On July 17, 2002, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) published an interim rule (67 FR 46839) that abolished the Alameda-Contra Costa, CA, nonappropriated fund (NAF) Federal Wage System (FWS) wage area and established a new Santa Clara, CA, NAF wage area. The interim rule had a 30-day public comment period, during which OPM received no comments. The change was necessary because the closure of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service Distribution Center in Oakland left the Alameda-Contra Costa wage area without a host activity to conduct a local wage survey. The new Santa Clara NAF wage area will now consist of Santa Clara County as the survey area. The area of application for the Santa Clara, CA, wage area will include Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo Counties. A full-scale survey for the Santa Clara wage area was conducted in September 2002.

Under 5 U.S.C. 5343(a), NAF FWS wage area boundaries may not extend beyond the immediate locality where NAF employees work. OPM may establish an NAF wage area under 5 CFR 532.219 when a minimum of 26 NAF wage employees are employed in a survey area and sufficient private employment exists within the survey area to provide adequate data for establishing an NAF wage schedule. Santa Clara County meets the regulatory criteria to be a separate NAF wage area, and the Department of Defense recommended that Santa Clara County be redefined as the sole survey county for the new FWS NAF wage area, and that Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo Counties be defined as areas of application counties.

OPM regulations at 5 CFR 532.219 require a minimum of 1,800 private enterprise employees in establishments within the scope of a NAF survey in order to establish a separate wage area within the survey specifications. Because Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo Counties will have continuing NAF employment and do not meet the regulatory criteria in 5 CFR 532.219 to be separate survey areas, they must be considered areas of application to Santa Clara County. The Department of Defense conducted a full scale survey in Santa Clara County in September 2002. The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, the national labor-management committee that advises OPM on FWS pay matters, recommended these changes by consensus.

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will affect only Federal agencies and employees.

Background

Exotic Newcastle disease (END) is a contagious and fatal viral disease affecting the respiratory, nervous, and digestive systems of birds and poultry. END is so virulent that many birds and poultry die without showing any clinical signs. A death rate of almost 100 percent can occur in unvaccinated poultry flocks. END can infect and cause death even in vaccinated poultry.

The regulations in “Subpart A—Exotic Newcastle Disease (END)” (9 CFR 82.1 through 82.15, referred to below as the regulations) were established to prevent the spread of END in the United States in the event of an outbreak. In § 82.3, paragraph (a) provides that any area where birds or poultry infected with END are located will be designated as a quarantined area, and that a quarantined area is any geographical area, which may be a premises or all or part of a State, deemed by epidemiological evaluation to be sufficient to contain all birds or poultry known to be infected with or exposed to END. Less than an entire State will be designated as a quarantined area only if the State enforces restrictions on intrastate movements from the quarantined area that are at least as stringent as the regulations. The regulations prohibit or restrict the interstate movement of birds, poultry, products, and materials that could spread END from quarantined areas. Areas quarantined because of END are listed in § 82.3, paragraph (c).

On October 1, 2002, END was confirmed in the State of California. The disease has been confirmed in backyard poultry, which are raised on private premises for hobby, exhibition, and personal consumption, and in commercial poultry.

In an interim rule effective on November 21, 2002, and published in the Federal Register on November 26, 2002 (67 FR 70674-70675, Docket No. 02-117-1), we amended the regulations in § 82.3(c) by quarantining Los Angeles County and portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties and restricting the interstate movement of birds, poultry, products, and materials that could spread END from the quarantined area.

In this interim rule, we are quarantining additional counties in California, either because END has been confirmed in those counties or because of the geographical proximity of those counties to areas in which END has been confirmed. Specifically, we are amending § 82.3(c) of the regulations by adding Imperial, Orange, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties and the previously non-quarantined portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties to the quarantined area for END and by prohibiting or restricting the movement of birds, poultry, products, and materials that could spread END from the quarantined area.

On January 6, 2003 the Secretary of Agriculture signed a declaration of extraordinary emergency with respect to the END situation in California. As provided under sec. 10407 of the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8306), that declaration of extraordinary emergency authorizes the Secretary to (1) hold, seize, treat, apply other remedial actions to, destroy (including preventative slaughter), or otherwise dispose of, any animal, article, facility, or means of conveyance if the Secretary determines the action is necessary to prevent the dissemination of END and (2) prohibit or restrict the movement or use within the State of California, or any portion of the State of California, of any animal or article, means of conveyance, or facility if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the dissemination of END.

As noted previously, the regulations in §§ 82.1 through 82.15 prohibit or restrict the interstate movement from quarantined areas of birds, poultry, products, and materials that could spread END. In light of the Secretary's declaration of extraordinary emergency and its accompanying authority to prohibit or restrict, if necessary to prevent the spread of END, the movement or use within the State of California of any animal or article, means of conveyance, or facility, we are amending the regulations to provide that the provisions of the regulations regarding interstate movement will also apply to intrastate movement. This provision, which we are adding as a new § 82.16, specifies that the applicability of the regulations to intrastate movement holds only in situations where the Secretary has issued a declaration of extraordinary emergency and only until such time as the Secretary terminates that declaration.

This rulemaking is necessary on an emergency basis to prevent END from spreading to other States. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

We will consider comments that we receive during the comment period for this interim rule ( see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the Federal Register . The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.

This rule amends the regulations by quarantining Imperial, Orange, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties, CA, and the previously non-quarantined portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, CA, and by prohibiting or restricting the movement of birds, poultry, products, and materials that could spread END from the quarantined area. This rule also amends the regulations to provide that the prohibitions and restrictions that apply to the interstate movement of birds, poultry, products, and materials that could spread END will also apply to the intrastate movement of those articles in situations where the Secretary of Agriculture has issued a declaration of extraordinary emergency. These actions are necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the spread of END from the quarantined area.

