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 all Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4; A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R (collectively called A300-600); A310; and certain Airbus Model A319; A320; A321; A330; and A340 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on May 17, 2002 (67 FR 35059). That action proposed to require repetitive visual inspections of the striker and guide valve of the passenger door actuators and certain emergency door actuators for corrosion, and corrective action, if necessary. That action also proposed to require modification of the striker mechanism of the emergency and passenger door actuators, 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 comment received.

One commenter requests that the FAA allow credit for accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1094, Revision 1, dated June 17, 1998, as terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We agree. We find that the procedures specified in that service bulletin revision are essentially identical to those specified in Revision 02 of the service bulletin (which was referenced in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) as an appropriate source of service information for accomplishment of the terminating action). Therefore, we have revised the final rule to include a new paragraph (g) to specify that modification of the striker mechanism before the effective date of this AD per Revision 1 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1094 is considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD (designated as paragraph (d) in the NPRM).

Since the language in Notes 4 and 5 of the proposed AD is regulatory in nature, those notes have been redesignated as paragraphs (d) and (e) of this final rule, respectively (subsequent paragraphs and notes also have been redesignated).

We have changed certain service bulletin citations throughout this final rule to exclude the Service Bulletin Acceptance/Rejection Sheet. The sheet is intended to be completed by operators and submitted to the airplane manufacturer to provide inspection reports to Airbus; however, this AD does not include such a requirement.

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

The FAA estimates that 127 Model A300 B2 and B4 and A300-600 series airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

For these airplanes, it will take approximately 9 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspections, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspections on U.S. operators is estimated to be $68,580, or $540 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

It will take approximately 60 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required modification, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Parts cost per airplane will be minimal. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the modification on U.S. operators is estimated to be $457,200, or $3,600 per airplane.

The FAA estimates that 47 Model A310 series airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 6 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspections, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspections on U.S. operators is estimated to be $16,920, or $360 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

For these airplanes, it will take approximately 20 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required modification, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Parts cost per airplane will be minimal. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the modification on U.S. operators is estimated to be $56,400, or $1,200 per airplane.

The FAA estimates that 887 Model A319, A320, and A330 series airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators of these airplanes is estimated to be $212,880, or $240 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

For these airplanes, it will take approximately 80 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required modification, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Parts cost per airplane will be minimal. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the modification on U.S. operators is estimated to be $4,257,600, or $4,800 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.

There are currently no affected Model A321 or A340 series airplanes on the U.S. Register. All of these 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 it necessary to include these airplanes in the applicability of this rule in order to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed in the event that any of the subject airplanes are imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future.

Should an affected Model A321 series airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it will take approximately 8 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspections. Based on an average labor rate of $60 per work hour, the cost impact of the inspections would be $480 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

It will take approximately 20 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required modification on a Model A321 series airplane. Parts cost per airplane will be minimal. Based on an average labor rate of $60 per work hour, the cost impact of the modification will be $1,200 per airplane.

Should an affected Model A340 series airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it will take approximately 32 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspections. Based on an average labor rate of $60 per work hour, the cost impact of the inspections would be $1,920 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

It will take approximately 80 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required modification on a Model A340 series airplane. Parts cost per airplane will be minimal. Based on an average labor rate of $60 per work hour, the cost impact of the modification would be $4,800 per airplane.

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 various Boeing and McDonnell Douglas transport category airplanes was published in the Federal Register on June 26, 2002 (67 FR 43058). That action proposed to require revising the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to advise the flightcrew to don oxygen masks as a first and immediate step when the cabin altitude warning horn sounds.

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 supports the proposed AD, and another commenter states that it has surveyed its fleet and is already in compliance with the proposed AD.

One commenter notes an inconsistency in the proposed AD. In the preamble of the proposed AD, the FAA states that appropriate instructions for donning emergency oxygen masks are already contained in the AFM for Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -800, and “900 series airplanes. Thus, those airplanes are not included in the applicability of the proposed AD. The commenter points out, however, that the AFM for Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -800, and -900 series airplanes contains wording similar to that in the AFM for Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, which are included in the applicability of the proposed AD. The commenter also notes that the AFM for Boeing Model 757-300 series airplanes does not address the donning of crew oxygen masks during rapid depressurization, although the proposed AD states that the AFMs for 757 series airplanes contain appropriate instructions for donning oxygen masks. The commenter asks that we review all AFMs again to ensure that the AFM contains appropriate instructions.

We partially concur with the commenter's request. Where we state in the proposed AD that the AFMs for certain models already contain appropriate instructions for the donning of oxygen masks, we should have stated that either the AFM or the airplane operations manual (AOM) contains appropriate instructions for the donning of oxygen masks. For the models identified by the commenter, the AOM contains appropriate instructions for donning oxygen masks. For this reason, those airplanes were not included in the applicability of the proposed AD.

We acknowledge the commenter's concerns. Thus, we have repeated the review of AFMs of all airplanes that were not included in the proposed AD because correct instructions exist in the AOM. We are planning additional rulemaking to revise the AFMs for all airplane models that have inadequate instructions for donning oxygen masks.

The FAA does not agree that it is necessary to repeat the review of the AFMs for all transport category airplanes to ensure that instructions for donning oxygen masks are adequate. As we stated previously, the models identified by the commenter are all airplanes for which adequate instructions for donning oxygen masks are included in the AOM. As this is a specific and finite group of airplanes, and we have repeated the review of AFMs for this group, we find that it is unnecessary to repeat the review of the AFMs for all transport category airplanes. No change to this final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that we revise Figure 5 of the proposed AD, which contains revised AFM wording for McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes. The commenter requests that the wording “If the cabin altitude warning horn sounds” be changed to “If a cabin altitude warning occurs.” The commenter's rationale is that not all DC-9 series airplanes have a cabin altitude warning horn. The commenter also requests that the words “crew oxygen mask” be revised to “crew oxygen masks” to match the wording of the original AFM.

We concur and have revised Figure 5 of this final rule accordingly.

One commenter states that it finds the new AFM wording within the proposed AD acceptable and will revise its AFMs accordingly. However, in view of the deletion of the references to 14,000-feet altitude, the commenter requests that we not include references to 14,000 feet altitude in supplementary or separate AFM checklists or other documents. The commenter states no rationale for its request.

We acknowledge the commenter's request and will take steps to ensure that supplemental or separate AFM revisions do not contain the wording specified by the commenter. No change to this final rule is needed in this regard.

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

There are approximately 7,077 airplanes (5,178 Boeing airplanes and 1,899 McDonnell Douglas airplanes) of the affected designs in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 3,479 airplanes (2,392 Boeing airplanes and 1,087 McDonnell Douglas airplanes) of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. It will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required AFM revision, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $208,740, 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 AD that is applicable to a certain Air Cruisers Company Emergency Evacuation Slide/Raft System was published in the Federal Register on November 9, 1999 (64 FR 61042). That action proposed to require a one-time unpacking and subsequent repacking of affected slide/raft systems identified by SN's in accordance with Air Cruisers Company Service Bulletin (SB) 777-107-25-06, dated February 19, 1999, and repacking of all other slide/raft systems of the same design in accordance with Air Cruisers Company SB 777-107-25-06, dated February 19, 1999 and the applicable Air Cruisers Company Folding Procedures P-12054 or P-12064, Revision E, dated October 14, 1998.

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

Two commenters state that the proposal implies that the problem extends beyond the 93 affected slide/rafts that are listed by SN's in SB 777-107-25-06, dated February 19, 1999. In the proposed actions section, the proposal states that an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other emergency evacuation slide/raft systems of the same type design. The commenters disagree with this statement because at the time the problem was identified, a program was implemented to repack all slide/raft systems in inventory, leaving only those identified by SN's listed in the SB as affected.

The FAA disagrees. Because emergency evacuation slide/raft systems of this same design are suspect to potential failure due to the use of improper folding instructions, this AD must address all emergency evacuation slide/raft systems of this same type design, including those specifically identified in the Air Cruisers Company Service Bulletin 777-107-25-06.

Two commenters request a one-time repacking compliance time of within 18 months after the effective date of this AD for all slide/rafts, instead of the current proposed repacking within two months for slide/rafts identified by SN's, and repacking all other slide/rafts within 18 months after the effective date of this AD. This would make the associated risk consistent for all affected slide/rafts.

The FAA disagrees. The FAA position is that there is still a risk of potential separation of the lower aspirator in this emergency evacuation slide/raft system. In the event of an emergency evacuation, even one slide/raft malfunction may be extremely dangerous. Furthermore, because the Air Cruisers Company Service Bulletin 777-107-25-06, dated February 19, 1999 has been available for more than 18 months, the burden of this AD should be less on all involved. Therefore, the FAA made no changes to the rule with respect to this request.

Three commenters request that a one-time unpacking and subsequent repacking be done with no repetitive repacking procedure added to the regular maintenance of the airplane. Since the problem will be corrected with the one-time repacking, the need for repetitive repacking will be eliminated.

The FAA partially agrees. A one-time unpacking and subsequent repacking of the 93 slide/raft systems identified by SN's per this AD is all that is required for conformance to this AD. The requirement of this AD for “repetitive repacking” is for addressing all other slide/raft systems of the same design. These slide/raft systems are to be repacked at the next scheduled maintenance cycle within the compliance time of this AD in accordance with the applicable Air Cruisers Company Folding Procedures. The FAA will modify the wording “repetitive repacking” to read “repacking of all other slide/raft systems of the same design.”

One commenter states that it is not appropriate to designate the folding procedure revision number since the procedure may be revised in the future. The commenter requests including “or latest as revised” to Folding Procedures P-12054 and P-12064, Revision E. Another commenter requests that the specific revision level of the applicable folding procedure not be listed at all.

The FAA partially agrees. Since the proposal was issued, the FAA has determined that Folding Procedures P-12054 and P-12064, Revision E and earlier, are insufficent and are not to be used to comply with this AD. Repacking must be done in accordance with the applicable Air Cruisers Company Folding Procedure P-12054 or P-12064, Revision F, dated March 12, 1999, or later FAA approved revision, for all emergency evacuation slide/raft systems of the same design. Therefore paragraphs (a) through (d) of the AD is reworded, stating to repack the slide/raft systems in accordance with the applicable Air Cruisers Company Folding Procedure P-12054 (for left-hand slide/rafts), Revision F, dated March 12, 1999, or later FAA approved revision, or Folding Procedure P-12064 (for right-hand slide/rafts), Revision F, dated March 12, 1999, or later FAA approved revision.

One commenter requests removing the words “ but not limited to” from the proposed AD applicability paragraph. Otherwise, unaffected owners/operators will have to spend resources in determining that compliance is unnecessary.

The FAA disagrees. Although these emergency evacuation slide/raft systems are currently installed on Boeing 777-200 and -300 only, it is possible that these slide/raft systems could be installed on other airplanes. Therefore, the FAA made no changes to the rule with respect to this request.

One commenter requests that the AD remove the dash numbers from part numbers identifying the slide/raft systems, and use only the basic, open-ended part numbers. Then for part number details, refer to the effectivity of the applicable Air Cruisers Service Bulletin.

The FAA disagrees. Open-ended slide/raft systems part numbers would cause any future part numbers to become falsely applicable to this AD. Therefore, the FAA made no changes to the rule with respect to this request.

One commenter approves the proposal as-written.

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

There are approximately 388 slide/raft systems of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 74 slide/raft systems installed on airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this AD, that it would take approximately 5 work hours per slide/raft system to accomplish the repacking, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the total cost of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $22,200.

