This rule has been determined to be nonsignificant for the purpose of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Also, pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, it has been determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ).

GIPSA regularly reviews its user-fee-financed programs under the United States Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq. ) to determine if the fees are adequate. GIPSA has and will continue to seek out cost-saving opportunities and implement appropriate changes to reduce costs. Such actions can provide alternatives to fee increases. However, even with these efforts, GIPSA's existing fee schedule will not generate sufficient revenues to cover program costs while maintaining an adequate reserve balance. Retained earnings balances are adjusted to reflect prior year revenue and obligations realized in the year reported. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2000, GIPSA's operating costs were $24,146,428 with revenue of $23,150,188 that resulted in a negative margin of $996,240 and a negative reserve balance of $938,147. In FY 2001, GIPSA's operating costs were $25,670,126 with revenue of $23,977,240 that resulted in a negative margin of $1,692,886 and a negative reserve balance of $2,572,080. In FY 2002, GIPSA's operating costs were $25,898,341 with revenue of $25,317,296 that resulted in a negative margin of $581,045 and a negative reserve balance of $3,339,097. The current reserve negative balance of $3,339,097 is well below the desired 3-month reserve of approximately $6 million. GIPSA recognizes the fact that retained earnings are well below the desired level. This final action will not have a major impact on improving GIPSA's financial position. GIPSA has been reviewing the fees and will propose changes that will address this deficit in the near future.

Employee salaries and benefits are major program costs that account for approximately 84 percent of GIPSA's total operating budget. The general and locality salary increase that averages 4.1 percent for GIPSA employees, effective January 2003, will increase GIPSA's costs by approximately $685,000.

GIPSA has reviewed the financial position of the inspection and weighing program based on the anticipated increased salary and benefit costs, along with the projected FY 2003 workload of 78 million metric tons. Based on the review, GIPSA has concluded that an approximate 4.1 percent salary increase will have to be recovered through increases in fees.

This fee increase primarily applies to entities engaged in the export of grain. Under the provisions of the USGSA, grain exported from the United States must be officially inspected and weighed. Mandatory inspection and weighing services are provided by GIPSA on a fee basis at 33 export facilities. All of these facilities are owned and managed by multi-national corporations, large cooperatives, or public entities that do not meet the criteria for small entities established by the Small Business Administration.

Some entities that request nonmandatory official inspection and weighing services at other than export locations could be considered small entities. The impact on these small businesses is similar to any other business; that is, an average 4.1 percent increase in the cost of official inspection and weighing services. This increase should not significantly affect any business requesting official inspection and weighing services. Furthermore, any of these small businesses that wish to avoid the fee increase may elect to do so by using an alternative source for inspection and weighing services. Such a decision should not prevent the business from marketing its products.

There would be no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed by this action. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements in Part 800 have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0580-0013. GIPSA has not identified any other Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have a retroactive effect. The USGSA provides in § 87g that no subdivision may require or impose any requirements or restrictions concerning the inspection, weighing, or description of grain under the Act. Otherwise, this final rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present irreconcilable conflict with this final rule. There are no administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this final rule.

On February 28, 2003, GIPSA proposed in the Federal Register (68 FR 9589) to increase fees for official inspection and weighing services performed under the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq. ) by approximately 4.1 percent. The USGSA authorizes GIPSA to provide official grain inspection and weighing services and to charge and collect reasonable fees for performing these services. The fees collected are to cover, as nearly as practicable, GIPSA's costs for performing these services, including related administrative and supervisory costs. The current USGSA fees were published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2002 (67 FR 13084), and became effective on April 22, 2002.

GIPSA regularly reviews its user-fee-financed programs to determine if the fees are adequate. GIPSA has and will continue to seek out cost-saving opportunities and implement appropriate changes to reduce costs. Such actions can provide alternatives to fee increases. However, even with these efforts, GIPSA's existing fee schedule will not generate sufficient revenues to cover program costs while maintaining an adequate reserve balance. Retained earnings balances are adjusted to reflect prior year revenue and obligations realized in the year reported. In FY 2000, GIPSA's operating costs were $24,146,428 with revenue of $23,150,188 that resulted in a negative margin of $996,240 and a negative reserve balance of $938,147. In FY 2001, GIPSA's operating costs were $25,670,126 with revenue of $23,977,240 that resulted in a negative margin of $1,692,886 and a negative reserve balance of $2,572,080. In FY 2002, GIPSA's operating costs were $25,898,341 with revenue of $25,317,296 that resulted in a negative margin of $581,045 and a negative reserve balance of $3,339,097. The current reserve negative balance of $3,339,097 is well below the desired 3-month reserve of approximately $6 million. Employee salaries and benefits are major program costs that account for approximately 84 percent of GIPSA's total operating budget. The salary increase that became effective in January 2003 averages 4.1 percent for GIPSA employees. Overall, program costs are estimated to increase by approximately $685,000. GIPSA recognizes that retained earnings are well below the desired level and that this final action will not have a major impact on improving its financial position. As a result, GIPSA has been reviewing its overall fee structure. Changes that will address this structure will be considered in the near future and will be proposed as appropriate. GIPSA remains committed to providing the most cost-effective services possible to the grain industry while maintaining program quality and integrity.

GIPSA has reviewed the financial position of the inspection and weighing program based on the increased salary and benefit costs, along with the projected FY 2003 workload of 78 million metric tons. Based on the review, GIPSA has concluded that an approximate 4.1 percent salary increase will have to be recovered through increases in fees.

The current hourly fees are:

GIPSA has also identified certain unit fees, for services not performed at an applicant's facility, that contain direct labor costs and would require a fee increase. Further, GIPSA has identified those costs associated with salaries and benefits that are covered by the administrative metric tonnage fee. The 4.1 percent cost-of-living increase to salaries and benefits covered by the administrative tonnage fee results in an overall increase of an average of 4.1 percent to the administrative tonnage fee.

GIPSA received a comment from two grain trade associations in response to the proposed rulemaking published February 28, 2003, in the Federal Register at (68 FR 9589). The trade associations stated that they consist of 1,000 grain, feed, processing, and grain-related companies, 70 percent of which are small entities. The commentors did not support the proposed rule. A summary of the comments and GIPSA's response is as follows:

The commentors opposed the fee increase and suggested that the Agency scale back the amount of the increase substantially; that the true cost of living has not increased nearly as much as the proposed fee increase nor is the proposed fee increase in line with the economic realities in the private sector. The commentors further stated that over the past few years, the Agency implemented a series of fee increases to recoup costs and stave off more significant difficulties. However, despite these infusions of cash, the Agency's financial condition continues to deteriorate. In addition, the fee increases have become problematic for many users, particularly those engaged in export trade. They urged GIPSA to develop a multi-year budget for the next three to five years that would forecast anticipated changes in agency fees for official services, based upon: (1) OMB's projected Federal personnel and non-pay cost increases through 2008 as published in the March 14, 2003, Federal Register ; (2) anticipated revenue to replenish each Trust Fund account, along with implemented cost controls, to achieve the Agency's stated objective of a three-month operating reserve in each account; and (3) projected changes in the method of assessing fees, e.g. , local, GIPSA specific, and national tonnage fees.

Finally, the commentors stated that the multi-year budget for the next three to five years should describe management efforts to control costs and improve operating efficiencies, along with a critical evaluation of each program funded by user fees to determine which should be continued, scaled back, or terminated.

GIPSA offers the following response: Federal pay increases represent a significant part of FGIS user fee costs. GIPSA, over the past several years, proposed and finalized fee increases, on an annual basis, to reflect the costs of Federal pay increases. It is common practice for user fee programs in the Department to adjust their user fees to reflect these increases. Adjusting fees in this manner is consistent with the provisions of the United States Grain Standards Act and is reasonable, given the current state of reserve balances for FGIS programs. However, over the past several years, GIPSA has been discussing with the grain industry a number of changes to the fee schedules, including restructuring them, to better address the financial condition of the agency. Such discussions have included, to one extent or another, the recommendations offered by the trade associations in their comments or other alternatives. While GIPSA continues to purse this process, it is important that the agency finalize the proposed fees as soon as possible to cover the costs of the 2003 Federal pay increase on the FGIS user fee program.