This emergency situation makes timely compliance with section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) impracticable. We are currently assessing the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. Based on that assessment, we will either certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or publish a final regulatory flexibility analysis.

This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. ( See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)

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

This rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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 Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 series airplanes was published as a second supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on August 16, 2002 (67 FR 53525). That action proposed to require replacement of the existing smoke detectors in the cargo compartment with new, improved smoke detectors. That action also proposed to include spare part information.

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.

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

We have changed the service bulletin citations throughout this final rule to exclude the CRJ 100/200 Service Bulletin Compliance Facsimile Reply Sheet and Service Bulletin Comment Sheet—Facsimile Reply Sheet. (Those forms are intended to be completed by operators and submitted to the manufacturer to provide input on the quality of the service bulletins and report compliance; however, this AD does not include such requirements.)

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

The FAA estimates that 281 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 replacement of the existing smoke detectors in the cargo compartment with new, improved smoke detectors, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. The cost of required parts is approximately $4,136 ($876 for one smoke detector kit and $1,630 each for two smoke detectors). Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,195,936, or $4,256 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 .

On December 8, 2002, a Boeing 767-200 equipped with GE CF6-80A series engines experienced an uncontained failure of a stage 1 HPT rotor disk during climb. The results of the investigation indicate that the stage 1 HPT rotor disk failure was the result of a crack that initiated in an aft corner edge of the bottom of a dovetail slot. The crack propagated in fatigue to critical crack size, and subsequently resulted in disk rupture and separation.

In September 2000, a U.S. operator experienced a similar uncontained failure of the stage 1 HPT rotor disk during a ground maintenance run of a CF6-80C2 engine. The investigation of that failure had indicated that a crack initiated in the dovetail slot bottom aft edge. The root cause of the crack initiation remains unknown. However, cracks, burrs, or damage sustained in the dovetail slot bottom corner radii from improper handling and processing during new part manufacture and/or during maintenance were suspect for the September 2000 event. AD 2001-10-07, which became effective on June 28, 2001, was issued to mandate inspections of the CF6-80C2 stage 1 HPT rotor disk dovetail slot bottoms.

Since 1995, shop level inspections have found eleven stage 1 HPT rotor disks from CF6-80A series engines and CF6-80C2 series engines with crack-like indications in the dovetail slot bottoms. These indications resulted from material inclusions, toolmarks, broach burrs, and unknown causes. Of these eleven disks, three have been CF6-80A series engine stage 1 HPT rotor disks, with cracks in the dovetail slot bottom aft corner radius. Of the three that have been -80A series engine disks, two indications were associated with non-propagating broaching burrs occurring during manufacture, while no root cause was identified for the third. Only the third disk had crack propagation.

The failure of the disk involved in the recent CF6-80A series engine event was also caused by a crack that initiated in the dovetail slot bottom aft edge. This event is still under investigation. Therefore, this final rule; request for comments is an interim action until a root cause is established for the crack initiation and/or additional corrective actions are identified. The actions specified by this AD are intended to detect cracks in the bottoms of the dovetail slots that could propagate to failure of the disk and cause an uncontained engine failure. This condition, if not corrected, could result in stage 1 HPT rotor disk separation resulting in uncontained engine failure.

The FAA has reviewed and approved the technical contents of GE Service Bulletin (SB) CF6-80A S/B 72-0779, dated March 20, 2002 that describes procedures for etch preparation, fluorescent penetrant, visual, and eddy current inspections of the following stage 1 HPT rotor disks P/N's used on CF6-80A, -80A1, -80A2, and -80A3 series turbofan engines:

SB CF6-80A S/B 72-0779, dated March 20, 2002, only requires a one-time inspection at the next exposure of disks that have accumulated operating cycles, and requires no inspection of new disks that have not yet accumulated operating cycles. This AD requires initial and repetitive inspections of the affected P/N's of stage 1 HPT rotor disks, as specified in the following paragraph.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other GE CF6-80A, -80A1, -80A2, and -80A3 series turbofan engines of the same type design, this AD is being issued to detect cracks in the bottoms of the dovetail slots that could propagate to failure of the disk and cause an uncontained engine failure. This AD requires:

• For stage 1 HPT rotor disks not currently installed in engines, before further flight, inspection of disk dovetail slot bottoms. Any disk that meets or exceeds the reject criteria of SB CF6-80A S/B 72-0779, dated March 20, 2002, is not to be installed into any engine.

• For stage 1 HPT rotor disks that have been inspected in accordance with SB CF6-80A S/B 72-0779, dated March 20, 2002, before the effective date of this AD, inspection of the disk dovetail slot bottoms at each piece-part exposure of the disk, and replacement of disks as necessary.

• For stage 1 HPT rotor disks that have not been inspected in accordance with SB CF6-80A S/B 72-0779, dated March 20, 2002, before the effective date of this AD, inspection of the disk dovetail slot bottoms at next engine shop visit, and each piece-part exposure of the disk, and replacement of disks as necessary.

• A mandatory reporting requirement which mandates that within 5 calendar days of an inspection, any results that equal or exceed the reject criteria be reported to the FAA's Engine and Propeller Directorate, Engine Certification Office.

The actions are required to be done in accordance with the service bulletin described previously.

The actions specified in the AD are considered interim actions and further action is anticipated based on the continuing investigation of the stage 1 HPT rotor disk cracking.

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 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-44-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.

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 Model DC-9-81, -82, and -83 series airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes was published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2002 (67 FR 11453). That action proposed to require an inspection of the disconnect panel area above the aft left lavatory for chafed or damaged wires or unacceptable clearance between the wires and adjacent structure, and corrective actions, if necessary.