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

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

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-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on August 23, 2002 (67 FR 54597). That action proposed to require a one-time inspection at a certain disconnect panel in the left forward cargo compartment to find contamination of electrical connectors and to determine if a dripshield is installed over the disconnect panel, 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 asks that the applicability in the proposed AD be clarified, in that it only applies to airplanes with forward lavatories installed. The commenter notes that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2001 (which is referenced as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishment of the actions specified in the proposed AD), specifies airplanes that had forward lavatories installed. The commenter adds that such clarification would eliminate the need for an alternative method of compliance for airplanes without a forward lavatory.

The FAA agrees with the commenter. We have changed the applicability section in this final rule to clarify that it applies only to airplanes with forward lavatories installed.

One commenter asks that the compliance time in the proposed AD be extended from 18 to 24 months after the effective date of the AD. The commenter states that per the 18 month compliance time, 159 airplanes in the DC-9 fleet must be modified during normal “L,” “H,” and “M” maintenance checks. The commenter adds that meeting the 18-month compliance time may require special maintenance visits, and changing the compliance time to 24 months would allow time for accomplishment of the inspection and for the airplane manufacturer to provide parts to support replacement of the dripshield, if necessary, during normal maintenance visits.

We do not agree with the commenter. The commenter provides no technical data to justify its statement that the proposed compliance time should be extended. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, we considered not only the safety implications, but the manufacturer's recommendations, availability of spare parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the inspection within an interval of time that parallels normal scheduled maintenance for affected operators. In consideration of all of these factors, we have determined that the compliance time, as proposed, represents an appropriate interval in which the inspection can be accomplished in a timely manner within the fleet and still maintain an adequate level of safety. However, under the provisions of paragraph (c) of the final rule, we may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter does not agree with the manpower estimates in the Cost Impact section of the proposed AD. The commenter states that, under the worst conditions, an airplane will have blue water contamination and no dripshield installed. The commenter adds that it will take one sheet metal mechanic 6 hours to install the dripshield and all open/close access requirements; and it will take one electrical technician 8 hours to clean each electrical connector and do affected system checks. The commenter notes that these estimates are based on actual labor done on one of its airplanes. The commenter also provided estimates of the inflated cost of parts ordered with a 300-day lead-time.

From this comment, we infer that the commenter is asking that the cost impact estimate be revised. We do not agree. The economic analysis of the AD is limited only to the cost of actions actually required by the rule. It does not consider the costs of “on condition” actions, such as installation of an electrical connector or a dripshield if discrepancies are found during a required inspection (“corrective actions, if necessary”). Such “on-condition” corrective actions would be required to be accomplished, regardless of AD direction, to correct an unsafe condition identified in an airplane and to ensure operation of that airplane in an airworthy condition, as required by the Federal Aviation Regulations. Therefore, no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

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 80 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 51 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 inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,060, 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 all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2002 (67 FR 34633). That action proposed to require replacement of the existing “Low Temp” terminal blocks “G” with new, fireproof ceramic terminal blocks “G” in engine zones 412, 422, 432, and 442.

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

One commenter requests that the FAA extend the compliance time for the replacement in the proposed AD from 21 months to July 31, 2004, (the equivalent of an additional 12 months). The commenter states that the request is based upon limited parts availability and feedback from large fleet operators. The commenter also states that the Civil Aviation Authority for the United Kingdom has approved the extension of the compliance time for airplanes operating in the United Kingdom.

The FAA concurs with the commenter's request. We have verified that the lead time for obtaining the required modification parts will exceed the proposed compliance time of 21 months. In light of this situation, we will extend the compliance time from 21 months to 31 months after the effective date of this AD. We have determined that such an extension will accommodate the time necessary for affected operators to order and obtain the replacement parts, without adversely affecting safety. We have revised paragraph (a) of this AD accordingly.

Since issuance of the proposed AD, the manufacturer has issued BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin SB.71-077-01693A, Revision 1, dated March 28, 2002; and Revision 2, dated May 28, 2002. The proposed rule referenced the original issue of this service bulletin, dated October 10, 2001, as the appropriate source of service information for the proposed replacement. We find that the procedures described in Revision 1 and Revision 2 of the service bulletin are essentially the same as those in the original issue. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (a) of the final rule to reference Revision 2 of the service bulletin as the appropriate source of service information. We have also included a new paragraph (b) to this final rule (and re-lettered subsequent paragraphs accordingly) to give credit for replacements accomplished before the effective date of this AD per the original issue or Revision 1 of the service bulletin.

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

We estimate that 55 Model BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ series airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 4 work hours per airplane (1 hour per engine, 4 engines per airplane) to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. The cost for required parts will be negligible. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $13,200, or $240 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 AD that is applicable to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 D, 1 D1, 1 S, 1 S1, and −2B series turboshaft engines was published in the Federal Register on September 6, 2001 (66 FR 46562). That proposal was revised by a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that expanded the applicability to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 A2, 1 C, 1 C1, 1 C2, 1 D, 1 D1, 1 E2, 1 K, 1 K1, 1 S, 1 S1 and Arriel 2 B, 2 B1, 2 C, 2 C1, 2 S1 series turboshaft engines. That SNPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 20, 2002 (67 FR 59217). That action proposed to require the insertion of a sleeve in the attachment boss of the compressor bleed valve, and bonding the sleeve in the bleed-valve mounting pad, in accordance with Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 72 2054, dated September 20, 1999; MSB No. 292 72 0261, dated September 20, 1999; MSB No. 292 72 2070, Update No. 1, dated October 5, 2001; and MSB No. 292 72 0275, Update No. 1, dated October 2, 2001. Since the publication of the SNPRM, MSB No. 292 72 0275 has been reissued as Update No. 2, dated April 15, 2002. This MSB expands the engine model applicability of this AD by referencing MSB No. 292 72 0261, dated September 20, 1999, and Service Bulletin (SB) No. 292 72 0262, dated September 28, 1999. Accordingly, a new paragraph (b) has been added to reflect the updated MSB.

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

There are approximately 1,406 Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 and Arriel 2 model turboshaft engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 476 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1.0 work hour per engine to perform the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $430 per engine. Based on these figures, the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators is estimated to be $233,240.

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

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

The Civil Aviation Authority Czech Republic (CAA CZ), which is the airworthiness authority for the Czech Republic, notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all Moravan Model Z-242L airplanes. The CAA CZ reports that these airplanes are operated over the load spectrum that was used at certification. The CAA CZ further reports that a technical service life for these airplanes is needed. The affected airplanes fall into two different groups:

Based on analysis, the CAA CZ reports that the technical service life should be:

Fatigue cracks in the wing, if not detected and corrected or prevented, could result in structural failure of the wing. Such failure could result in a wing separating from the airplane with consequent loss of airplane control.

We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all Moravan Model Z-242L airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on October 4, 2002 (67 FR 62214). The NPRM proposed to establish a technical service life for these airplanes by restricting Acrobatic and Utility category operations and requiring replacement of the wings after a certain operational time period.

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

Several commenters request that FAA delay issuing the final rule AD until after Moravan America has a chance to present an alternative to the actions specified in the NPRM. Specific comments in this area are as follows:

The FAA is continuing with this AD action. However, we will add a grace period of “90 days after the effective date of this AD” to the compliance time of the life limits in the Utility and Acrobatic categories. This would make the compliance time “upon accumulating either 190 hours TIS or 450 hours TIS in the Utility or Acrobatic category or on or before June 10, 2003 (90 days after the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later.” This compliance time change will give Moravan America the time it needs to develop an alternative method of compliance and service bulletin for FAA approval.

Based on data submitted, we may approve an alternative method of compliance and amend the AD, as appropriate.

One commenter states that the life limit for airplanes with the strengthened wings should be 5,500 hours TIS. We infer that the commenter wants the NPRM changed to reflect this.

We partially concur. The life limit for the affected airplanes with strengthened wings is 5,500 hours TIS while operated in the Normal category. The life limit for these airplanes in the Utility and Acrobatic categories is 450 hours TIS. After the sum of time in the Utility and Acrobatic categories equals 450 hours TIS or within 90 days after the effective date of the AD (whichever occurs later), you may only operate the airplane in the Normal category until the accumulation of 5,500 hours TIS. Utility and Acrobatic category operation would be prohibited until the installation of new wings.

The life limits for Utility and Acrobatic category operation and Normal category operation would start over again after replacement of the wings.

We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this comment.

Several commenters request that FAA change the NPRM to allow those airplanes that incorporate the strengthened wings to operate past 450 hours TIS in the Utility and Acrobatic categories if an AMU1 (acceleration monitoring unit) is installed. The commenters state that this unit regularly monitors the load factors on the primary structure and evaluates the measured load spectrum and collates it with the CAA-FAA and ZLIN-A spectrums. The commenters feel that this AMU1 unit has had an indisputable and substantial impact on increasing the safe fatigue life on the Model Z-242L airplanes.

We do not concur that the AMU1 unit should be part of the proposed AD. The CAA CZ examined all the available data and decided that these airplanes should be life limited to the levels described in the NPRM.

We have determined that these life limit values are valid and that allowing all airplanes to exceed these values through the use of an acceleration monitoring unit does not address the unsafe condition. The FAA will evaluate requests for this option on an individual basis and may issue alternative methods of compliance provided the request is made in accordance with the procedures in paragraph (e) of the AD and provides a level of safety acceptable to FAA.

We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this comment.

Several commenters state that Moravan has the capability of approving the data from the acceleration monitoring unit and allowing continued operation past the specified life limits. The commenters further state that Moravan recognizes the information from both the AMU1 unit and the Corsa Data Acquisition System (CDAS) in allowing the affected airplanes to operate past the 450-hour TIS life limit in the Utility and Acrobatic categories and operate to the 5,500-hour TIS Normal category life limit.

The commenters suggest that FAA give Moravan the authority to allow the affected airplane operators to operate past the Utility and Acrobatic life limit categories.

We do not concur. As earlier stated, the CAA CZ examined all the available data and decided that these airplanes should be life limited to the levels described in the NPRM. We have determined that these life limits are valid.

The FAA is not allowed to delegate its rulemaking authority to an aircraft manufacturer. Allowing Moravan to determine whether an airplane can exceed these values through the use of an AMU1 or CDAS would be the same as delegating our rulemaking authority.

We will evaluate requests for this option on an individual basis and may issue alternative methods of compliance provided the request is found to be at a level of safety acceptable to FAA and is made in accordance with the procedures in paragraph (e) of the AD.

We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this comment.

One commenter recommends that FAA add the option of incorporating a wing root modification to allow operation in the Utility and Acrobatic categories to 3,500 hours TIS. This is for airplanes with unstrengthened wings that are not eligible for the AMU1 method to increase operation to the 5,500 hours TIS.

We do not concur. As earlier stated, the CAA CZ examined all the available data and decided that these airplanes should be life limited to the levels described in the NPRM. We have determined that these life limits are valid.

Moravan has superseded the service bulletin that incorporated the referenced root wing modification, and the CAA CZ does not have current AD action that references this root wing modification. The FAA has examined all of the information available from CAA CZ and has determined that the root wing modification is not a valid option for this AD action.

We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this comment.

Several comments state that both the CAA CZ and FAA have approved fatigue testing done on 3 Model Z242L airplanes that shows that the airplanes can be operated to 5,500 hours TIS without any life limits on Utility or Acrobatic category operations. These commenters recommend that we remove the Utility and Acrobatic category life limit requirement from the AD for the Model Z-242L airplanes.