Accordingly, GIPSA is increasing, by approximately 4.1 percent, certain hourly rates, certain unit rates, and the administrative tonnage fee in 7 CFR 800.71, Table 1—Fees for Official Services Performed at an Applicant's Facility in an Onsite FGIS Laboratory; Table 2—Services Performed at Other Than an Applicant's Facility in an FGIS Laboratory; and Table 3—Miscellaneous Services.

This final rule informs the public about changes to the official symbol of OFHEO.

OFHEO was established as an independent entity within the Department of Housing and Urban Development by the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (1992 Act) (title XIII of Pub. L. 102-550, 12 U.S.C. 4501 et seq. ). OFHEO's primary mission is ensuring the capital adequacy and financial safety and soundness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (collectively, the Enterprises).

OFHEO began operating when its first employee, the first director, took office on June 1, 1993. The Agency was built from the ground up. It had to acquire staff and address hundreds of administrative issues involved in establishing an agency infrastructure. OFHEO needed to procure office space, equipment, computers, telecommunications, and other logistical support for the lawyers, economists, examiners and administrative personnel who would carry out the duties of the Agency.

In its early years, OFHEO's experienced staff worked to develop an in-depth understanding of the operations of the Enterprises. OFHEO grew from a one-person agency into a strong and well-rounded regulator, fully capable of meeting its regulatory responsibilities.

While the Agency was being built, it was still obligated to fulfill its mission of regulating two extremely large and enormously complex financial institutions. OFHEO now has all the key elements of a strong, thorough oversight program in place: Capital Standards, Examinations, and Research.

As required by the 1992 Act, OFHEO established minimum and risk-based capital standards as part of its role as a safety and soundness regulator. These capital requirements are intended to ensure that both Enterprises continue to operate and perform their crucial roles in the secondary mortgage market, keeping constant the flow of funds to mortgage lenders and prospective American homeowners.

In addition to its quarterly release with respect to the minimum capital requirement, OFHEO has adopted a risk-based capital standard that is unique among financial regulators. Unlike ratio-based capital rules, OFHEO's standard is based on a 10-year stress test. A stress test measures risk in the context of a company's overall portfolio, including the company's risk management activities. While companies often use stress tests for internal risk management, and rating agencies use stress tests to rate companies and securities, OFHEO is among the first of the financial institutions regulators to use a comprehensive stress test to determine capital adequacy.

In addition to developing a strong, rigorous risk-based capital standard, OFHEO has an annual risk-based examination program that is an integral part of a system designed to ensure the ongoing safety and soundness of the Enterprises. OFHEO's comprehensive risk-based examinations apply a consistent set of standards to assess and evaluate each Enterprise's financial condition, business operations, and internal controls. These standards remain consistent from year-to-year and are appropriately updated to reflect enhancements in regulatory best practice, developments in risk management or market practices, and innovations at either Enterprise. OFHEO's examination program contributes to OFHEO's capital adequacy framework by further informing the Director's evaluation about the appropriateness of the balance of risk and capital at each Enterprise. OFHEO has implemented a plan to enhance its examination program and double the size of the examination staff.

Complementing its Capital and Examination regulatory elements, OFHEO has developed a Research element to ensure that ongoing research and analysis is conducted on a variety of topics to understand how changes in the market impact the Enterprises and, conversely, how changes in the Enterprises' operations impact the market. A recent example of the Agency's research and analysis is a February 4, 2003, report released by OFHEO's Director, which is entitled: “Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO.” The report analyzes how the Enterprises operate in the housing finance system and the financial sector, how their activities affect economic activity and how they can affect systemic risk in different circumstances.

In addition to its research and analysis, OFHEO presents symposiums on issues relating to the Enterprises and the mortgage markets, e.g., the March 10, 2003, symposium on “House Prices in the U.S. Economy.” Moreover, OFHEO advises the public and market participants on housing activities through issuance of periodic reports, such as the Agency's quarterly report analyzing housing appreciation trends, i.e., OFHEO's House Price Index (HPI) report.

In support of its regulatory infrastructure based on Capital, Examination, and Research, OFHEO has adopted guidelines, policy guidances, and regulations, which are accessible on the Agency's website. The guidelines relate to risk-based capital and information quality. The policy guidance includes guidance on Non-Mortgage Liquidity Investments, and Safety and Soundness Standards for Information. OFHEO's rulemaking ranges from administrative regulations, e.g., rules of practice and procedure, to regulatory oversight regulations, e.g., a regulation that requires public disclosure by the Enterprises of their securities and financial information, and a regulation addressing corporate governance, which enhances the transparency of regulatory standards for the executives and boards of directors of the Enterprises.

The preceding background was provided to summarize OFHEO's first 10 years as a Federal financial regulatory agency. The public is encouraged to visit OFHEO's Web site for a fuller understanding about the Agency and its accomplishments to date.

Over the past 10 years, OFHEO has met and continues to meet its mandate to ensure that the Enterprises are well-capitalized and operating in a safe and sound manner. Accordingly, on the occasion of OFHEO's successful completion of a range of regulatory duties and its 10 year anniversary, the Agency has determined to update its logo. The triangle representing the roof has been properly centered. In a sense, the roof in the logo, like OFHEO, has been strengthened and put in good working order. OFHEO looks forward to continued success.

OFHEO is revising sections of this regulation that describe and display the official seal and logo representing the Agency. Under the revisions, the seal and logo are combined to be the sole official symbol of OFHEO that will be displayed on correspondence, selected documents, and signage. The logo, as restructured, also will serve as the official seal to authenticate official documents of the Agency.

Specifically, the logo is a disc consisting of two concentric circles enclosing the words “Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight” and the Agency's inaugural year, 1993. In the center of the disc is a stylized image of a structure consisting of a solid two-tiered pedestal base topped by a solid triangular shape. The structure represents a house or home, symbolic of the role of OFHEO in promoting a stable and efficient housing finance system. The triangular top of the symbol represents the roof of the structure. The base represents the foundation. The two tiers of the foundation represent the safety and soundness oversight of OFHEO. The Agency's role with respect to the Enterprises is emphasized by placement of the acronym of the Agency (OFHEO) between the base and top of the symbol.

It is noted that the official symbol of OFHEO, as revised by this final regulation, is effective on June 2, 2003. However, for purposes of cost efficiency, OFHEO will continue to use and recognize its original seal and logo until such time as supplies containing them are exhausted and signage displaying them is replaced.

This final rule is not classified as a significant rule under Executive Order 12866 because it will not result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or foreign markets. Accordingly, no regulatory impact assessment is required and this final rule has not been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires that a rule that has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, small businesses, or small organizations must include an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing the regulation's impact on small entities. Such an analysis need not be undertaken if the Agency has certified that the regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605(b). OFHEO has considered the impact of this final rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The General Counsel certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities.

This final rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

This final rule does not require the preparation of an assessment statement in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531. Assessment statements are not required for regulations that incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law. As explained in the preamble, this rule implements specific statutory requirements. In addition, this rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.

The Civil Aviation Authority for the Czech Republic (CAA CZ) reported to FAA that Moravan Model Z-242L airplanes are operated over the load spectrum that was used at certification and are in need of a technical service life. This caused FAA to issue AD 2003-03-13, Amendment 39-13037 68 FR 4905, January 31, 2003). AD 2003-03-13 establishes 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 technical service life required by AD 2003-03-13 is as follows:

Accomplishment of AD 2003-03-13 is required in accordance with the following:

The Civil Aviation Authority Czech Republic (CAA CZ), which is the airworthiness authority for the Czech Republic, notified FAA of the need to change AD 2003-03-13. The CAA reports that the restriction and replacement actions of AD 2003-03-13 do not completely address the unsafe condition.

The restrictions only take account for the aerobatic load spectrum and do not account for the aerobatic frequency. Although the aerobatic frequency will extend the operational times, it more importantly will ensure that all airplanes (even those that have not reached the operational limits) are not subject to fatigue cracking caused by exceeding the aerobatic frequency.