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

One commenter suggests that the FAA reconsider mandating the service bulletin referenced in the proposed AD until other methods of resolution are investigated. Specifically, the commenter would like the FAA to work with Jamco and Boeing to develop a better solution, such as modifying the connector bracket and protecting the adjacent wire bundle. The commenter states that its airplanes have had wire chafing in the disconnect panel area above the aft left lavatory, and necessary precautions were taken to preclude further damage. The commenter notes that removing the corner of the electrical connector bracket and protecting the affected wire bundle with Teflon tape has provided an effective resolution to eliminate wire chafing on its airplanes. The commenter adds that the corrective action specified in the proposed AD that would require adjusting the clearance to 0.50 inch with the use of “tie-wraps,” cannot be attained without creating a preload condition that could cause additional wire damage. A second commenter supports these concerns and suggests that the FAA withdraw the proposed AD and develop a more effective solution.

We do not agree with the commenters. We investigated the commenters' concerns and found that the airplane manufacturer did, in fact, inspect the wires in the aft left disconnect panel for a preload condition. The inspection revealed that a preload condition should not exist on the wires if they are “properly secured” with tie-wraps to obtain the 0.50-inch minimum clearance between the wires and the adjacent structure. If a preload condition is in some way created by adding the tie-wraps to the wires per the instructions in the service bulletin, the tie-wraps on the wire bundle, including the tie-wraps above the bundle, should be cut and reinstalled to obtain the 0.50-inch clearance, which will eliminate the preload condition. The manufacturer also investigated the possibility of cutting off the corner of the electrical connector bracket to eliminate the possibility of wire chafing, but there was a risk of damaging the existing wires with the tooling device used. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard. However, if data are submitted that provide an alternative procedure that will offer an acceptable level of safety, we would consider this under the provisions for an alternative method of compliance, as provided in paragraph (b) of this final rule.

We have changed the service bulletin citation throughout this final rule to exclude the Appendix (and Evaluation Form). The service bulletin recommends that report findings be submitted to the manufacturer using the Appendix of the service bulletin. However, this AD does not require that operators submit reports of inspection findings.

We have changed the applicability of the proposed 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 comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described. 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 1,198 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 586 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required 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 $35,160, or $60 per airplane.

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

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

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

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 Raytheon Model Hawker 800XP airplanes was published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2002 (67 FR 60191). That action proposed to require installing jumper wires on the computer control switches to power the digital electronic engine control when overspeed protection is selected, and tying and stowing the jumper wires on the switches.

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.

We have changed the service bulletin citation throughout this final rule to exclude the Service Bulletin/Kit Drawing Report Fax. (This form is intended to be completed by operators and submitted to the manufacturer to report compliance; however, this AD does not include such a requirement.)

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

There are approximately 250 Model 800XP airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 193 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. It will take approximately 5 work hours per airplane for airplanes with two oxygen bottles, and 6 work hours per airplane for airplanes with three oxygen bottles, to accomplish the required actions, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. The cost of required parts will be nominal. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $300 per airplane (for airplanes with two oxygen bottles) or $360 per airplane (for airplanes with three oxygen bottles).

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.

Discussion

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently completed a review of in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems certified by supplemental type certificate (STC) and installed on transport category airplanes. The review focused on the interface between the IFE system and airplane electrical system, with the objective of determining if any unsafe conditions exist with regard to the interface. STCs issued between 1992 and 2000 were considered for the review.

The type of IFE systems considered for review were those that contain video monitors (cathode ray tubes or liquid crystal displays; either hanging above the aisle or mounted on individual seat backs or seat trays), or complex circuitry ( i.e. , power supplies, electronic distribution boxes, extensive wire routing, relatively high power consumption, multiple layers of circuit protection, etc.). In addition, in-seat power supply systems that provide power to more than 20 percent of the total passenger seats were also considered for the review. The types of IFE systems not considered for review include systems that provide only audio signals to each passenger seat, ordinary in-flight telephone systems ( e.g. , one telephone handset per group of seats or bulkhead-mounted telephones), systems that only have a video monitor on the forward bulkhead(s) (or a projection system) to provide passengers with basic airplane and flight information, and in-seat power supply systems that provide power to less than 20 percent of the total passenger seats.

Items considered during the review include the following:

• Can the electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing?

• Can IFE system power be removed when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers ( i.e., is there a switch (dedicated to the IFE system or a combination of loads) located in the flight deck or cabin that can be used to remove IFE power?)?

• If the IFE system requires changes to flight crew procedures, has the airplane flight manual (AFM) been properly amended?

• If the IFE system requires changes to cabin crew procedures, have they been properly amended?

• Does the IFE system require periodic or special maintenance?

In all, approximately 180 IFE systems approved by STC were reviewed by the FAA. The review results indicate that potential unsafe conditions exist on some IFE systems installed on various transport category airplanes. These conditions can be summarized as:

• Electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system cannot be deenergized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing.

• Power cannot be removed from the IFE system when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers ( i.e. , there is no switch dedicated to the IFE system or combination of systems for the purpose of removing power).

• Installation of the IFE system has affected crew (flight crew and/or cabin crew) procedures, but the procedures have not been properly revised.

As part of its review of IFE systems, the FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists on Boeing Model 767-300 series airplanes modified by STC ST01869AT-D. The passenger entertainment system (PES) on these airplanes is connected to an electrical bus that cannot be deactivated without also removing power from airplane systems necessary for safe flight and landing. There is no other means to remove power from the PES. Additionally, the airplane manufacturer's published flight crew and cabin crew emergency procedures do not advise the flight crew and cabin crew that power cannot be removed from the PES. This condition, if not corrected, could result in inability to remove power from the PES during a non-normal or emergency situation, and consequent inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin.