Another commenter states that the service history on this subject matter is only for the earlier manufactured airplane models and no data exists for the Model Z-242L airplanes. The airplane models that the commenter refers to are not certificated for operation in the United States. This commenter recommends that FAA withdraw the NPRM.

One commenter states that the proposed AD action is based on an accident of a Model Z-142 airplane (not certificated in the United States) in Australia. The commenter points out that the wing on the Model Z-242L has a totally different design and should not be affected by the subject matter in this AD. The commenter proposes that FAA withdraw the NPRM.

The FAA does not concur that the Model Z-242L airplanes should be excluded from the AD or exempt from the Utility and Acrobatic category life limit requirements. We concur that there may be differences in the design of the aircraft, but we do not concur that the Model Z-242L is not affected by this subject matter. The CAA CZ has approved the life limits that are included in this AD for the Model Z-242L airplanes, and FAA has determined that they are valid for these airplanes that are registered in the United States. The FAA has to issue an AD to mandate the reduction in a life limit or a change or addition of an airworthiness limitation, even if the reduction, change, or addition is FAA-approved. Therefore, the AD is necessary in order to ensure the life limits are required.

We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this comment.

One commenter states that the current life limits are already in force because the manufacturer included them in a revision to the maintenance manual. Because of this, the commenter believes the AD is unnecessary and requests that FAA withdraw the NPRM.

We do not concur that the AD is unnecessary and the NPRM should be withdrawn. There are distinct differences between the CAA CZ and FAA's rulemaking processes. If the CAA CZ determines an airworthiness limitation should be added or a life limit should be reduced, it only has to stamp CAA CZ approved on the document (service bulletin or maintenance manual revision) to enforce the change. The FAA has to issue an AD to mandate the reduction in a life limit or a change or addition of an airworthiness limitation, even if the reduction, change, or addition is FAA-approved. Therefore, the AD is necessary in order to ensure the life limits are required.

We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this comment.

One commenter requests that FAA allow repetitive inspection of the wings once one of the affected airplanes reaches the life limit in Utility and Acrobatic operations. The commenter believes that the aircraft could then continue to fly until it reached the total hours TIS life limit provided no cracks are found during the inspections. The commenter states that this would provide the same level of safety because cracks would be detected before failure, and then FAA could mandate replacement of the wings when the cracks were found.

There currently are no procedures available for detecting cracks in the wings of the affected airplanes. The CAA CZ has not approved inspections in this area and has approved the life limits. Therefore, we are mandating the life limits through this AD action.

We would consider repetitive inspections as an alternative method of compliance provided the method:

We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this comment.

Several commenters request that FAA not issue the AD because of the high cost.

The FAA does not concur. While we do take the cost impact into consideration on AD actions, the most important aspect is the safety issue. The passenger injuries that might be prevented through compliance with this AD outweigh the cost of compliance with this AD. We have determined that the CAA CZ life limits are valid and should be mandated for airplanes certificated for operation in the United States. We will approve any alternative method of compliance from the commenters provided it is submitted in accordance with the procedures in the AD and we determine that it provides an acceptable level of safety.

We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this comment.

One commenter wants clarification on how time in the Utility and Acrobatic categories is calculated. This commenter states that no U.S. operator has an accurate account of acrobatic time at this point so all wings would have to be replaced or no one is going to claim the right number of hours in these categories.

We concur that it could be difficult to account for the number of hours TIS previously accumulated in the Utility and Acrobatic categories. However, the CAA CZ established the limits in the Utility and Acrobatic categories at 190 or 450 hours TIS and we have determined that they are valid and should be mandated for airplanes certificated for operation in the United States. As previously discussed, we are adding a grace period of “90 days after the effective date of this AD” to the compliance time of the life limits in the Utility and Acrobatic categories. This would make the compliance time “upon accumulating either 190 hours TIS or 450 hours TIS in the Utility or Acrobatic category or on or before June 10, 2003 (90 days after the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later.”

All operators will have at least 90 days before they are restricted from operations in the Utility and Acrobatic categories.

We have added procedures to the AD on how to track time in the Acrobatic and Utility categories. These procedures are also specified in Moravan Mandatory Service Bulletin Z 242L/37a (Z 142C/17a), Rev. 1, dated October 31, 2000; and Moravan Mandatory Service Bulletin Z 242L/38a (Z 142C/18a), dated October 31, 2000.

One commenter states that the life limits are not valid because the affected airplanes are equipped with nitrogen spars. With these spars, you can detect cracks through pressure leakage. The commenter believes that because of these early signs of failure, it is inconceivable that the wings will fall off due to stress. The commenter requests that FAA withdraw the NPRM.

We do not concur that the AD action is not valid because the affected airplanes are equipped with nitrogen spars. The CAA CZ was aware of this when it performed the analysis to determine the life limits. We have determined that the CAA CZ life limits are valid and should be mandated for airplanes certificated for operation in the United States.

We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this comment.

After careful review of all available information related to the subject presented above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for the compliance time change, the addition of procedures on how to track time in the Acrobatic and Utility categories, and minor editorial corrections. We have determined that the change, the addition, and the minor editorial corrections:

We estimate that this AD affects 39 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to replace the wings after the technical service life is reached:

We have no way of determining the monetary cost of the inconvenience of restricting flight to Normal category operations.

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 copy of the final evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

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 MD-90-30 airplanes was published in the Federal Register on October 1, 2002 (67 FR 61569). That action proposed to require a one-time inspection of the single-phase remote control circuit breaker(s) (RCCBs) in a certain area of the electrical/electronic (E/E) compartment to determine the part number and serial number of the RCCB(s), and replacement of certain RCCBs with new or serviceable RCCBs, if necessary.

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

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

There are approximately 86 Model MD-90-30 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. We estimate that 21 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 this inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,260, 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.

PDMA (Public Law 100-293) was enacted on April 22, 1988, and was modified by the PDA (Public Law 102-353, 106 Stat. 941) on August 26, 1992. The PDMA, as modified by the PDA, amended sections 301, 303, 503, and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 331, 333, 353, and 381) to, among other things, establish requirements for the wholesale distribution of prescription drugs and for the distribution of blood derived prescription drug products by health care entities.

On December 3, 1999, the agency published final regulations in part 203 (21 CFR part 203) implementing PDMA (64 FR 67720). After publication of the final rule, the agency received communications from industry, industry trade associations, and members of Congress objecting to the provisions in §§ 203.3(u) and 203.50. On March 29, 2000, the agency met with representatives from the wholesale drug industry and industry associations to discuss their concerns. In addition, FDA received a petition requesting that the relevant provisions of the final rule be stayed until October 1, 2001. The agency also received a petition from the Small Business Administration requesting that FDA reconsider the final rule and suspend its effective date based on the severe economic impact it would have on more than 4,000 small businesses.

In addition to the communications regarding wholesale distribution by unauthorized distributors, the agency received several letters on, and held several meetings to discuss, the implications of the final regulations for blood centers that distribute blood derivative products and provide health care to hospitals and patients.

Based on the concerns expressed by industry, industry associations, and Congress about implementing §§ 203.3(u) and 203.50 by the December 4, 2000, effective date, the agency published a notice in the Federal Register of May 3, 2000 (65 FR 25639), delaying the effective date for those provisions until October 1, 2001. In addition, the May 2000 document delayed the applicability of § 203.3(q) to wholesale distribution of blood derivatives by health care entities until October 1, 2001. The May 2000 document also reopened the administrative record to give interested persons until July 3, 2000, to submit written comments.

On May 16, 2000, the House Committee on Appropriations (the Committee) stated in its report accompanying the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2001 (H. Rept. 106-619) that it supported the “recent FDA action to delay the effective date for implementing certain requirements of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act until October 1, 2001, and reopen the administrative record in order to receive additional comments.” In addition, the Committee stated that it “believes the agency should thoroughly review the potential impact of the proposed provisions on the secondary wholesale pharmaceutical industry.” The Committee directed the agency to provide a report to the Committee summarizing the comments and issues raised and agency plans to address the concerns.

After issuing the delay of the effective date, the agency announced in the Federal Register of September 19, 2000 (65 FR 56480), that a public hearing would be held to discuss the requirements at issue. The hearing was held on October 27, 2000, and comments were accepted until November 20, 2000.

In the Federal Register of March 1, 2001 (66 FR 12850), the agency announced that it was further delaying, until April 1, 2002, the effective date of §§ 203.3(u) and 203.50, and the applicability of § 203.3(q) to wholesale distribution of blood derivatives by health care entities. As explained by the agency, the effective date was further delayed to give FDA additional time to consider comments and testimony received, for FDA to prepare its report to Congress, and, if appropriate, for Congress or the agency to make legislative or regulatory changes. The report was completed and submitted to Congress on June 7, 2001.

In its report to Congress, the agency concluded that it could address some, but not all, of the concerns raised by the secondary wholesale industry and the blood industry through regulatory changes. However, to make other changes requested by the secondary wholesale industry, Congress would have to amend section 503(e) of the act. As a result, on February 13, 2002, FDA further delayed the effective date of the relevant provisions of the final rule until April 1, 2003, in part to give Congress time to consider the information and conclusions contained in the agency's report and to determine if legislative action was appropriate. Based on a recent petition submitted by affected parties, FDA understands that members of Congress are, in fact, considering the issues presented in the agency's report. Due to competing legislative priorities, however, the issues have not yet been resolved. Therefore, to give Congress additional time to determine if legislative action is appropriate, the agency is further delaying the effective date for §§ 203.3(u) and 203.50, and the applicability of § 203.3(q) to wholesale distribution of blood derivatives by health care entities. The further delay of the effective date until April 1, 2004, will also give the agency additional time to consider whether regulatory changes are warranted.

FDA has examined the impacts of this delay of effective date under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that this action is consistent with the regulatory philosophy and principles identified in the Executive order. This action will ease the burden on industry by delaying the effect of §§ 203.3(u) and 203.50, and the applicability of § 203.3(q) to wholesale distribution of blood derivatives by health care entities while Congress considers taking legislative action. Thus, this action is not a significant action as defined by the Executive order.

This action is being taken under FDA's authority under 21 CFR 10.35(a). The Commissioner of Food and Drugs finds that this delay of the effective date is in the public interest.

Bimeda, Inc., 291 Forest Prairie Rd., LeSueur, MN 56058, has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, the following 25 approved NADAs and ANADAs to Cross Vetpharm Group Ltd., Broomhill Rd., Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland.

Accordingly, the agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR 520.390a, 520.540b, 520.622a, 520.823, 520.1484, 520.1660d, 520.1696b, 520.1720a, 520.1720d, 520.2123a, 520.2123b, 520.2260b, 522.820, 522.2444b, 524.1580b, 526.820, 558.248, and 558.625 to reflect the transfer of ownership.

Following this change of sponsorship, Bimeda, Inc., is no longer the sponsor of any approved application. Accordingly, 21 CFR 510.600(c) is being amended to remove the entries for Bimeda, Inc.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

RMS Laboratories, Inc., 1903 East First St., Vidalia, GA 30474, filed NADA 141-210 that provides for use of GENESIS (triamcinolone acetonide) Topical Spray in dogs for the control of pruritus associated with allergic dermatitis. The NADA is approved as of November 4, 2002, and the regulations are amended in part 524 (21 CFR part 524) by adding new § 524.2482 to reflect the approval. The basis of approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary.