The restrictions also address the life limit of the wings when they should address the life limit of the entire airframe (life limit of the airplane). The CAA CZ reports that the AD change is necessary to:

The airframe of the Moravan Model Z-242L airplanes has always been life limited. The problem is that there have been numerous changes to the Airworthiness Limitations section of the maintenance manual, which has caused confusion as to what the actual life limits are. These life limits vary between 3,500 hours time-in-service (TIS) and 5,500 hours TIS, and the affected airplanes incorporate both unstrengthened wings and strengthened wings.

In addition, the CAA CZ has accomplished fatigue testing on both the unstrengthened wings and strengthened wings using the FAA-approved load spectrum and aerobatic frequency. This testing shows that:

The CAA CZ is continuing to test and analyze the strengthened wings. This testing and analysis could show that, with certain modifications or additional equipment, the airplanes could be operated past 5,500 hours TIS. As the CAA CZ shares this information, FAA may initiate additional rulemaking to address this matter. We will also consider alternative methods of compliance submitted in accordance with the procedures specified in the AD on a case-by-case basis.

Moravan has issued the following revised service information:

The service bulletin revisions incorporate updated information and specify which AFM and maintenance manual revisions apply to individual airplanes.

The CAA CZ classified these service bulletins as mandatory and issued CAA-AD-T-100/2000R1, dated April 28, 2003, in order to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the Czech Republic.

This airplane model is manufactured in Czech Republic and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement.

Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA CZ has kept us informed of the situation described above.

The FAA has examined the findings of Czech Republic; reviewed all available information, including the service information referenced above; and determined that:

This action supersedes AD 2003-03-13 with a new AD that requires an adjustment to the operational limitations based on the aerobatic frequency and changes the life limit to the entire airplane instead of just the wings. The operational limitations adjustment consists of incorporating information into the Limitations Section of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) and the Airworthiness Limitations section of the maintenance manual.

In preparation of this rule, we contacted Moravan America, type clubs, and aircraft operators to obtain technical information and information on operational and economic impacts. We have included, in the rulemaking docket, a discussion of information that may have influenced this action. This includes notes from the meeting between FAA and Moravan America.

On July 10, 2002, FAA published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs FAA's AD system. This regulation now includes material that relates to special flight permits, alternative methods of compliance, and altered products. This material previously was included in each individual AD. Since this material is included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD actions.

Because the unsafe condition described in this document could result in a wing separating from the airplane with consequent loss of control of the airplane, we find that notice and opportunity for public prior comment are impracticable. Therefore, good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

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

If you want us to acknowledge the receipt of your comments, you must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. On the postcard, write “Comments to Docket No. 2003-CE-24-AD.” We will date stamp and mail the postcard back to you.

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

We have determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket (otherwise, an evaluation is not required). A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket. 4

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on April 17, 2003 (68 FR 18858) [FR Doc. 03-9507]. The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on July 10, 2003. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on April 15, 2003 (68 FR 18117) [FR Doc. 03-9178]. The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on July 10, 2003. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, and 8260-5. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR (and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number.

This amendment to part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center (NFDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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

In the Federal Register of February 7, 2002 (67 FR 5753), FDA issued a proposed rule to classify the resorbable calcium salt bone void filler device into class II based on new information regarding this device and on the recommendation of the Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel. FDA identified the draft guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Resorbable Calcium Salt Bone Void Filler Device; Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA” as the proposed special control capable of providing reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. The device is intended to fill bony voids or gaps of the extremities, spine, and pelvis that are caused by trauma or surgery and are not intrinsic to the stability of the bony structure. FDA invited interested persons to comment on the proposed rule by May 8, 2002. FDA received two comments, both supporting the proposed classification. One of the two comments also requested minor changes to the class II special controls guidance document.

One comment expressed concern over a perceived intent to apply the guidance to demineralized bone matrix (DBM) products. FDA acknowledges that there was a misunderstanding about whether the proposed rule applied to DBM products that have the same intended use as the resorbable calcium salt bone void filler device and that were recently determined to be medical devices. The proposed rule was intended to be specific to the resorbable calcium salt bone void filler device, including resorbable calcium salt bone void fillers that may contain some biologically sourced additives, including DBM. The proposed rule was not intended to apply to DBM products, i.e., products that contain DBM without any calcium salt or that are composed primarily of DBM. For clarity, FDA has deleted reference to all biologically sourced materials included in the proposed rule and draft class II special controls guidance and will address devices made of these other materials in the future.

Based on a review of the available information in the preamble to the proposed rule and placed on file in FDA's Dockets Management Branch, FDA concludes that special controls, in conjunction with general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of this device. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , FDA is announcing the availability of the class II special controls guidance document. The class II special controls guidance document was revised to reflect consideration of the comments received. Following the effective date of this final classification rule, any firm submitting a 510(k) premarket notification for a resorbable calcium salt bone void filler device will need to address the issues covered in the class II special control guidance. However, the firm need only show that its device meets the recommendations of the guidance or in some other way provides equivalent assurances of safety and effectiveness.

FDA is now codifying the classification and the class II special control guidance document for the resorbable calcium salt bone void filler device by adding § 888.3045. For the convenience of the reader, FDA is also adding § 888.1(e) to inform the reader where to find guidance documents referenced in 21 CFR part 888.

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) 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.

FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). 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 final rule is consistent with the regulatory philosophy and principles identified in the Executive order. In addition, the final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive order and so it is not subject to review under the Executive order.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. These devices are already subject to general controls, such as premarket notification. The class II special controls guidance document will not substantially change the way in which these devices are regulated. The agency, therefore, certifies that the final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, this final rule will not impose costs of $100 million or more on either the private sector or State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate and, therefore, a summary statement of analysis under section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not required.

FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does not contain policies 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. Accordingly, the agency has concluded that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

This final rule does not contain information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

In section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1593; 29 U.S.C. 655(a), Congress authorized OSHA to adopt national consensus standards and established Federal Standards without prior notice and public participation. On May 29, 1971, at 36 FR 10466, OSHA published a final rule in the Federal Register adopting national consensus standards and established Federal standards as OSHA's initial occupational safety and health standards for general industry.

The preamble to that final rule contained the following statement:

The American National Standard for Powered Industrial Trucks, ANSI B56.1-1969, was one of the national consensus standards that the Agency adopted under section 6(a). That ANSI standard was the source standard for 29 CFR 1910.178(e) through (p), the relevant paragraphs of OSHA's Powered Industrial Trucks Standard.

Paragraph (m)(12) of § 1910.178, as it was published in May 1971 and as it still appears today, reads as follows:

The corresponding provision in the base standard, ANSI B56.1-1969, was contained in section 604L, which read as follows:

Consequently, OSHA revised the language of this subparagraph in the ANSI standard and, in doing so, made it mandatory instead. If a provision was not mandatory (“should”), in the source consensus standard, the corresponding OSHA provision that was invalidly adopted as (“shall”) mandatory is not enforceable [see Usery v. Kennecott Copper Corporation , 577 F.2d 1113, 1117 (10th Cir. 1977)]. Consequently, § 1910.178(m)(12) is unenforceable by OSHA.

Because it is unenforceable, OSHA is removing that provision, 29 CFR 1910.178(m)(12), from the Powered Industrial Trucks Standard. Note that OSHA is removing all of paragraph (m)(12), including its subordinate paragraphs (m)(12)(i) through (m)(12)(iii).

This action does not indicate that the underlying hazard addressed by these provisions is not serious. Indeed, if proper equipment, procedures and training are not provided, the lifting of personnel with powered industrial trucks poses hazards likely to cause death or serious injury to employees. As noted in OSHA's 1998 amendment to the Powered Industrial Trucks Standard, a significant percentage (4 to 14% depending on the study) of the 100 deaths and 95,000 injuries per year that involve powered industrial trucks, result from falls from personnel lifting. (See 63 FR 66238, December 1, 1998). The American Society of Mechanical Engineers' (ASME) current standard for powered industrial trucks (ASME B56.1-2000) addresses these hazards. For example, operator-up highlift trucks (order pickers, etc.) are addressed by paragraphs 4.17.1, 4.17.2 and 7.36. Trucks with work platforms which do not fit that category are covered by paragraphs 4.17.2, 4.17.3 and 7.36.3.

Under the Voluntary Consensus Standards Project (RIN 1218-AC08), the Agency has asked various consensus standards organizations to review their standards, compare the latest versions of these standards to the ones currently adopted by OSHA, and to determine which ones are most important for OSHA to update. The organizations have provided considerable information on priorities and other related issues. OSHA is in the process of evaluating the information it has received from the consensus standards organizations and is now considering the possibility of initiating rulemaking to revise and update the Powered Industrial Truck Standard.

Exemption From Notice-and-Comment Procedures: The Agency has determined that this rulemaking is exempt from the procedures for public notice and comment rulemaking specified under section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) and section (6)(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(b)) because this technical amendment is required by law to remove an unenforceable provision. Consequently it does not change any existing rights or obligations. Therefore, the Agency finds that public notice-and-comment procedures are unnecessary within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(b) and 29 CFR 1911.5.

Accordingly, pursuant to section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), OSHA is amending 29 CFR part 1910 as set forth below.

This amendment reflects the transfer of investigative responsibility from the Chief Inspector's Office of the Internal Revenue Service to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). The Chief Inspector's Office maintained information in the following exempt systems of records:

The above systems of records maintained by the Chief Inspector's Office of the Internal Revenue Service have been consolidated and renamed as “Treasury/DO .311-TIGTA Office of Investigations Files.” This final rule removes the exempted systems of records maintained by the Office of the Chief Inspector, IRS from sections (c)(1)(viii) and (g)(1)(iii) and adds the consolidated system of records Treasury/DO .311-TIGTA Office of Investigations Files to sections (c)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(i). A notice reflecting the alterations to these systems of records is being published separately in the Federal Register .

The Department of the Treasury published a revised regulation setting out the exemptions claimed for these systems of records pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k) in the Federal Register, at 65 FR 69865, on November 21, 2000.

These regulations are being published as a final rule because the amendment does not impose any requirements on any member of the public. This amendment is the most efficient means for the Treasury Department to comply with the Privacy Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), the Department of the Treasury finds good cause that prior notice and other public procedure with respect to this rule are impracticable and unnecessary and finds good cause for making this rule effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register .

In accordance with Executive Order 128662, it has been determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” and, therefore, does not require a Regulatory Impact Analysis.

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) do not apply.

In accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C 3501 et seq. ), the Department of the Treasury has determined that this rule will not impose new record-keeping, application, reporting, or other types of information collection requirements.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM and for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Because of the danger posed by high speed power boats racing in a closed circuit, special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. The event will take place on June 1, 2003. There is not sufficient time to allow for a notice and comment period prior to the event. However, advance notifications will be made via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers.

On June 1, 2003, the Offshore Performance Association and the New Jersey Offshore Racing Association will sponsor the “OPA/NJ Offshore Grand Prix”. The event will consist of 30-35 offshore power boats racing along an oval course on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean. A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather near the event site to view the competition. To provide for the safety of participants, spectators and other transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area during the races.

The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Manasquan River. The temporary special local regulations will be in effect from 9:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. on June 1, 2003. The effect will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the event. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. The Patrol Commander will allow non-participants to transit the regulated area between races. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

We expect the economic impact of this temporary final rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.

Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of the Atlantic Ocean and Manasquan River during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally, vessel traffic will be allowed to transit through the regulated area between races.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the effected portions of the Atlantic Ocean and Manasquan River during the event.

This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only a short period, from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 pm. on June 1, 2003. Vessel traffic will be allowed to transit the regulated area between races, when the Patrol Commander determines it is safe to do so. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment ( see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule will economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this temporary rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the address listed under ADDRESSES.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes, we published a notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 36361, July 11, 2001) requesting comments on how to best carry out the Order. We invite your comments on how this rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the Order.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade permit are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under those sections. An “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

On February 27, 2003 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Delaware River, Pea Patch Island to Delaware City, Delaware” in the Federal Register (68 FR 9037). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.

Each year during the months of June and September, marine events are conducted on a portion of the Delaware River between Pea Patch Island and Delaware City, Delaware. The events consist of 175 to 800 athletes swimming from Fort Delaware on Pea Patch Island to Battery Park in Delaware City. A fleet of spectator vessels gathers nearby to view the swimming events. To provide for the safety of participants, spectators and other transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area during the events.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.

Although this regulation will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Delaware River during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally, the regulated area has been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on general navigation yet provide the level of safety deemed necessary.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Delaware River on the third Saturday of June or September.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the address listed under ADDRESSES .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(h) and (35)(a) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade permit for an event not located in, proximate to, or above an area designated as environmentally sensitive by an environmental agency of the Federal, state, or local government, are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under those sections. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.

(b) Special local regulations:

(1) Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.

(2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area shall:

(i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any official patrol, including any commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

(ii) Proceed as directed by any official patrol, including any commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

(c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced annually for a 2-hour period on the third Saturday in June and for a 2-hour period on the third Saturday in September. Notice of the enforcement period will be given via Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio, Channel 22 (157.1 MHz).

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments or related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-03-047), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know if they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

The U.S. 1 Bridge has a vertical clearance of 4 feet at mean high water and 7 feet at mean low water in the closed position.

The existing regulations, listed at 33 CFR 117.211(b), require the bridge to open on signal with a maximum delay of up to 20 minutes; except that: from May 1 through October 31, from 7:15 a.m. to 7:15 p.m., the draw need only open once an hour, at quarter past the hour. From November 1 through April 30, from 8 p.m. to 4 a.m., the draw shall open on signal after a six-hour advance notice is given.

The Mystic Connecticut Chamber of Commerce and Marine Affairs Committee requested that the U.S. 1 Bridge opening schedule be changed.

Under this temporary deviation the draw of the U.S. 1 Bridge shall open on signal; except that, from 7:40 a.m. to 7:40 p.m., daily, the draw need only open at 7:40 a.m., 8:40 a.m., 9:40 a.m., 10:40 a.m., 11:40 a.m., 1:10 p.m., 1:40 p.m., 2:40 p.m., 3:40 p.m., 4:40 p.m., 5:40 p.m., 6:40 p.m., and 7:40 p.m.

This temporary deviation eliminates the provision that permits openings to be delayed up to 20 minutes after a request is given. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge must open promptly and fully upon request, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5.

This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.43, and comments and information gathered during the comment period will assist the Coast Guard in determining if this test operating schedule is reasonable and should be made a permanent change to the drawbridge operation regulations.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM and for making this regulation effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Based upon the warnings from national security and intelligence personnel, this rule is urgently required to protect the plant from subversive activity, sabotage or possible terrorist attacks initiated from the waters surrounding the plants.

Delaying the effective date of the rule would be contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to protect the persons at the facilities, the public and surrounding communities from the release of nuclear radiation. This security zone should have minimal impact on vessel transits due to the fact that the security zone does not block the channel.

Due to the continued warnings from national security and intelligence officials that future terrorist attacks are possible, such as those launched against New York and Washington DC on September 11, 2001, heightened security measures are necessary for the area surrounding the Oyster Creek Generation Station. This rule will provide the Captain of the Port Philadelphia with enforcement options to deal with potential threats to the security of the plants. The Coast Guard intends to implement a permanent security zone surrounding the plant. The Coast Guard will be publishing a NPRM to establish a permanent security zone that is temporarily effective under this rule. The Coast Guard will use the effective period of this Temporary Final Rule to engage in notice and comment rulemaking to develop a permanent regulation tailored to the present and foreseeable security environment within the Captain of the Port, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania zone.

No person or vessel may enter or remain in the prescribed security zone at any time without the permission of the Captain of the Port, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania or designated representative. Federal, state, and local agencies may assist the Coast Guard in the enforcement of this rule.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The primary impact of this rule will be on vessels wishing to transit the affected waterway. Although this rule restricts traffic from freely transiting portions of Oyster Creek and Forked River, that restriction affects only a limited area and will be well publicized to allow mariners to make alternative plans.

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

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

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: owners or operators of fishing vessels and recreational vessels wishing to transit the portions of Oyster Creek and Forked River.

The rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: the restrictions affect only a limited area and traffic will be allowed to transit through the zone with permission of the Coast Guard or designated representative. The opportunity to engage in recreational and charter fishing outside the geographical limits of the security zone will not be disrupted. Therefore, this regulation should have a negligible impact on recreational and charter fishing activity.

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

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34) (f) and (g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, from further environmental documentation.

A final “Environmental Analysis Checklist” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

The contents of today's preamble are listed in the following outline:

On January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA, EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources. This list has been amended several times, and is published in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. These wastes are listed as hazardous because they exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous wastes identified in subpart C of part 261 ( i.e. , ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or meet the criteria for listing contained in § 261.11 (a)(2) or (a)(3).

Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste that is described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a specific waste from an individual facility meeting the listing description may not be. For this reason, §§ 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion procedure, allowing persons to demonstrate that a specific waste from a particular generating facility  1 should not be regulated as a hazardous waste.

To have their wastes excluded, petitioners must show, first, that wastes generated at their facilities do not meet any of the criteria for which the wastes were listed. See § 260.22(a) and the background documents for the listed wastes. Second, the Administrator must determine, where he/she has a reasonable basis to believe that factors (including additional constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste, that such factors do not warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste. Accordingly, a petitioner also must demonstrate that the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics ( i.e. , ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity), and must present sufficient information for the EPA to determine whether the waste contains any other toxicants at hazardous levels. See § 260.22(a), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and the background documents for the listed wastes. Although wastes which are “delisted” ( i.e. , excluded) have been evaluated to determine whether or not they exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste, generators remain obligated under RCRA to determine whether or not their wastes continue to be nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics ( i.e. , characteristics which may be promulgated subsequent to a delisting decision.)

In addition, residues from the treatment, storage, or disposal of listed hazardous wastes and mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes are also considered hazardous wastes. See § 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i), referred to as the “mixture” and “derived-from” rules, respectively. Such wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain hazardous wastes until excluded. On December 6, 1991, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the “mixture/derived-from” rules and remanded them to the EPA on procedural grounds. Shell Oil Co. v. EPA, 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1991). On March 3, 1992, EPA reinstated the mixture and derived-from rules, and solicited comments on other ways to regulate waste mixtures and residues (57 FR 7628). These rules became final on October 30, 1992 (57 FR 49278), and should be consulted for more information regarding waste mixtures and solid wastes derived from treatment, storage, or disposal of a hazardous waste. On May 16, 2001, EPA amended the mixture and derived-from rules for certain types of wastes (66 FR 27218 and 66 FR 27266). The mixture and derived-from rules are codified in 40 CFR 261.3, paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i). EPA plans to address all waste mixtures and residues when the final portion of the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) is promulgated.

On October 10, 1995, the Administrator delegated to the Regional Administrators the authority to evaluate and approve or deny petitions submitted in accordance with §§ 260.20 and 260.22, by generators within their Regions (National Delegation of Authority 8-19), in States not yet authorized to administer a delisting program in lieu of the Federal program. On March 11, 1996, the Regional Administrator of EPA, Region 4, redelegated delisting authority to the Director of the Waste Management Division (Regional Delegation of Authority 8-19).

This petition requests a delisting for a hazardous waste listed as F006. In making the initial delisting determination, EPA evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in § 261.11 (a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, the EPA agrees with the petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. (If EPA had found, based on this review, that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny the petition.) EPA then evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. See § 260.22 (a) and (d). The EPA considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, and considered the toxicity of the constituents, the concentration of the constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability.

In the past, EPA used the EPA Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML) fate and transport model, modified for delisting, as one approach for determining the delisting levels for petitioned waste. See 56 FR 32993-33012, July 18, 1991, for details on the use of the EPACML model to determine the concentrations of constituents in a waste that will not result in groundwater contamination. With the EPACML approach, as used in the past, EPA calculated a delisting level for each hazardous constituent by using the maximum estimated waste volume to determine a Dilution Attenuation Factor (DAF) from a table of waste volumes and DAFs previously calculated by the EPACML model, as modified for delisting. See 56 FR 32993-33012, July 18, 1991. The maximum estimated waste volume is the maximum number of cubic yards of petitioned waste to be disposed of each year. The delisting level for each constituent was equal to the DAF multiplied by the maximum contaminant level (MCL) which the Safe Drinking Water Act allows for that constituent in drinking water. The delisting level is a concentration in the waste leachate that will not cause the MCL to be exceeded in groundwater underneath a landfill where the waste is disposed. This method of calculating delisting levels resulted in conservative levels that were protective of groundwater, because the model did not assume that the landfill had the controls required of Subtitle D landfills. A Subtitle D landfill is a landfill subject to RCRA Subtitle D nonhazardous waste regulations, and to State and local nonhazardous waste regulations.

The EPA is proposing to use the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS), 2 developed by EPA, Region 6, to evaluate this delisting petition. The DRAS uses a new model, called the EPA Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP). The EPACMTP improves on the EPACML model in several ways. EPA is proposing to use the DRAS to calculate delisting levels and to evaluate the impact of Bekaert's petitioned waste on human health and the environment. Delisting levels are the maximum allowable concentrations for hazardous constituents in the waste, so that disposal in a landfill will not harm human health and the environment by contaminating groundwater, surface water, or air.

Today's proposal provides background information on the mechanics of the DRAS, and the use of the DRAS in delisting decision-making. Please see the EPA, Region 6, RCRA Delisting Technical Support Document (RDTSD) for a complete discussion of the DRAS calculation methods. The RDTSD, and Federal Registers , 65 FR 75637-75651, December 4, 2000, and 65 FR 58015-58031, September 27, 2000, are the sources of the DRAS information presented in today's preamble, and are included in the RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule.

The DRAS performs a risk assessment for petitioned wastes that are disposed of in the two waste management units of concern: surface impoundments for liquid wastes and landfills for non-liquid wastes. Bekaert's petitioned waste is solid, not liquid, and will be disposed in a landfill; therefore, only the application of DRAS to landfills will be discussed in this preamble.

DRAS calculates releases from solid-phase wastes in a landfill, with the following assumptions: (1) The wastes are disposed in a Subtitle D landfill and covered with a 2-foot-thick native soil layer; (2) the landfill is unlined or effectively unlined due to a liner that will eventually completely fail. The two parameters used to characterize landfills are (1) area and (2) depth (the thickness of the waste layer). Data to characterize landfills were obtained from a nationwide survey of industrial Subtitle D landfills. 3 Parameters and assumptions used to estimate infiltration of leachate from a landfill are provided in the EPACMTP Background Document and User's Guide , Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, September 1996.

DRAS uses the EPACMTP model to simulate the fate and transport of dissolved contaminants from a point of release at the base of a landfill, through the unsaturated zone and underlying groundwater, to a receptor well at an arbitrary downstream location in the aquifer (the rock formation in which the groundwater is located). DRAS evaluates, with the EPACMTP model, the groundwater exposure concentrations at the receptor well that result from the chemical release and transport from the landfill ( Application of EPACMTP to Region 6 Delisting Program: Development of Waste Volume-Specific Dilution Attenuation Factors, U.S. EPA, August 1996). For the purpose of delisting determinations, receptor well concentrations for both carcinogens and non-carcinogens from finite-source degraders and non-degraders are determined with this model. Delisted waste is a finite source, because in a finite period of time, the waste's constituents will leach and move out of the landfill. Since EPA has made a final decision to delist Bekaert's F006 waste, Bekaert must meet the delisting levels and dispose of the waste in a Subtitle D landfill, because EPA determined the delisting levels based on a landfill model.

The EPACMTP includes three major categories of improvements over the EPACML. The improvements include:

A summary of the key enhancements which have been implemented in the EPACMTP is presented here and the details are provided in the background documents to the proposed 1995 Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) (60 FR 66344, December 21, 1995). The background documents are available through the RCRA HWIR Federal Register proposal docket (60 FR 66344, December 21, 1995). For more information, please contact David Langston, North Enforcement and Compliance Section, (Mail Code 4WD-RCRA), RCRA Enforcement and Compliance Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8588, or call, toll free, (800) 241-1754, and leave a message, with your name and phone number, for David Langston to return your call. You may also contact him by e-mail: langston.david@epa.gov .

The EPACML accounts for: one-dimensional steady and uniform advective flow; contaminant dispersion in the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical directions; and sorption. However, advances in groundwater fate and transport have been made in recent years and EPA proposes and requests public comment on the use of the EPACMTP, which is a more advanced groundwater fate and transport model, for this RCRA delisting.

The EPACML was limited to conditions of uniform groundwater flow. It could not handle accurately the conditions of significant groundwater mounding and non-uniform groundwater flow due to a high rate of infiltration from the waste disposal units. These conditions increase the transverse horizontal, as well as the vertical, spreading of a contaminant plume.

The EPACMTP model overcomes the deficiencies of the EPACML in the following way: The subsurface as modeled with the EPACMTP consists of an unsaturated zone beneath a landfill and a saturated zone, the underlying water table aquifer. Contaminants move vertically downward through the unsaturated zone to the water table. The EPACMTP simulates one-dimensional, vertically downward flow and transport of contaminants in the unsaturated zone, as well as two-dimensional or three-dimensional groundwater flow and contaminant transport in the underlying saturated zone. The EPACML used a saturated zone module that was based on a Gaussian distribution of the concentration of a chemical constituent in the saturated zone. The module also used an approximation to account for the initial mixing of the contaminant entering at the water table (saturated zone) underneath the waste unit. The module accounting for initial mixing in the EPACML could lead to unrealistic groundwater concentrations. The enhanced EPACMTP model incorporates a direct linkage between the unsaturated zone and saturated zone modules which overcomes these limitations of the EPACML. The following mechanisms affecting contaminant migration are accounted for in the EPACMTP model: transport by advection and dispersion, retardation resulting from reversible linear or nonlinear equilibrium sorption on the soil and aquifer solid phase, and biochemical degradation processes. The EPACML did not account for biochemical degradation, and did not account for sorption as accurately as the EPACMTP.

The EPACMTP consists of four major components:

For more information on DRAS and EPACMTP, please see 65 FR 75637-75651, December 4, 2000; 65 FR 58015-58031, September 27, 2000; and 66 FR 9781-9798, February 12, 2001. The December 4, 2000 Federal Register discusses the key enhancements of the EPACMTP and the details are provided in the background documents to the proposed 1995 Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) (60 FR 66344, December 21, 1995). The background documents are available through the RCRA HWIR FR proposal docket (60 FR 66344, December 21, 1995) A summary of DRAS is presented in 66 FR 9781-9798, February 12, 2001. Footnote 2 in Preamble section I.B.2. above lists the URL addresses for Region 6 guidance on DRAS.

Bekaert submitted to the EPA analytical data from its Dyersburg, Tennessee plant and the Rogers, Arkansas plant. Samples of wastewater treatment sludge were collected from roll-off containers over a one-month period. A summary of analytical data is presented in Table 1 of section II below, with analytical details in the Table footnotes.

After reviewing the analytical data and information on processes and raw materials that Bekaert submitted in the delisting petition, EPA developed a list of constituents of concern and calculated delisting levels and risks using DRAS and EPACMTP DAFs as described above. EPA requests public comment on this proposed method of calculating delisting levels and risks for Bekaert's petitioned waste.

EPA considered two additional methods of evaluating Bekaert's delisting petition and determining delisting levels: (1) Setting limits on total concentrations of constituents in the waste that are more conservative than results obtained by DRAS for total concentrations; and (2) setting delisting levels at the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) levels in 40 CFR 268.48. The UTS levels for Bekaert's constituents of concern are the following:

Bekaert initially petitioned EPA, Region 6, in September 11, 1995, to exclude from the Rogers, Arkansas facility, a maximum annual weight of 1,250 cubic yards of its F006 waste, on a generator-specific basis, from the lists of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR part 261, subpart D. Because of the identical construction and operation of Rogers, Arkansas and the Dyersburg, Tennessee facilities, Bekaert petitioned EPA, Region 4, in October 28, 2002, to consider a delisting based on equivalent data and operations. Bekaert petitioned the EPA to exclude from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32, its wastewater treatment sludges from its electroplating operations. Specifically, in its petition, Bekaert petitioned the Agency to exclude its wastewater treatment filter cake presently listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006—“Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations except from the following processes: (1) Sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping associated with tin, zinc, and aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching and milling of aluminum.” The listed constituents of concern for EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006 are: cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel and cyanide (complexed). See 40 CFR part 261, Appendix VII. Bekaert petitioned the EPA to exclude this waste because it does not believe that the waste meets the criteria for which it was listed. Bekaert also believes that the waste does not contain any other constituents that would render it hazardous. Review of this petition included consideration of the original listing criteria, as well as the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. See section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2) through (4).

In support of its petition, Bekaert submitted the previous petition for the Rogers, Arkansas facility and documentation which supported equivalency of the Dyersburg, Tennessee facility. Included within the petition are: (1) Descriptions of its manufacturing and wastewater treatment processes, including schematic diagrams; (2) a list of all raw materials and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for all trade name products used in the manufacturing and waste treatment processes; (3) results from total constituent analyses for fourteen metals including the eight Toxicity Characteristic (TC) metals listed in § 261.24 ( i.e. , the TC metals) and antimony, beryllium, copper, nickel, thallium, and zinc from representative samples of the petitioned waste; (4) results from the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311) for fourteen metals which include the eight TC metals, and antimony, beryllium, copper, nickel, thallium, and zinc from representative samples of the petitioned waste; (5) results from total constituent analysis for total and reactive sulfide and cyanide for representative samples of the petitioned waste; (6) results from total oil and grease analyses from representative samples of the petitioned waste; (7) test results and information regarding the hazardous characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity; and (8) results from total constituent analyses for certain volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds from representative samples of the petitioned waste.

The hazardous constituents of concern for which F006 was listed are hexavalent chromium and cyanide (complexed). Bekaert petitioned the EPA to exclude its F006 waste because Bekaert does not believe that the waste meets the criteria of the listing.

EPA concluded after reviewing Bekaert's waste management and waste history information that no other hazardous constituents, other than those tested for, are likely to be present in Bekaert's petitioned waste. In addition, on the basis of test results and other information provided by Bekaert, pursuant to § 260.22, EPA concluded that the petitioned waste will not exhibit any of the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. See §§ 261.21, 261.22, and 261.23, respectively.

During its evaluation of Bekaert's petition, EPA also considered the potential impact of the petitioned waste on media other than groundwater. With regard to airborne dispersal of waste, EPA evaluated the potential hazards resulting from airborne exposure to waste contaminants from the petitioned waste using an air dispersion model for releases from a landfill. The results of this evaluation indicated that there is no substantial present or potential hazard to human health from airborne exposure to constituents from Bekaert's petitioned waste. (A description of EPA's assessment of the potential impact of airborne dispersal of Bekaert's petitioned waste is presented in the RCRA public docket for today's proposed rule.)

EPA evaluated the potential impact of the petitioned waste on surface water resulting from storm water runoff from a landfill containing the petitioned waste, and found that the waste would not present a threat to human health or the environment. ( See the docket for today's proposed rule for a description of this analysis). In addition, EPA believes that containment structures at municipal solid waste landfills can effectively control runoff, as Subtitle D regulations ( see 56 FR 50978, October 9, 1991) prohibit pollutant discharges into surface waters. While some contamination of surface water is possible through runoff from a waste disposal area, EPA believes that the dissolved concentrations of hazardous constituents in the runoff are likely to be lower than the extraction procedure test results reported in today's proposed rule, because of the aggressive acidic medium used for extraction in the TCLP. EPA also believes that, in general, leachate derived from the waste will not directly enter a surface water body without first traveling through the saturated subsurface where dilution of hazardous constituents may occur. Transported contaminants would be further diluted in the receiving water body. Subtitle D controls would minimize significant releases to surface water from erosion of undissolved particulates in runoff.

In order to account for possible variability in the generation rate, EPA calculated delisting levels using a waste volume of 1,250 cubic yards. Delisting levels and risk levels calculated by DRAS, using the EPACMTP model, are presented in Tables 3, 4, and 5 below. DRAS found that the major pathway for human exposure to this waste is groundwater ingestion, and the majority of the delisting and risk levels for the TCLP leachate of the waste were calculated based on that pathway. EPA used DRAS-calculated values based on MCLs, when these would result in more conservative delisting levels. The input values required by DRAS were the chemical constituents in Bekaert's petitioned waste; their maximum reported concentrations in the TCLP extract of the waste and in the unextracted waste ( See Table 1, Preamble section II.A.); the maximum annual volume to be disposed (1,250 cubic yards) in a landfill; the desired risk level, which was chosen to be no worse than 10 −5 for carcinogens; and a hazard quotient of no greater than 1 [1.48] for non-carcinogens. The only carcinogenic constituent detected in the waste is cadmium (arsenic not detected in the Dyersburg, TN, waste). Cadmium also has non-carcinogenic toxic effects.

The regulations as published contain a nonexistent cross reference section which may confuse or mislead the public.

In § 3809.202(d), we have a cross reference to a nonexistent § 3809.800(c) which could mislead or confuse the public. Therefore, we are changing the cross reference from § 3809.800(c) to § 3809.802.

The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59 et seq. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However, some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the Federal Register .

In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has identified the special flood hazard areas in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in the identified special flood hazard area of communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year, on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's initial flood insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

Each community receives a 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification addressed to the Chief Executive Officer that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications have been made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

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

The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless they take remedial action.

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

This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, October 26, 1987, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.; p. 252.

This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778, October 25, 1991, 56 FR 55195, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp.; p. 309.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency makes the final determinations listed below of modified base flood elevations for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local 2 circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The changes in base flood elevations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

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

The Mitigation Division Director of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The changes in base flood elevations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

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

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

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

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

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

The Federal Emergency Management Agency makes the final determinations listed below for 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 Mitigation Division Director of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Federal Emergency Management Agency makes the final determinations listed below for 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 Mitigation Division Director of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Federal Communications Commission published a document amending parts 2, 73, 74, 80, 90, and 97 of the Commission's rules in the Federal Register of May 13, 2003 (68 FR 25512). This document corrects the Federal Register as it appeared. In FR Doc. 03-11723, published on May 13, 2003 (68 FR 25512), the Commission is correcting § 90.35(c)(82) with § 90.35(c)(89).

In rule FR Doc. 03-11723 published on May 13, 2003 (68 FR 25512), the Commission is correcting § 90.35(c)(82) to read as § 90.35(c)(89):

On page 25540, in the third column, in amendatory instruction 18.e., paragraph (c)(82) is corrected to read as paragraph (c)(89).

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 02-271, adopted on September 27, 2002, and released on October 8, 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 this proceeding, the Commission established a new subpart K—Personal Locator Beacons (PLB) under part 95 of the Commission's rules, to permit the use of frequency 406.0-406.1 MHz for personal locator beacons. We amended our rules to provide for licensing individual 406 MHz PLBs by rule, require mandatory registration of 406 MHz PLB with the NOAA, and require manufacturers of 406 MHz PLBs to comply with the Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services (RTCM) Recommended Standards for 406 MHz Satellite PLBs. The 406 MHz PLB is primarily intended to provide a distress and alerting capacity for use by the general public in life threatening situations in a remote environment after all other means of notifying SAR responders ( e.g. , telephone, radio) have been exhausted. In addition, we dismiss as moot requests by ACR Electronics Inc. (ACR) and McMurdo Limited (McMurdo) for waiver of the Commission's rules to permit the type certification of a new 406 MHz personal emergency position indicating radiobeacon (EPIRB), for the reason that the rule changes we adopt today appear to permit the equipment proposed by ACR and McMurdo.

2. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette and Braille) of this Report and Order are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-0260, TTY (202) 418-2555, or at bmillin@fcc.gov. This Report and Order can also be downloaded at http://www.fcc.gov/dtf/.

3. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the NPRM, 65 FR 4935, February 2, 2000, prepared in this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comments on the IRFA. This present FRFA conforms to the RFA.

4. In this proceeding, we amend part 95 of the Commission's rules to authorize the use of the frequency 406 MHz for personal locator beacons (PLBs) to provide individuals in remote areas a means to alert others of an emergency situation and help search and rescue personnel locate those in distress.

5. No comments were submitted specifically in response to the IRFA.

6. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The adopted rules would apply to small businesses that manufacturer, design, import, sell, rent, or use radiobeacon equipment designed for distress alerting and location. PLBs will be used to provide a distress and alerting capacity for use by the general public in a life-threatening condition in a remote environment after all other means of notifying search and rescue responders have been used. These beacons will be manufactured, designed, imported and sold by companies of all sizes operating in the U.S. We concluded that these small businesses are classified in Communications Equipment, N.E.C., (Standard Identification Code 3669) as entities employing less than 750 employees as defined in 13 CFR 121.201. The size data provided by the SBA shows that 469 firms out of 498 firms in the Communications Equipment, NEC classification have less than 750 employees but did not enable us to make a meaningful estimate of the number of potential manufacturers which are small businesses. No comments were received on the number of small businesses which could be impacted by the proposed rule changes.

7. This proceeding contains a reporting requirement to require businesses renting and owners of 406 MHz Personal Locator Beacons (PLBs) to register information such as name, address, type of vessel with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The information would be used by search and rescue personnel to identify the persons in distress and to select the proper rescue units and search methods.

8. The Commission in this proceeding has considered comments on making frequency spectrum available to authorize the use of personal locator beacons. It has adopted alternatives which minimize burdens placed on small entities. The adopted rules will have a beneficial economic impact on small business entities that manufacturer, design, import, sell, or use radiobeacon equipment designed for distress alerting and location. This approach promotes technological innovations in radiobeacon equipment. This approach will allow the states to help manage its terrestrial search and rescue resources and assure that these radiobeacons will operate properly thus enhancing protection of life and property.

9. To minimize any negative impact on search and rescue responders receiving distress alerts, we have offered the option of utilizing the existing procedures. These procedures are that with prior coordination and mutual agreement, land-based alerts will be relayed by the United States Air Force Rescue Coordination Center to a point of contact designated by the state. In addition, the Commission declined to require businesses renting PLBs to the public to notify NOAA each time a beacon is rented; instead, such business must register once with NOAA and provide a 24-hour point of contact.

10. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register . See 5 U.S.C. 604(b).

11. Pursuant to the authority of sections 4(i), 303(r), and 332(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), 332(a)(2), parts 80, 87 and 95 of the Commission's rules, that 47 CFR parts 80, 87 and 95 are amended as set forth in the attached Rule Changes.

12. The Commission's Reference Information Center, Consumer Information Bureau, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, WT Docket No. 99-366, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

13. It is further ordered that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and § 1.925 of the Commission's rules, ACR's request for waiver of § 80.1061 of the Commission's rules, filed on January 10, 2001, and McMurdo's request for waiver of § 80.1061 of the Commission's rules, filed on August 23, 2002, to permit type certification of ACR's personal EPIRB, FCC Identification Number B66ACR-PLB-100, and McMurdo's personal EPRIB, FCC identification number KLS85860, respectively, are dismissed as moot.

14. It is further ordered, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), that this proceeding is terminated.

On May 8, 2003, the Research and Special Programs Administration (we, us) published a final rule that responds to appeals submitted by persons affected by an August 8, 2002 final rule. The August 8, 2002 final rule amended certain requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171-180) applicable to the maintenance, requalification, repair, and use of DOT specification cylinders. To allow us additional time to review the issues raised in the appeals, we published a final rule on September 30, 2002 (67 FR 51626), extending the compliance dates for certain provisions to May 30, 2003.

The May 8, 2003 final rule further delays compliance with certain provisions in the August 8, 2002 final rule beyond May 30, 2003. However, the effective date of the May 8, 2003 final rule is June 9, 2003. This leaves a 9-day gap in which companies may be in technical non-compliance with certain provisions.

In addition, we are correcting an error in amendatory item 14, paragraph b of the May 8, 2003 final rule. In that item we indicated that we were revising paragraph (h)(2)(iv) and the beginning of the first sentence in paragraph (h)(3) introductory text of § 173.301. However, the revision to paragraph (h)(3) introductory text incorrectly appeared as paragraph (h)(2) introductory text.

This Federal Register document is available on the Government Printing Office′s website at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/ca/docs/aces/aces140.html . Background information and documents are available at the NMFS Northwest Region website at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/gdfsh01.htm and at the Pacific Fishery Management Council′s website at: http://www.pcouncil.org .

The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 660, subpart G, regulate fishing for over 80 species of groundfish off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. Annual groundfish specifications and management measures are initially developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council), and are implemented by NMFS. The specifications and management measures for the 2003 fishing year (January 1 - December 31, 2003) were initially published in the Federal Register as an emergency rule for January 1 - February 28, 2003 (68 FR 908, January 7, 2003) and as a proposed rule for March 1 - December 31, 2003 (68 FR 936, January 7, 2003). The emergency rule was amended at 68 FR 4719, January 30, 2003, and the final rule for March 1 - December 31, 2003 was published in the Federal Register on March 7, 2003 (68 FR 11182). The final rule has been subsequently amended at 68 FR 18166 (April 15, 2003), at 68 FR 23901 (May 6, 2003), and at 68 FR 23924 (May 6, 2003).

The following changes to current groundfish management measures were recommended by the Pacific Council, in consultation with Pacific Coast Treaty Tribes and the States of Washington, Oregon, and California, at its April 7-11, 2003, meeting in Vancouver, WA.

The NMFS West Coast Groundfish Observer Program (Observer Program) released observer data collected from September 2001 through August 2002 at a bycatch workshop in January 2003. At the Pacific Council′s April meeting, the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reported that they considered bycatch rates based on observer data in the groundfish trawl fishery to be the best available scientific data for use in the bycatch model. Both the SSC and the Groundfish Management Team (GMT) supported incorporating trawl bycatch rates from the Observer Program into the bycatch model as soon as possible. Following the SSC and GMT recommendations, the Pacific Council decided to use the preliminary observer- based trawl bycatch rates in the bycatch model to develop inseason adjustments to trip limits and area closures that were effective May 1, 2003, in addition, it was decided to shift the trawl RCA as soon as new boundaries could be developed.

Based on the new Observer Program information on bycatch rates in the trawl fishery for groundfish, the Pacific Council recommended changes to the boundaries for the trawl RCA (the area that is closed to fishing for groundfish with trawl gear) along with trip limit changes. In particular, new estimates of canary rockfish bycatch in the trawl fishery north of 40°10′ N. lat. and bocaccio bycatch in the trawl fishery south of 40°10′ N. lat. are higher than previously estimated. At these higher bycatch rates, the OYs for canary rockfish and bocaccio would be reached before the end of the year. In order to slow the rate of interception for these overfished rockfish species, the trawl RCA is being shifted to better align with the observed interception rates of these species. Prior to May 1, 2003, the trawl RCA north of 40°10′ N. lat. was scheduled to extend between boundaries approximating the 100 fm (183 m) and 250 fm (457 m) depth contours. Trip limit changes and, north of 40°10′ N. lat., a change in the trawl RCA were announced previously in the Federal Register (68 FR 23901, May 6, 2003) and were effective May 1, 2003. The trawl RCA north of 40°10′ N. lat. was temporarily extended from the shoreline to a boundary approximating the 250 fm (457 m) depth contour until new boundaries could be put in place. Implementation of the new boundaries was delayed beyond the inseason adjustments that were effective May 1, 2003, until coordinates for the new boundaries were developed and reviewed by Federal and state management and enforcement agencies.

Because data from the Observer Program showed that canary rockfish tend to be intercepted in trawl gear further inshore than previously expected, the trawl RCA north of 40°10′ N. lat. is being shifted with the intention of protecting canary rockfish, an overfished species. In evaluating the observer data, the Pacific Council′s GMT recommended that the trawl RCA′s eastern boundary be shifted from approximating the 100-fm (183-m) depth contour to approximating the 50-fm (91-m) depth contour to protect areas where canary are intercepted in the trawl fishery. Additionally, the GMT recommended that the western boundary be shifted from approximating the 250-fm (457-m) depth contour to approximating the 200-fm (366-m) depth contour to allow fishery access to more abundant deepwater groundfish stocks while still protecting areas with high rates of canary bycatch. Thus, for the remainder of the year, the trawl RCA north of 40°10′ N. lat. will extend from approximately the 50-fm (91-m) to 200-fm (366-m) depth contours. During November - December, the western trawl RCA boundary is to be modified to allow petrale fishing. In the interest of time, this new 200-fm (366-m) western boundary was not modified to allow petrale fishing but it will be modified by a subsequent inseason action that will be published in the Federal Register prior to November.

The Pacific Council′s GMT also recommended moving the trawl RCA south of 40°10′ N. lat. to protect overfished species while allowing fishery access to more abundant groundfish stocks. This move entails the trawl RCA′s western boundary being shifted to approximate the 200-fm (266-m) depth contour, thus, creating a coastwide western boundary for the trawl RCA that approximates the 200-fm (266-m) depth contour. Between 40°10′ N. lat. and 34°27′ N. lat., the western boundary for the trawl RCA will shift from approximating the 250-fm (457-m) depth contour to approximating the 200-fm (366-m) depth contour in order to allow fishery access to more abundant deepwater stocks while protecting areas where both bocaccio and canary are intercepted. Between 34°27′ N. lat. and the U.S./Mexico border, the western boundary for the trawl RCA will shift from either approximating the 100-fm (183-m) or 150-fm (274-m) depth contour to approximating the 200- fm (266-m) contour to better align with depths where there is a high interception of bocaccio. Around southern California islands and seamounts, the trawl RCA outer boundary will also shift from approximating the 150-fm (274-m) depth contour to approximating the 200-fm (266-m) depth contour, again to protect bocaccio. Therefore, for the remainder of May through June and from September through December, the trawl RCA boundaries south of 40°10′ N. lat. will approximate the following depth contours: (1) between 40°10′ N. lat. and 34°27′ N. lat., the trawl RCA will extend from 60-fm (110-m) to 200-fm (266-m); (2) between 34°27′ N. lat. and the U.S./Mexico border, the trawl RCA will extend from 100-fm (183-m) to 200-fm (266-m); and (3) around California islands and seamounts south of 34°27′ N. lat., the trawl RCA will extend from the shoreline to 200-fm (266-m). During November - December, the western trawl RCA boundary is to be modified to allow petrale fishing. In the interest of time, this new 200-fm (366-m) western boundary was not modified to allow petrale fishing but it will be modified by a subsequent inseason action that will be published in the Federal Register prior to November 2003.

Additional measures to slow the incidental catch of bocaccio rockfish inshore of the trawl RCA have been implemented by prohibiting trawling inshore of 200-fm (366-m) during period 4 (July-August) from 40°10′ N. lat. to the U.S./Mexico border. This prohibition was implemented through the inseason adjustments published on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23901).

For the reasons stated herein, NMFS concurs with the Pacific Council's recommendations and hereby announces the following changes to the 2003 specifications and management measures (68 FR 11182, March 7, 2003, as amended at 68 FR 18166, April 15, 2003, at 68 FR 23901, May 6, 2003, and at 68 FR 23925, May 6, 2003) to read as follows: