAA has determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom (UK), notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain SN Olympus 593 Mk. 610-14-28 turbojet engines, installed in SN BAe/SNIAS Concorde Type 1 airplanes. The CAA advises that some Lucas second stage fuel pumps that were not endurance bench-tested after having the bearing assembly and or the rotating assembly removed or re-fitted, were installed on engines in service. The manufacturer states that a fuel leak can occur within the first 10 hours of pump operation after having the bearing assembly and or the rotating assembly removed or re-fitted, and that endurance bench-testing is required on those pumps that have not yet accumulated 50 flight hours. That condition, if not corrected, could cause a fuel leak resulting in a sustained engine fire.

RR has issued Olympus 593 Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. OL.593-73-9075-103, dated November 17, 2000, that specifies instructions for endurance bench-testing of Lucas second stage pumps Types 105, 105M, 106, and 106M that are installed on Olympus 593 Mk. 610-14-28 turbojet engines, SN's CBE . 021 to CBE . 094 inclusive, and CBX . 101 and above. The endurance bench-testing is to be done if the second stage pump bearing assembly and or the rotating assembly were removed or re-fitted and the pump has not yet accumulated 50 flight hours-since-last-installed. The CAA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued AD 005-11-2000 in order to ensure the airworthiness of these RR engines in the UK.

This engine model is manufactured in the UK and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the CAA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Although none of these affected engines are used on any airplanes that are registered in the United States, the possibility exists that these engines could be used on airplanes that are registered in the United States in the future. Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other RR Olympus 593 Mk. 610-14-28 turbojet engines of the same type design, this AD is being issued to prevent a fuel leak, resulting in a sustained engine fire. This AD requires endurance bench-testing if the pump has not yet accumulated 50 flight hours since last installed and the second stage pump bearing assembly and or the rotating assembly was removed or re-fitted during last pump removal. The actions must be done in accordance with the service bulletin described previously.

Since there are currently no domestic operators of this engine model, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, a situation exists that allows the immediate adoption of this regulation.

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002-NE-29-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

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

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom (UK), notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on Bae/SNIAS Concorde Type 1 airplanes with RR Olympus 593 Mk. 610-14-28 turbojet engines. The CAA advises that if the disks were not rebroached correctly, certain HPC stage 5 disks may fail to achieve their anticipated cyclic life limit before cracking. Service experience with HPC stage 6 disks that were rebroached using a similar process demonstrated that the disks failed to achieve the anticipated life limit before being rejected for cracks. Further investigation revealed that original cracks were not being removed by the rebroaching. Therefore, a review of the HPC stage 5 disks was done. The analysis indicated that certain HPC stage 5 disks needed to be inspected between specific cyclic intervals to ensure that they have no cracks and that they can then achieve their previously anticipated life. At the time the CAA AD was originally written, there were a number of uninspected disks. Currently, there are only two HPC stage 5 disks that have not been inspected.

RR has issued Olympus 593 MSB No. OL.593-72-8951-364, Revision 7, dated November 23, 2001, that specifies the inspection requirements for certain HPC stage 5 disks. The CAA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued AD 006-07-98 in order to ensure the airworthiness of these RR engines in the UK.

RR has issued Olympus 593 MSB No. OL.593-72-9051-428, Revision 1, dated November 16, 2001, that requires disk P/N B510911, SN J14CA, to be inspected within 200 to 958 cycles-in-service (CIS) after rebroaching and disk P/N B510909, SN JZJ66, to be inspected within 200 to 931 CIS after rebroaching. However, since none of these engines are installed on airplanes of the U.S. registry, the FAA requires that they be inspected before further flight.

This engine model is manufactured in the UK, and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the CAA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Although none of these affected engine models are used on any airplanes that are registered in the United States, the possibility exists that the engine models could be used on airplanes that are registered in the United States in the future. Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other RR Olympus 593 Mk. 610-14-28 turbojet engines of the same type design, this AD is being issued to prevent failure of the HPC stage 5 disk, which could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. This AD requires a one-time fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) of certain rebroached HPC stage 5 disks, inspecting for cracks, and if necessary, removing cracked disks from service. The actions must be done in accordance with the service bulletin described previously.

Since there are currently no domestic operators of this engine model, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, a situation exists that allows the immediate adoption of this regulation.

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002-NE-28-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

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

The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all Dornier Model 328-300 series airplanes. The LBA advises that the engine performance data has been revised by the engine manufacturer, Pratt & Whitney Canada. The engine thrust has been reduced for certain operations at pressure altitudes in excess of 5,000 feet. Operation in conditions that exceed the performance capabilities of the airplane, if not corrected, could result in impact with terrain during engine out performance-limited operations.

The manufacturer has issued Dornier 328 J All Operators Telefax (AOT) AOT-328J-00-006, dated October 1, 2002, which describes procedures for revising the Performance Section of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to incorporate revised performance data for certain operations. The LBA classified the AOT as mandatory and issued German airworthiness directive 2002-355, dated November 14, 2002, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Germany.

This airplane model is manufactured in Germany and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LBA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the LBA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, this AD is being issued to prevent operation in weight/altitude/temperature conditions that exceed the performance capabilities of the airplane, which could result in impact with terrain during engine out performance-limited operations. This AD requires revising the Performance Section of the AFM to incorporate revised performance data for certain operations.

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

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

Submit comments using the following format:

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

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

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002-NM-293-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by revising AD 2000-16-02, Amendment 39-11856 (65 FR 49730, August 15, 2000), which is applicable to Pratt & Whitney PW4164, PW4168, and PW4168A series turbofan engines was published in the Federal Register on September 13, 2002 (67 FR 57987). That action proposed to require an extension of the cycles accumulated before performing the initial inspection for the MP 159 material bolts, reduce the frequency of repetitive inspections for MP159 material bolts, and add a terminating action to the primary mount thrust load path inspections by introducing a new increased durability forward engine mount bearing housing in accordance with Pratt & Whitney alert service bulletins (ASB's) PW4G-100-A71-9, Revision 1, dated November 24, 1997; ASB PW4G-100-A71-20, Revision 1, dated January 15, 2002; ASB PW4G-100-A71-18, Revision 2, dated January 15, 2002; and service bulletin (SB) PW4G-100-A71-22, dated January 15, 2002.

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

One commenter concurs with the proposed AD and states that the proposed AD is consistent with all appropriate PW service bulletins. The FAA agrees.

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

There are approximately 226 engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 21 engines installed on aircraft of U.S. registry would be affected by this AD. The FAA also estimates that it would take approximately 3 work hours per engine to perform the actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $19,000 per engine. Based on these figures, the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators is estimated to be $402,780.

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

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

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700 & 701) series airplanes. TCCA advises that fuel nozzles installed on the auxiliary power unit (APU) on these airplanes may crack and leak fuel into the APU compartment. According to the APU manufacturer, the cracks develop during APU start. Cracks are not readily detectable when the APU is installed in the airplane. An APU fuel nozzle can crack due to fatigue, and the resulting leak could cause fuel to spray throughout the APU compartment and be drawn out of the APU exhaust duct. This condition, if not corrected, could result in a fire or explosion in the APU compartment during flight.

Bombardier has issued Temporary Revision (TR) RJ 700/28-2, dated November 5, 2002, to the Canadair Regional Jet Series 700 Airplane Flight Manual. The TR advises the flightcrew to limit use of the APU to ground operation only, except for those in-flight emergencies described in the AFM when use of the APU is specified. TCCA has approved the TR for these airplanes in Canada. By approving the TR, TCCA also mandates its immediate incorporation into the AFM; therefore, TCCA did not issue a Canadian airworthiness directive to specifically mandate incorporation of the TR.

The FAA has reviewed Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin RE220-49-A7714, dated November 4, 2002, which describes procedures for replacing all APU fuel nozzles with new fuel nozzles (including installing new seals and washers; reidentifying the APU; and torqueing the bolts and fuel manifold connector within specified ranges). The service bulletin specifically cautions against intermixing fuel nozzle part numbers on an APU or interchanging the subject (“-2”) fuel nozzles on a modified APU.

This airplane model is manufactured in Canada and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has reviewed all available information and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. TCCA fully agrees with the requirements and compliance time specified in this AD.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, this AD is being issued to prevent fuel from being sprayed throughout the APU compartment and drawn out of the APU exhaust duct due to a cracked APU fuel nozzle, which could result in a fire or explosion in the APU compartment during flight. This AD requires revising the AFM to advise the flightcrew to limit use of the APU to ground operation only, except for those in-flight emergencies described in the AFM when use of the APU is specified.

This AD also provides for optional terminating action for the actions required by this AD. In accord with TCCA's findings, the FAA has determined that the operating limitations imposed by this AD can remain in place in lieu of accomplishment of a terminating action. In making this determination, the FAA considers that, in this case, implementing the AFM limitations will adequately ensure long-term continued operational safety before the unsafe condition could present a safety risk to the airplane.

Although the service bulletin recommends that operators send all removed fuel nozzles to Honeywell, this AD does not require operators to do so.

This is considered to be interim action. The FAA may consider requiring eventual replacement of the APU fuel nozzles, which would allow operators to remove the AFM limitation required by this AD. However, the planned compliance time for APU fuel nozzle replacement, if required, would be long enough to practicably provide notice and opportunity for public comment before the final rule is issued.

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

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

Submit comments using the following format:

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

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

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002-NM-269-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

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

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 McDonnell Douglas airplanes was published as a second supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on July 1, 2002 (67 FR 44119). That action proposed to require replacement of certain power relays, and subsequent repetitive cleaning, inspecting, repairing, and testing of certain replaced power relays.

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

One commenter, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), agrees with the proposed replacement and repetitive maintenance requirements. However, the commenter does not agree with the proposed 24-month compliance time, because it “is a longer compliance time than is either necessary or prudent.” The commenter states that it was informed by the FAA that the originally proposed 12-month compliance time was extended to 24 months because of the limited supply of replacement relays and the absence of any reports of failure of the power relays having part number (P/N) 914F567-3 in the six positions (left and right generator power, auxiliary power, and external power). The commenter notes that the power relay manufacturer has recommended replacement of P/N 914F567-3 power relays in those six positions and the cross-tie position (total of seven positions) since 1976.

From this comment, we infer that the commenter requests that the compliance time be reduced from the proposed 24 months to 12 months. We do not agree. Concerning the power relay manufacturer's 1976 recommendation, Sundstrand (Westinghouse) has re-reviewed all field data for power relays having P/N 914F567-3. It concluded that, in its opinion, the identified unsafe condition exists in the cross-tie position only. The power relays installed at the AC cross-tie position are more susceptible to phase-to-phase short than the other six positions (left and right generator power, auxiliary power, and external power) due to the installation orientation in an airplane. Its horizontal orientation allows for the buildup of conductive particle material between phase-to-phase circuits. Sundstrand (Westinghouse) also recommended that we not issue an AD for power relays having P/N 914F567-3 that are in the left and right generator power, auxiliary power, and external power positions. Due to the lower likelihood of a short circuit resulting in internal arcing, we have determined that a 24-month compliance time is appropriate to address the identified unsafe condition.

However, as discussed in the preamble of the second supplemental NPRM, we have determined that the potential for an electrical short still exists when a power relay, Sundstrand (Westinghouse) P/N 914F567-3, is installed in those six positions, though not as likely as in the cross-tie position. The accumulation of conductive particle material on any power relays, Sundstrand (Westinghouse) P/N 914F567-3, can build an electrical path to its adjacent terminal and cause a phase-to-phase short circuit. Such a short circuit will result in internal arcing of the power relays and consequent smoke and/or fire in the cockpit and cabin. This final rule addresses that potential unsafe condition by replacing the generator power relays, auxiliary power relays, and external power relays having Sundstrand (Westinghouse) P/N 914F567-3 with a Sundstrand (Westinghouse) P/N 9008D09 series or 914F567-4, and periodically removing the build-up of conductive particle material from the generator power relays, auxiliary power relays, and external power relays, having Sundstrand (Westinghouse) P/N 914F567-4.

We have revised the applicability of the existing AD to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models.

After careful review of the available data, including the comment noted above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the change previously described. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

There are approximately 1,991 Model DC-9-11, -12, -13, -14, -15, and -15F airplanes; Model DC-9-21 airplanes; Model DC-9-31, -32, -32 (VC-9C), -32F, -32F (C-9A, C-9B), -33F, -34, and -34F airplanes; Model DC-9-41 airplanes; Model DC-9-51 airplanes; Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes; of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 1,219 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $146,280, or $120 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.

What events have caused this AD? The FAA has received several reports of severe corrosion being found throughout the wing center section of Univair Models Alon A-2 and A2-A; ERCO 415-C, 415-CD, 415-D, 415-E, and 415-G; Forney F-1 and F-1A, and Mooney M10 airplanes. We have determined that the original design configuration of these airplanes does not provide adequate means for routine visual inspection of the wing center section wing walkway boxes. The inability to inspect this area has resulted in corrosion being undetected on these airplanes.

What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? If corrosion is not detected and corrected, the wing center section structure could fail during flight. Such failure could lead to loss of control of the airplane.

Has FAA taken any action to this point? We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all Univair Models Alon A-2 and A2-A; ERCO 415-C, 415-CD, 415-D, 415-E, and 415-G; Forney F-1 and F-1A; and Mooney M10 airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on April 3, 2002 (67 FR 15763). The NPRM proposed to require the following:

Was the public invited to comment? The FAA encouraged interested persons to participate in the making of this amendment. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and FAA's response to each comment:

What is the commenter's concern? Several commenters state that the two methods specified in the NPRM are an economic burden, impact the aesthetic and structural appearance of the airplane, and/or reduce the structural integrity of the wings. Several of the commenters state that the cost of the scope and light source necessary to perform the inspection is much more expensive than that stated in the NPRM, and that installing inspection openings in the wings will reduce the structural integrity of the wings.

The commenters request to have a third method added to the AD that allows for removing the outer wing panels from the airplane to accomplish the inspections. The commenters also state that this method is less of an economic burden and feel it is more effective than the two methods proposed in the NPRM.

What is FAA's response to the concern? We concur that a third inspection method option should be added to the AD.

The manufacturer has revised the service bulletin to incorporate this additional method, and we will incorporate the new service bulletin into the final rule AD action.

We also have verified that the Olympus OSF Endoscope (sigmoidoscope) with a Fujinon FIL-150 light source, as specified in Note 1 of the NPRM, is available for the cost stated in the NPRM.

We will change the final rule AD action to incorporate Revision 1 of Univair Service Bulletin 31.

What is the commenter's concern? Several commenters state that the majority of the airplanes affected by this AD are over 40 years old with no history of corrosion problems in the wing center section. Therefore, once the initial inspection has been performed and no corrosion is found, the commenters do not believe that corrosion would become an unsafe condition within the next 12 months or 100 hours time-in-service (TIS). The commenters suggest that a 3 year or a 5 year repetitive interval will be more than adequate.

What is FAA's response to the concern? We agree with the commenters. The initial inspection compliance time will remain the same; however, we will change the repetitive inspection intervals to be every 3 years.

We will change the final rule AD action to incorporate this change.

What is the commenter's concern? Several commenters state that Univair was unable to provide them with a copy of the service bulletin referenced in the NPRM. Therefore, the commenters were unable to provide comments related to the actions required by the service bulletin as stated in the NPRM. We infer that the commenters want the NPRM withdrawn because they could not obtain the service bulletin.

What is FAA's response to the concern? We do not concur. We understand the concerns of the commenters. However, we cannot require accomplishment of any action in accordance with a supplemental document, i.e. , manufacturer's service bulletin, unless we have an approved original copy submitted to FAA from the manufacturer. The service bulletin referenced in the NPRM is an official part of the rules docket and was available during the comment period at the offices specified in the ADDRESSES paragraph in the NPRM.

We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.

What is the commenter's concern? The commenter states that the Mooney rear spar can be readily inspected after the seats and baggage compartment floor are removed. This makes it is unnecessary to install inspection holes in the skin on this airplane. The commenter wants Mooney Model M10 airplanes removed from the applicability section of the final rule AD action.

What is FAA's response to the concern? We do not concur. Corrosion or corrosion damage can occur on the Mooney Model M10 airplanes, and owners/operators of the affected airplanes have two other methods to use for accomplishing the inspection requirements of this AD without installing inspection holes.

We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.

What is the commenter's concern? Several commenters state that, as long as the airplane has been properly maintained (using existing procedures) and properly stored, there should not be a problem with corrosion build-up in the wing center section. Also, the commenters state that the NPRM was issued based on an isolated case of corrosion being found on an airplane that was improperly maintained and stored. The commenters don't believe there is enough evidence to warrant AD action against the entire fleet. Therefore, the commenters recommend that FAA withdraw the NPRM.

What is FAA's response to the concern? We do not concur that the NPRM should be withdrawn. We have 27 documented cases, from 1974 to the present, of corrosion found throughout the wing components and other parts of the airframe. Our analysis indicates that normal maintenance procedures and methods do not allow for the detection of corrosion in the wing center section of the affected airplanes.

We are not changing the final rule AD based on these comments.

What is FAA's final determination on this issue? After careful review of all available information related to the subject presented above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for the addition of another method to be used for accomplishing the inspection, changing the compliance time for the repetitive inspection intervals, and minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these changes and minor corrections:

How many airplanes does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD affects 2,600 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of the affect airplanes? We estimate the following costs to accomplish the installation of the inspection openings:

We estimate the following costs to accomplish the inspection using a scope and light source:

We estimate the following costs to accomplish the inspection by removing the outer wing panel:

The FAA has no method of determining the number of repetitive inspections each owner/operator will incur over the life of each of the affected airplanes so the cost impact is based on the initial inspection.

The FAA has no method of determining the number of repairs or replacements each owner/operator will incur over the life of each of the affected airplanes based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need such repair. The extent of damage may vary on each airplane.

What would be the compliance time of this AD? The compliance time of this AD is “within the next 12 calendar months after the effective date of this AD and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3 years.”

Why is the compliance time presented in calendar time instead of hours time-in-service (TIS)? The unsafe condition specified by this AD is caused by corrosion. Corrosion can occur regardless of whether the airplane is in operation or is in storage. Therefore, to assure that the unsafe condition specified in this AD does not go undetected for a long period of time, the compliance is presented in calendar time instead of hours TIS.

Does this AD impact various entities? 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.

Does this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? 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 copy of the final evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the following steps:

(1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search) .

(2) On the search page type in the last five digits (13744) of the Docket number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on “search.”

(3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information for the Docket you selected, click on the document number of the item you wish to view. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the Office of Rulemaking's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm or the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.

You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number of this rulemaking.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. Therefore, any entity that has a question regarding this document may contact a local FAA office, or the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . You can find out more about SBREFA on the Internet at our Web page, www.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm. If you have questions, send us an e-mail at 9-AWA-SBREFA@faa.gov.

Part 61 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 61) details the certification requirements for pilots and flight instructors. Particular requirements for pilots and flight instructors in rotorcraft are found in Subparts C through G, and Appendix B of part 61. These requirements do not address any specific type or model of rotorcraft. However, in 1995 the Federal Aviation Administration (referred to as “we”) determined that specific training and experience requirements are necessary for the safe operation of Robinson R-22 and R-44 model helicopters.

The R-22 is a 2-seat, reciprocating engine powered helicopter that is frequently used as a low-cost initial student training aircraft. The R-44 is a 4-seat helicopter with operating characteristics and design features that are similar to the R-22. The R-22 is the smallest helicopter in its class and incorporates a unique cyclic control and rotor system. Certain aerodynamic and design features of the aircraft cause specific flight characteristics that require particular pilot awareness and responsiveness.

We found that the R-22 met 14 CFR part 27 certification requirements and issued a type certificate in 1979. The small size and relatively low operating costs of this helicopter made it popular as a training or small utility aircraft. Thus, a significant number of the pilots operating R-22 helicopters were relatively inexperienced. Prior to issuance of SFAR 73, the Robinson R-22 experienced a higher number of fatal accidents due to main rotor/airframe contact than other piston-powered helicopters. Many of these accidents were caused by low rotor revolutions per minute (RPM) or low “G” conditions that resulted in mast bumping or main rotor-airframe contact accidents. Aviation safety authorities attributed this to pilot error by inexperienced pilots.

In our analysis of accident data, we found that apparently qualified pilots may not be properly prepared to safely operate the R-22 and R-44 helicopters in certain flight conditions. We determined that additional pilot training, originally established by SFAR 73, as modified in SFAR 73-1, continues to be needed for the safe operation of these helicopters.

To address the safety issues, on March 1, 1995, we published SFAR 73 (60 FR 11256). This SFAR required certain experience and training to perform pilot-in-command (PIC) and/or certified flight instructor (CFI) duties. SFAR 73 was issued on an emergency basis, with an expiration date of December 31, 1997. On November 21, 1997 (62 FR 62486), we published an NPRM to extend SFAR 73 to December 31, 2002, with a minor amendment. The final rule extending SFAR 73 to December 31, 2002 was published on January 7, 1998 (63 FR 660). On November 14, 2002, we published an NPRM proposing to extend SFAR 73 an additional 5 years to December 31, 2007 (67 FR 69106). This final rule responds to the comments received on the most recent NPRM and extends SFAR 73 to March 31, 2008.

We received six comments in response to the NPRM that was published in the Federal Register on November 14, 2002. Two of the comments were from the Robinson Helicopter Company. The other four comments were from three individuals. Several of the commenters addressed similar issues. Our response to the comments follows.

Mr. Frank Robinson, President of the Robinson Helicopter Company; Mr. Sherwood A. Bresler, Chief Accident Investigator for the Robinson Helicopter Company; Mr. Timothy C. Tucker, an FAA Designated Pilot Examiner for helicopters; and Mr. Martin E. Weaver requested the FAA to remove the R44 helicopter from SFAR 73. The principal arguments in favor of removing the R44 helicopter are:

• The Robinson Helicopter Company has made significant changes to the R44 helicopter since 1995 that reduce its vulnerability to low-G mast bumping and low-RPM rotor stall.

• The flight and handling characteristics of the R44 are closer to the Bell 206 Jetranger helicopter than the smaller R22.

• The FAA revised the Helicopter Practical Test Standards for private, commercial and flight instructor certificates to include “Low RPM Recovery” and “Low G” conditions.

Response: Since the issuance of SFAR 73, there has been a drop in the accident rate of Robinson helicopters associated with low “G” maneuvers (low rotor RPM) resulting in main rotor/tailboom contact. Between the publication of SFAR 73 in 1995 and the first extension of the SFAR in 1997 no accidents occurred in the R-22 or R-44 that were related to low rotor RPM and tailboom/main rotor contact. There have been two accidents since the first extension in 1997. Design changes in the R-44 have improved the aircraft performance and handling characteristics of recently manufactured R-44 helicopters but these changes were not applied to older R-44s. The Robinson R-44 helicopter is generally of the same design as the R-22, and although larger uses a teetering rotor system with a high mounted tail rotor. These design characteristics make the rotorcraft susceptible to mast bumping and fuselage rolling tendencies under low-G conditions. Since the design characteristics of the R-44 are similar to the R-22, we believe that SFAR 73 should apply to both models. We further believe that SFAR 73 has been effective in improving the safe operation of these helicopters. SFAR 73 will continue to apply to the R-22 and the R-44.

Mr. Martin E. Weaver asked us to change the wording in Section 2, paragraph (a)(1) from “* * * no person may manipulate the controls of a Robinson * * *” to “* * * no person may solo or perform duties as pilot-in-command of a Robinson * * *” and paragraph (a)(2) from “* * * may not manipulate the controls of a Robinson * * *” to “ * * * may not solo or perform duties as pilot-in-command of a Robinson * * *”. Mr. Weaver states that the current rule does not consider the effectiveness of providing the special training to someone with no experience in helicopters. He believes it would be better to wait until the student pilot has some flight experience with helicopter flight controls and basic understanding of aerodynamic principles before learning the specific limitations established in SFAR 73.

Response: We reviewed this issue after the initial release of SFAR 73 and found that continuous awareness training was preferable to changing the fundamental requirement of the rule. Flight instructors who routinely provide initial flight training in the R-22 begin discussing mast bumping preventive procedures and hazards of low-G maneuvers early in the training program. Qualified instructors have found that continuing education throughout the training program reinforces the precautions that need to be learned. Early training on these skills and knowledge can begin on a very basic level and increase in detail and difficulty as the student develops the appropriate knowledge, skill, and experience. We will therefore continue to require continuous awareness training on mast bumping preventive procedures and hazards of low-G maneuvers.

Mr. Weaver believes that extending the flight review required by paragraphs 2(b)(1)(ii) and 2(b)(2)(ii) of the SFAR to 24 months would not increase the accident rate.

Response: We believe requiring an annual flight review improves the safe operation of these helicopters. The requirements for the flight review in the R-22 helicopter were established by the R-22 Flight Standardization Board (FSB) Report dated February 15, 1995. This report states in paragraph 8.2, “All pilots who wish to act as pilot in command of a Robinson R-22 aircraft should complete a flight review as required by FAR part 61.56 in a Robinson R-22 model helicopter.” We believe that an annual review of the areas addressed by SFAR 73 is necessary.

Mr. Martin Thysell believes that 200 hours of helicopter experience required by paragraph 2(b)(1)(i) of the SFAR may not be required if a substantial part of the flying has been in the Robinson R-22. He recommends changing the language that states “* * * has had at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-22 * * *” to “ * * * has had at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-22 or at least 150 hours in helicopters, at least 100 flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-22 * * *”

Response: The recommended change, if adopted, would reduce the total number of required flight hours for a qualified R-22 flight instructor from 200 flight hours to 150 flight hours if 100 hours were acquired in a Robinson R-22. The commenter does not state any safety benefit that would result from the proposed change. We believe a clear relationship exists between pilot inexperience in helicopters and main rotor to airframe contact accidents. In 23 of the 30 fatal accidents originally investigated that led to the implementation of SFAR 73, the pilots apparently manipulating the controls had less than 200 flight hours in helicopters. We have determined that 200 flight hours are needed for the safe operation of either helicopter.

Mr. Sherwood A. Bresler of the Robinson Helicopter Company believes that 2 years is sufficient time to permanently address regulations and policies about helicopter pilot and flight instructor training and experience requirements.

Response: We are working on regulations and policies to govern pilot and certified flight instructor training and experience, based on experience gained from SFAR 73. We intend to implement these in 2007 or before. Considering the time needed to complete the public rulemaking process, other agency priorities and available resources, we believe the 5-year extension to coincide with new rules is appropriate. Also, we are adding 3 months so the expiration of the SFAR does not coincide with the end of the year.

Mr. Bresler believes we should harmonize our rules with international standards that do not allow fixed wing time in meeting requirements for helicopter ratings. He believes this change would eliminate the need for SFAR 73.

Response: Mr. Bresler's suggestion would require a substantial change to FAA qualification standards for all helicopter training. Such a suggestion is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. As discussed above, we are working on a separate project dealing with the regulations and policies governing pilot and certified flight instructor training and experience. We will evaluate Mr. Bresler's comment in that project.

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that a Federal agency may propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation).

In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this final rule: (1) Will generate benefits that exceed costs, is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (2) will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (3) will not constitute a barrier to international trade; and does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector.

This final rule will extend the requirements of SFAR 73-1, which will expire on December 31, 2002, for an additional 5 years. It will impose costs on those receiving instruction in Robinson model R-22 and R-44 helicopters. Affected individuals will be required to receive additional model-specific training and experience for each model of Robinson helicopter before they can be certificated. The individuals affected include flight instructors and students seeking to be certified to operate Robinson model helicopters. These individuals can avoid the costs of this final rule by receiving their instruction in a helicopter other than a Robinson model. However, they will not be certificated for Robinson model helicopters.

Regarding benefits, this final rule will continue the observed reduction in the number of fatal accidents that occur in Robinson helicopters associated with low “G” maneuvers that can result in main rotor contact with the airframe. Prior to the issuance of SFAR 73 there were 15 accidents and 24 fatalities due to main rotor contact with the airframe. Since the SFAR was issued in 1995, however, there have been only two accidents and only one fatality involving R-22 or R-44 aircraft associated with low “G” operations and main rotor contact with the airframe.

Even though two accidents involving low “G” operations have occurred since SFAR 73 was extended in 1997, we find that the potential safety benefits still exceed costs and justify the adoption of this final rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.

However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

This final rule will require students and rated pilots seeking to conduct student instructions or flight reviews in a Robinson helicopter to incur added costs. Thus, the requirements of the SFAR impact individuals rather than entities. For these reasons, the FAA certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small operators.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

The final rule imposes costs on those receiving instruction on Robinson helicopters. These costs have been in effect for almost 7 years and apparently have not affected sales of the aircraft. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of the final rule and determined that it will have a neutral impact on foreign trade and, therefore, create no obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.”

This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of Title II do not apply.

This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the Federal government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12866, it is determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that this final rule does not conflict with any international agreement of the United States.

The OMB control number assigned to the collection of information for this final rule is 2120-0021.

For the reasons previously discussed in the preamble, the FAA has determined that this SFAR is not significant under Executive Order 12866. Based on the findings in the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA certifies that this final rule 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. This SFAR is not considered significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).

In response to the June 1, 1998 Presidential Memorandum regarding the use of plain language, the FAA re-examined the writing style currently used in the development of regulations. The memorandum requires federal agencies to communicate clearly with the public. We are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document is clear, and in any other suggestions you might have to improve the clarity of FAA communications that affect you. You can get more information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain language initiative at http:www.plainlanguage.gov.

On September 27, 2002, a proposal to revise part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise Class E airspace at Point Hope, AK, was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 61046-61047). The proposal was necessary because two new SIAPs have been developed to the Point Hope Airport and current Class E airspace is not sufficient to contain the new SIAPs. The new SIAPs are the Area Navigation (Global Positioning System) (RNAV/GPS) Runway 1 and the RNAV (GPS) Runway 19 approaches. This action will extend Class E airspace, upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, to contain the new SIAPs. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No public comments have been received, thus, the rule is adopted as written.

The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points , dated August 30, 2002, and effective September 16, 2002, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be revised subsequently in the Order.

This revision to 14 CFR part 71 adds additional Class E airspace upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Point Hope, Alaska. Additional Class E airspace is being created to contain aircraft executing two new SIAPs and will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The intended effect of this rule is to provide adequate controlled airspace for IFR operations at Point Hope Airport, Point Hope, Alaska.

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

On October 7, 2002, a proposal to revise part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to add Class E airspace at Wasilla, AK, was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 62410-62412) on October 7, 2002. The FAA has developed a new Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) for the Wasilla Airport. The approach is designated Area Navigation (Goblal Positioning System) (RNAV GPS) Runway 3, original. The new Class E airspace is necessary to contain aircraft executing the RNAV (GPS) Runway 3 approach within controlled airspace. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No public comments have been received, thus, the rule is adopted as written.

The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 30, 2002, and effective September 16, 2002, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be added to the Order.

This revision to 14 CFR part 71 establishes new Class E airspace upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wasilla, Alaska. Additional Class E airspace is established to contain aircraft executing a new SIAP and will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The intended effect of this rule is to provide adequate controlled airspace for IFR operations at Wasilla Airport, Wasilla, Alaska.

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

On May 16, 2002, the Commission issued Order No. 626, a Final Rule that provided for electronic filing of FERC Form No. 1 and the elimination of certain designated schedules in FERC Form Nos. 1 and 1-F. 1 In this correction, the Commission is correcting its Final Rule and identifying what designated lines and schedules in Form No. 1-F (Form 1-F), principally in the Comparative Balance Sheet and the Statement of Income for the Year, should be retained or eliminated.

The following schedules or parts of schedules are eliminated from Form 1-F:

• Data on Security Holders and Voting Powers (Part X, P. 18). (Nonmajor utilities should continue to report Data on Officers and Directors (Part XI, P. 18), however.)

• Number of Electric Department Employees (P. 323).

The Commission corrects the Final Rule by not eliminating the following from the Form 1-F: Nonutility Property (121, P. 110); Capital Stock Subscribed, Capital Stock Liability for Conversion, Premium on Capital Stock, and Installments Received on Capital Stock (252, P. 112); Discount on Capital Stock (254, P. 112); Particulars Concerning Certain Income Deduction and Interest Charges (340, P. 117); Electric Distribution Meters and Line Transformers (429, lines 63 & 65, P. 206); and Allowance for Borrowed Funds Used During Construction in Construction Overheads—Electric (217, P. 8). These line items contain accounts reflected in the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts that are needed to provide an accurate and complete reporting of a utility's accounting for transactions and events, and to provide relevant non-financial information related to its operations.

The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections revised the incorporated-by-reference API document RP 14C, for Analysis, Design, Installation and Testing of Basic Surface Safety Systems for Offshore Production Platforms, to incorporate the new Seventh Edition of API RP 14C. MMS determined that:

• Incorporating into regulations the Seventh Edition that specifies a reduced testing frequency will not jeopardize the use of the best and safest technologies.

• The changes between the old and new editions represent new industry standard technology and will not impose undue cost on the offshore oil and gas industry.

• The changes to our regulations will eliminate the need for industry to request certain departures from the regulations.

Based on the determinations, the final rulemaking incorporated the new Seventh Edition of API RP 14C. The final rule also made corresponding revisions to the appropriate regulatory sections that reference API RP 14C.

The 30 CFR part 250 regulations incorporate many industry standards. Section 250.198 describes our documents incorporated by reference policy and procedures, and meets the Federal Register (FR) legal requirements for incorporating documents by reference. Section 250.198 also provides a complete list of all incorporated documents and the corresponding regulatory cites.

The legal department of the FR reviews all Final Rulemaking actions when they incorporate documents by reference into agencies' regulations. Upon review of the final rule that is the subject of this correction, the FR legal department advised us that whenever our regulations cite a document incorporated by reference, the regulation must refer readers to § 250.198. The FR specified that the statement “incorporated by reference as specified in § 250.198” be inserted following the cited document. The FR allowed that we could revise our regulations to incorporate this insertion as part of final rulemaking actions that affect specific documents incorporated by reference. In this case, a final rulemaking action affected API 14C.

On page 51760 of the FR publication of the final rule, “instruction number 5.C” redesignated the previously designated §§ 250.804(a)(4) through (a)(11) to §§ 250.804 (a)(5) through (a)(12). To accommodate the FR requirements previously discussed, the subsequent instruction number 5.E specified that the second sentence in the newly redesignated paragraph (a)(5) be revised. This instruction contained a typographical error in that the revision should have been made to the newly redesignated paragraph (a)(6) instead. Consequently the redesignated paragraph (a)(5) was incorrectly revised and the redesignated paragraph (a)(6) did not contain the FR required reference to § 250.198.

On page 51759 of the FR publication of the final rule, the revision to the table in § 250.198(e) also incorrectly cited § 250.804(a)(5) instead of (a)(6).

Regulatory History

See 66 FR 33034 (June 20, 2001).

See 67 FR 35766 (May 21, 2002).

See 67 FR 67552 (November 6, 2002).

On October 21, 2002, the Commission issued order no. 1349 amending its rules of practice. This order made submitting documents via the Internet using the Commission's Filing Online system the standard method for filing documents in Commission proceedings. The effective date of the new filing system is January 7, 2003.

Under this new filing system, each person intending to participate in Commission proceedings is required to set up a Filing Online account prior to using the Filing Online system to file documents. In order to become an account holder in the Filing Online system, a person must complete, sign, and mail to the Secretary, a hardcopy application. This process requires a modest amount of effort by the applicant, and involves a modest amount of delay. The effort and delay is necessary to effectively link documents with those that file them, to allow principal, agent, and client relationships to be tracked in an orderly way, to ensure that documents are authorized and authentic, and to provide adequate security for the system.

Obtaining a permanent Filing Online account requires the applicant to undertake a number of commitments, and usually takes several days. In addition to providing identifying and contact information, the applicant must request status as a principal account holder or an agent account holder. A person applying to become a principal account holder must assume a contractual duty to ensure that each document that he or she files online is authentic, accurate, and authorized by the participant that the account holder purports to represent. A principal account holder is obligated to notify the Commission when there are changes in his or her authority to file documents on behalf of another participant.

After a person has completed and signed the account holder application, he or she must mail it to the Commission. When the Commission accepts the application, it e-mails the applicant his or her user name and a temporary password. Both are required to log in to Filing Online. After logging in, the account holder selects a permanent password. Several days may elapse between the time that a person applies to become an account holder and the receipt of his permanent password.

The Commission recognizes that this amount of effort and delay might not be necessary or appropriate for certain categories of documents that are filed with the Commission. It has decided to allow such documents to be filed under temporary Filing Online accounts which people may obtain through a simplified and expedited procedure.

The Commission has added rule 9(e) to its rules of practice [39 CFR 3001.9(e)]. This rule allows two categories of documents to be filed under temporary Filing Online accounts. The first category is notices of intervention. A notice of intervention is typically the first document submitted by a participant in a formal hearing. The Commission is aware that those who have not applied for permanent Filing Online accounts might assume that they will be able to apply for a permanent account, gain access to Filing Online, and file a notice of intervention all on the day that notices of intervention are due. First-time participants in a Commission hearing and first-time users of Filing Online may not realize that it could take several days for their signed, hardcopy application for a permanent Filing Online account to be delivered to the Secretary and processed. If they are not aware of this requirement, they risk missing the deadline for filing their notice of intervention. In order to reduce this risk, the Commission has designated notices of intervention as a category of document that a prospective participant may file under a temporary account. This dispenses with the requirement to complete and sign a hardcopy application and undertake the duties inherent in the subscription requirement. In deciding to dispense with this requirement for notices of intervention, the Commission has considered that the representations of affected interests that are provided in notices of intervention are not the kind that require the safeguards of the subscription requirement. If there were material misrepresentations of fact in a notice of intervention, the Commission is aware that such misrepresentations may be brought to its attention by others in a motion to deny intervention.

The second category of documents that may be filed under a temporary Filing Online account is comments that have been solicited by the Commission. This includes comments that the Commission solicits in informal inquiries, such as its inquiry in the Petition for Review of Unclassified Services, instituted on November 21, 2002, and comments that the Commission solicits in rulemaking proceedings. As with notices of intervention, there may be first-time users of Filing Online who wish to file comments in a rulemaking or other Commission proceeding who assume that they may apply for a permanent account, gain access to Filing Online, and file comments, all on the day that comments are due. If they are not aware that a signed, hardcopy application must be delivered to the Commission and processed before they become permanent account holders, they risk missing the deadline for comments. In order to reduce this risk, the Commission allows comments that it solicits to be filed under a temporary Filing Online account.

The Commission has not included statements of views submitted under rule 20b among the categories of documents that may be filed online under temporary accounts. Rule 20b is designed to allow the public to submit unsolicited comments on issues raised in formal record hearings that have been noticed under rule 17 of the Commission's rules of practice. Rule 20b provides an even less formal procedure for communicating with the Commission than the temporary Filing Online account provides. Statements submitted under rule 20b may be mailed or e-mailed to the Commission. The preferred method is using the form provided under the “Contact Us” link on the Commission's Web site, at http://www.prc.gov. The language of rule 20b has been revised to clarify the procedural options that are available to filers of rule 20b comments.

Under new rule 9(e), the Commission will entertain motions to allow other categories of documents to be filed under temporary Filing Online accounts under extraordinary circumstances for good cause shown.

The procedure required to obtain a temporary account is determined by the Secretary. Currently, an applicant for a temporary account may submit a form online that contains the applicant's identity and contact information, and the identity of the participant on whose behalf the document is submitted. After providing this information, the applicant for a temporary account will choose a User Name and a password that will allow him or her to log in to Filing Online and file a document of the type that the Commission has designated. This will establish the temporary account. The applicant need not mail a signed hardcopy form to the Secretary. The applicant will not be asked to undertake the obligations that accompany the subscription requirement, or to request status as a principal account holder or an agent account holder. The user name and password that the applicant selects will be valid for a limited time that the Commission determines. Currently a temporary account is valid for ten days. Since a temporary account cannot be renewed, a temporary account holder who wishes to file a series of documents in a proceeding will need to obtain a permanent Filing Online account. Because the revisions made in this order to rules 9 and 20b of the Commission's rules of practice simplify the procedures for filing some documents with the Commission, they are presumed not to be prejudicial to the interests of any prospective participant in Commission proceedings. For this reason, the Commission considers it appropriate to make these revisions without first issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. These revisions to rules 9 and 20b of the Commission rules of practice will take effect on January 7, 2003, concurrently with the implementation of the rules governing Filing Online adopted in order no. 1349.

It is ordered:

1. The addition of § 3001.9(e) and the revision of § 3001.20b of the Commission's rules of practice, as set forth below, shall take effect on January 7, 2003.

2. The Secretary shall cause this to be published in the Federal Register .

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Order, the Commission adopts the following amendments to 39 CFR part 3001.

Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA requires states to submit plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing solid waste combustor facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established under section 111(b) for new sources of the same type, and EPA has established emission guidelines (EG) for such existing sources. A designated pollutant is any pollutant for which no air quality criteria have been issued, and which is not included on a list published under section 108(a) or section 112(b)(1)(A) of the CAA, but emissions of which are subject to a standard of performance for new stationary sources. However, section 129 of the CAA, also requires EPA to promulgate EG for CISWI units that emit a mixture of air pollutants. These pollutants include organics (dioxins/furans), carbon monoxide, metals (cadmium, lead, mercury), acid gases (hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides) and particulate matter (including opacity).

On December 1, 2000 (65 FR 75338), EPA promulgated CISWI unit new source performance standards and EG, 40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD, respectively.

The designated facility to which the EG apply is each existing CISWI unit, as defined in subpart DDDD, that commenced construction on or before November 30, 1999.

Subpart B of 40 CFR part 60 establishes procedures to be followed and requirements to be met in the development and submission of state plans for controlling designated pollutants. Also, 40 CFR part 62 provides the procedural framework for the submission of these plans. When designated facilities are located in a state, the state must then develop and submit a plan for the control of the designated pollutant. However, 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06 provide that if there are no existing sources of the designated pollutant in the state, the state may submit a letter of certification to that effect ( i.e. , negative declaration) in lieu of a plan. The negative declaration exempts the state from the requirements of subpart B that require the submittal of a 111(d)/129 plan.

The District of Columbia, the State of Delaware, and the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania have determined that there are no designated facilities, subject to the CISWI unit EG requirements, in their respective air pollution control jurisdiction. Accordingly, each air pollution control agency has submitted to EPA a negative declaration letter certifying this fact. The submittal dates of these letters are November 27, November 16, and February 9, 2001, respectively.

Therefore, EPA is amending part 62 to reflect the receipt of these negative declaration letters from the noted air pollution control agencies. Amendments are being made to 40 CFR part 62, subparts J (District of Columbia), I (Delaware), and NN (Pennsylvania). With respect to subpart NN, this action is only applicable to the City of Philadelphia air pollution control agency's jurisdiction; it does not include the remaining geographical areas of Pennsylvania.

After publication of this Federal Register notice, if a CISWI facility is later found within either one of the three noted jurisdictions, then the overlooked facility will become subject to the requirements of the Federal CISWI 111(d)/129 plan, including the compliance schedule, when promulgated. The Federal plan would no longer apply if EPA subsequently receives and approves a 111(d)/129 plan from the jurisdiction with the overlooked CISWI facility.

EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. This action simply reflects already existing Federal requirement for state air pollution control agencies under 40 CFR parts 60 and 62. In the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve each negative declaration should relevant adverse or critical comments be filed.

This rule will be effective March 3, 2003 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by February 3, 2003. If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule did not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a 111(d)/129 plan submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a 111(d)/129 plan submission, to use VCS in place of a 111(d)/129 plan submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 3, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

This action approving the section 111(d)/129 negative declarations submitted by the District of Columbia, the State of Delaware, and the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA requires states to submit plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing solid waste combustor facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established under section 111(b) for new sources of the same type, and EPA has established emission guidelines (EG) for such existing sources. A designated pollutant is any pollutant for which no air quality criteria have been issued, and which is not included on a list published under section 108(a) or section 112(b)(1)(A) of the CAA, but emissions of which are subject to a standard of performance for new stationary sources. However, section 129 of the CAA, also requires EPA to promulgate EG for small MWC units that emit a mixture of air pollutants. These pollutants include organics (dioxins/furans), carbon monoxide, metals (cadmium, lead, mercury), acid gases (hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides) and particulate matter (including opacity).

On December 6, 2000 (65 FR 76350, and 76378), EPA promulgated small municipal waste combustion unit new source performance standards, 40 CFR part 60, subparts AAAA, and emission guidelines (EG), subpart BBBB, respectively.

The designated facility to which the EG apply is each existing small MWC unit that has a design combustion capacity of 35 to 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste (MSW) and commenced construction on or before August 30, 1999.

Subpart B of 40 CFR part 60 establishes procedures to be followed and requirements to be met in the development and submission of state plans for controlling designated pollutants. Also, 40 CFR part 62 provides the procedural framework for the submission of these plans. When designated facilities are located in a state, the state must then develop and submit a plan for the control of the designated pollutant. However, 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06 provide that if there are no existing sources of the designated pollutant in the state, the state may submit a letter of certification to that effect ( i.e. , negative declaration) in lieu of a plan. The negative declaration exempts the state from the requirements of subpart B that require the submittal of a 111(d)/129 plan.

The District of Columbia, the State of Delaware, Allegheny County and the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania have determined that there are no designated facilities, subject to the small MWC unit EG requirements, in their respective air pollution control jurisdiction. Accordingly, each air pollution control agency has submitted to EPA a negative declaration letter certifying this fact.

The submittal dates of these letters are November 27, November 16, November 21, and February 9, 2001, respectively.

Therefore, EPA is amending part 62 to reflect the receipt of these negative declaration letters from the noted air pollution control agencies. Amendments are being made to 40 CFR part 62, subparts J (District of Columbia), I (Delaware), and NN (Pennsylvania). With respect to subpart NN, this action is only applicable to Allegheny County and the City of Philadelphia air pollution control agency jurisdictions, and does not include the remaining geographical areas of Pennsylvania which will be covered in the future by either a Pennsylvania or Federal plan.

After publication of this Federal Register notice, if a small MWC facility is later found within either one of the four noted jurisdictions, then the overlooked facility will become subject to the requirements of the Federal small MWC 111(d)/129 plan, including the compliance schedule, when promulgated. The Federal plan would no longer apply if EPA subsequently receives and approves a 111(d)/129 plan from the jurisdiction with the overlooked facility.

EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. This action simply reflects already existing Federal requirement for state air pollution control agencies under 40 CFR parts 60 and 62. In the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve each negative declaration should relevant adverse or critical comments be filed.

This rule will be effective March 3, 2003 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by February 3, 2003. If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule did not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a 111(d)/129 plan submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a 111(d)/129 plan submission, to use VCS in place of a 111(d)/129 plan submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 3, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

This action approving the section 111(d)/129 negative declarations submitted by the District of Columbia, the State of Delaware, Allegheny County and the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2).)

Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA requires states to submit plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing solid waste combustor facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established under section 111(b) for new sources of the same type, and EPA has established emission guidelines (EG) for such existing sources. A designated pollutant is any pollutant for which no air quality criteria have been issued, and which is not included on a list published under section 108(a) or section 112(b)(1)(A) of the CAA, but emissions of which are subject to a standard of performance for new stationary sources. However, section 129 of the CAA, also requires EPA to promulgate EG for HMIWI units that emit a mixture of air pollutants. These pollutants include organics (dioxins/furans), carbon monoxide, metals (cadmium, lead, mercury), acid gases (hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides) and particulate matter (including opacity).

On September 15, 1997 (62 FR 48348), EPA promulgated EG, subpart Ce, that are applicable to all existing HMIWI units ( i.e. , the designated facilities). An existing HMIWI unit is one which construction commenced on or before June 20, 1996.

Subpart B of 40 CFR part 60 establishes procedures to be followed and requirements to be met in the development and submission of state plans for controlling designated pollutants. Also, 40 CFR part 62 provides the procedural framework for the submission of these plans. When designated facilities are located in a state, the state must then develop and submit a plan for the control of the designated pollutant. However, 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06 provide that if there are no existing sources of the designated pollutant in the state, the state may submit a letter of certification to that effect ( i.e. , negative declaration) in lieu of a plan. The negative declaration exempts the state from the requirements of subpart B that require the submittal of a 111(d)/129 plan.

On June 25, 1999, the District of Columbia Department of Health, Environmental Health Administration, submitted to EPA a negative declaration letter certifying that there are no known HMIWI units within its jurisdiction.

Therefore, EPA is amending part 62 to reflect the receipt of the negative declaration letter from the District of Columbia Department of Health, Environmental Health Administration. After publication of this Federal Register notice, if a HMIWI facility is later found within the District of Columbia, then the overlooked facility is subject to the Federal HMIWI 111(d)/129 plan (65 FR 49868), including the compliance schedule, promulgated on August 15, 2000. The Federal plan would no longer apply if EPA subsequently receives and approves a 111(d)/129 plan from the District of Columbia.

EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. This action simply reflects already existing Federal requirement for state air pollution control agencies under 40 CFR parts 60 and 62. In the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the negative declaration should relevant adverse or critical comments be filed.

This rule will be effective March 3, 2003 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by February 3, 2003. If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule did not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a 111(d)/129 plan submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a 111(d)/129 plan submission, to use VCS in place of a 111(d)/129 plan submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 3, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the District of Columbia Department of Health, Environmental Health Administration, negative declaration for HMIWI units may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2).)

Section 111(d) of the CAA requires states to submit plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established under section 111(b) for new sources of the same type, and EPA has established emission guidelines (EG) for such existing sources. A designated pollutant is any pollutant for which no air quality criteria have been issued, and which is not included on a list published under section 108(a) or section 112(b)(1)(A) of the CAA, but emissions of which are subject to a standard of performance for new stationary sources.

On March 12, 1996 (61 FR 9905), EPA promulgated MSW landfill new source performance standards and emission guidelines (EG). Later, EPA promulgated landfill rule amendments on June 16, 1998 (63 FR 32743), February 24, 1999 (64 FR 9258), April 10, 2000 (65 FR 18906), and proposed amendments on May 23, 2002 (67 FR 36476). The EG are applicable to existing municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills ( i.e. , the designated facilities) that emit landfill gas (LFG), which consists primarily of carbon dioxide, methane, and nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC). MSW landfills are the largest manmade source of methane emissions in the United States. The designated pollutant, NMOC, is a mixture of more than 100 different compounds, including volatile organic compounds (VOC), and hazardous pollutants (HAPs), such as vinyl chloride, toluene, and benzene. A collateral benefit in the control of NMOC is the control of methane.

The designated facility to which the EG apply is each existing MSW landfill for which construction, reconstruction or modification was commenced before May 30, 1991, and has accepted municipal solid waste at any time since November 8, 1987, or has additional design capacity available for future waste deposition. Landfill emission controls are not required, unless the designated facility has a capacity greater than or equal to 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) and 2.5 million cubic meters, and a calculated NMOC emissions rate of 50 Mg/Yr, or greater.

Subpart B of 40 CFR part 60 establishes procedures to be followed and requirements to be met in the development and submission of state plans to EPA for controlling designated pollutants. Also, 40 CFR part 62 provides the procedural framework for the submission of these plans. When designated facilities are located in a state, the state must develop and submit a plan for the control of the designated pollutant. However, 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06 provide that if there are no existing sources of the designated pollutant in the state, the state may then submit a letter of certification to that effect ( i.e. , negative declaration) in lieu of a plan. The negative declaration exempts the state from the requirements of subpart B that require the submittal of a 111(d) plan.

The District of Columbia, and the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania have determined that there are no existing designated facilities (MSW landfills), in their respective air pollution control jurisdiction. Each agency has submitted to EPA a negative declaration letter certifying this fact. The letters are dated September 11, 1997, and February 27, 1996, respectively.

Therefore, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62 to reflect the receipt of these negative declaration letters from both air pollution control agencies. Amendments are being made to 40 CFR part 62, subparts J (District of Columbia), and NN (Pennsylvania). With respect to subpart NN, this action is only applicable to the City of Philadelphia air pollution control agency's jurisdiction. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania is covered by its own EPA approved plan (64 FR 13075), while the remainder of the state is covered by a Federal plan (64 FR 60689) until such time as EPA approves the submitted state plan from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

After publication of this Federal Register document, if a designated facility is found within either one of the two noted jurisdictions, then the overlooked landfill is subject to the requirements of the Federal landfill 111(d) plan, including the compliance schedule, which was promulgated on November 8, 1999 (64 FR 60689). The Federal plan would no longer apply if EPA subsequently receives and approves a 111(d) plan from the jurisdiction with the overlooked designated landfill.

EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. This action simply reflects already existing Federal requirement for state air pollution control agencies under 40 CFR parts 60 and 62. In the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve each negative declaration should relevant adverse or critical comments be filed.

This rule will be effective March 3, 2003 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by February 3, 2002. If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule did not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a 111(d)/129 plan submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a 111(d)/129 plan submission, to use VCS in place of a 111(d)/129 plan submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 3, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the District of Columbia and City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania negative declarations for municipal solid waste landfills may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

DOE is adopting as final the Interim Final Rule published on March 28, 2002, at 67 FR 14873 amending the DEAR to implement Executive Order 12829, National Industrial Security Program (January 6, 1993), and Section 828 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, and to bring the DEAR into conformance with existing practices.

Executive Order 12829 requires a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information. The Federal agencies are adopting the National Industrial Security Program as the uniform Federal industrial security program within the limitations of their separate statutory requirements. Among the more significant features of the program is the use of a Standard Form 328, Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interests, to gather information relative to foreign ownership, control or influence. Previously, DOE used a separate questionnaire of its own with more and somewhat different questions. Now all agencies will collect the same information. This feature will result in the greatest savings for both contractors and Federal agencies because agencies will accept each others' clearances on a reciprocal basis, in most circumstances. The Final Rule makes changes to the DEAR to bring it into conformance with the new program.

The Final Rule also includes a provision (revised section 904.7102 of the DEAR) to allow the Secretary of Energy to waive a prohibition on award of a national security contract to an entity controlled by a foreign government if an environmental restoration requirement is involved. Section 2536(b)(1)(B) of title 10 U.S.C. provides waiver authority for a contract for environmental restoration, remediation, or waste management at a DOD or DOE facility. For such a contract, the prohibition on award of a contract under a national security program to an entity controlled by a foreign government that requires access to a proscribed category of information to perform the contract may be waived only if the Secretary concerned determines that: (1) A waiver will advance the environmental restoration, remediation, or waste management objectives of the cognizant Department; (2) a waiver will not harm the national security interests of the United States; and (3) the entity to which the contract is to be awarded is controlled by a foreign government with which the cognizant Secretary has authority to exchange Restricted Data under section 144.c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2164(c)).

DOE invited comments from the public, which were to be submitted on or before April 29, 2002. No comments were received. DOE has determined that no changes are needed to the Interim Final Rule and adopts the DEAR amendments as final without change.

Issuance of this Final Rule has been approved by the Office of the Secretary of Energy.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the interim final rule amending 10 CFR Parts 904, 952, and 970 which was published at 67 FR 14873 on March 28, 2002, is adopted as a final rule without change.

The operator qualification rules at 49 CFR 192.801 (for gas pipelines) and at 49 CFR 195.501 (for hazardous liquid pipelines) require every pipeline operator to have and follow a written personnel qualification program that includes provisions to identify covered tasks and to ensure that all persons performing these tasks are qualified to safely and effectively complete the tasks. By October 28, 2002, all gas and hazardous liquid pipeline operators should have completed the qualification of all individuals performing covered tasks on pipeline facilities.

On January 22, 2003, OPS will conduct a public meeting to discuss progress in implementing the operator personnel qualification rule for gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. OPS will present a detailed review of the development of the operator qualification inspection protocols.

The meeting will provide an opportunity to review compliance with the operator qualification rule, to clarify operator qualification requirements, and to hear compliance issues from Federal and State pipeline safety personnel, industry, and the public. All persons attending the meeting will have an opportunity to comment on operator qualification compliance issues and to question the expert panel on the new operator qualification compliance protocols.

In a final rule published on December 2, 1994 (59 FR 62218), FRA announced that it will set future minimum random drug and alcohol testing rates according to the rail industry's overall positive rate, which is determined using annual railroad drug and alcohol program data taken from FRA's Management Information System. Based on this data, the Administrator publishes a Federal Register notice each year, announcing the minimum random drug and alcohol testing rates for the following year ( see 49 CFR 219.602, 608).

Under this performance-based system, FRA may lower the minimum random drug testing rate to 25 percent whenever the industry-wide random drug positive rate is less than 1.0 percent for two calendar years while testing at 50 percent. (For both drugs and alcohol, FRA reserves the right to consider other factors, such as the number of positives in its post-accident testing program, before deciding whether to lower annual minimum random testing rates). FRA will return the rate to 50 percent if the industry-wide random drug positive rate is 1.0 percent or higher in any subsequent calendar year.

In 1994, FRA set the 1995 minimum random drug testing rate at 25 percent because 1992 and 1993 industry drug testing data indicated a random drug testing positive rate below 1.0 percent; since then FRA has continued to set the minimum random drug testing rate at 25 percent as the industry positive rate has consistently remained below 1.0 percent. In this notice, FRA announces that the minimum random drug testing rate will remain at 25 percent of covered railroad employees for the period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003, since the industry random drug testing positive rate for 2001 was 0.77 percent.

FRA implemented a parallel performance-based system for random alcohol testing. Under this system, if the industry-wide violation rate is less than 1.0 percent but greater than 0.5 percent, the rate will be 25 percent. FRA will raise the rate to 50 percent if the industry-wide violation rate is 1.0 percent or higher in any subsequent calendar year. FRA may lower the minimum random alcohol testing rate to 10 percent whenever the industry-wide violation rate is less than 0.5 percent for two calendar years while testing at a higher rate. Since the industry-wide violation rate for alcohol has remained below 0.5 percent for the last two years, FRA is maintaining the minimum random alcohol testing rate at 10 percent of covered railroad employees for the period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003.

This notice sets the minimum random testing rates required next year. Railroads remain free, as always, to conduct random testing at higher rates.

Regulations implementing the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) require NMFS to publish annual initial specifications for maximum optimum yield (Max OY), allowable biological catch (ABC), initial optimum yield (IOY), domestic annual harvest (DAH), domestic annual processing (DAP), JVP, and total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF) for the species managed under the FMP. In addition, regulations implemented under Framework Adjustment 1 to the FMP allow the specification of quota set-asides to be used for research purposes.

Proposed 2003 initial specifications were published on October 29, 2002 (67 FR 65934). Public comments were accepted through November 27, 2002. The final specifications are unchanged from those that were proposed. A complete discussion of the development of the specifications appears in the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here.

The following table contains the final initial specifications and research set-aside (RSA) for the 2003 MSB fisheries.

This final rule specifies an Atlantic mackerel JVP of 10,000 mt for the 2003 fishery, with a possible increase of up to 10,000 mt (for a total JVP of up to 20,000 mt) later in the fishing year, should additional applications for JVP be received. This adjustment would be made by NMFS, in consultation with the Council, through publication of notification in the Federal Register . The action also specifies an Atlantic mackerel DAP of 150,000 mt and a DAH of 175,000 mt, which includes a 15,000-mt recreational component.

Four special conditions recommended by the Council and imposed by NMFS in previous years continue to apply to the 2003 Atlantic mackerel fishery, as follows: (1) JVPs would be allowed south of 37°30′ N. lat., but river herring bycatch may not exceed 0.25 percent of the over-the-side transfers of Atlantic mackerel; (2) the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) should ensure that impacts on marine mammals are reduced in the prosecution of the Atlantic mackerel fishery; (3) the mackerel optimum yield (OY) may be increased during the year, but it should not exceed 347,000 mt; and (4) applications from a particular nation for an Atlantic mackerel JVP allocation for 2003 may be based on an evaluation by the Regional Administrator of that nation's performances relative to purchase obligations for previous years.

This final rule specifies a Loligo squid IOY of 16,898 mt, which is equal to ABC minus the RSA, and subdivides the annual quota into quarterly periods. The 2003 quarterly allocations are as follows:

In 2002, by default, quarterly underages from Quarters II and III carried over into Quarter IV, because Quarter IV does not close until 95 percent of the total annual quota has been harvested. Additionally, if the Quarter I landings for Loligo squid were less than 70 percent of the Quarter I allocation, the underage below 70 percent was to be applied to the Quarter III allocation. For 2003, the Council recommended that, in the event that the Quarter I landings for Loligo squid are less than 80 percent of the Quarter I allocation, the underage below 80 percent should be added to the Quarter III allocation. In a November 20, 2002, letter to NMFS, the Council confirmed its intent relative to the transfer of underage of Loligo squid in Quarter I to Quarter III. The Council believes the proposed rule accurately reflected the intent of the Council with regard to this issue. Therefore, this final rule modifies the allocation method such that, if the Quarter I landings of Loligo squid are less than 80 percent of the Quarter I allocation, the underage below 80 percent will be added to the Quarter III allocation.

Three commenters commented on a total of two issues in the proposed specifications.

Comment 1: Three commenters expressed support for the proposed zero allocation of Atlantic mackerel TALFF.

Response 1 : This final rule implements the proposed zero allocation of Atlantic mackerel TALFF.

Comment 2: Two commenters opposed the proposed Atlantic mackerel JVP specification of 10,000 mt because they believe shore-based processors would be negatively affected by foreign joint ventures that would compete with the U.S. domestic mackerel harvest.

Response 2 : The Council relied on testimony presented by domestic processors during its May 2, 2002, meeting concerning their current and projected shoreside processing capacity for Atlantic mackerel in 2003. While domestic processing capacity is increasing, the Council believes, based on the best data available, that the capacity of the domestic fleet to harvest mackerel still exceeds the domestic processors' capacity to process mackerel. As a result, the Council recommended, and NMFS is implementing, the 10,000-mt JVP allocation to provide additional opportunity for U.S. vessels to sell mackerel.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E. O. 12866.

NMFS prepared a FRFA for this action. The FRFA includes a summary of the analyses done in support of these specifications. A copy of the FRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). A summary of the FRFA follows:

The reasons why this action is being taken by the agency, and the objectives of this final rule are explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and are not repeated here. This action does not contain any collection-of-information, reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. This action is taken under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and regulations at 50 CFR part 648.

Three comments were submitted on the proposed rule, but none of them were specific to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. However, two individuals commented on the economic impacts of the measures on the fishing industry; NMFS has responded to those comments (Comment 2) in the Comments and Responses section of the preamble to this final rule. No changes were made to the final rule as a result of the comments received.

The numbers of potential fishing vessels in the 2003 fisheries are 384 for Loligo squid/butterfish, 73 for Illex squid, 2,242 for Atlantic mackerel, and 1,828 vessels with incidental catch permits for squid/butterfish. All of the vessels are considered small entities. Many vessels participate in more than one of these fisheries; therefore, the numbers are not additive. The final DAH specifications of 175,000 mt for Atlantic mackerel, 24,000 mt for Illex squid, and 5,900 mt for butterfish represent no constraint on vessels in these fisheries. The level of landings allowed under the final specifications for 2003 has not been achieved by vessels in these fisheries in recent years. Absent such a constraint, no impacts on revenues are expected as a result of the final action.

From 1997-2001, Loligo squid landings averaged 16,771 mt annually. If the 2003 final DAH specification of 16,872.5 mt for Loligo squid is achieved, there would be an increase in catch and revenue in the Loligo squid fishery relative to the average landings from 1997-2001. One alternative would have set ABC, DAH, DAP, and IOY at 18,300 mt. Under this alternative, the quota would be specified at a level that is 1,300 mt higher than is specified by the overfishing definition control rule in the FMP. Since the stock would not be protected from overfishing under this alternative, some negative economic and social impacts could be expected from this alternative in the long term, if the stock did become overfished. The vessel owners, crews, dealers, processors and fishing communities associated with these ports would be expected to be affected the most by this alternative when compared to the final 2003 annual specifications for Loligo . This action also modifies the provision for carrying over Quarter I Loligo squid underages. Under the new measure, Loligo squid Quarter I underages less than 80 percent of the Quarter I allocation would be applied to Quarter III. Currently, all underages from Quarter I less than 70 percent are applied to the Quarter III allocation. By making the increased underage available during Quarter III, Loligo squid permit holders could continue to fish during a time when that quarter may have otherwise been closed. This could provide an added economic benefit to fishers during Quarter III. However, because this provision would only shift a limited amount of quota from one period to another, and does not modify the Loligo squid annual quota, no overall change in revenue is expected.

One alternative considered for the Atlantic mackerel fishery was to set the 2003 specifications at the same level as 2002 (ABC = 347,00 mt, IOY = 85,000 mt, DAH = 85,000 mt, DAP = 50,000 mt, JVP = 20,000 mt and TALFF = 0 mt). This alternative would have increased JVP by 10,000 mt and decreased DAP by 100,000 mt. This alternative was rejected because of concerns associated with the potential for rapid expansion of the shoreside processing sector of this industry in 2003. If rapid expansion of the processing sector did occur early in 2003, and landings exceeded 85,000 mt, an inseason adjustment to IOY would be necessary. However, the majority of mackerel landings occur from January through March, and it is unlikely that an inseason adjustment could be made in time for quota to be available to the industry for that period. The result would be the unnecessary closure of the fishery that could result in negative economic and/or social impacts to the U.S. mackerel industry. Some or all of the vessel owners, crews, dealers, processors or fishing communities associated with the Atlantic mackerel fishery could be adversely affected by maintaining the 2002 annual specifications for Atlantic mackerel in 2003.

For Illex squid, one alternative considered would have set Max OY, ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP at 30,000 mt. This specification would be far in excess of recent landings in this fishery. Therefore, there would be no constraints and, thus, no revenue reductions, associated with these specifications. However, the alternative was found unacceptable because an ABC specification of 30,000 mt may not prevent overfishing in years of moderate to low abundance of Illex squid.

For butterfish, the Council considered two alternatives; the first set a Max OY of 16,000 mt and an ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP of 7,200 mt, and the second set a Max OY of 16,000 mt and a ABC, IOY, DAH, and DAP at 10,000 mt. These specifications far exceed recent harvests in the butterfish fishery and would not constrain or impact the industry; however, they could lead to overfishing of the stock and, thus, were rejected.

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as the small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available from the Northeast Regional Office, and the guide, i.e., permit holder letter, will be sent to all holders of permits issued for the mackerel, squid, and butterfish fisheries. The guide and this final rule will be available upon request (see ADDRESSES ).

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries are managed cooperatively by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), in consultation with the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The management units specified in the FMP include summer flounder ( Paralichthys dentatus ) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from the southern border of North Carolina northward to the U.S./Canada border, and scup ( Stenotomus chrysops ) and black sea bass ( Centropristis striata ) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from 35°13.3′ N. lat. (the latitude of Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, Buxton, NC) northward to the U.S./Canada border. Implementing regulations for these fisheries are found at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A, G (summer flounder), H (scup), and I (black sea bass).

Pursuant to §§ 648.100 (summer flounder), 648.120 (scup), and 648.140 (black sea bass), the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) implements measures for the fishing year intended to achieve the annual targets set forth for each species in the FMP, specified either as a fishing mortality rate (F) or as an exploitation rate (the proportion of fish available at the beginning of the year that are removed by fishing during the year). Once the catch limits are established, they are divided into quotas based on formulas contained in the FMP. The management measures ( e.g. , commercial quotas, recreational harvest limits, minimum mesh requirements, minimum fish sizes, possession limits, and other gear restrictions) are summarized below, by species. Detailed background information regarding the status of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass stocks and the development of the 2003 specifications for these species was provided in the proposed specifications (67 FR 70904, November 27, 2002). That information is not repeated here. NMFS makes three corrections to the text published in the proposed 2003 specifications in this final rule. The term 1/2 B msy used for summer flounder and scup indicates the biomass threshold below which the stock is considered overfished. This term was inadvertently published as B msy in the proposed specifications (B msy is the biomass level at which maximum sustainable yield (MSY) can be achieved), but because an accurate numeric range of yields at 1/2 B msy was included, the information was not misleading. The 2003 commercial scup quotas by period (with research set-aside deducted) are corrected to reflect the percent share of the total quota less the research set-aside; the changes are slight, measuring less than one percent of the published figure in each case. Finally, as discussed in greater detail below, the cost to a fishing vessel of one at-sea observer day is estimated to be approximately $600, subject to finalization of observer program details, which would be paid by the vessel owner intending to fish in the scup Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs) under the scup GRA Exemption Program (see below for additional information).

NMFS will establish the 2003 recreational management measures for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass by publishing a proposed and final rule in the Federal Register at a later date, following receipt of the Council's recommendations as specified in the FMP.

The FMP specifies a target F for 2003 of F max , that is, the level of fishing that produces maximum yield per recruit. The best available scientific information indicates that F max is currently equal to 0.26 (equal to an exploitation rate of about 22 percent from fishing). The Total Allowable Landings (TAL) associated with the target F is allocated 60 percent to the commercial sector and 40 percent to the recreational sector. The commercial quota is allocated to the coastal states based upon percentage shares specified in the FMP. The recreational harvest limit is specified on a coastwide basis. Recreational measures will be the subject of a separate rulemaking early in 2003.

This final rule implements the specifications contained in the proposed rule. This implementation results in a 23.3-million lb (10,569-mt) summer flounder TAL, which is allocated 13.98 million lb (6,341 mt) to the commercial sector and 9.32 million lb (4,227 mt) to the recreational sector. This TAL was determined by the Council's Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee (MC) to have at least a 50-percent probability of achieving the target F (0.26) that is specified in the FMP if the 2002 TAL and anticipated discard levels are not exceeded.

The proposed rule reflected the Council's and Board's recommendation to set aside 91,163 lb (41.4 mt) of the summer flounder TAL for research activities. The research set-aside process included the publication of a Request for Proposals that solicited proposals for 2003, based upon the research priorities identified by the Council (67 FR 13602, March 25, 2002). The deadline for submission of proposals was May 13, 2002. The Council recommended the approval of two research projects that would utilize the full summer flounder research quota. The summer flounder TAL having been adjusted to reflect this research set-aside, is divided into a commercial quota of 13.92 million lb (6,314 mt) and a recreational harvest limit of 9.28 million lb (4,209 mt). If any of these projects is not approved by the NOAA Grants Office, the research quota associated with the disapproved proposal(s) will be restored to the summer flounder TAL through publication of a notice in the Federal Register by NMFS.

Table 1 presents the final 2002 commercial summer flounder quota for each state, the reported 2002 landings for each state through October 31, 2002, and the resultant 2002 quota overages.