In addition, RMS Laboratories, Inc., has not been previously listed in the animal drug regulations as a sponsor of an approved application. At this time, 21 CFR 510.600(c) is being amended to add entries for the firm.

In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(ii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(ii)), this approval qualifies for 3 years of marketing exclusivity beginning November 4, 2002.

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(d)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

Phoenix Scientific, Inc., 3915 South 48th Street Terrace, St. Joseph, MO 64503, filed ANADA 200-313 for Levamisole Hydrochloride Soluble Pig Wormer used to make medicated drinking water for the treatment of various internal parasites. Phoenix Scientific, Inc.'s Levamisole Hydrochloride Soluble Pig Wormer is approved as a generic copy of Schering-Plough Animal Health's TRAMISOL (levamisole hydrochloride) Soluble Pig Wormer, approved under NADA 112-049. The ANADA is approved as of October 25, 2002, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 520.1242a to reflect the approval. The basis of approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary.

In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

(b) * * *

(4) See No. 059130 for use of 18.15-gram packages as in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.

On May 13, 2002, proposed regulations (REG-154920-01) were published in the Federal Register (67 FR 31995) under section 954 governing the definition of foreign base company income and foreign personal holding company income of a controlled foreign corporation (a CFC). These regulations addressed, among other matters, the circumstances in which income from transactions in commodities will be treated as foreign personal holding company income.

Following the publication of the proposed regulations, the IRS scheduled a public hearing and requested written comments on the regulations. The public hearing was canceled because no one requested to speak at the hearing. The IRS received one written comment, which recommended the proposed regulations be finalized as written.

The language of the proposed regulations is unchanged except for nonsubstantive changes to §§ 1.954-2(g)(2)(ii)(C)(2)(i) and (ii) that more explicitly set out the relationship between those paragraphs and § 1.954-2(g)(2)(ii)(C)(1).

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 has also 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 these regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 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 authors of these regulations are Kenneth Christman and Ted Setzer of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.

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 of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number 1545-1783. The collection of information in these final regulations is in §§ 1.48-12(d)(7)(iv), 1.152-3(c), 1.611-3(h), 1.852-9(c)(1), and 301.6903-1(b). Responses to this collection of information are mandatory.

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 additional burden in final regulations §§ 1.611-3(h), 1.852-9(c)(1), and 301.6903-1(b) is 0 hours because the records that are required to be maintained were previously required to be maintained to document the reporting requirements. This reporting burden will be reflected in the burden estimate for Form T (Timber), Form 2439, and Form 56, respectively.

Estimated additional total annual reporting burden for 2002 for Form 3468: 376 hours.

Estimated number of responses for 2002 for Form 3468: 22,575.

Estimated additional average annual burden hours per response for 2002 for Form 3468: 1 minute.

Estimated additional total annual reporting burden for 2002 for Form 2120: 550 hours.

Estimated number of responses for 2002 for Form 2120: 11,000.

Estimated additional average annual burden hours per response for 2002 for Form 2120: 3 minutes.

The estimated additional reporting burden for the reporting in final regulations §§ 1.48-12(d)(7)(iv) and 1.152-3(c) will be reflected in the burden estimate for Form 3468 and Form 2120, respectively.

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 a 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.

This document contains amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) and the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301) designed to eliminate regulatory impediments to the electronic filing of Form 1040.

In 1998, Congress enacted the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 1998), Public Law 105-206 (112 Stat. 685) (1998). Section 2001(a) of RRA 1998 states that the policy of Congress is that paperless filing should be the preferred and most convenient means of filing Federal tax returns. Section 2001(a) of RRA 1998 also sets a long-range goal for the IRS to have at least 80 percent of all Federal tax returns filed electronically by 2007. Section 2001(b) of RRA 1998 requires the IRS to establish a 10-year strategic plan to eliminate barriers to electronic filing. On April 24, 2002, the IRS published temporary regulations (TD 8989, 67 FR 20028) and a cross-reference notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-107184-00, 67 FR 20072) to facilitate the implementation of this plan by eliminating regulatory impediments to the electronic filing of Form 1040.

The temporary regulations amended the Procedure and Administration Regulations to provide a regulatory statement of IRS authority to prescribe what return information or documentation must be filed with a return, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations. The regulations give the IRS maximum flexibility in prescribing (1) what needs to be filed in support of a return or claim, and (2) the form of the filing, e.g., electronic versus paper. The regulations permit the IRS to prescribe required return information in forms, instructions, or other appropriate guidance.

In addition, the IRS identified five regulatory provisions that impede electronic filing by requiring the taxpayer to either include a third-party signature, or attach a document generated by a third party. The temporary regulations amended those provisions to eliminate the impediments.

No written comments were received in response to the cross-reference notice of proposed rulemaking and no public hearing was requested or held.

This Treasury decision removes the temporary regulations and adopts the proposed regulations with minor clarifications explained below.

These final regulations clarify how to “file” a written declaration waiving the dependency deduction under section 152(c)(4). Section 1.152-3(a)(4) of the existing regulations provides that each person waiving the deduction should “file” a written declaration stating that the person waiving the deduction will not claim the individual as a dependent. However, the term “file” is confusing because it usually refers to a submission to the IRS. These final regulations amend section 1.152-3(a)(4) to provide that each person waiving the deduction should “furnish” a written waiver declaration to the taxpayer claiming the deduction.

Section 1.152-3(b) of the existing regulations provides two examples explaining the requirements in section 1.152-3(a). The examples require that the written declarations furnished by each person waiving the deduction be attached to the income tax return of the taxpayer. These final regulations update the examples by removing the requirement that the waivers be attached to the taxpayer's return. The amended regulations require the taxpayer to retain the waivers consistent with section 1.152-3(c).

Under section 1.152-3(c)(3) of the proposed regulations, the taxpayer claiming the individual as a dependent must retain the declarations furnished by the persons waiving the deduction. Section 1.152-3(c)(3) of the proposed regulations also provides that the IRS may request other information from the taxpayer to substantiate the dependency claim. The proposed regulation then states that the other information that will substantiate the claim may include a statement showing the names of all contributors and the amount contributed by each. These final regulations clarify that the statement is just one of many pieces of information that the IRS may request to substantiate the dependency claim. No one statement or piece of information is necessarily determinative.

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. It is hereby certified that the collection of information in these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based upon the fact that the persons responsible for recordkeeping are principally individuals, and the burden is not significant as described earlier in the preamble. Therefore, 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 their impact on small business.

The principal author of these regulations is Joseph P. Dewald, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), Administrative Provisions and Judicial Practice Division. However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in the development of the regulations.

This document contains amendments to the Employment Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 31) relating to the IRS TIN Matching Program.

Section 3406(a)(1) requires a payor to withhold on any reportable payment (as defined in section 3406(b)(1)) in certain situations, including if (1) the payee fails to furnish his TIN to the payor as required or (2) the Secretary notifies the payor that the TIN furnished by the payee is incorrect. Section 3406(i) provides that the Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of section 3406.

Regulations under section 3406(i) provide that the Commissioner has the authority to establish TIN matching programs through revenue procedures or other appropriate guidance. Under the regulations, a payor participating in a TIN matching program may, before filing information returns with respect to reportable payments, contact the IRS with respect to the TIN furnished by the payee. The regulations provide that the IRS will inform the payor whether or not the name/TIN combination furnished by the payee matches a name/TIN combination maintained for the TIN matching program.

Pursuant to the authority in the regulations, the IRS issued Rev. Proc. 97-31 (1997-1 C.B. 703) and implemented a TIN matching program for Federal agency payors. The IRS is now issuing a second revenue procedure pursuant to that authority (as amended by these temporary regulations). This revenue procedure will expand the scope of the IRS TIN Matching Program to allow all payors (and not merely Federal agency payors), as well as payors' authorized agents, to participate in TIN matching. In addition, the IRS and the Treasury Department expect to issue additional published guidance that will allow payment card organizations to act on behalf of cardholder/payors for purposes of soliciting, collecting, and validating merchant/payees' names and TINs through TIN matching if certain requirements are met.

These regulations specifically authorize a payor's authorized agent to participate in TIN matching by providing that, for purposes of the TIN matching program, the term payor includes an agent designated by the payor to participate in TIN matching on behalf of the payor.

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. For the applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) refer to the Special Analyses section of the preamble to the cross-reference notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register. Pursuant to section 7805(f), the temporary regulations will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

The principal author of the regulations is Donna Welch, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), Administrative Provisions and Judicial Practice Division. However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in the development of the regulations.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, title XI, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002) (“Act”), transferred certain law enforcement and regulatory authorities, functions, personnel, and assets of the former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. The Act also created new authorities, particularly in the area of regulation of explosives.

The Attorney General (with minimal exceptions not relevant here) is vested with the responsibility for the management of all functions of the Department of Justice and may delegate those functions to officials of the Department as he deems appropriate. 28 U.S.C. 509, 510. In implementing his statutory responsibilities for the Act and the administration of the Department, the Attorney General is issuing these regulations for the internal management of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

This final rule creates a new subpart of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 0, regarding the establishment, functions, and management of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. This rule also makes minor technical amendments to other Department regulations relating to authority for processing petitions for remission or mitigation of forfeitures, compromise of claims, maintenance of reading rooms, program fraud civil remedies, and ethical standards. These changes align the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives with other law enforcement components within the Department of Justice.

On November 25, 2002, the President signed into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002). Section 1111 of the Act establishes in the Department the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,” and generally transfers most of the non-tax authorities, functions, personnel and assets of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice. This transfer is effective on January 24, 2003.

Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Department of the Treasury retains authority over certain tax provisions relating to alcohol, tobacco and firearms, as well as the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. Those functions will be handled by the new Tax and Trade Bureau in the Department of the Treasury.

The amendment to 28 CFR 0.1 adds the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to the list of bureaus within the Department of Justice.

This rule redesignates subpart W as subpart W-1, and creates a new subpart W for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, consistent with the subparts that delegate authority to other bureaus of the Department.

New 28 CFR 0.130 delegates to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“Director”), subject to the direction of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, responsibilities with respect to the investigation and enforcement of federal firearms, explosives, and arson laws, as well as the provisions of title 18, United States Code, with respect to violations involving alcohol and tobacco. Paragraphs (a) through (c) reflect the authorities that were previously exercised by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms within the Department of the Treasury and which were transferred in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, plus new authority enacted in the Safe Explosives Act, title XI, subtitle C, of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Paragraph (d) reflects the management of new authority which may be delegated by the Attorney General in the future as authorized by section 1111(b)(3) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

Section 0.131 delegates to the Director specific functions previously performed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, including the operation of laboratories, the National Explosives Licensing Center, the National Firearms Licensing Center, the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, the Arson and Explosives National Repository, the National Tracing Center, and a new Explosives Training and Research Facility, as well as specific functions performed by law enforcement bureaus of the Department of Justice.

Section 0.132 delegates to the Director authority to settle certain claims against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and its personnel within certain applicable monetary limits.

Section 0.133 of this rule provides administrative continuity in the transfer of functions from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice by adopting and carrying forward certain extant regulations specifically relating to the authorities transfered to the Department of Justice. In a separate rule, these regulations are being recodified in a new chapter II of 27 CFR.

There are other regulations issued by the Department of the Treasury, or the former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, that apply to both the authorities that were transferred to the Department of Justice and the authorities that were retained in the Department of the Treasury pursuant to the Homeland Security Act. For example, the regulations in 27 CFR part 70 contain general rules on procedure and administration. Many of these rules apply only to taxes collected by the Department of the Treasury. However, some of these rules also apply to administration of the National Firearms Act, which will be enforced by the Department of Justice. Paragraph (a)(2) continues the application of these regulations to the operations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives until amended, or otherwise revised.

Accordingly, this section provides that, pending the issuance of new regulations or other changes in authority, all other regulations issued by the Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms prior to January 24, 2003, shall continue to apply to the operations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, to the extent that such regulations apply to the authorities or functions transferred to the Department of Justice pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 or the regulations in this part, unless the application of such regulations would be inconsistent with statutes or regulations applicable to the Department of Justice.

Similarly, paragraph (a)(3) continues the orders and other legal authorities related to the former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Paragraph (a)(4) alters the effect of the reference to appropriate entities and officials of the Department of the Treasury before the transfer to refer to the corresponding entities and officials of the Department of Justice after the transfer. Finally, paragraph (b) makes four exceptions for specific matters relating to forfeitures. In the future, when it is clear that pending proceedings no longer depend on such pre-existing authority, the Department will make the necessary adjustments to change the nomenclature in the regulations transferred to chapter II, title 27, and to eliminate obsolete regulations.

Additionally, a number of conforming changes are required in other parts in 28 CFR to incorporate the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives into the Department of Justice. These changes affect only the internal administration of the Department.

Amendments to part 9 apply the procedures used by the Department of Justice for remission and mitigation of forfeiture to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. 27 CFR part 72 will not be applicable to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives after transfer to the Department of Justice.

Similarly, under the Department of Justice authority in amendments to part 11, the Director is delegated authority to compromise claims under the Debt Collection Act, 31 U.S.C. 3711. This replaces authority previously exercised within the Department of the Treasury under 31 CFR part 5.

Amendments to part 16 establish the various Freedom of Information Act functions, 5 U.S.C. 552, within the Department for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. These provisions replace Department of the Treasury regulations. 31 CFR part 1.

The Chief Counsel of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is designated as the reviewing official under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, 31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq. Finally, in 28 CFR part 77 attorneys in the office of the Chief Counsel of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives are brought under the ethical standards applicable to Department of Justice attorneys under 28 U.S.C. 530B.

Finally, the Department notes that all Department of Justice regulations and policy applicable to its Bureaus and employees, such as the policy statements of 28 CFR part 50, automatically become applicable to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives through this transfer of functions under the Act.

This rule relates to matters of agency management and personnel and, therefore, is exempt from the usual requirements of prior notice and comment and a 30-day delay in effective date. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) and (d). The rule only continues extant provisions of the regulations of the former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and makes appropriate changes to reflect the transfer certain law enforcement functions of the former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to the Department of Justice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On October 31, 2002 (67 FR 66348), a proposed rule was published in the Federal Register with an invitation to comment. No comments were received.

This order relates to individuals rather than small business entities. Nevertheless, pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, it is hereby stated that the order will not have “a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.”

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the date that they were revised by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

On December 3, 2002, this submittal was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

We gave a limited approval and limited disapproval to a version of ICAPCD Rule 701 on July 11, 2001 (66 FR 36170). We approved a version of MBUAPCD Rule 408 on July 13, 1987 (52 FR 26148).

The purpose of the submitted revised ICAPCD Rule 701 is to remedy the deficiency cited in the limited approval and limited disapproval action on July 11, 2001 (66 FR 36170).

The purposes of the submitted revised MBUAPCD Rule 408 are to reformat the rule and to remove the blanket exemption from the rule for burning household rubbish and yard trimmings at single- and two-family homes in all of San Benito County.

Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the CAA) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). Section 189(a) of the CAA requires moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas with significant PM-10 sources to adopt reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology (RACT). RACM/RACT is not required for attainment areas unless required by a maintenance attainment plan. ICAPCD regulates a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area. MBUAPCD is a PM-10 attainment area. See 40 CFR 81.305.

The following guidance documents were used for reference:

• Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.

• General Preamble Appendix C3—Prescribed Burning Control Measures (57 FR 18072, April 28, 1992).

• PM-10 Guideline Document, EPA-452/R-93-008.

The deficiency in ICAPCD Rule 701 was that the APCO had open-ended discretion to allow burning on No-Burn Days in case of imminent and substantial economic loss. The deficiency was remedied in paragraph B.1 with the addition that the APCO must limit the amount of acreage per No-Burn Day and that the APCO may authorize such burning only when downwind populated areas are forecast by the ICAPCD to achieve the ambient air quality standards.

The cited changes improve MBUAPCD Rule 408 with increased stringency by eliminating a blanket exemption.

We believe the rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations, and RACM/RACT requirements. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this, so we are finalizing the approval without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by March 3, 2003, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on April 1, 2003. This will incorporate these rules into the federally-enforceable SIP and will terminate all sanctions and Federal Implementation Plan implications associated with our June 11, 2001 action on a previous version of ICAPCD Rule 701.

Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this direct final rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

PM-10 harms human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control PM-10 emissions. Table 2 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of local agency PM-10 rules.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 1, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

On July 11, 2001 (66 FR 36170), we published a limited approval and limited disapproval of ICAPCD Rule 701 as adopted locally on September 14, 1999 and submitted by the State on May 26, 2000. We based our limited disapproval action on certain deficiencies in the submittal. This disapproval action started a sanctions clock for imposition of offset sanctions 18 months after August 10, 2001 and highway sanctions 6 months later, pursuant to section 179 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31.

On August 13, 2002, ICAPCD adopted revisions to Rule 701 that were intended to correct the deficiencies identified in our disapproval action. On October 16, 2002, the State submitted these revisions to EPA. In the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, we have proposed approval of this submittal because we believe it corrects the deficiencies identified in our July 11, 2001 disapproval action. Based on today's proposed approval, we are taking this final rulemaking action, effective on publication, to stay and/or defer imposition of sanctions that were triggered by our July 11, 2001 disapproval.

EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this stay/deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that change our assessment described in this final determination and the proposed approval of revised ICAPCD Rule 701, we intend to take subsequent final action to reimpose sanctions pursuant to 40 CFR 51.31(d). If no comments are submitted that change our assessment, then all sanctions and sanction clocks will be permanently terminated on the effective date of a final rule approval.

We are making an interim final determination to stay and/or defer CAA section 179 sanctions associated with ICAPCD Rule 701 based on our concurrent proposal to approve the State's SIP revision as correcting deficiencies that initiated sanctions.

Because EPA has preliminarily determined that the State has corrected the deficiencies identified in EPA's limited disapproval action, relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as possible. Therefore, EPA is invoking the good cause exception under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity for comment before this action takes effect (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)). However, by this action EPA is providing the public with a chance to comment on EPA's determination after the effective date, and EPA will consider any comments received in determining whether to reverse such action.

EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. EPA has reviewed the State's submittal and, through its proposed action, is indicating that it is more likely than not that the State has corrected the deficiencies that started the sanctions clocks. Therefore, it is not in the public interest to initially impose sanctions or to keep applied sanctions in place when the State has most likely done all it can to correct the deficiencies that triggered the sanctions clocks. Moreover, it would be impracticable to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking on a finding that the State has corrected the deficiencies prior to the rulemaking approving the State's submittal. Therefore, EPA believes that it is necessary to use the interim final rulemaking process to stay and/or defer sanctions while EPA completes its rulemaking process on the approvability of the State's submittal. Moreover, with respect to the effective date of this action, EPA is invoking the good cause exception to the 30-day notice requirement of the APA because the purpose of this notice is to relieve a restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).

This action stays and/or defers federal sanctions and imposes no additional requirements.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

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

The administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

This rule does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).

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

This action does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply to this rule because it imposes no standards.

This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to Congress and the Comptroller General. However, section 808 provides that any rule for which the issuing agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the agency promulgating the rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefor, and established an effective date of January 31, 2003. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 1, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purpose of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

On October 23, 2002 (67 FR 65080), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Colorado. The NPR proposed approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Governor of Colorado on November 5, 1999. The November 5, 1999 submittal exempts military training exercises at the United States Army Installation Fort Carson and United States Army Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site from opacity limits. The intended effect of this action is to allow the use of smoke and obscurants for military training exercises when operated under applicable requirements.

Since we received no comment on the October 23, 2002 notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Governor of Colorado on November 5, 1999. The November 5, 1999 submittal revises Colorado's Regulation No. 1 Emission Control for Particulates, Smokes, Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Dioxide by adding a new subsection D to section II.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

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

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

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

This action applies to the petitioner, the DLA. Potentially affected categories and entities include, but are not necessarily limited to:

Public Administration (NAICS Code 92), e.g., Petitioning Agency (i.e., DLA).

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action applies to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR part 761. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPPT-2002-0013. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102-Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in the EPA Docket Center, is (202) 566-0280.-

2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “Federal Register” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 761 is available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_40/40cfr761_00.html, a beta site currently under development. To access information about PCBs, go directly to the PCB Home Page for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics at http://www.epa.gov/pcb. -

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

In this document, the Agency is granting two petitions submitted by DLA to import PCB waste for disposal. In the absence of an exemption, import of this waste would be banned by TSCA section 6(e)(3). One petition, dated January 19, 2001, is for an exemption to import foreign-source PCBs that were used on DoD installations in Japan and are currently stored on Wake Island, a United States territory in the Pacific Ocean west of Hawaii (Ref. 9). (While Wake Island is part of the United States, it is outside the Customs Territory of the United States, and TSCA defines “manufacture” to include “import into the Customs Territory of the United States.”) In addition, 40 CFR 761.99(c) does not exclude this waste from EPA's regulatory interpretation of “import,” because it was not present in the United States on January 1, 1979. For more information on these definitional issues, see the Federal Register documents of November 1, 2000 (Ref. 7) and March 30, 2001 (Ref. 8). The other petition, dated April 16, 2001, is to import foreign-generated PCBs owned by DoD that are currently in use or storage in Japan (Ref. 10). (The term “foreign-generated PCBs” is used to identify those PCBs that DoD acquired from foreign sources and that are subject to the TSCA ban on import.)

Section 6(e) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2605(e), generally prohibits the manufacture of PCBs after January 1, 1979, the processing and distribution in commerce of PCBs after July 1, 1979, and most uses of PCBs after October 11, 1977. Section 6(e)(3)(A) of TSCA prohibits the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of PCBs except for the distribution in commerce of PCBs that were sold for purposes other than resale before July 1, 1979. Section 6(e)(1) of TSCA also authorizes EPA to regulate the disposal of PCBs consistent with the provisions in TSCA section 6(e)(2) and (3). Section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA provides that any person may petition the Administrator for an exemption from the prohibition on the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of PCBs. The Administrator may by rule grant an exemption if the Administrator finds that:

The Administrator may prescribe terms and conditions for an exemption and may grant an exemption for a period of not more than 1 year from the date the petition is granted. In addition, TSCA section 6(e)(4) requires that a rule under TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B) be promulgated in accordance with TSCA sections 6(c)(2), (3), and (4), which provides for publication of a proposed rule and an opportunity for an informal public hearing before a final rule can be issued.

EPA's procedures for rulemaking under TSCA section 6 are found under 40 CFR part 750. This part includes Subpart B—Interim Procedural Rules for Manufacturing Exemptions (40 CFR 750.10 through 750.21) that describe the required content for manufacturing exemption petitions and the procedures EPA follows in rulemaking on these petitions.