The FAA has reviewed and approved TIMCO Service Bulletin TSB-767-23-005, Revision J, dated August 29, 2001; as revised by TIMCO Engineering Change Orders TSB-767-23-005, Revision J, K1, dated September 10, 2001; K2, dated September 18, 2001; and K3, dated September 28, 2001. That service bulletin describes procedures for modifying the PES by installing two new relays and additional wiring so that the power switch located in the flight compartment can be used to remove power completely from the PES. The service documents also describe procedures for installing a switch guard on the power switch for the PES. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.

The FAA also has reviewed and approved TIMCO Airplane Flight Manual Supplement for Boeing B767-300, TIM-AFM-01034, Revision A, dated October 12, 2001, which revises the procedures under the heading “Electrical Smoke or Fire” in the “Emergency Procedures” section of the AFM to provide instructions for the cabin crew to remove power from the PES in an emergency.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design that may be registered in the United States at some time in the future, this AD is being issued to ensure that the airplane crew is able to remove electrical power from the PES when necessary and is advised of appropriate procedures for such action. Inability to remove power from the PES during a non-normal or emergency situation could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin. This AD requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously. This AD also would require revising procedures to be followed in the event of smoke or fire in the airplane, as contained under the heading “Electrical Smoke or Fire” in the “Emergency Procedures” section of the AFM. Accomplishment of these actions is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.

In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the amount of time necessary to accomplish the proposed actions, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the proposed actions within an interval of time that parallels normal scheduled maintenance for the affected operators. In consideration of these factors, the FAA has determined that 18 months after the effective date of this AD represents an appropriate interval of time allowable wherein an acceptable level of safety can be maintained.

The FAA has previously issued several ADs that address unsafe conditions and require corrective actions similar to those that will be required by this AD. These other ADs, and the airplane models and STCs to which they apply, are as follows:

None of the airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. All airplanes included in the applicability of this rule currently are operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign registry; therefore, they are not directly affected by this AD action. However, the FAA considers that this rule is necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed in the event that any of these subject airplanes are imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future.

Should an affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would require approximately 17 work hours to accomplish the required actions, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD would be $1,020 per airplane.

Since this AD action does not affect any airplane that is currently on the U.S. register, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, prior notice and public procedures hereon are unnecessary and the amendment may be made effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by notice and 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-56-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.

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.

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 Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on June 28, 2002 (67 FR 43570). That action proposed to require repetitive inspections to detect discrepancies of the drip shield and supports located above the rudder pedal mechanisms; corrective action, if necessary; and eventual modification of the drip shield, which would terminate the repetitive inspections.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received. One commenter concurs with the proposed AD.

One commenter asks that the applicability in the proposed AD be clarified. The commenter suggests adding Model 747-400 series airplanes certificated in the “passenger” category, in lieu of “any” category, to the applicability section. The commenter states that the drip shields referenced in the proposed AD are not installed on Model 747-400F (freighter) series airplanes.

We agree with the commenter that the applicability should be clarified; however, not in the manner proposed. Per the 747 Type Certificate Data Sheet, which specifies Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes, we have clarified the applicability throughout this final rule to specify Model 747-400 and -400D series airplanes only.

One commenter reiterates the statement in the differences section of the proposed AD that specifies the repetitive inspection interval for the “C-check” as every 3,000 flight hours. The commenter asks that an interval of 6,000 flight hours or 18 months be allowed as a substitute for the “C-check” recommended in the referenced service bulletin, in that it is a more appropriate interval, and appropriately limits both long- and short-haul airplanes. The commenter notes that the Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning Document recommends 6,000 flight hours or 18 months as the “C-check” interval, and recent data indicate that the average inspection interval for the fleet is 5,750 flight hours. The commenter adds that imposing an interval of 3,000 flight hours would force some operators to conduct twice as many inspections with less time and manpower available, with no apparent improvement in airplane safety.

We agree with the commenter. Substantiating data were submitted indicating that an extension of the repetitive inspection interval to 6,000 flight hours or 18 months, whichever is first, provides an acceptable level of safety. We find that such an extension in the repetitive inspection interval will allow the inspections to be completed during regularly scheduled maintenance visits. Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this final rule have been changed accordingly.

One commenter suggests that certain wording specified in Figure 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the referenced service bulletin be changed. The note in Figure 2 states, “Plate clips found dis-bonded from the dripshield should be re-installed with rivets.” The commenter asks that the word “should” be changed to “must.” The commenter does not give a reason for the request.

We do not agree with the commenter. Although the note in Figure 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the referenced service bulletin does not definitively specify that discrepant plate clips must be reinstalled with rivets, paragraph (c) of this AD mandates the requirements for installing the rivets. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

Because the language in Note 3 of the proposed AD is regulatory in nature, that note has been redesignated as paragraph (b) of this final rule. Subsequent paragraphs have been reordered accordingly.

We have changed the service bulletin citation throughout this final rule to exclude the Evaluation Form. (The form is intended to be completed by operators and submitted to the manufacturer to provide input on the quality of the service bulletin; however, this AD does not include such a requirement.)

After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described. 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 498 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 60 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

It will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,600, or $60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

It will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the terminating action, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. The cost of required parts will be minimal. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required terminating action on U.S. operators is estimated to be $10,800, or $180 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.

On September 12, 2002, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) published in the Federal Register (67 FR 57767) a notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth revised reporting requirements for the BE-12, Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States—2002. No comments on the proposed rule were received. Thus, this final rule is the same as the proposed rule, except for minor language changes to remove a possible source of ambiguity with respect to the due date for filing Form BE-12(X), report for claiming exemption from filing a BE-12(LF) long form, BE-12 (SF) short form, or BE-12 Bank form.

This final rule amends 15 CFR 806.17 to set forth revised reporting requirements for the BE-12, Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States—2002. The Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, will conduct the survey under the Inter-national Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101-3108), hereinafter, “the Act.”

Section 4(b) of the Act requires that with respect to foreign direct investment in the United States, the President shall conduct a benchmark survey covering year 1980, a benchmark survey covering year 1987, and benchmark surveys covering every fifth year thereafter. In conducting surveys (of U.S. direct investment abroad and foreign direct investment in the United States) pursuant to this subsection, the President shall, among other things and to the extent he determines necessary and feasible identify the location, nature, and magnitude of, and changes in the total investment by any parent in each of its affiliates and the financial transactions between any parent and each of its affiliates; information on the balance sheet of parents and affiliates and related financial data, income statements, including the gross sales by primary line of business (with as much product line detail as is necessary and feasible) of parents and affiliates in each country in which they have significant operations, and related information regarding trade (including trade in both goods and services) between a parent and each of its affiliates and between each parent or affiliate and any other person; collect employment data showing both the number of United States and foreign employees of each parent and affiliate and the levels of compensation, by country, industry, and skill level; obtain information on tax payments by parents and affiliates by country; and determine, by industry and country, the total dollar amount of research and development expenditures by each parent and affiliate, payments or other compensation for the transfer of technology between parents and their affiliates, and payments or other compensation received by parents or affiliates from the transfer of technology to other persons.

In Section 3 of Executive Order 11961, the President delegated authority granted under the Act as concerns direct investment to the Secretary of Commerce, who has redelegated it to BEA. The benchmark survey is a census; it covers virtually the entire universe of foreign direct investment in the United States in terms of value, and is BEA's most comprehensive survey of such investment in terms of subject matter. Foreign direct investment in the United States is defined as the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one foreign person (foreign parent) of 10 percent or more of the voting securities of an incorporated U.S. business enterprise or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated U.S. business enterprise, including a branch.

The purpose of the benchmark survey is to obtain universe data on the financial and operating characteristics of, and on positions and transactions between, U.S. affiliates and their foreign parent groups (which are defined to include all foreign parents and foreign affiliates of foreign parents). The data are needed to measure the size and economic significance of foreign direct investment in the United States, to measure changes in such investment, and to assess its impact on the U.S. economy. Such data are generally found in enterprise-level accounting records of respondent companies. The data are disaggregated by industry of U.S. affiliate, by country and industry of foreign parent or ultimate beneficial owner, and, for selected items, by State.

The data will provide benchmarks for deriving current universe estimates of direct investment from sample data collected in other BEA surveys. In particular, they will serve as benchmarks for the quarterly direct investment estimates included in the U.S. international transactions and national income and product accounts, and for annual estimates of the foreign direct investment position in the United States and of the operations of the U.S. affiliates of foreign companies. Data from the benchmark survey on U.S. affiliates' employee compensation, profits, interest receipts and expenses, depreciation, and income and other taxes are used by BEA to compute U.S. affiliates' gross product or value added. The estimates are used to measure U.S. affiliates' share of U.S. gross domestic product and to evaluate affiliates' profitability and productivity. Data on employment by affiliates are used to link enterprise-level data on foreign-owned companies collected in the benchmark survey to establishment-level data for the same companies collected by the Census Bureau.

It should be noted that, aside from their use in compiling the U.S. national and international economic accounts, the benchmark survey data are primarily intended as general purpose statistics. Based on past experience, areas of particular and lasting analytical and policy interest include trade in goods and services, employment and employee compensation, profitability, regional location, taxes, and technology. These areas, all of which are addressed by the proposed survey, are also ones for which the Act specifically requires data to be collected. Another area of continuing policy interest, particularly at the State and local levels, is the impact of foreign direct investment on individual States. The data in the survey disaggregated by State are intended to address needs in this area.

The forms to be used in the survey are:

1. Form BE-12(LF) (Long Form)—Report for nonbank majority-owned U.S. affiliates (a “majority-owned” U.S. affiliate is one in which the combined direct and indirect ownership interests of all foreign parents of the U.S. affiliate exceed 50 percent) with assets, sales or gross operating revenues, or net income greater than $125 million (positive or negative);

2. Form BE-12(SF) (Short Form)—Report for nonbank majority-owned U.S. affiliates with assets, sales or gross operating revenues, or net income greater than $10 million, but not greater than $125 million (positive or negative) and nonbank minority-owned U.S. affiliates (owned 50 percent or less) with assets, sales or gross operating revenues, or net income greater than $10 million (positive or negative). U.S. affiliates with total assets, sales or gross operating revenues, and net income between $10 million and $30 million (positive or negative) will be required to report only selected data items on the short form;

3. Form BE-12 Bank—Report for U.S. affiliates that are banks, bank holding companies, or banking and nonbanking operations of bank holding companies; and

4. Form BE-12(X)—Report for claiming exemption from filing a BE-12(LF) long form, BE-12(SF) short form, or BE-12 Bank form.

This final rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in E.O. 13132.

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

Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number.

This rule covers collections of information subject to the provisions of the PRA. The OMB has approved this collection and assigned to it OMB Control Number 0608-0042. The collection will display this control number.

The survey is expected to result in the filing of reports from approximately 17,700 respondents. The respondent burden for this collection of information is estimated to vary from 20 minutes to 715 hours per response, with an average of 11.3 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Thus, the total respondent burden of the survey is estimated at about 199,500 hours (17,700 times 11.3 hours average burden).

Comments regarding the burden estimate or any aspect of this collection of information should be addressed to: Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BE-1), U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; and to the Office of Management and Budget, O.I.R.A., Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0042, Washington, DC 20503 (Attention PRA Desk Officer for BEA).

The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, under provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) that this final rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Few small businesses as defined by the RFA are foreign owned; those that are and have total assets, sales or gross operating revenues, and net income each equal to or less than $10 million are not required to report on the BE-12 (LF) long form, BE-12(SF) short form, or BE-12 Bank form. To further reduce reporting burden for smaller companies, the reporting threshold for filing a BE-12(LF) long form has been raised to $125 million, from $100 million in the 1997 survey, and companies with total assets, sales or gross operating revenues and net income (positive or negative) between $10 million and $30 million will be required to report only selected data items on the BE-12(SF) short form. Accordingly, this action will relieve reporting burdens on small entities.

The collection of information contained in these final regulations has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) under control number 1545-1751. Responses to this collection of information are required for certain taxpayers to redeem stock in a corporation and utilize the special rule in § 1.1041-2(c) of these regulations.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.

The estimated annual burden per respondent/recordkeeper varies from 20 minutes to one hour, depending on individual circumstances, with an estimated average of 30 minutes.

Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and suggestions for reducing this burden should be sent to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, W:CAR:MP:FP:S, Washington, DC 20224, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503.

Books or records relating to this collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

On August 3, 2001, the IRS and Treasury Department published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking under section 1041 relating to certain redemptions, during marriage or incident to divorce, of stock in a corporation owned by a spouse or former spouse (REG-107151-00)(2001-2 C.B. 370)[66 FR 40659]). Written and electronic comments were solicited, and a public hearing was scheduled for December 14, 2001. Several comments were received and are discussed below. Because no requests to speak were timely received, the public hearing was cancelled. After consideration of all comments received, the proposed regulations under section 1041 are adopted as revised by this Treasury decision.

The proposed regulations provided generally that if a corporation redeemed stock owned by a transferor spouse and the redemption resulted in a constructive distribution to the nontransferor spouse under applicable tax law, then the redemption would be taxable to the nontransferor spouse as if the nontransferor spouse had actually received the redemption proceeds. The proposed regulations contained a special rule in § 1.1041-2(c) allowing the spouses the option of treating the redemption as resulting in a constructive distribution to the nontransferor spouse, and therefore taxable to the nontransferor spouse, even if the redemption would not result in a constructive distribution to the nontransferor spouse under applicable tax law. The proposed regulations provided that the spouses could elect the special rule by providing in the divorce or separation instrument, or other written agreement, that the spouses must file their Federal income tax returns in a manner that reflects that the transferor spouse transferred the redeemed stock to the nontransferor spouse in exchange for the redemption proceeds and the corporation redeemed the stock from the nontransferor spouse in exchange for the redemption proceeds. The proposed regulations also provided that the special rule would be effective for written agreements executed on or after August 3, 2001, that met these requirements.

Commentators expressed concern that the proposed regulations contained no provision addressing the situation where the redemption results in a constructive distribution to the nontransferor spouse under applicable tax law, but the spouses nevertheless would like to agree that the redemption will be treated as a redemption distribution to the transferor spouse. They suggested that the final regulations expand the special rule in § 1.1041-2(c) to allow the spouses to agree in the divorce or separation instrument, or other valid written agreement, that the redemption will be taxable to the transferor spouse notwithstanding that the redemption might otherwise result in a constructive distribution to the nontransferor spouse under applicable tax law.

The IRS and Treasury Department believe that this suggestion is consistent with the policy of section 1041 and its legislative history, which is to provide flexibility to spouses and former spouses concerning the structuring of their property transfers during marriage and incident to divorce. Accordingly, this suggestion has been adopted in § 1.1041-2(c) of the final regulations. New Example 2 in § 1.1041-2(d) illustrates the application of this new special rule.

The manner of electing the special rule also has been modified somewhat in the final regulations. Under the final regulations, the spouses can elect the special rule by expressly providing, in a divorce or separation instrument or other valid written agreement, that expressly supersedes any other instrument or agreement concerning the purchase, sale, redemption, or other disposition of the stock that is the subject of the redemption, their mutual intent concerning whether the redemption should be treated as a redemption distribution to the transferor spouse or to the nontransferor spouse. The IRS and Treasury Department will treat a divorce or separation instrument or other valid written agreement executed on or after August 3, 2001, and before May 13, 2003 that meets the requirements of the special rule of the proposed regulations as also meeting the requirements of the special rule in paragraph (c)(2) of the final regulations.

Some commentators also expressed concern that taxpayers and divorce practitioners may not be aware of the situations in which a redemption of stock owned by the transferor spouse could result in a constructive distribution to the nontransferor spouse under applicable tax law. They therefore suggested that the final regulations either provide that the redemption will be treated as a redemption distribution to the transferor spouse regardless of applicable tax law, unless the spouses provide otherwise in a written agreement and file their federal income tax returns accordingly, or provide specific definitions and examples of situations in which a redemption would result in a constructive distribution to the nontransferor spouse under applicable tax law.

The IRS and Treasury Department continue to believe that the approach in the proposed regulations is appropriate. Under existing tax law, a redemption of stock owned by one shareholder may result in a constructive distribution to another shareholder if such nonredeeming shareholder has a primary and unconditional obligation to purchase the redeeming shareholder's stock. See Rev. Rul. 69-608 (1969-2 C.B. 42), Wall v. United States , 164 F.2d 462 (4th Cir. 1947), and Sullivan v. United States , 363 F.2d 724 (8th Cir. 1966). This “primary and unconditional obligation” standard applies to all redemptions, including those involving stock of closely held corporations by spouses or former spouses. A rule that provides that a redemption of stock owned by the transferor spouse will always be treated as a redemption distribution to the transferor spouse would be inconsistent with this established law. Furthermore, if taxpayers and divorce practitioners are uncertain about the application of the “primary and unconditional obligation” standard, they may take advantage of the special rules of § 1.1041-2(c), which permit spouses to avoid any question of whether a redemption results in a constructive distribution to the nontransferor spouse under applicable tax law relating to the primary and unconditional obligation standard by providing in a written agreement which spouse will bear the tax consequences of the redemption.

Section 1.1041-1T(c), Q&A-9, of the temporary Income Tax Regulations provides that there are three situations in which a transfer of property to a third party on behalf of a spouse or former spouse will qualify under section 1041 (provided all other requirements of that section are met): (1) if such transfer is required by the divorce or separation instrument; (2) if the transfer is pursuant to a written request of the other spouse; and (3) where the transferor spouse receives a written consent or ratification from the nontransferor spouse. Under Q&A-9, a transfer of property made to a third party on behalf of a spouse is treated first as a deemed transfer of the property made directly to the nontransferor spouse in a transfer to which section 1041 applies, and then as a deemed transfer of the property from the nontransferor spouse to the third party in a transaction to which section 1041 does not apply.

Two commentators recommended that Q&A-9 be withdrawn. They suggested that retaining that provision would lead to confusion since it would apply to all transfers of property other than stock redemptions while this final regulation would apply only to stock redemptions. Another commentator advocated replacing existing Q&A-9 with a single standard applicable to all transfers of property to third parties under which the tax consequences of the transfer would follow the transfer's form unless the spouses agreed in writing otherwise.

The “on behalf of” standard has not led to the same confusion and litigation outside the area of stock redemptions because, in such cases, it does not conflict with any other standard of tax law. See, e.g., Ingham v. United States, 167 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1999). In addition, as discussed above, a single standard applicable to all transfers of property to third parties under which the tax consequences of the transfer would follow the transfer's form would be inconsistent with the primary and unconditional obligation standard applicable to stock redemptions under existing tax law. Consequently, the IRS and Treasury Department continue to believe that the final regulations should be limited to stock redemptions and that Q&A-9 should not be withdrawn.

One commentator proposed that the final regulations include a requirement that the spouses or former spouses attach a form to their Federal income tax returns showing which spouse or former spouse has the tax consequences of the redemption. After careful consideration, the IRS and Treasury Department have concluded that requiring spouses, and particularly spouses who have divorced or are divorcing, to complete and file an additional form in order to obtain the result of the special rules would unnecessarily increase the administrative burden on taxpayers and on the IRS. The divorce or separation instrument, or other valid written agreement of the spouses, provides adequate evidence of the spouses' intent regarding which spouse has the tax consequences of the redemption.

One commentator suggested that the final regulations provide specific authority for a legal guardian of a spouse or former spouse or the executor of a spouse's or former spouse's estate to elect the application of one of the special rules of § 1.1041-2(c). However, a legal guardian, custodian, or executor of an estate that has the general authority to act on behalf of a spouse or former spouse (or his or her estate) for federal income tax purposes needs no additional or special authority to elect one of the special rules under § 1.1041-2(c). Accordingly, this suggestion has not been adopted.

In an effort to improve the clarity of the final regulations, the order of the two paragraphs in § 1.1041-2(a) has been reversed and conforming changes have been made in the remainder of the final regulations. Also, the final regulations remove the provision of the proposed regulations that would have limited their application to transactions in which both spouses or former spouses own stock immediately before or after the redemption. On further reflection, the IRS and Treasury Department believe it is appropriate to apply the regulations to all stock redemptions, regardless of whether both spouses own stock of the corporation before or after the redemption.

One comment was received suggesting that the effective date provision of the final regulations be changed to include all stock redemptions that were pending on the day the proposed regulations were issued (August 2, 2001) and to include all cases involving stock redemptions at issue on that date at any level of audit, review, appeal, or collection by the IRS or before the Tax Court or any other federal court. It was argued that this proposal would be consistent with the current state of the law and would resolve numerous cases involving taxpayers and the IRS. Adopting this suggestion would have the effect of making the application of the final regulations retroactive. Apart from the special rules of § 1.1041-2(c), which are based upon the stated intent of the spouses, the IRS and Treasury do not believe it is appropriate to apply the final regulations retroactively. Therefore, the final regulations do not adopt this suggestion.

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

The principal author of these regulations is Edward C. Schwartz of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.

EPA Region III is publishing this direct final notice of deletion of the Wildcat Landfill Superfund Site from the NPL.

EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. As described in § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for remedial actions if conditions at a deleted site warrant such action.

Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication of a notice of intent to delete. This action will be effective March 14, 2003 unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 12, 2003 on this notice or the parallel notice of intent to delete published in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register . If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this notice or the notice of intent to delete, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Wildcat Landfill Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that releases may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making a determination to delete a release from the NPL, EPA, in consultation with the State, shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:

i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed (Hazardous Substance Superfund) response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the deleted site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, CERCLA § 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c), requires that a subsequent review of the site be conducted at least every five years after the initiation of the remedial action at the deleted site to ensure that the action remains protective of public health and the environment. If new information becomes available which indicates a need for further action, EPA may initiate remedial actions. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:

(1) EPA consulted with the State of Delaware on the deletion of the Site from the NPL prior to developing this direct final notice of deletion.

(2) The State of Delaware concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL.

(3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final notice of deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel notice of intent to delete published today in the “Proposed Rules” section of the Federal Register is being published in a major local newspaper of general circulation at or near the Site and is being distributed to appropriate federal, state, and local government officials and other interested parties; the newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the notice of intent to delete the Site from the NPL.

(4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the deletion in the Site information repositories identified above.

(5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this notice or the companion notice of intent to delete also published in today's Federal Register , EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received.

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for further Fund-financed remedial actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL:

The Wildcat Landfill Superfund Site is a 44-acre landfill situated on the west bank of the St. Jones River in Kent County, Delaware approximately two and one-half miles southeast of the city of Dover. The Site was operated as a permitted sanitary landfill between 1962 and 1973, accepting both municipal and industrial wastes. Industrial wastes suspected to have been disposed of include latex waste and paint sludges. Throughout its 11 years of operation the landfill routinely violated operating and other permits issued by regulating agencies.

EPA conducted the initial Site Investigation in May 1982. EPA proposed the Site to the NPL on December 30, 1982, and added it to the NPL on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40673).

The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) began the remedial investigation (RI) in September 1985 and began the feasibility study (FS) in November 1987. EPA and DNREC issued the RI/FS report in May 1988. The results of the RI were generally as follows:

The FS provided an in-depth analysis of several potential remedial alternatives. The FS concluded that if no action were taken there would be a potential threat to human health and the environment through dermal contact with landfill contents or leachate seeps. There were also potential risks associated with future releases of contaminants from the landfill into the groundwater and, subsequently, into the surface water. The FS provided a detailed analysis of the following alternatives: (1) No action; (2) institutional controls and monitoring; (3) institutional and surface controls; (4a) containment with a soil cap; and (4b) containment with a soil/clay cap. The FS also analyzed EPA and DNREC's preferred alternative, which was a combination of certain elements of the above alternatives. No response activities using CERCLA removal authority were conducted at the Site.

The Site was divided into two Operable Units, with Operable Unit 1 (OU1) including the landfill proper, and Operable Unit 2 (OU2) including the northwest pond and the so-called racetrack pond or replacement pond, which was created southeast of the landfill. EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1 on June 29, 1988. The ROD for OU1 included:

On November 28, 1988, EPA issued a ROD for OU2. The ROD for OU2 included:

After a period of negotiations with the potentially responsible parties, the State, EPA, and a group of Settlors entered into a Consent Decree for implementation of the Remedial Design/Remedial Action for both operable units. In December 1989 the Settlors submitted Remedial Design (RD) plans and specifications for regulatory review. Black and Veatch Science and Technology Corporation prepared the engineering plans and specifications on behalf of the Settlors. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reviewed these plans and provided comments to EPA. In February 1991, the State and EPA granted conditional approval of a revised set of RD plans and specifications.

The Settlors proposed Sevenson Environmental Services as the Remedial Action (RA) Contractor. EPA, after consultation with the State and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, approved the use of Sevenson. The Settlors started construction of the RA for both operable units in July 1991. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided field oversight of the RA for EPA.

During construction a larger-than-anticipated number of drums were discovered along the northern and eastern fringes of the landfill. The State, EPA, and the Settlors subsequently developed a management plan for staging, sorting, and disposing of the unanticipated drums. The State established and continues to maintain a Groundwater Management Zone for the Site and certain areas adjacent to the Site. A pre-final construction inspection was conducted by the State, EPA, and the Settlors on April 1, 1992. The final construction inspection followed on May 14, 1992.

On April 26, 2002, documents entitled “Environmental Protection Easement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants” were recorded at the Office of Recorder of Deeds for Kent County, Delaware, for each of the parcels comprising the Site in order to implement the institutional controls required by the OU1 and OU2 RODs.

The RA for OU1 and OU2 eliminated the principal threat posed by the Site by reducing the potential for direct contact with the contents of the landfill and the sediments of the northwest pond. The RA also reduced the potential for erosion of landfill contents into the St. Jones River. Finally, the RA provides for monitoring of the groundwater in the vicinity of the landfill to ensure the continued effectiveness of the RA.

Operation and maintenance (O&M) activities at the Site include annual groundwater monitoring and an annual inspection. The annual inspection looks at the condition of a variety of items to ensure they are operating as intended so the remedy remains protective. Items inspected include: Site security and access (fences, gates, locks, and roads); the landfill surface, including both capped and uncapped areas; monitoring wells; the riverbank, looking for evidence of storm damage or erosion; and the replacement pond.

Groundwater monitoring data show a clear overall downward trend in contaminant levels. The levels of some contaminants in some wells (notably lead and benzene in MW-4) remain sufficiently high to merit continued monitoring. EPA will continue groundwater monitoring until all compounds are at levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

In 1996, EPA conducted its first Five-Year Review of the Site to determine if the remedy was protective of human health and the environment. There were two known deficiencies that affected the protectiveness of the remedy at the time of the Five-Year Review: (1) The institutional controls called for in the RODs were not yet fully implemented; and (2) there were unresolved issues related to who would perform O&M at the Site and for how long. Because of these deficiencies, EPA concluded that the remedy was not protective at that time. EPA conducted its second Five-Year Review in 2001. Progress had been made on resolving the two deficiencies, but they were still present. EPA again concluded the remedy was not protective at that time. Both deficiencies have since been resolved, and EPA has since concluded that the remedy is fully protective of human health and the environment.

Since waste is being left in place at the landfill, EPA will continue to conduct Five-Year Reviews at the Site. The next Five-Year Review is scheduled for October 2006.

The Site has limited commercial redevelopment potential, but would make an excellent park, nature preserve, or open space greenway, subject to compliance with the institutional controls and operation and maintenance requirements. The landfill waste remains in place and must not be disturbed by construction activities. No wells, except monitoring wells, may be drilled in the landfill area. EPA and DNREC will review the safety of any proposed redevelopment.

Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in CERCLA § 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA § 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the deletion docket which EPA relied on for recommendation of the deletion from the NPL are available to the public in the information repositories.

One of the criteria for site deletion, set forth in § 300.425(e)(1)(i) of the NCP, specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if “[r]esponsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required.” EPA, with the concurrence of the State of Delaware, believes that this criterion has been met. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.

Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication of a notice of intent to delete. This action will be effective March 14, 2003 unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 12, 2003 on this notice or the parallel notice of intent to delete published in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register . If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion and it will not take effect. EPA will also prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

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

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

The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. , and with 44 CFR part 65.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order in MM Docket No. 00-53, adopted December 13, 2002, and released December 16, 2002. The full text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 02-198, adopted December 18, 2002, and released December 20, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 02-197, adopted December 4, 2002, and released December 9, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.