Before granting an exemption petition, TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B)(i) requires the Administrator to find that granting an exemption would not result in an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment in the United States. To determine whether a risk is unreasonable, EPA balances the probability that harm will occur to health or the environment against the benefits to society from granting or denying each petition (see generally, 15 U.S.C. 2605(c)(1)). Specifically, EPA considers the following factors:-

1. Effects of PCBs on human health and the environment. In deciding whether to grant an exemption, EPA considers the magnitude of exposure and the effects of PCBs on humans and the environment. The following discussion summarizes EPA's assessment of these factors. A more complete discussion of these factors is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule: Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Manufacturing, Processing, and Distribution in Commerce Exemptions (Ref. 3), in the rulemaking record for that proposed rule (OPTS Docket-66008F), 40 CFR 761.20, and in EPA's 1996 PCB Cancer Assessment (Ref. 32).-

i. Health effects. EPA has determined that PCBs cause significant human health effects including cancer, immune system suppression, liver damage, skin irritation, and endocrine disruption. PCBs exhibit neurotoxicity as well as reproductive and developmental toxicity. PCBs are readily absorbed through the skin and are absorbed at even faster rates when inhaled. Because PCBs are stored in animal fatty tissue, humans are also exposed to PCBs through ingestion of animal products (Ref. 32).-

ii. Environmental effects. Certain PCB congeners are among the most stable chemicals known, and decompose very slowly once they are released in the environment. PCBs are absorbed and stored in the fatty tissue of higher organisms as they bioaccumulate up the food chain through invertebrates, fish, and mammals. Significantly, bioaccumulated PCBs appear to be even more toxic than those found in the ambient environment, since the more toxic PCB congeners are more persistent and thus more likely to be retained (Ref. 32). PCBs also have reproductive and other toxic effects in aquatic organisms, birds, and mammals.-

iii. Risks. Toxicity and exposure are the two basic components of risk. EPA has concluded that any exposure of humans or the environment to PCBs may be significant, depending on such factors as the quantity of PCBs involved in the exposure, the likelihood of exposure to humans and the environment, and the effect of exposure. Minimizing exposure to PCBs should minimize any eventual risk. EPA has previously determined that some activities, including the disposal of PCBs in accordance with 40 CFR part 761, pose no unreasonable risks. Other activities, such as long-term storage of PCB waste, are generally considered by EPA to pose unreasonable risks.-

2. Benefits and costs. The benefits to society of granting an exemption vary, depending on the activity for which the exemption is requested. The reasonably ascertainable costs of denying an exemption vary, depending on the individual petition. EPA takes benefits and costs into consideration when evaluating each exemption petition.

Section 6(e)(3)(B)(ii) of TSCA also requires the Administrator to find that “good faith efforts have been made to develop a chemical substance which does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment and which may be substituted for [PCBs].” EPA considers several factors in determining whether good faith efforts have been made. For each petition, EPA considers the kind of exemption the petitioner is requesting and whether the petitioner expended time and effort to develop or search for a substitute. To satisfy this finding in the context of an exemption to import PCBs for disposal, EPA looks at why such activity should occur in the United States, including what steps the petitioner has taken to find an alternative to importing the PCBs for disposal. While requiring a petitioner to demonstrate that good faith efforts to develop a substitute for PCBs makes sense when dealing with traditional manufacturing and distribution exemption petitions, the issue of the development of substitute chemicals seems to have little bearing on whether to grant a petition for exemption that would allow the import into the United States for disposal of waste generated by the DoD overseas. EPA believes the more relevant “good faith” issue for such an exemption request is whether the disposal of the waste should occur outside the United States.

1. January 19, 2001, petition to import PCBs located on Wake Island. On January 19, 2001, DLA submitted a petition for a 1-year exemption to import certain PCBs and PCB items into the Customs Territory of the United States for disposal. The waste in question consists of approximately 91 metric tons [a metric ton is 1,000 kilograms, or 2,200 pounds] of material, of which 31 metric tons DLA estimates to be liquids. Non-liquid material consists of electrical transformers, switches, circuit breakers, and debris (rags, small parts, and packaging materials). The laboratory analyses conducted by DLA indicate PCB concentrations of less than 50 parts per million (ppm) for all materials that could be tested without disassembly. DLA indicates that while it believes any components that could not be tested were excluded from this waste in question, there is a possibility that inaccessible internal components (e.g., small capacitors) of certain transformers may contain PCB constituents at or above 50 ppm.-

The material is currently stored in overpack containers at a U.S. Government-owned storage site on Wake Island. DLA proposes to ship the materials in these containers to the Customs Territory of the United States using U.S. flag carriers, and in accordance with applicable laws. Upon arrival in port, the containers would be transported by Department of Transportation (DOT) permitted carriers to the destination facility. On April 16,2001, DLA also amended its petition to include the possibility that the materials could be transported by air on U.S. military aircraft.-

DLA proposes in its January 19, 2001, petition to ship the materials to an EPA-approved PCB disposal facility. While DLA initially identified Trans Cycle Industries, Inc. (TCI) in Pell City, Alabama as the receiving facility, it amended its petition on September 28, 2001, to include any EPA-approved PCB disposal facility as a potential receiving facility, indicating that it is premature to specify which approved facility would be contracted to treat and dispose of the waste. DLA would treat and dispose of all material in compliance with the U.S. PCB regulations at 40 CFR part 761. Generally, DLA indicates its intention is to recycle all metal components that can be decontaminated; if they are not decontaminated they would be buried in a chemical waste landfill or incinerated. Used oils or liquids would be decontaminated by dechlorination or sent for energy recovery as fuel. Non-recyclable material will be disposed of as residual solid waste. DLA also notes that EPA-approved alternative disposal methods may also be used. (Note that while DLA is proposing to send this material to a TSCA-approved facility for initial processing, this is not normally required for materials containing less than 50 ppm PCBs that have not been subject to dilution.)

A detailed summary of this petition can be found in Unit IV.A.1 of the September 17, 2002, proposal to this rule (Ref. 38)-

2. April 16, 2001, petition to import PCBs located in Japan. On April 16, 2001, DLA submitted a second petition; this petition sought a 1-year exemption to import PCBs and PCB items currently in temporary storage on U.S. military installations in Japan. In revised figures provided in June 2001, DLA estimates that as much as 4,293,621 pounds, or approximately 1,952 metric tons of waste containing PCBs could be generated in Japan through the year 2006 and beyond; however, much of this material is currently still in use, and will not become waste requiring disposal for several years. Exactly how much waste can be imported under this exemption will depend on what is available for shipment for disposal while the exemption is in effect, as the exemption is limited to a 1-year maximum. The material in Japan consists of liquids, electrical transformers, capacitors, switches, circuit breakers, other miscellaneous items, and debris (rags, small parts, and packaging materials). PCB concentrations of the waste include amounts at all concentrations; however, most of the waste is at concentrations below 50 ppm PCB. Details of particular amounts and concentrations are provided in Appendix 1 (Refs. 10 and 11).-

DLA proposes to package and transport, treat, and dispose of this PCB waste in the same manner as waste identified in the previous petition. DLA states it would handle and dispose of all PCBs in conformance with the PCB regulations at 40 CFR part 761. DLA notes that it has “considerable experience and expertise in awarding and administering disposal contracts for PCB waste in the United States” and that it will only “use contracts with commercial firms providing such services in accordance with all applicable Federal procurement statutes and the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).” DLA states that it has not yet identified the specific companies that would receive the waste, but that only Federal and State-permitted facilities would be used. Proposed treatment would be in accordance with the options allowed by 40 CFR part 761, including landfilling, incineration, decontamination and recovery of metal, decontamination or burning of used oil, and alternative disposal technologies where allowed.-

A detailed summary of this petition can be found in Unit IV.A.2 of the September 17, 2002, proposal to this rule (Ref. 38)

On September 17, 2002, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register proposing to grant both of DLA's petitions (Ref. 38). The notice also solicited comments on the proposed action and offered an opportunity for a public hearing if requested. Two comments were received on the proposed action; no person requested a public hearing.-

Both comments supported the Agency's proposed decision to grant the petitions. One commenter, Perry & Spann (Ref. 39), urged EPA to grant the applicant's petition as “...the best manner to control and eliminate PCBs and any potential toxic contamination.” The other commenter, Environmental Technology Council (Ref. 40), noted “...not only is there no unreasonable risk ... the risks to public health and the environment will be decreased by importing this waste for proper disposal.” Additionally, this commenter questioned the need for persons wishing to import PCB waste for disposal to demonstrate “good faith efforts” under TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B)(ii). In light of the fact that the Agency has determined that the DLA petitions meet this “good faith” test, no response to this comment is necessary at this time. However, the Agency does note that it does not agree with the comment, and continues to believe it appropriate to examine whether there are good reasons that disposal of PCB wastes should occur in the United States when reviewing petitions for exemptions under TSCA section 6(e)(3) that would authorize import of PCB wastes for disposal in this country.

1. January 19, 2001, petition; EPA grants this petition. EPA agrees with DLA's reasoning in its petition that this waste, being primarily and perhaps exclusively at concentrations below 50 ppm PCBs, has little inherent potential to pose an unreasonable risk to health or the environment. Even more germane to this waste than the “Excluded PCB Products” processing, distribution, and use standards referred to by DLA in the petition are the disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 761, subpart D, that do not require waste below 50 ppm PCBs be disposed of in a TSCA or RCRA approved facility, provided the concentration was not affected by dilution. EPA notes the prohibition on import of PCBs at concentrations less than 50 ppm stems from the TSCA ban on “manufacture” of PCBs and is not based on any specific finding of EPA that importing PCBs at concentrations less than 50 ppm for disposal presents any unreasonable risk. Prior to 1997, EPA allowed such imports for disposal without restriction. (EPA authorized the import for disposal of PCBs at concentrations of less than 50 ppm in 1984 (Ref.37), at 40 CFR 761.20(b)(2), using the authority of TSCA section 6(e)(1). This import provision was recodified from § 761.20(b) to § 761.93(a)(1)(i) as part of the March 18, 1996, PCB Import for Disposal Rule (Ref. 5). On July 7, 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the PCB Import for Disposal Rule, on the grounds that EPA could not rely, as it did, on TSCA section 6(e)(1) to authorize imports of PCBs for disposal. Sierra Club v. EPA, 118 F 3d 1324 (9th Cir. 1997). EPA amended § 761.93 on June 29, 1998 (Ref.6) to reflect the Sierra Club decision, by changing it to state that no person may import PCBs or PCB items for disposal without a TSCA section 6(e)(3) exemption.)-

EPA also concurs with DLA's assessment in its petition that transportation of this waste poses no significant risk if conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Domestically, EPA permits the processing and distribution in commerce of PCBs and PCB items at concentrations less than 50 ppm for disposal (§ 761.20(c)(4)) without additional restriction. Higher concentration PCBs and PCB items may be processed and distributed in commerce for disposal in compliance with part 761 (which requires marking, manifesting, registration, recordkeeping, etc.). In issuing the PCB Import for Disposal Rule, EPA investigated and sought comment on the risks inherent in transportation of imported PCB waste, and determined those risks to be insignificant (Ref. 5, p. 11097).-

As this waste will be processed and, where required, disposed of at EPA-approved PCB disposal facilities, EPA finds that the import and disposal of this waste will not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. EPA approves all TSCA PCB disposal facilities on the basis of this standard, whether the unit be an incinerator, chemical waste landfill, or alternative process, such as a decontamination or chemical dechlorination operation. Similarly, EPA has previously determined that other disposal options for PCB waste at concentrations below 50 ppm, such as burning used oil for energy recovery in compliance with 40 CFR 761.20(e), pose no unreasonable risk to health or the environment.-

Moreover, any risks inherent in transportation and disposal must be weighed against the risks of continued long-term storage. As DLA noted in its petition, Wake Island is a part of the United States and under TSCA it is entitled to the protection against unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Generally, EPA considers long-term storage of PCB waste to pose an unacceptable risk due to threat of leaks and spills, and with certain limited exceptions, EPA limits storage for disposal of PCB waste to 1-year from the date the waste was generated (40 CFR 761.65(a)). As discussed at length by EPA in recent Federal Register documents (Refs. 7 and 8), the long-term storage of PCBs in U.S. territories and possessions outside the Customs Territory of the United States, such as Wake Island, often poses additional risks; examples of problems cited included risk of severe storms, sensitive ecosystems, limited available land, low elevation, and water resources that are vulnerable to contamination. For instance, while 40 CFR 761.65(b)(1)(v) stipulates that PCB waste storage sites should not be located below the 100-year flood water elevation, the highest elevation on Wake Island is only 6 meters above sea level. Therefore, EPA concludes that removal of this PCB material from Wake Island in the most expeditious manner possible will reduce risk of injury to health and the environment.-

Other benefits to the United States will be realized through the granting of this petition, as well. One of EPA's purposes in promulgating 40 CFR 761.99(c) was to address the inequitable treatment of the territories outside the Customs Territory of the United States that was inadvertently created by the manufacturing ban of TSCA section 6(e)(3) (Refs. 7 and 8). EPA believes that granting this exemption will likewise allow waste stored in the territories to be managed and disposed of in a manner similar to waste generated in other States, and it will prevent the Pacific Island territories of the United States from bearing any undue burden for the disposal of such waste. Furthermore, as this waste is the property of the U.S. Government, and it was generated by the U.S. Government while conducting its affairs abroad, EPA believes the U.S. Government has an obligation to allow this waste to be safely disposed of under its jurisdiction in the United States. A grant of this petition will allow the United States Government to solve one of its own toxic waste problems without relying on other countries' disposal resources. Thus, EPA finds that DLA has provided adequate justification for a finding that the activity proposed in this petition would not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.-

EPA also finds that DLA has made good faith efforts to find alternatives to import into the Customs Territory of the United States. EPA agrees with DLA's contention in its petition that Wake Island is an unsuitable location for attempts at on-site disposal, due to its extremely remote location, small size, lack of facilities, and fragile environment. In addition, as DLA notes in its petition, decontamination procedures typical for this type of waste would not eliminate all PCBs and the concomitant need for an exemption. EPA also believes DLA has made good faith efforts to find disposal alternatives in other countries; indeed, the waste came to Wake Island as a result of an unsuccessful effort to dispose of it abroad. EPA is well aware of DLA's growing difficulty in disposing of its foreign-manufactured waste abroad, a problem outlined in DLA's report to Congress in 1999 (Ref. 33), and EPA has been aware of DLA's substantial efforts since April 2000 to identify options for disposal of this particular waste in a responsible manner, including disposal in another country. EPA accepts DLA's assessment that with the notoriety that is now attached to this particular waste shipment and the difficulty of satisfying Basel Convention obligations, acceptance of this waste by another country for disposal is unlikely to ever occur. EPA further notes that disposal in a facility in the United States, but outside the Customs Territory of the United States, e.g., in another Pacific territory, is not an alternative because no suitable facilities exist. Finally, EPA also believes it relevant to the good faith issue that, as noted earlier, this waste was generated by the U.S. Government while conducting its affairs abroad, and thus the United States bears some obligation to provide for the safe disposal of this waste in the United States if it can not be easily disposed elsewhere.-

For these reasons, EPA finds DLA has satisfied the exemption criteria of TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B) and grants this petition.-

2. April 16, 2001, petition; EPA grants this petition. As with the previous petition, EPA concurs with DLA's assessment that transportation of this waste will pose no unreasonable risk if conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. As noted in Unit IV.C.1., EPA permits the domestic processing and distribution in commerce of PCBs and PCB items for disposal in compliance with part 761, and in issuance of the PCB Import for Disposal Rule EPA investigated and sought comment on the risks inherent in transportation of imported PCB waste, and determined those risks to be insignificant (Ref. 5, p. 11097). Also, as discussed in Unit IV.C.1. in regard to the Wake Island petition, EPA finds generally that the disposal of imported PCB waste at an EPA-approved PCB disposal facility poses no unreasonable risks as these facilities have been approved on the basis of that standard.-

EPA believes that granting this petition will benefit the United States in several ways. As DLA notes in its petition, the continued long-term storage of PCB waste on U.S. military facilities in Japan poses risks of exposure to U.S. personnel and the environment—risks that can be mitigated through the action proposed in this petition. Also, the reduction of risk to Japanese citizens must be considered advantageous, especially in light of the heightened concerns over PCBs in that country and the sensitivities surrounding the U.S. military's presence in Japan. Currently, the U.S. military is in the awkward position of explaining to its Japanese hosts that it can not remove its toxic waste from their country because United States law does not allow the waste to be sent to the United States. As with the Wake Island petition, granting this petition allows the United States to accept responsibility for solving its own toxic waste problems. Thus, EPA finds that the activity proposed in this petition would not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.-

EPA believes that DLA has demonstrated good faith efforts to find alternatives to disposal of this PCB waste in the United States. EPA is aware of the lack of adequate PCB disposal capacity in Japan, to which DoD's large inventory of PCB waste is itself testimony. While EPA is aware that some recent efforts are underway to establish new disposal capacity in Japan (Refs. 34 and 35), EPA believes it will be some time before these new facilities are operational and the large inventories of commercial and government PCB waste that have accumulated over the years in Japan will be eliminated. Moreover, as DLA notes in its petition, even assuming adequate disposal capacity becomes available in Japan in the near future, there are significant political obstacles that are likely to prevent the U.S. military disposing of its PCB waste in Japan, either off-site at a commercial facility or on-site at a U.S. base.-

EPA is generally aware of the increasing difficulties DoD has in disposing of its foreign-generated PCB waste abroad, as described in its report to Congress, and as evidenced by the difficulties with the waste now stored on Wake Island. EPA also acknowledges the peculiar circumstances of DoD's PCBs, which, while present in one country, are owned by another's government, leading to significant difficulty in providing Basel notification to third countries. Given these difficulties, EPA concurs with DLA's conclusion that disposal in a third country is not a viable option for this waste. And, as stated earlier, EPA also believes it is relevant to the good faith issue that since this waste was generated by the U.S. Government while conducting its affairs abroad, the United States bears some obligation to provide for the safe disposal of this waste in the United States if it can not be easily disposed of elsewhere.-

For these reasons EPA finds DLA has satisfied the exemption criteria of TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B) and grants this petition.

1. USEPA, Office of Toxic Substances (OTS). Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions; Final Rule. OPTS-60001. Federal Register (44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979).-

2. USEPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Expiration of the Open Border Policy for PCB Disposal; Notice. OPTS-62008. Federal Register (45 FR 29115, May 1, 1980).-

3. USEPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Manufacturing, Processing, and Distribution in Commerce Exemptions; Proposed Rule. OPTS-66008F. Federal Register (53 FR 32326, August 24, 1988).-

4. USEPA. Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Proposed Rule. OPPTS-6009A. Federal Register (59 FR 62788, December 6, 1994) (FRL-4167-1).-

5. USEPA. Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Import for Disposal; Final Rule. OPPTS-66009F. Federal Register (61 FR 11096, March 18, 1996) (FRL-5354-8).-

6. USEPA. Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Final Rule. OPPTS-66009C. Federal Register (63 FR 35384, June 29, 1998) (FRL-5726-1).-

7. USEPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Return of PCB Waste from U.S. Territories Outside the Customs Territory of the United States; Proposed Rule. OPPTS-66020. Federal Register (65 FR 65654, November 1, 2000) (FRL-6750-6).-

8. USEPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Return of PCB Waste from U.S. Territories Outside the Customs Territory of the United States; Final Rule. OPPTS-66020A. Federal Register (66 FR 17468, March 30, 2001) (FRL-6764-9).-

9. DoD, DLA. Petition from Lieutenant General, Henry T. Glisson, Director, to Carol Browner, Administrator, EPA. Subject: Enclosed petition. January 19, 2001. 15 pp. with attachments.-

10. DoD, DLA. Letter from Lieutenant General, Henry T. Glisson, Director, to Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator, EPA. Subject: Enclosed petition. April 16, 2001. 12 pp. with attachments.-

11. DoD, DLA. Electronic mail from Karen Moran, Environmental Quality Division, to Peter Gimlin, National Program Chemicals Division, OPPT, EPA. Subject: Updated inventory, Appendix 1 to April petition. June 28, 2001. 2 pp. with attachments.-

12. DoD, DLA. Letter from Richard J. Connelly, Director, DLA Support Services, to Peter Gimlin, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, EPA. Subject: Revisions to both petitions. September 28, 2001. 2 pp. with attachments.-

13. Cabinet set to approve two bills on PCB disposal. The Japanese Times Online. February 20, 2001. 3 pp.-

14. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Inventory of World-wide PCB Destruction Capacity. First Issue. December 1998. 72 pp.-

15. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Survey of Currently Available Non-Incineration PCB Destruction Technologies. First Issue. August 2000. 70 pp.-

16. Defense Agency will Inspect PCB Storage. The Yomiuri Shimbun. Tokyo. August 20, 2000. 2 pp.-

17. Pollution at Okinawa Bases Cannot be Left Uncorrected. Asahi Shimbun. January 14, 1999. 3 pp.-

18. David Armstrong. U.S. Presence on Foreign Soil is Tainted. Boston Globe. November 15, 1999. 3 pp.-

19. Danielle Knight. Environment: Asian Women Demand Cleanup of U.S. Military Bases. Inter Press Service. October 16, 1998. 3 pp.-

20. Japan: Probe Fails to Confirm Source of Pollutant at Kadena Air Base. Kyodo News Service. September 28, 1998. 1 p.-

21. High Level of PCB Detected in Okinawa. Jiji Press Ticker Service. February 21, 1997. 1 p.-

22. Toxic PCB Detected at Ex-U.S. Facility. Jiji Press Ticker Service. October 2, 1996. 1 p.-

23. MOFA, Environment Agency to Investigate Base PCB Dumping. Ryukyu Shimpo. August 19, 1998. 4 pp.-

24. Editorial: Probe Pollution at U.S. Bases. Ryukyu Shimpo. August 18, 1998. 3 pp.-

25. U.S. Base Pollution #8. Ryukyu Shimpo. August 28, 1998. 1 p.-

26. U.S. Rejects Request for PCB Test at Kadena. Japan Economic Newswire. November 25, 1998. 1 p.-

27. Agency Concerned about U.S. Base Pollution. Jiji Press Ticker Service. February 21, 1992. 1 p.-

28. Japan to Check U.S. Base Employees for Waste Contamination. Asahi News Service. February 18, 1992. 2 p.-

29. Sagamihara City. Letter from Tokio Kanero, Councilman, to Chief, DRMO Sagami. Subject: FOIA request for information on hazardous material shipments. March 3, 1999. 1 p.-

30. Sagamihara City. Letter from Tokio Kanero, Councilman, to Paul Ortiz, Asia Zone Manager, DRMS International. Subject: March 3, 1999, FOIA request pertains to PCBs, heavy metals and asbestos only. March14, 1999. 1 p.-

31. DoD, DLA. Letter from Vice Admiral Keith W. Lippert, Director, to Christie Whitman, Administrator, EPA. Subject: Opportunity to meet regarding petitions. November 14, 2001. 1 p.-

32. USEPA, Office of Research and Development (ORD). PCBs Cancer Dose-Response Assessment and Application to Environmental Mixtures. EPA600P-96001F. September 1996. 75 pp. OPPTS-66009C (B3-026)-

33. DoD. Report to Congress: Foreign-Manufactured PCBs at U.S. Military Installations Overseas. March 1999. 20 pp.-

34. USEPA, Region 9. Electronic Mail from Max Weintraub to Peter Gimlin, EPA, OPPT, Re: Startech Environmental's 8/23/2001 Press Release. September 5, 2001. 2 pp.-

35. Japan Government Submits Legislation Requiring Destruction of All PCBs in 15 years. BNA International Environment Daily. March 23, 2001. 1 p.-

36. USEPA. Hazardous Waste Management System; Notification Concerning the Basel Convention's Potential Implications for Hazardous Waste Exports and Imports. Federal Register (57 FR 20602, May 13,1992).-

37. USEPA. Toxic Substances Control Act; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions; Exclusions, Exemptions and Use Authorizations; Final Rule. OPTS-62032A. Federal Register (49 FR 28172, July 10, 1984).-

38. USEPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Manufacturing (Import) Exemptions; Proposed Rule. OPPT-2002-0013. Federal Register (67 FR 58567, September 17, 2002) (FRL-7176-1).-

39. Perry & Spann. Letter from Victor Alan Perry, Esq. to EPA Document Control Office. Subject: Comment on OPPT-2002-0013. October 4, 2002. 1 p.-

40. Environmental Technology Council. Letter from Scott Slesinger, Vice President for Governmental Affairs, to EPA Docket. Subject: Comment on Proposed Rule. October 15, 2002. 3 pp.

Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), it has been determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), because this action is not likely to result in a rule that meets any of the criteria for a “significant regulatory action” provided in section 3(f) of the Executive order.

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.-

This rule does not impose any new information collection burden. DLA is subject to the existing EPA regulations regarding the storage and disposal of PCBs in 40 CFR part 761. OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in 40 CFR part 761 under the PRA, and has assigned OMB Control No. 2070-0112 (EPA ICR No. 1446.07).-

The annual public burden approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0112, is estimated to average 0.57 hours per response. As defined by the PRA and 5 CFR 1230.3(b), “burden” means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For this collection it includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.-

Copies of this ICR document may be obtained from Susan Auby, by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, by e-mail at auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 566-1972. Copies may also be downloaded from the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. Include the EPA ICR number and/or OMB control number in any correspondence.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency hereby certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because this rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Under section 601 of RFA, “small entity” is defined as:

1. A small business that meets the Small Business Administration size standards codified at 13 CFR 121.201.

2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000.

3. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. In this rule, EPA is granting two petitions by DLA to import PCBs for disposal. Only DLA, which is not a small entity, will be regulated by this rule.

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, EPA has determined that this action does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Nor does this rule contain regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA is granting two petitions by DLA to import PCBs for disposal. DLA is required to comply with the existing regulations on PCB disposal at 40 CFR part 761. The only mandate imposed by this rule is imposed on DLA. In addition, EPA has determined that this rule does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The DLA petitions state that the PCBs will be disposed of in facilities approved to handle PCBs. No new facilities, which could affect small government resources if a permit is required, are contemplated. EPA believes that the disposal of PCBs in previously approved disposal facilities in the amounts specified in this rule would have little, if any, impact on small governments. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, and 205.

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

This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. EPA is granting two petitions from DLA to import PCBs and dispose of them in accordance with existing regulations. There will be no direct effects on the States, nor will there be any impact on the relationships between the various levels of government with respect to PCB disposal issues. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. EPA is granting two petitions from DLA to import PCBs and dispose of them in facilities approved to handle PCBs in accordance with existing regulations. EPA does not believe that this activity will have any impacts on the communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. EPA is granting two petitions from DLA to import PCBs and dispose of them in facilities approved to handle PCBs in accordance with existing regulations. EPA believes that the import and disposal of the amount of PCBs specified in the exemption petitions will present little, if any, additional risk to persons living in the vicinity of the approved disposal facilities or in the communities through which the PCBs may be transported.

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

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

This action does not involve special considerations of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630, entitled Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988), by examining the takings implications of this rule in accordance with the Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings issued under the Executive order.

In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, entitled Civil Justice Reform (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FEMA makes the final determinations listed below of the final determinations of modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

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

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

These modified BFEs 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 BFEs 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.

FEMA makes the final determinations listed below of the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

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

These modified 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 BFEs 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 BFEs are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required to maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission's Report and Order, FCC 02-218, adopted on July 18, 2002, and released on July 31, 2002. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 or TTY (202) 418-7365 or at bmillin@fcc.gov.

1. In the Report and Order in WT Docket No. 94-148 and CC Docket No. 93-2, the Commission consolidated the rules for the common carrier and private operational fixed (POFS) microwave services contained in parts 21 and 94, respectively, of the Commission's Rules to create a new part 101. The new consolidated part 101 reduces or eliminates the differences in processing applications between common carriers and POF microwave service licensees, and furthers regulatory parity between these microwave services. On February 14, 2000, the Commission released the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making (“NPRM”), 65 FR 38333, June 20, 2000, in this proceeding. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed eliminating duplicative, outmoded, or otherwise unnecessary regulations in order to further the work begun by the consolidation of parts 21 and 94 into a single part 101 in the R&O and the implementation of the Universal Licensing System (ULS) for wireless applications. Applicants, licensees and related industries were invited to examine these rules and procedures and offer their views and explanations of ways to streamline them and to make sure that the regulations conform with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act).

2. In this Report and Order, we take further actions to streamline, clarify, and update our part 101 rules. These actions will provide increased flexibility to licensees, ensure greater and more efficient use of the spectrum bands regulated under part 101, and ensure that our Rules are consistent with international agreements. The significant rule changes and clarifications that we adopt in this Report and Order to streamline part 101 are:

• We permit POFS licensees to lease reserve capacity to common carriers for their common carrier traffic. Further, we grandfather certain POFS licensees who formerly carried private traffic now classified as common carrier traffic.

• We clarify that conditional authorization in the 23 GHz Band is permitted only on the frequency pairs identified in Section 101.147(s), and only if the maximum Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) utilized does not exceed 55 dBm.

• We allow conditional operation in the 952.95-956.15 and 956.55-959.75 MHz bands.

• We clarify and correct the frequency tolerance table in Section 101.107(a) in accordance with the proposal contained in the MO&O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3153 ¶ 45.

• We amend the EIRP table in § 101.113(a) to divide the 10.55-10.68 GHz band into two separate bands: 10.55-10.6 GHz with the maximum power of 55 dBW and 10.6-10.68 GHz with a maximum power of 40 dBW.

• We permit any Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) antenna polarization away from service boundaries.

• We amend § 101.507 to provide the frequency tolerance of ±0.0001% for Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS) Nodal Stations and ±0.0003% for DEMS User Stations in the 10,550-10,680 MHz band.

• We modify the part 101 emission mask to make it less severe for LMDS by adopting for LMDS the same mask requirements that we did for the 24 GHz service, as outlined in § 101.111(a)(2)(iv).

• We modify the reference bandwidth in § 101.111(a)(2)(iii) from 4 kHz to 1 MHz for consistency with § 101.111(a)(2)(ii) and Appendix S3 of the International Radio Regulations.

3. Additionally, in response to the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) Petition for Rulemaking relating to the 10 GHz and 23 GHz bands, we adopt the following rule changes:

• We specify a channel plan for the 23 GHz band in our Rules.

• We adopt frequency tolerance standards for both digital and analog radios operating in the 23 GHz band.

• We extend a 1 bps/Hz spectrum efficiency rate requirement to the 23 GHz band for digital transmitters.

• We allow the use of smaller antennas in the 10 GHz and 23 GHz bands.

4. A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) with respect to the Report and Order, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), is contained below. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel of the Small Business Administration in accordance with the RFA.

5. This Report and Order does not contain either a proposed or modified information collection.

6. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603 (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the MO&O and NPRM in this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comments on the proposals in those proceedings, including on the IRFA. The Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for the Report and Order (R&O) conforms to the RFA.

7. This R&O furthers the Commission's continuing efforts to eliminate and/or modify regulations in part 101 that are duplicative, outmoded, or otherwise unnecessary. This action will (1) clarify the existing rules so they are easier to understand, (2) facilitate the awarding of licenses more quickly, and (3) eliminate unnecessary regulation.

8. Commenters did not file any comments in direct response to the IRFA. Some commenters, however, raised issues that may be of particular concern to small entities. The specific suggestions, modifications, and deletions have been discussed above. We have reviewed the comments to determine the impact of the decisions set forth herein on small entities.

9. The rules will affect all common carrier and private operational fixed microwave licensees who are authorized under part 101 of the Commission's Rules. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to these licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the Small Business Administration (SBA) rules for the radiotelephone industry, which provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing fewer than 1,500 persons. The 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, conducted by the Bureau of the Census, which is the most recent information available, shows that 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees. With respect to these entities, we note that the effect will be to lessen time and input and thereby any costs associated with processing their applications.

10. There is only one new reporting requirement adopted in this R&O. We are amending § 101.31(b) to require that an application for authority to operate a fixed station at temporary locations must specify the precise geographic area within which the operation will be confined. We will require that the area specified must be defined as a radius of operation about a given state or states, latitude/longitude, or as a rectangular area bounded by upper and lower lines of latitude and longitude. This requirement previously was in our rules and inadvertently deleted during recodification. Nothing in the record indicates that the requirement was, or will be, burdensome to small entities. Other than this, we have amended the fixed microwave rules to make them less burdensome and clarified the language of some of the rules.

11. The comments offered various alternatives for modification of proposals contained in the notice of proposed rule making portion of the MO&O and NPRM. An additional alternative was to maintain the status quo. Generally, the comments supported the proposals, but offered changes to make the rules more clear and accurate. Some of the suggested modifications are contained in the final rules. Aside from the amendment of § 101.31 highlighted above, the rules impose no additional regulatory burdens. The Commission will continue to examine alternatives in the future with the objective of eliminating unnecessary regulations and minimizing economic impact on small business entities.

12. In this proceeding, the Commission has taken several steps to learn and respond to the views of small entities. Throughout the course of this proceeding, representatives of the Public Safety and Private Wireless Division (PSPWD) of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau have had numerous discussions with the representatives of small entities. The staff of the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch of the PSPWD in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania routinely respond to questions posed by the representatives of small entities and, when appropriate, refer issues arising from those questions to PSPWD staff in Washington, DC for determination of whether a rule change or clarification will benefit the small entities posing the questions.

13. The Commission shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, along with the Report and Order, in a report to Congress pursuant to section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this FRFA will also be published in the Federal Register.

14. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5(c), 7(a), 11(b), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309(j), 310, 312a, 316, 319, 323, 324, 332, 333, 336, 337, and 351 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 155(c), 157(a), 161(b), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309(j), 310, 312a, 316, 319, 323, 324, 332, 333, 336, 337, 351, and §§ 1.421 and 1.425 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.421, 1.425, the Report and Order in this proceeding is hereby adopted.

15. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration.