Prior to 1981, departmental regulations required USDA agencies to issue individual, program-specific regulations and directives to implement USDA, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other applicable guidance and polices related to Federal program administrative requirements. This was practiced throughout the Federal government and frequently resulted in complaints from program participants about the confusion and duplication in the administration and management of Federal programs.

Public Law No. 95-224, the “Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977,” (FGCA) and the related OMB guidance (43 FR 36860, Aug. 18, 1978), emphasized the need for a uniform policy and the standardization of common administrative requirements for all Federal assistance programs. Consequently, in November 1981, USDA published 7 CFR part 3015, “Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations” (46 FR 55636, Nov. 10, 1981). The original purpose for part 3015 was to set out in a single “uniform” regulation all requirements that applied to recipients and subrecipients of USDA Federal assistance. In terms of agreement coverage, part 3015 was limited to grants and cooperative agreements as defined by the FGCA.

Experience with this approach soon demonstrated a definite need for specific regulations that recognized the differences between types of recipients, especially as between State and local governments and the various kinds of nonprofit organizations, including universities. Therefore, USDA subsequently participated in a series of government-wide initiatives establishing more specific rules applicable based on the type of recipient. These initiatives simultaneously reduced the scope and effect of part 3015.

In March 1988, USDA joined with other Federal agencies in simultaneously publishing a common rule applicable to State and local government recipients. The USDA rule was codified in 7 CFR part 3016, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.” (53 FR 8034, Mar. 11, 1988). In November 1993, OMB revised OMB Circular A-110 (58 FR 62992, Nov. 29, 1993). In August 1995, USDA published 7 CFR part 3019, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Nonprofit Organizations,” to implement the revised A-110 (60 FR 44122, Aug. 24, 1995). The definition of “recipient” in section 3019.2 authorizes agencies at their discretion to apply part 3019 to for-profit organizations as well. In August 1997, USDA published 7 CFR part 3052, “Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Organizations” (62 FR 45947, Aug. 29, 1997) to implement the requirements of the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the related revision to OMB Circular A-133. In August 2000, USDA published a final rule to include USDA's entitlement programs within the scope of part 3016 and part 3019 as appropriate (65 FR 49474, Aug. 14, 2000).

As the result of these actions, a substantial portion of the original purpose and scope of part 3015 was transferred to other rules. Currently, part 3015 may be used by USDA agencies as an option to using part 3019 for one remaining type of recipient, for-profit organizations. Part 3015 also includes certain requirements that: (1) Are not included in one or more of the other parts identified above; and (2) are generally applicable to any assistance transactions between USDA and any type of recipient.

In the period since the enactment of the FGCA, and concurrent with all of the regulatory changes set out above, Congress passed a number of acts which included language excluding certain USDA authorities from the FGCA. At a later date and as a separate action, USDA plans to develop a uniform rule for the agreements not covered by this rule such as those that are issued under sections 1472(b) and 1473A of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 3318 and 3319a, and similar authorities.

Congress has recently taken actions both to improve the general financial management of the Federal government and to specifically improve the effectiveness and performance of Federal assistance programs. Congress enacted the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act) for various reasons, including bringing “* * * more effective general and financial management practices to the Federal Government through statutory provisions which would * * * designate a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) in each executive department and in each major executive agency in the Federal Government” (31 U.S.C. 501 note, CFO Act sec.102(b)). The CFO Act specifies that the agency CFO “shall * * * oversee all financial management activities relating to the programs and operations of the agency; * * *” (31 U.S.C. 902(a)). The Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999 (FFAMIA) (Pub. L. 106-107) requires USDA to “* * * develop and implement a plan that * * * streamlines and simplifies the application, administrative, and reporting procedures for Federal financial assistance programs administered by the agency.” (31 U.S.C. 6101 note, FFAMIA sec.5).

USDA now proposes the following actions: (1) USDA has concluded that allowing awarding agencies the discretion to choose between two rules for the administration of assistance agreements with for-profit organizations is both unnecessary and confusing. Therefore, USDA proposes to revise part 3019 to require that agencies entering into assistance agreements with for-profit organizations use part 3019 exclusively for the administration of these agreements; (2) The combination of the recent transfer of the entitlement programs and the proposed transfer of for-profit organizations to the administrative requirements of other regulations make much of the text currently in part 3015 unnecessary. Furthermore, a substantial portion of part 3015 is based on superceded OMB guidance that is no longer used by any other Federal agency. Therefore, USDA proposes to revise the current text to remove unneeded language and to improve readability. In addition, to avoid potential confusion, USDA proposes to remove part 3015 in its entirety and replace it with a new part 3020 entitled “General Program Administration Regulations.” The table at the end of this preamble provides cross-references between the sections in the current part 3015 and the equivalent sections in the existing parts 3016 and 3019 as well as the proposed part 3020. The proposed part 3020 will apply to all types of recipients, supplementing the regulations in parts 3016 and 3019; (3) To carry out the OCFO oversight responsibilities for financial management activities, USDA proposes to make parts 3020, 3016, and 3019 applicable, as appropriate, to nearly all parties entering into assistance transactions with USDA relating to USDA's programs, including non-governmental international recipients. The proposed rule is intended to establish the basic requirements for USDA's financial management of programs; (4) The proposed rule will be a major step toward conformance with the FFAMIA initiative to simplify the application, administrative, and reporting procedures for the covered Federal programs administered by the agency. In terms of streamlining, the current version of part 3015 consists of 123 sections containing 302KB of information while the proposed version of part 3020 consists of 28 sections containing 90KB of information. In terms of uniformity, the proposed rule will have the effect of placing nearly all of USDA's assistance relationships with non-Federal entities under two administrative rules that codify for USDA the same policies used by the majority of other Federal Departments. Further streamlining is expected to occur over the coming months and years. OMB published notices in the Federal Register on August 12, 2002 (67 FR 52544-52560, Aug. 12, 2002) that propose to standardize the announcement format for discretionary grants and cooperative agreements across government agencies. Also, a standard set of data elements has been proposed to standardize the electronic posting of funding announcements. When they are finalized, USDA expects that parts 3016, 3019 and 3020, and particularly §§ 3016.10, 3019.12 and 3020.15 will be amended to reflect the implementation of FFAMIA; (5) USDA has corrected the reference to USDA's audit regulation in 7 CFR 3019.26 to reflect the correct citation of 7 CFR part 3052; and, (6) USDA also proposes to include in part 3020 the additional specific requirements itemized below.

The following paragraphs provide a summary of the various revisions and sections of this proposed rule 3020. Following the summary is a table that cross-references each section of part 3015 and indicates the comparable sections in parts 3016 and 3019 and proposed part 3020.

USDA proposes to amend the title of part 3019 and revise §§ 3019.1, 3019.2, and 3019.5 to include for-profit organizations within the scope of part 3019. The proposed revision in § 3019.26(a) replaces the reference to the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 7501-7507) and the OMB Circular A-133 with a reference to part 3052, “AUDITS OF STATES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS,” the USDA regulation implementing OMB Circular A-133.

Section 3020.1 Purpose. No substantive change from part 3015.

Section 3020.2 Applicability. This section lists which USDA agreements and recipients are covered by this rule and the exceptions to this rule. The applicability of proposed part 3020 is broader than that of part 3015. Proposed part 3020 will apply to all USDA agreements, including memoranda of understanding, not explicitly excepted. Part 3015 applies only to assistance agreements.

Section 3020.3 Conflicting policies and deviations. This section simplifies current section 3015.3. Proposed section 3020.3 clarifies that unless authorized by statute or by a waiver by OCFO, the requirements in part 3020 will take precedence over any USDA agency specific regulations.

Section 3020.4 Other regulations applicable to USDA agreements. This section lists other regulations that currently apply to some or all cover USDA agreements. The only new requirement proposed is that awarding agencies are to apply the rules in part 3019 of this chapter to for-profit entities.

Section 3020.10 Authority clause. USDA proposes this section to codify the requirement to include a section in all covered USDA agreements addressing the statutory authority and funding authority for any financial transaction and the statutory authority for any non-financial transaction.

Section 3020.11 Identification and use of USDA agreements. USDA proposes this section to resolve questions as to the primary types of USDA agreements. This section defines the agreements commonly entered into by USDA agencies, subject to each agency's specific authorizations. This section specifically addresses the use of procurement contracts, cooperative agreements, grants, memoranda of understanding, interagency agreements, and intra-agency agreements.

Section 3020.12 Program reporting requirements. The Federal Program Information Act (31 U.S.C. chapter 61) requires Federal agencies to report specified information for programs involving non-procurement transactions. The USDA complies with the requirements through submission of data to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) and the Federal Assistance Award Data System (FAADS). While these are not new requirements and USDA has complied with the reporting requirements since their inception, the requirements were never codified in our regulations. USDA proposes this section to codify these reporting requirements.

Section 3020.13 Acknowledgment of support on publications and audiovisuals. USDA is proposing no substantive changes from § 3015.200. This section states when a recipient shall acknowledge the awarding agency support in publications or audiovisual media.

Section 3020.14 Competing discretionary awards. There is no substantive change from § 3015.158 “Competition in the awarding of discretionary grants and cooperative agreements.” This section covers the standards for competition, approval of applications and exceptions.

Section 3020.15 Program regulations and announcements. USDA is proposing no major substantive changes from § 3015.204. Proposed § 3020.15 addresses program announcements, program regulations, program solicitations, evaluation criteria and procedures, funding priorities, projects building on prior awards, and discussions with applicants. Proposed § 3020.15 clarifies and standardizes basic program notice and fairness requirements.

Section 3020.16 Nondiscrimination requirement. USDA proposes to establish a mandatory nondiscrimination statement that is to be included in covered USDA agreements.

Section 3020.17 Waiver of “single” State agency requirements. USDA is proposing no substantive changes from current § 3015.30. This section implements section 204 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, which authorizes and establishes criteria for waiver of requirements that a single State agency or multimember agency administer a program.

Section 3020.20 Use of consultants. USDA is proposing no major substantive changes from § 3015.201. The Definitions and Applicability subsections have been removed. The Definitions are now covered in § 3020.50 and Applicability is addressed in §§ 3020.20(a) and 3020.20(b)(2). Unlike § 3015.201, applicability of § 3020.20 is not limited to grants, subgrants, and cost-type contracts. All other subsections are virtually the same. The proposed section addresses the basic policy for recipient use of consultants, exceptions, requirements for approval, and documentation standards.

Section 3020.21 Disposition of long term financial interests in real property, personal property, and equipment. This section creates a new departmental policy to terminate any departmental financial interest in property or equipment acquired by a recipient, under a USDA agreement, after 20 years have passed since the last Federal need or use of the property or equipment. Executive Order 12803, “Infrastructure Privatization,” directs Federal agencies to “Approve State and local governments' requests to privatize infrastructure assets, * * * and, where necessary, grant exceptions to the disposition requirements of the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments' common rule'' (57 FR 19063, May 4, 1992). As set out in Executive Order 12803, to privatize an asset means to dispose of, or transfer, an asset from a State or local government to a private party. Examples of infrastructure assets include roads, electrical supply facilities, water supply facilities, recycling plants, waste water treatment facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, housing, schools and hospitals. Executive Order 12803 provides that, “To the extent permitted by law,” Federal agencies should revise the existing common rule requirements for the recuperation of Federal financial interests from State or local government grantees when the State or local government grantee privatizes a Federally funded infrastructure asset. The revised method set out in Executive Order 12803, Section 3(c)(iii) calls for use of the Internal Revenue Service accelerated depreciation schedules in calculating the value of the Federal interest in the asset.

Section 3020.30 Management of indirect costs. In § 3020.30, USDA is proposing to codify the Federal indirect cost policies established in OMB Circulars numbers A-21, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions, and A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments. This section allows for a provisional indirect cost rate to be used pending determination of a final rate. These indirect costs may be paid only after establishing an indirect cost rate as required by §§ 3016.22 and 3019.27 of this chapter and the applicable cost principles or in the case of for-profit entities, the cost accounting standards. This section also explains which agency shall negotiate and establish the rate.

Section 3020.31 Physical segregation and eligibility. USDA proposes in this section to codify the requirement in OMB Circular number A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations, that awarding agencies shall not require the recipient to use a separate bank account for the deposit of Federal funds or establish any eligibility requirements for banks or other financial institutions in which recipients deposit Federal funds for USDA agreements. Exceptions are found in §§ 3020.32, 3016.21 (h), and 3019.22 (i), (j), and (k) of this chapter.

Section 3020.32 Funds advanced to recipients. USDA proposes no substantive changes from section 3015.12. All moneys advanced to a recipient must be deposited in an FDIC insured bank whenever possible and anything over the FDIC limit must be collaterally secured.

Section 3020.33 Source of bonds. USDA is proposing no substantive changes in this section. Any bonds required under § 3016.36 (h) (1) through (3) or §§ 3019.21 (c) and (d) and 3019.48 (c) (1) through (3) of this chapter shall be obtained from companies holding certificates of authority as acceptable sureties listed by the Department of the Treasury in its Department Circular 570.

Section 3020.34 Limits on total payments to the recipient. USDA proposes in this section to codify the four most widely applicable legal limits on the total amount of money a recipient is entitled to receive from USDA as a result of a Federal award.

This subpart implements Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, and the applicable provisions of section 401 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 and section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, and has been completely rewritten in consultation with active State Single Points of Contacts (SPOCs). These consultations were conducted over an extended period of time and the various draft revisions of this section were circulated to all active SPOC States. This was followed by discussions with individual SPOCs and a final review session held at the 1999 National SPOC Network Conference held in Washington, D.C. The proposed language reflects the ideas and comments presented by the SPOCs throughout this consultation process.

Section 3020.40 Purpose. USDA proposes no substantive changes from part 3105.300 “Purpose.” This subpart is intended to foster an intergovernmental partnership for the review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development.

Section 3020.41 State responsibilities. This proposed section addresses the State option to establish a coordinated review process consisting of a Single Point Of Contact (SPOC) within the State to review proposed Federal awards. The proposed section describes the SPOC's assigned functions.

Section 3020.42 USDA awarding agency responsibilities. This proposed section defines the USDA awarding agency responsibilities to publish certain information in the Federal Register and obtain clearance from the OCFO for any Federal Register publications regarding implementation of this subpart. The USDA awarding agency must coordinate with the SPOC to maintain a current list of the programs and activities selected by the SPOC for review. The awarding agency is responsible for notifying all State and local governments that would be directly affected by proposed Federal financial awards from, or direct Federal development by, USDA.

Section 3020.43 Office of the Chief Financial Officer responsibilities. This proposed section lists OCFO's responsibilities regarding intergovernmental cooperation and codifies OCFO's responsibility within USDA for the Federal Assistance Awards Data System (FAADS). OCFO will coordinate the resolution of any conflicts between the USDA awarding agency and the SPOC and, to the extent practicable, shall consult with all other substantially affected Federal departments and agencies to ensure full coordination between such agencies and the Department regarding programs and activities covered under this subpart.

Section 3020.44 Processing comments. This proposed section provides guidance to address how USDA agencies will process comments on proposed awards.

Section 3020.45 Accommodation of intergovernmental concerns. This proposed section covers how issues and concerns about an award are handled and the timeframes in which they should be addressed.

Section 3020.46 State plans. This proposed section indicates that Federal programs that statutorily require States to submit plans before receiving awards are subject to the requirements set out in § 3016.11 of this chapter. This section also indicates when plans may be submitted for review, without prior approval.

Section 3020.47 Waivers. This proposed section states that in an emergency, the Secretary of Agriculture may waive any provision of subpart E of this part.

Section 3020.50 Definitions and acronyms. This proposed section lists definitions for the terms used throughout part 3020.

Executive Order 12866 requires that a regulatory impact analysis be prepared for “significant regulatory actions” which are defined in Executive Order 12866 as any rule that has an annual effect on the national economy of $100 million or more or certain other specified effects.

USDA does not believe that the proposed rule will have an annual impact of $100 million or more or any other effects listed in Executive Order 12866. For this reason, USDA has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866.

This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The provisions of this proposed rule do not preempt State laws, are not retroactive, and do not involve administrative appeals.

It has been determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The provisions contained in this proposed rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

USDA recognizes that the proposed rule has component language that may have some federalism impact. First, the proposed rule removes the existing regulatory language in 7 CFR part 3015 subpart V addressing Intergovernmental Review of Department of Agriculture Programs and Activities, and promulgates revised regulatory language at 7 CFR part 3020. As explained above, USDA consulted extensively with the active State Single Points of Contact throughout the drafting process. These consultations were conducted over an extended period of time and the various draft revisions of this section were circulated to all active SPOC States. This was followed by discussions with individual SPOCs and a final review session held at the 1999 National SPOC Network Conference held in Washington, DC. The proposed language reflects the ideas and comments presented by the SPOCs throughout this consultation process.

Second, the proposed rule also implements Executive Order 12803, “Infrastructure Privatization,” in § 3020.21, authorizing exceptions to the disposition requirements for infrastructure assets applicable to State, local, and Indian tribal government recipients under 7 CFR part 3016. This proposed regulation essentially provides that such recipients may request a waiver in accordance with Executive Order 12803. USDA intends to incorporate, and not to alter, the provisions of Executive Order 12803 allowing for such waivers. Implementation of Executive Order 12803 in the departmental regulations codifies the waiver policy, increasing the awareness of State, local, and Indian tribal governments of their ability to request such waivers. USDA considers the proposed rule to have minimal federalism implications, and those minimal implications to be positive because of the added flexibility and awareness of such flexibility in USDA relationships with State, local, and Indian tribal government recipients.

Finally, the rule proposes codification of the applicability of the current regulations at 7 CFR part 3016 to all USDA agreements, as defined in proposed § 3020.2, with State, local, and Indian tribal governments. USDA is not revising the substantive requirements of 7 CFR part 3016. USDA again considers the proposed rule to have minimal federalism implications because State governments are already subject to these requirements for assistance awards.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires that, for each rule with “a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” an analysis must be prepared describing the rule's impact on small entities and identifying any significant alternatives to the rule that would minimize the economic impact on small entities. USDA certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 25) requires agencies to prepare several analyses before proposing any rule that may result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Indian tribal governments or the private sector. USDA certifies that this proposed rule will not result in expenditures of this magnitude.

This proposed rule will not impose additional reporting or record keeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, USDA proposes to amend parts 3015, 3019 and 3020 of 7 CFR chapter XXX as follows:

Section 50.46 specifies the performance criteria against which the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) must be evaluated. Appendix K to part 50 provides the required and acceptable features of ECCS evaluation models. The criteria are: (1) Peak cladding temperature that cannot be exceeded, (2) the maximum cladding oxidation thickness, (3) the maximum total hydrogen generation, (4) assurance of a core geometry that can be cooled, and (5) assurance of abundant long term cooling. The regulations also state that assessments of cooling performance following postulated LOCAs must be calculated in accordance with an acceptable evaluation model and that in applying the model, comparisons to applicable experimental data must be made.

The petitioner identified numerous elements of the specified ECCS evaluation procedures and the evaluation model that he believed need to include additional comparisons to applicable experimental data.

The petition for rulemaking designated PRM-50-73 addressing potential crud interference with coolant flow during a fast-moving (large-break) LOCA, was sent to the NRC September 4, 2001, and the notice of receipt of the petition and request for public comment was published in the Federal Register (FR) on October 12, 2001 (66 FR 52065). The public comment period ended on December 26, 2001. On November 5, 2001, the supplemental petition, designated PRM-50-73A, was sent by the same petitioner alleging crud interference with coolant flow during normal operations. The notice of receipt of the second petition was published on January 29, 2002 (67 FR 4214). The public comment period ended on April 15, 2002. Five letters of public comment were received on PRM-50-73 and seven letters were received on PRM-50-73A. The NRC staff determined that the two petitions should be addressed as one action.

The petitioner stated that § 50.46 and Appendix K to part 50 do not address the impact of crud on core cooling during a fast-moving (large-break) LOCA. The petitioner noted that a licensed power reactor had operated with heavy crud deposits on many of the fuel rods. The petitioner stated that had a fast-moving (large-break) LOCA occurred before shutdown for refueling, extensive blockage of flow channels within the fuel bundles would have developed, leading to a degradation of core cooling and compromising defense-in-depth. The petitioner further stated that significant crud deposits could lead to an extensive fuel failure during full-power operation and that the amount of failed fuel would then lead to a decision to shut down the reactor as the inventory of radioactive material in the reactor coolant reached the limits allowed by the technical specifications.

The petitioner stated that § 50.46 and Appendix K to part 50 do not address the impact of severe crud deposits on fuel bundle cooling during normal power operations. The petitioner stated that a licensed power reactor had operated with unusually heavy crud deposits which, had they been allowed to build, would likely have blocked flow channels, interfered with core cooling and led to significant damage to structural components of the core. The petitioner requested that § 50.46 and Appendix K be revised to include consideration of the impact of crud deposits on fuel bundles during normal operations.

The five letters of public comment received were opposed to this petition. Framatome ANP, a nuclear vendor, did not agree that crud would collect within the core as the petitioner suggested, nor that it would pose blockage problems. Framatome discussed the effects of crud for the sections of the regulations addressed by the petition, and stated that for each section, the effects of crud are adequately addressed. In Framatome's experience, typical crud formed on the surface of fuel cladding does not have the consistency to create coolant flow blockage during either normal operation or blowdown ( i.e. , a LOCA). Framatome ANP stated that thermal transients in the cladding and movement resulting from strain might promote crud breakoff from the cladding but would produce small pieces that would be further broken down by the turbulence and velocity of the blowdown flow rates.

Exelon Nuclear, a power reactor licensee, stated that the petitioner's requested action was not necessary because 10 CFR 50.46 already requires that the cooling performance of the ECCS following postulated LOCAs meet certain acceptance criteria. Exelon stated that NRC regulatory guidance and approved ECCS evaluation models already address crud and other phenomena that could potentially impact performance relative to the acceptance criteria. Furthermore, Exelon Nuclear stated that it and its predecessors have over 30 years of experience in monitoring fuel performance in numerous nuclear power plants (NPPs) and that they have identified only one cycle, in one unit, with crud induced failures. Exelon further stated that corrective actions taken after those observed failures have resulted in no further failures due to crud at this or any other Exelon unit. In Exelon's experience, crud is powdery, and its characteristics, in terms of size or strength, indicate that it would not block the coolant flow channels and lead to fuel failures.

In general, Exelon asserted, industry experience related to significant crud deposits has been that they are isolated cases, and that after extensive root cause evaluations, effective corrective actions have prevented recurrence. Exelon also stated that crud deposits are effectively controlled through the use of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Chemistry Guidelines.

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC, a nuclear vendor, opposed the petition based on its extensive poolside and laboratory examinations of crud deposits on fuel rods used in pressurized-water reactors (PWRs), including cases in which abnormally high levels of crud could be detected during normal operation. Its results showed that it would be virtually impossible for any significant amount of the crud to contribute to flow blockage in the event of a large-break LOCA. Westinghouse also stated that most of any crud released would become suspended particles that would not affect core coolant flow. In one cited case, a water chemistry change resulted in a sudden release of all the accumulated crud in the core. A very small change in reactor coolant flow was observed as a result of this release.

GE Nuclear Energy, a nuclear vendor, opposed the proposed change on the basis that the event described in the petition was a unique event, not typical of crud buildup in boiling water reactors (BWRs). Even with that unusual buildup the core remained in a configuration that could be cooled throughout the cycle and would have remained in a configuration that could be cooled in the event of a LOCA. GE also stated that the safety evaluation concerning this event showed that, even with crud deposition, there would be substantial margin to the 2200° F peak cladding temperature acceptance criterion specified by 10 CFR 50.46.

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), an industry group representing all U.S. commercial nuclear power plants, plant designers, architect/engineering firms, and fuel cycle facilities, opposed the petition. NEI stated that existing NRC regulations establish performance criteria for maintaining core cooling and specify realistic ECCS evaluation models that address potential impacts on these performance measures. NEI stated that numerous thermal-hydraulic phenomena are addressed in the technical evaluation models. However, the regulations are not overly prescriptive in terms of phenomena to be addressed, which allows for advances in the technical database and updating of the evaluation procedures without the need for rulemaking. Fuel performance and other performance measures are monitored routinely to ensure that core evaluation models accurately reflect real conditions.

NEI stated that considerable data has been accumulated on crud deposits and their impact on coolant flow properties. The data do not support the postulated existence of characteristics that might lead to a substantial blockage of flow. NEI believes that the provisions of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K provide an adequate mechanism for ensuring that coolant flow and fuel performance are thoroughly monitored and maintained.

Of the seven letters of public comment received in response to PRM-50-73A, two were submitted by the petitioner, and provided additional information and related technical support for his assertions in PRM-50-73 and PRM-50-73A. The other five letters opposed the request for rulemaking contained in PRM-50-73A.

NEI noted that it had commented on the initial PRM-50-73 and provided a copy of the initial NEI comment letter. With respect to the changes to the regulations for normal operating conditions requested in this supplemental petition, NEI stated that the changes are not needed. In NEI's view the NRC Standard Review Plan (SRP) specifies a comprehensive set of acceptance criteria that specifically address the impact of fuel crud deposits and ensure that fuel design limits are not exceeded during any conditions of normal operation, including the effects of anticipated operational occurrences. NEI stated that any accumulation of crud that interfered with coolant flow would be detected quickly by pressure drop monitoring throughout the reactor cooling system.

A consortium of nuclear power plants, Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing (STARS), supported the arguments against the petition presented by NEI and stated that STARS opposed the subject petition. STARS stated that chemistry controls and core design constraints are in place to reduce susceptibility to heavy crud deposition and that during operation, chemistry indicators and core power measurements are evaluated continuously for evidence of heavy crud deposition or movement. STARS also stated that visual inspections of fuel assemblies during refueling have found no evidence of heavy crud deposits. STARS stated that it does not believe that nuclear safety would be enhanced by adopting the requested rulemaking.

GE Nuclear Energy stated that the supplemental petition for rulemaking held no technical merit. GE stated that the requested revision of the ECCS evaluation basis and criteria is based on a single event that occurred at one plant during one cycle of operation; that the unique condition of heavy crud buildup has occurred only once in over 1,000 reactor years of BWR operation, and the postulated scenario (rapid and uncontrollable fuel and core melt) is not a credible scenario as shown by the damage characteristics observed for the cited event; and that the postulated inability to effectively detect and mitigate the occurrence of a heavy-crud-induced fuel damage condition during normal operation is invalid, as was adequately shown by the responsible and effective actions taken by the affected plant.

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a nuclear power plant licensee, stated that the requested revisions in the supplemental petition are unnecessary because current regulations adequately address the impact of fuel crud deposits on the cooling of nuclear fuel during normal reactor operations. In addition, TVA supported the comments submitted by NEI.

Westinghouse Electric Company opposed the action requested in PRM-50-73, stating that the postulated scenario leading to rapid core melting is completely speculative and is not supported by technical or scientific data. Westinghouse also noted that the regulations recommended for modification in PRM-50-73A are not related to normal operating conditions, but rather apply to LOCAs.

The NRC reviewed each of the petitioner's claims and provides the following analysis.

1. The petitioner stated that a licensed power reactor operated with unusually heavy crud deposits on many of the fuel rods, which could lead to restricted coolant flow and ultimate core meltdown.

The event referred to by the petitioner occurred at the River Bend Station in 1999. A coolant chemistry excursion occurred with relatively high iron and copper levels, leading to unusually heavy crud deposition. As the licensee event report (LER 50-458/99-016-00) indicated, the occurrence of this event was unusual and only happened once. The NRC staff has not found any other nuclear power plants that experienced this unusually heavy crud formation. Although a thin oxidation layer appears in almost every operating reactor, the staff considers heavy crud build up to be extremely rare. Therefore, the probability of a large break LOCA occurring while some of the high power fuel bundles have severe crud deposition is significantly lower than that of the LOCA alone and thus reduces the estimated risk of this scenario.

2. The petitioner contended that if a fast moving LOCA had occurred with severe crud deposited on some high power fuel bundles, extensive blockage of the flow channels within the fuel bundles would likely have developed. In addition, he stated that during a blowdown, the redistribution of crud into any or all of several restricted channels would result in substantial flow blockage. The petitioner postulated that the crud would break off during a LOCA to form a blockage at the down stream fuel grid locations.

The operating experience relative to significant crud deposits has been that the observed crud is powdery or fluffy. During a large-break LOCA, even if crud broke off, only small solid particles are expected to be carried downstream. No data was provided in the petition to support the petitioner's rationale for crud blockage. The NRC also reviewed records of licensee event reports and found no test data or documents supporting the assumption that the crud might break off and form a flow blockage. Therefore, the NRC believes that the petitioner's concerns about the flow blockage due to crud are not supported by technical or scientific data.

3. The petitioner stated that if severe crud existed within the fuel bundles, the crud could lead to a loss of cooling with consequent overheating of zirconium and rapid autocatalytic zirconium-water reactions of the fuel cladding.

The NRC agrees that heavy crud could cause higher-than-normal fuel cladding temperatures due to the additional heat transfer resistance during normal operation and postulated accidents. In particular, the porous form of crud could function as an insulator between the zirconium cladding and the coolant. If the metal-water reaction is assumed to occur, this additional layer of material would also form a shield between the coolant and the cladding material that would reduce the metal-water reaction rate. Should the metal-water reaction occur, the steam from the coolant stream would need to penetrate inward through the crud layer in order to reach the cladding, and the resulting hydrogen generated at the cladding surface would need to penetrate outward through the crud. Therefore, compared to a bare metal surface at the same temperature, a fuel rod with a layer of crud would be expected to have a reduced metal-water reaction rate, thus reducing the additional heat generated by the metal-water reaction. It would be inappropriate to consider only the additional heat transfer resistance and assume zero reduction of the metal-water reaction rate. Some locations where the crud has cracks would not see the reduction of the metal-water reaction. However, at these locations, it is expected that the steam would directly cool the bare metal surface and form a colder surface region before the temperature rose high enough to trigger the metal-water reaction. Therefore, the NRC has concluded that the petitioner's concern about autocatalytic zirconium-water reactions is not valid.

4. The petitioner asserted that 10 CFR 50.46 does not address the impact of crud on core cooling during the large-break LOCA.

Section 50.46 (b)(4) provides a requirement regarding the cooling of the core. This section states: “Calculated changes in core geometry shall be such that the core remains amenable to cooling”. In addition, Section I.C.3 of Appendix K to part 50 states: “The following effects shall be taken into account in the conservation of momentum equation: * * * (3) area change momentum flux * * * (6) pressure loss resulting from area change * * *”. Many phenomena and mechanisms may cause a change in core geometry ( e.g. , the rod ballooning effect, thermal expansion, crud buildup). It is not necessary for the regulation to explicitly include all the possible mechanisms causing a change in core geometry.

Although the scenario of a large break LOCA coinciding with heavy crud formation is considered a low probability event, NRC's Standard Review Plan (SRP) for ECCS has already defined detailed requirements to monitor the effect of crud deposits. The SRP outlines a comprehensive set of acceptance criteria that serve to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements. Three acceptance criteria that specifically address the impact of fuel crud deposits are provided below:

“Oxidation, hydriding, and the buildup of corrosion products (crud) should be limited. Allowable oxidation, hydriding, and crud levels should be discussed in the Safety Analysis Report and shown to be acceptable.”

“8. The effects of crud should be accounted for in the thermal-hydraulic design by including it in the CHF [critical heat flux] calculations in the core or in the pressure drop throughout the RCS [reactor coolant system]. Process monitoring provisions should assure the capability for detection of a three percent drop in the reactor coolant flow. The flow should be monitored every 24 hours.”

“The reviewer ensures that adequate account is taken of the effect of crud in the primary coolant system, such as in the calculation of CHF in the core, heat transfer in the steam generators, and pressure drop throughout the RCS.”

The NRC staff believes that these guidelines adequately address the impacts of fuel crud on normal reactor operation and ECCS performance during a large break LOCA.

In addition, strong incentives exist for the nuclear industry to control crud buildup. Excessive crud formation could lead to operation at reduced power levels or even shutdown if coolant activity levels (suspended activated corrosion products) were to exceed technical specifications. Activated crud deposition throughout plant systems increases dose-rates that result in costly increases in worker doses. Because the industry is required to demonstrate efforts to maintain occupational doses as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA), the NRC believes that incentives for optimizing power output and minimizing occupational doses are strong. EPRI water chemistry guidelines that the industry follows provide effective methods to control crud formation and buildup. Occupational doses over the past fifteen years have declined, and sustained power output levels have increased, suggesting that crud control incentives and methods are effective.

5. In PRM-50-73A, the petitioner contended that if the deposits continued to build during normal reactor operation, a severe crud buildup might form. Blockage of the flow within the fuel bundles would likely develop and overheating of the cladding would trigger an autocatalytic [ i.e. , self-propagative] zirconium-water reaction. Subsequently, the petitioner stated that buildup could initiate substantial and rapid localized core melting while the reactor is at (full) power. Further, the petitioner contended that a reactor may be operated within its licensing basis and the technical specifications during the transition from unusually heavy crud to severe crud. The petitioner made a hypothesis that the increase of the off-gas system activity would not be regarded as an indicator of a possible heavy crud deposition and, therefore, the plant would continue to operate until the transition from heavy crud deposition to a severe level occurs.

Crud build-up is generally a very slow process. With water chemistry control, the transition time from heavy crud to severe crud deposition will be on the order of weeks. Even before the formation of a heavy crud layer, the elevated cladding temperature due to crud can cause crud-assisted corrosion which usually results in pin-hole type fuel cladding damage. The longer the rod experiences the elevated temperature caused by the crud, the more damage to the fuel rod cladding would occur. With only a few fuel rods damaged, the off-gas activity would increase. Abnormally high activity readings in the off-gas system require operators to take action to mitigate fuel cladding damage. In several cases at different operating reactors, the operators were able to adjust the control rod pattern to lower the local power peaking factor around the damaged fuel bundles after the high off-gas system activity reading was observed even though the activity levels were below the technical specifications limit. Therefore, observed practice shows that fuel cladding damage due to excess crud formation is readily detectable during normal operation, and effective mitigation measures have been taken by operators.

Under conditions where heavy crud deposition occurs, fuel damage could eventually lead to cladding cracks or ballooning effects. The crud layer may then break off and fuel pellets will be cooled directly by the water, thus lowering the cladding temperature. Although the elevated cladding temperature could theoretically trigger a metal-water reaction in a very limited area of the fuel cladding, the crud also shields the cladding from the water and causes significant resistance to the metal-water reaction. Therefore, the NRC has concluded that the petitioner's concern about autocatalytic zirconium-water reactions is not valid.

Furthermore, the NRC has not found any evidence to support the petitioner's view that the off-gas activity would stay below the technical specification limit while the heavy crud deposition continues. Operating experience has shown that if a reactor operates continuously under heavy crud conditions, the cladding damage will result in higher off-gas activity readings that are quickly noted by the plant operators. It is highly unlikely that the off-gas activity would remain undetected by plant operators. Recent operating experience at plants with leaking fuel demonstrates that plant operators quickly take action to suppress fuel leaks, and in many cases, shut down the reactor to inspect and replace leaking fuel.

Finally, crud formation is one of many items which are required to be considered for both LOCA and transient safety analyses, and existing regulations and the NRC Standard Review Plan already provide adequate guidance on addressing the impact of crud on plant safety.

The NRC has evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of the rulemaking requested by the petitioner with respect to the four NRC Strategic Performance Goals as follows:

1. Maintaining Safety: The NRC believes that the requested rulemaking would not make a significant contribution to maintaining safety because current regulations and regulatory guidance already address the effect of crud-related parameters on core cooling, because no existing data suggests that the amount of crud normally deposited on reactor fuel can significantly interfere with coolant flow, and because the probable cause of the single event at River Bend Station noted by the petitioner, namely a transient coolant chemistry excursion with high iron and copper levels, is known and has been corrected. The NRC believes that existing regulations, guidance and practices provide for monitoring, detecting and correcting any possible crud effects on core cooling before any significant safety problems could occur.

2. Enhancing Public Confidence: The NRC believes that the proposed revisions would not enhance public confidence. First, the NRC has concluded that the petitioner's contentions lack an adequate technical basis. Second, current regulations and guidance already address the effects of normal crud accumulation on core cooling. The petitioner's request in effect would require that substantial, additional consideration be given to abnormally heavy accumulations of crud as a potential source of coolant flow obstruction, which is a condition that has never been observed. Taking such an unnecessary action may actually detract from public confidence in the NRC as an effective regulator.

3. Improving Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Realism: The proposed revisions would not improve efficiency, effectiveness, and realism because licensees would be required to generate unnecessary additional information as part of the development of their ECCS evaluation models and the NRC would need to evaluate the licensee's data and analysis. The NRC staff believes that this additional consideration is unnecessary because the petitioner's scenarios are not supported by a technical basis. The additional NRC staff and licensee effort would not improve efficiency or effectiveness. In addition, the NRC resources expended to promulgate the rule and supporting regulatory guidance would be significant and is unnecessary.

4. Reducing Unnecessary Regulatory Burden: The requested rule would increase licensee burden by unnecessarily requiring significant additional testing and analysis of ECCS effectiveness.

The Commission is denying the petitions for rulemaking. Section 50.46 currently requires a nuclear power plant applicant/licensee to address the impacts of the core geometry change on cooling in ECCS analyses. An acceptable implementation of this requirement has been documented in the Commission's Standard Review Plan, which specifically addresses the potential buildup of crud and its effects for ECCS analyses and transient analyses. The petitioner's hypothetical discussion of fuel clad performance with severe levels of crud buildup was not supported by modeling, experimental results or operational data sufficient to demonstrate that fuel with high crud levels will actually behave in the manner postulated by the petitioner. The NRC believes that there are other phenomena the petitioner failed to consider that would tend to reduce metal-water reactions and counteract autocatalytic reactions even if the extreme conditions postulated by the petitioner could be reached. The operating experience at several nuclear power plants that have experienced fuel failures shows that fuel degradation has progressed in a manner which is controllable. The event (River Bend) identified by the petitioner as evidence of the likelihood of high crud levels occurred only once at that plant and has not been repeated there, or at any other plant in the United States. Finally, technical specifications for monitoring of reactor coolant activity and the requirements in 10 CFR Part 20 to maintain occupational exposures as low as reasonably achievable have resulted in licensee operational practices for early identification of coolant activity increase due to crud deposits before they build to the levels postulated by the petitioner. The Commission considers that the petitioner's hypothetical discussion of a mechanism preventing early detection of abnormal activity levels is not credible. For these reasons, the Commission has determined that the petitioner's bases for requesting rulemaking have not been substantiated.

For these reasons, the Commission denies PRM-50-73 and PRM-50-73A.

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received.

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their mailed comments submitted in response to this proposal must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2003-SW-07-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

The Direction Generale De L'Aviation Civile (DGAC), the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on Eurocopter Model EC 120 B helicopters. The DGAC advises that there was a report involving twisting of a bonding braid at the base of a cyclic stick that restricted movement of the cyclic pitch sticks.

Eurocopter has issued Alert Telex No. 67A008, dated July 8, 2002, which specifies installing a clamp to position the bonding braid upwards and holding it against the cyclic pitch stick. DGAC classified this alert telex as mandatory and issued AD 2002-371-010(A), dated July 24, 2002, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in France.

This helicopter model is manufactured in France and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to the applicable bilateral agreement, DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

The previously described unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design registered in the United States. Therefore, the proposed AD would require, within 10 hours TIS, temporarily or permanently securing the bonding braid using clamps, then, if not already accomplished, installing a permanent attachment system within 500 hours TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first. Installing the permanent attachment system is a terminating action for the requirements of this AD. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the alert telex described previously.

On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's AD system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. Because we have now included this material in part 39, we no longer need to include it in each individual AD.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 80 helicopters of U.S. registry and the proposed actions would take approximately 0.5 work hour per helicopter to accomplish the modification to temporarily secure the bonding braid, and 0.5 work hour to install a permanent attachment system. The average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $20 per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $6,400 for the entire fleet, assuming that all operators install the temporary restraint, and subsequently, install the permanent restraint.

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

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

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

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received.

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their mailed comments submitted in response to this proposal must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2003-SW-18-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

On December 21, 2001, the FAA issued Emergency AD 2001-26-53 (EAD). That EAD was published in the Federal Register as a final rule; request for comments on January 22, 2002, Docket No. 2001-SW-70-AD, Amendment 39-12605 (67 FR 2804). The AD requires removing certain serial-numbered main servocontrols from service. That action was prompted by a report of manufacturing defects in a batch of main servocontrols. The actions specified by the AD are intended to prevent failure of a main or tail servocontrol in the flight control system and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Since issuing that AD, the manufacturer discovered that not all servocontrols had been nondestructive tested as required, and further investigations showed that another set of servocontrols could be affected by the same fault as discovered previously.

The FAA has reviewed Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 01.00.48 for Model AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N helicopters and No. 01.00.52 for Model AS350B, BA, B1, B2, B3, BB, and D helicopters, both dated May 16, 2002, which advise replacing certain main servocontrols before further flight and certain other main and tail servocontrols within 550 hours or 24 months.

The Direction General De L'Aviation Civile (DGAC), the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on Eurocopter Model AS350B, BB, B1, B2, B3, BA, D, and AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N helicopters. The DGAC advises of the discovery of a manufacturing fault on a set of servocontrols. The DGAC classified the Eurocopter alert service bulletins as mandatory and issued AD No. 2003-099(A) (for Model AS 350 helicopters) and No. 2003-100(A) (for Model AS 355 helicopters), both dated March 5, 2003, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

These helicopter models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to the applicable bilateral agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of these type designs that are certificated for operation in the United States.

The previously described unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type designs. Therefore, the proposed AD would supersede AD 2001-26-53 to retain the requirement to remove certain main servocontrols before further flight but would also require removing certain main and tail servocontrols within 550 hours TIS or 24 months, whichever occurs first. Also, the proposed AD would add the Eurocopter Model AS350C, D1, and AS355F, F1, F2, and N helicopters to the applicability. Even though neither the Eurocopter alert service bulletin nor the DGAC AD address the Model AS350C and D1 helicopters, those type designs may contain affected servocontrols.

On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's AD system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. Because we have now included this material in part 39, we no longer need to include it in each individual AD.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 627 helicopters and would take approximately 1/2 work hour to identify the affected servocontrols and 2 work hours to replace each servocontrol at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $9200 per servocontrol. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators to be $5,154,130, assuming 551 servocontrols are replaced.

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

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

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

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received.

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their mailed comments submitted in response to this proposal must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No 2002-SW-58-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

The Direction Generale De L'Aviation Civile (DGAC), the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on Eurocopter Model AS332 C, L, and L1 helicopters. The DGAC advises that checking each MRB to ensure the adhesion of the glass cloth blade cap, which is located between the MRB skin and the leading edge stainless steel protective strips, is necessary.

Eurocopter has issued AS 332 Service Bulletin 05.00.22, Revision 4, dated April 6, 2000, for the Model AS332C, L, L1, and L2 helicopters, which specifies checking for cracking developing spanwise along the stainless steel leading edge over a chordwise width of 0 to 6mm aft of the stainless steel strip on the MRB upper and lower surfaces. If spanwise cracking is found that is greater than 30mm or if the distance between two cracks is less than 40mm, a sound check using a tapping method to check the bonding is specified. If disbonding is present, measuring the depth of each disbond with a feeler gauge is specified. If the depth of the disbond exceeds 10mm, returning the MRB to the works for repair is specified. If no disbonding is present, or if the disbond is less than 10mm, reconditioning the MRB by removing the cracked caulking material and recaulking the blade is specified. The DGAC classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued AD 1988-099-035(A) R5, dated June 14, 2000, to ensure the continued airworthiness of certain of these helicopters in France.

This helicopter model is manufactured in France and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to the applicable bilateral agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of these type designs that are certificated for operation in the United States.

This unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type designs registered in the United States. Therefore, the proposed AD would require inspecting each MRB for disbonding within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS), and repairing or replacing each MRB as necessary. Thereafter, repetitive inspections are required at different intervals, based on the MRB serial number. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described previously.

The FAA estimates that 3 helicopters of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 2 work hours per helicopter to inspect each MRB (8 hours per helicopter), and that an estimated 2 MRB's per helicopter will have to be removed and replaced with airworthy MRB's, requiring 3 work hours to remove and replace each MRB. The average labor rate is $65 per work hour. The estimated cost of parts is $50,000 for each blade. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $302,730.

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

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

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

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received.

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their mailed comments submitted in response to this proposal must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2003-SW-09-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

The Direction Generale De L'Aviation Civile (DGAC), the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on Eurocopter Model AS 365N, N1, N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters. The DGAC advises of a report of a fuel leak that was discovered on the cabin floor of an aircraft, at the air vent hose, at the 9° frame, on the pilot's side. The fuel leak was caused by interference between the air vent hose and the attachment screws of the latch support of the right-hand front passenger door.

Eurocopter has issued Alert Telex No. 28.00.31, dated January 14, 2003, that describes:

• Checking the condition of the air vent hoses in the interference areas for damage to the external protection of the air vent hoses and fuel leaks, and if leaks are discovered, replacing the hoses and if the external protection is damaged, replacing the hose at 500 hours time-in-service (TIS);

• Protecting the air vent hoses in the interference areas with adhesive tape;

• Checking the attachment screws of the latch support on the right-hand and left-hand sides for correct length;

• On the right-hand side of the aircraft, installing spacers to prevent any interference between the attachment screws of the latch support and the air vent hose; and

• On the left-hand side of the aircraft, removing one of the tyrap clamp supports that secure the air vent hose to the 9° frame at the latch support.

The DGAC classified this alert telex as mandatory and issued AD 2003-028(A), dated February 5, 2003, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in France.

These helicopter models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to the applicable bilateral agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of these type designs that are certificated for operation in the United States.

This previously described unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design registered in the United States. Therefore, the proposed AD would require, within 50 hours TIS or 1 month, whichever occurs first, inspecting the fuel air vent hoses for chafing and fuel leakage in the interference areas and replacing leaking air vent hoses. It would also require inspecting the length of the latch support attachment screws on both passenger doors, and if necessary, installing airworthy attachment screws. The proposed AD would also require installing spacers to prevent interference with the latch support attachment screws and the removal of one tyrap clamp support. These actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the alert telex described previously.

On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's AD system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. Because we have now included this material in part 39, we no longer need to include it in each individual AD.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 45 helicopters of U.S. registry and the proposed actions would take approximately 3 work hours per helicopter to accomplish at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Two additional work hours would be required to replace a hose. Required parts would cost approximately:

• $229 for the air vent hose, part number (P/N) 365A55-3044-07 (3 each estimated);

• $139 for the air vent hose, P/N 365A55-3044-09 (3 each estimated);

• $1 for the spacer, P/N E0688-02 (2 each required per helicopter);

• $1 for the screw, P/N 22256BC040012L (4 each per helicopter);

• $1 for the screw, P/N 22256BC040012L (2 each per helicopter); and

• $.50 for the clamp, P/N E0043-1C0 (2 each per helicopter).

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

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

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

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.

Submit comments using the following format:

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

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

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2001-NM-292-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-292-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.

On June 20, 2000, the FAA issued AD 2000-13-02, amendment 39-11801 (65 FR 39541, June 27, 2000), applicable to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and EMB-145 series airplanes, to require revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) and eventual disconnection of the precooler differential pressure switches. That action was prompted by a report indicating that activation of the precooler differential pressure switches may cause inappropriate automatic shutoff of the engine bleed valve on airplanes on which EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-36-0017, dated March 28, 2000, or the production equivalent, has been accomplished. The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent incorrect operation of the precooler differential pressure switches, which could result in inappropriate automatic shutoff of the engine bleed valve, and consequent inability to restart a failed engine using cross-bleed from the other engine or possible failure of the anti-ice system. The requirements of that AD are also intended to ensure that the flightcrew is advised of the procedures necessary to restart an engine in flight using the auxiliary power unit (APU).

Since the issuance of that AD, the Departmento de Aviacao Civil (DAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, issued Brazilian airworthiness directive 2000-04-01R2, dated May 28, 2001, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil. That Brazilian airworthiness directive supersedes Brazilian airworthiness directive 2000-04-01R1 to add airplanes to the applicability section and to require an inspection of the affected area for the additional airplanes.

EMBRAER has issued Alert Service Bulletin 145-36-A018, Change 01, dated October 20, 2000. The effectivity section of the alert service bulletin includes additional airplanes. The alert service bulletin also describes procedures for a one-time visual inspection of those additional airplanes to ensure the disconnection and insulation of the electrical connectors of certain precooler differential pressure switches located in the left and right pylons; and disconnection and insulation of the connectors, if necessary. The DAC classified this alert service bulletin as mandatory.

These airplane models are manufactured in Brazil and are 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 DAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would supersede AD 2000-13-02 to continue to require revising the AFM and eventual disconnection of the precooler differential pressure switches. The proposed AD would add airplanes to the applicability. The proposed AD also would require a one-time visual inspection of those additional airplanes to ensure the disconnection and insulation of the electrical connectors of certain precooler differential pressure switches located in the left and right pylons; and disconnection and insulation of the connectors, if necessary. Certain actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the alert service bulletin described previously.

Operators should note that, for certain airplanes, this proposed AD would require, within 24 hours after the effective date of this proposed AD, revising the Limitations and Abnormal Procedures sections of the AFM as described previously. The Brazilian airworthiness directive does not require revising the AFM and states that dispatch with the APU inoperative is prohibited immediately upon receipt of their airworthiness directive 2000-04-01R2, until the accomplishment of the actions specified in EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin 145-36A018, Change 01. The Brazilian airworthiness directive provides some guidance for engine starting assisted by the APU but does not provide the full details of this restart procedure. The FAA finds that the revision of the Limitations section described previously is necessary to mitigate the effects of incorrect operation of the precooler differential pressure switches until the switches are disconnected. The FAA also finds that replacement of the existing “Engine Airstart” procedure in the Abnormal Procedures section of the AFM is necessary to ensure that the procedure is clear and that the flightcrew is properly advised of how to restart a failed engine using the APU.

On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance (AMOC). Because we have now included this material in part 39, only the office authorized to approve AMOCs is identified in each individual AD. Therefore, Note 1 and paragraph (e) of AD 2000-13-02 are not included in this proposed AD, and paragraph (d) of that AD has been revised in this proposed AD.

There are approximately 365 Model EMB-135 and EMB-145 series airplanes of U.S. registry that would be affected by this proposed AD.

The AFM revision that is currently required by AD 2000-13-02 takes approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required AFM revision on U.S. operators is estimated to be $60 per airplane.

The disconnection of switches that is currently required by AD 2000-13-02 takes approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required disconnection of switches on U.S. operators is estimated to be $60 per airplane.

The new AFM revision that is proposed in this AD would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed new AFM revision on U.S. operators is estimated to be $21,900, or $60 per airplane.

The inspection that is proposed in this AD would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $21,900, or $60 per airplane.

The disconnection of switches that is proposed by this AD would take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed modification on U.S. operators is estimated to be $43,800, or $120 per airplane.

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

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

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

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

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received.

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their mailed comments submitted in response to this proposal must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2003-SW-10-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

On October 17, 2002, the FAA issued Emergency AD 2002-21-51. That Emergency AD was published in the Federal Register as a final rule; request for comments on December 18, 2002 (67 FR 77401). That AD requires checking the chip detector for metal particles and the MGB oil-sight glass for dark oil; taking an oil sample if dark oil is observed; further inspection of the pump, if necessary; and replacing the MGB and the pump with an airworthy MGB and pump, if necessary. Also, that AD requires that a different MGB or pump with any TIS must meet the requirements of the AD before being installed. That AD was prompted by four reports of malfunction of the MGB pump. The bearings of the driven pinion inside the pump can deteriorate resulting in pump failure and loss of oil pressure in the MGB. The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent seizure of the MGB, loss of drive to an engine and main rotor, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Since issuing that AD, the FAA has learned that the meaning of the source information in the DGAC AD was inadvertently changed. The check of the chip detector should be for “sludge” rather than “metal particles” as required in the existing AD. The presence of metal particles on the chip detector is already addressed in the maintenance manuals. Operators should continue to follow the maintenance manual instructions when metal particles are present on the chip detector. Therefore, the proposed AD would supersede AD 2002-21-51 to replace the words “metal particles” with the word “sludge” and to define “sludge.” The term “sludge” is used to describe a deposit on the chip detector. This deposit may have both metallic and nonmetallic properties. It is typically dark in color and in the form of a film or paste, as compared to metal chips or particles normally found on the chip detector.

An owner/operator (pilot) may perform the visual checks for sludge on the chip detector and for dark oil in the MGB oil-sight glass and must enter compliance with those requirements into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.11 and 91.417(a)(2)(v). A pilot may perform these checks because they only involve visual checks for sludge on the chip detector, which can be removed without the use of tools, and for dark oil in the MGB oil-sight glass and can be performed equally well by a pilot or a mechanic.

Also, since issuing that AD, ECF has issued a revised Alert Telex No. 05.00.40 R1, dated November 27, 2002, which in addition to the specifications of Alert Telex No. 05.00.40, dated June 6, 2002, gives operators the choice of having the pump, the MGB, and the main rotor mast examined by an ECF specialist. The Direction Generale De L'Aviation Civile (DGAC) classified Alert Telex 05.00.40 R1 as mandatory and issued a revised AD No. 2002-331-071(A) R1, dated January 22, 2003, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in France. Therefore, we have updated this proposed AD to reference the more current service information.

On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued 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 altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. Because we have now included this material in 14 CFR part 39, we no longer need to include it in each individual AD.

The FAA estimates that this AD will affect approximately 105 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it will take approximately 10 minutes to check the chip detector and the MGB oil sight glass, 4 work hours to remove the MGB and pump, 1 work hour to inspect the pump, and 4 work hours to install a serviceable MGB and pump. The average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $4000 for an overhauled pump and up to $60,000 for an overhauled MGB per helicopter. The manufacturer has represented to the FAA that the standard warranty applies if failure occurs within the first 2 years and operating time is less than 1000 hours. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates a total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators to be $337,540 per year, assuming replacement of one MGB and pump on one helicopter per year and a daily check on all helicopters for 260 days per year.

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

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

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

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of the Act and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to the Act. See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Kentucky program on May 18, 1982. You can find background information on the Kentucky program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Kentucky program in the May 18, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 21434). You can also find later actions concerning Kentucky's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 917.11, 917.12, 917.13, 917.15, 917.16, and 917.17.

By letter dated May 22, 2003, Kentucky sent us a proposed amendment to its program ([KY-244], administrative record No. KY-1580) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ). Kentucky submitted a portion of House Bill 269, the executive branch budget bill, promulgated by the 2003 Kentucky General Assembly.

Specifically, Kentucky proposes to transfer $3,000,000 from the Bond Pool Fund established in Kentucky Revised Statute 350.700 to the Commonwealth's General Fund for the 2002-2003 fiscal year. The transfer appears on page 225, line 21 and is listed under Part V, Section J, item 5 of House Bill 269. The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES.

Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the program.

Send your written comments to OSM at the address given above. Your written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. In the final rulemaking, we will not necessarily consider or include in the administrative record any comments received after the time indicated under DATES or at locations other than the Lexington Field Office.

Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: SATS No. KY-244” and your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your Internet message, contact the Lexington Field Office at (859) 260-8400.

We will make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during normal business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments. If individual respondents request confidentiality, we will honor their request to the extent allowable by law. Individual respondents who wish to withhold their name or address from public review, except for the city or town, must state this prominently at the beginning of their comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public review in their entirety.

If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m., .e.s.t. on July 31, 2003. If you are disabled and need special accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold the hearing. To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at a public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard. If you are disabled and need a special accommodation to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES. We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record.

This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations.

This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that, to the extent allowable by law, this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments since each such program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.

This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects 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. The basis for this determination is that our decision is on a State regulatory program and does not involve a Federal program involving Indian Tribes.

On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that a decision on a proposed State regulatory program provision does not constitute a major Federal action within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). A determination has been made that such decisions are categorically excluded from the NEPA process (516 DM 8.4.A).

This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq. ).

The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). The State submittal that is the subject of this rule is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C.804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, geographic regions, or Federal, State or local governmental agencies; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule.

This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on any governmental entity or the private sector.

Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD09-03-233), 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 they reached us, please include a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

We do not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard MSO Cleveland at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register .

The Head of the Cuyahoga Regatta will take place annually on the Cuyahoga River. A permanent safety zone will be established on the Cuyahoga River to protect competitors and course markings from recreational and commercial vessels, and to prevent interference with the competition. The safety zone will only be activated during the regatta.

The safety zone will be activated annually on the third Saturday of September from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. The safety zone will encompass the Cuyahoga River from Collision Bend down river to the mouth of the confluence with the Old River. In order to minimize the impact on commercial waterway users, commercial vessels will be allowed to transit the safety zone between the hours of 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. Recreational vessels will be allowed to transit the safety zone during the regatta with an escort by the event sponsor or the Coast Guard.

This proposed 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 this rule under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under of the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.

This determination is based on the short amount of time that vessels will be restricted from the zones, and the actual location of the safety zones within the waterways.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of commercial vessels intending to transit a portion of the activated safety zone.

This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The proposed zone is only in effect for a few hours on the day of the event and there is a substantial break during the event to allow commercial vessel transits. Recreational vessels can safely pass through the proposed safety zones during the event under sponsor or Coast Guard escort. Before the activation of the safety zone, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories available to users who may be impacted through notification in the Federal Register , the Ninth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners, and through Marine Information Broadcasts. Additionally, the Coast Guard has not received any reports from small entities negatively affected during previous events.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would 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 would 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 rule so that they can better evaluate its effects 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 Marine Safety Office Cleveland (see ADDRESSES ).

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.

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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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.

The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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.

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

We have considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, 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 categorical exclusion under Section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded under Figure 2-1, paragraph 35(a) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A written categorical exclusion determination is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES .

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-03-066), 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 they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Waterways Oversight Branch at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register .

The Arthur Kill Channel is the proposed area to be designated as an RNA. This channel is located in the waters between Elizabeth, NJ and Staten Island, NY. The proposed RNA would enhance vessel safety during the extensive channel-deepening project being undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which involves dredging and blasting in these areas. Current channel depths restrict the full economy of existing and future generations of deep draft vessels. Tankships arriving in the port with drafts approaching the 45 foot controlling depths of Ambrose and Anchorage Channels must lighter some of their cargo to barges in the deep New York Harbor Anchorage Grounds in order to safely transit the 35 foot Arthur Kill. This results in substantial lightering and delay costs.

Container vessels cannot lighter in the Anchorage Grounds and therefore must load to less than full drafts. This project, which is expected to last approximately five years, will deepen the existing 35-foot channels to 41 feet to accommodate deeper draft vessels. The dredging areas will continue to be available for use by the general public.

Proposed restrictions on vessel transits during this project are as follows: (1) No vessel shall enter or transit any work area where drill barges and/or dredges are located without permission of Vessel Traffic Service New York (VTSNY). One-way traffic will be maintained during this project in the active work areas. Permission to transit the work area will normally not be given during blasting operations.

(2) Each vessel transiting in the vicinity of the work areas, where drill barges and/or dredges are located, is required to do so at “no wake” speed.

(3) No vessel shall enter the RNA when they are advised by the drilling barge or VTSNY that a misfire or hangfire has occurred. Vessels already underway in the RNA shall proceed to clear the impacted area immediately.

(4) Vessel Movement Reporting System users are prohibited from meeting or overtaking other vessels when transiting alongside an active work area.

(5) Vessel Movement Reporting System users transiting with the prevailing current (as measured from the Bergen Point current station) are regarded as the stand-on vessel.

(6) Prior to entering the RNA, the master, pilot or operator of each Vessel Movement Reporting System user shall ensure that they have sufficient propulsion and directional control to safely navigate the area under the prevailing conditions, and shall notify VTSNY as to their decision regarding the employment of assist tugs while transiting the RNA.

(7) Waiver. The Captain of the Port New York may, upon request, authorize a deviation from any regulation in this section if it is found that the proposed operations can be done safely. An application for deviation must be received not less than 24 hours before the intended operation and must state the need and describe the proposal.

(8) Tugs with tows includes a tug with a vessel or barge in tow, alongside, or being pushed.

(9) Tug requirements. All vessels 350 feet in length, or greater, excluding tugs with tows, require one assist tug. All vessels 700 feet in length, or greater, excluding tugs with tows, require a minimum of two assist tugs. All vessels 900 feet in length, or greater, excluding tugs with tows, require a minimum of three assist tugs.

(10) Tidal current restrictions. Vessels 700 feet in length, or greater, are restricted to movements within one hour before or after slack water, as measured from the Bergen Point current station.

(11) Astern tows. Hawser tows are not permitted unless an assist tug accompanies the tow.

(12) When sustained winds are greater than 20 knots, as measured at the Bayonne Bridge meteorological sensor, vessels are prohibited from backing out of the Howland Hook Marine Terminal.

(13) Sustained winds from 20 to 34 knots. In sustained winds from 20 to 34 knots: (i) Cargo ships and tankers in ballast may not transit the RNA; (ii) tugs pushing or towing alongside tank barges 350 feet in length, or greater, in light condition, require an assist tug in the RNA.

(14) Sustained winds greater than 34 knots. In sustained winds greater than 34 knots, vessels 300 gross tons or greater and all tugs with tows are prohibited from transiting the RNA.

(15) When visibility is less than one nautical mile the entire work zone is closed to vessels over 350 feet in length and all tugs with tows.

(16) The Vessel Traffic Service New York Director may impose additional requirements through VTS measures, as per 33 CFR 161.11, when the dredge is working in the most restricted areas of the waterway.

This proposed rulemaking is needed to reduce the risks of collisions, groundings, and other navigational mishaps associated with this project. These proposed restrictions are similar to those currently in place to the east of the proposed RNA for the ongoing Kill Van Kull RNA codified at 33 CFR 165.165. They were originally instituted during 1991-1992 when dredging was last conducted in this vicinity. They were instituted at that time in response to three groundings that resulted in one oil spill and one channel blockage.

Public notifications for specific dredging dates and dredging areas within the RNA will be made prior to the commencement of dredging via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information and facsimile broadcasts, at New York Harbor Operations Committee meetings and on the internet at: http://www.harborops.com .

The proposed regulation would become effective on Monday, September 1, 2003.

The proposed RNA encompasses all waters of the North of Shooters Island Reach, Elizabethport Reach, and Gulfport Reach in the Arthur Kill. This proposed rule is necessary to safeguard marine traffic from the dangers of the dredging and blasting work proposed in the project area.

This proposed 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 proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.

This finding is based on the following reasons: Vessels will be allowed to transit work areas where dredges and/or drill barges are located unless blasting is to be conducted; delays resulting from blasting are expected to last no longer than 15 minutes and occur less than 7 times daily in any one area; there are no restrictions on vessel traffic in the RNA in areas where there are no dredges or drill barges; the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey is working with the Army Corps of Engineers on this project to ensure future generations of deep draft vessels are able to use the Port of NY/NJ; it will reduce substantial costs associated with lightering operations currently required by vessels unable to transit the harbor fully loaded, and advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information and facsimile broadcast, at New York Harbor Operations Committee meetings and on the internet at http://www.harborops.com.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit a portion of the North of Shooters Island Reach, Elizabethport Reach, or Gulfport Reach of the Arthur Kill during the time this RNA is effective.

This RNA would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessels will be allowed to transit work areas where dredges and/or drill barges are located unless blasting is to be conducted; delays resulting from blasting are expected to last no longer than 15 minutes and occur less than 7 times daily in any one area; there are no restrictions on vessel traffic in the RNA in areas where there are no dredges or drill barges; the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey is working with the Army Corps of Engineers on this project to ensure future generations of deep draft vessels are able to use the Port of NY/NJ; and it will reduce substantial costs associated with lightering operations currently required by vessels unable to transit the harbor fully loaded. Before the effective date we will ensure wide dissemination of maritime advisories widely available to users of the Arthur Kill by the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information and facsimile broadcast, at New York Harbor Operations Committee meetings, and on the internet at http://www.harborops.com.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would 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 would 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 proposed 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 Lieutenant Commander E. Morton, Waterways Oversight Branch, Coast Guard Activities New York at (718) 354-4012.

This proposed rule would call 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. 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 have considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This proposed rule fits paragraph 34(g) as it establishes a Regulated Navigation Area. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

Section 182 of the Clean Air Act (Act) specifies the required State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions and requirements for areas classified as nonattainment for ozone and when these submissions and requirements are to be submitted to EPA by the states. The specific requirements vary depending upon the severity of the ozone problem. The New York—Northern New Jersey—Long Island area is classified as a severe ozone nonattainment area. Under section 182, severe ozone nonattainment areas were required to submit demonstrations of how they would attain the 1-hour standard. On December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70364), EPA proposed approval of New York's 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP for the New York—Northern New Jersey—Long Island nonattainment area. In that rulemaking, EPA identified an emission reduction shortfall associated with New York's 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP, and required New York to address the shortfall. In a related matter, the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) developed six model rules which provided control measures for a number of source categories and estimated emission reduction benefits from implementing these model rules. These model rules were designed for use by states in developing their own regulations to achieve additional emission reductions to close emission shortfalls.

On February 4, 2002 (67 FR 5170), EPA approved New York's 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP. This approval included an enforceable commitment submitted by New York to adopt additional control measures to close the shortfall identified by EPA for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard.

On April 30, 2003, Carl Johnson, Deputy Commissioner, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), submitted to EPA a revision to the SIP which included state-proposed revisions to NYCRR, Part 228, “Surface Coating Processes.” The proposed revisions to Part 228 will provide volatile organic compound (VOC) emission reductions to address, in part, the shortfall identified by EPA. New York used the OTC model rule as a guideline to develop Part 228.

The majority of the proposed revisions to part 228 pertain to mobile equipment repair and refinishing (MERR) requirements, including VOC content limits for several MERR coating lines. The proposed revisions to part 228 establish that, beginning January 1, 2005, a person may not apply to mobile equipment or mobile equipment components any automotive pretreatment primer, automotive primer-surfacer, automotive primer-sealer, automotive topcoat or automotive specialty coatings that contain VOCs in excess of the VOC content limits specified by New York for those products.

In addition, the proposed revisions to part 228 establish that, beginning January 1, 2001, a person at a facility subject to the MERR provisions of Part 228 must use one or more of the following application techniques to apply MERR or color-matching coatings: flow/curtain coating; dip coating; cotton-tipped swab application; electro-deposition coating; high-volume, low-pressure spraying; electrostatic spray; airless spray; and other coating application methods approved by the NYSDEC which can achieve emission reductions equivalent to high-volume, low-pressure spray or electrostatic spray application methods.

The proposed revisions to part 228 also include clarifications to definitions; permit requirements; exemptions; VOC emission control requirements; test methods, including capture efficiency test protocols and test methods; equipment cleaning specifications; and recordkeeping requirements.

EPA has evaluated New York's submittal for consistency with the Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. EPA has determined that the proposed revisions made to part 228, entitled, “Surface Coating Processes” meet the SIP revision requirements of the Act.

In addition, the proposed revisions to part 228, “Surface Coating Processes” are being processed under a procedure called parallel processing, whereby EPA proposes rulemaking action concurrent with the state's procedures for amending its regulations. If the proposed revisions to part 228 are substantially different than those identified in this document, EPA will evaluate those changes and may publish another notice of proposed rulemaking. If no substantial changes are made to part 228 as cited in this document, EPA will publish a final rulemaking on the revisions. The final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revision has been adopted by New York and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.

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

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

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

EPA's method detection limit (MDL) and minimum level of quantitation (ML) are used to define analytical method (test) sensitivity under the Clean Water Act (CWA). In February 2003, EPA's Office of Water completed an assessment of detection and quantitation concepts and their application under CWA programs. On March 12, 2003, EPA published a document (68 FR 11791) making available for public comment an assessment document entitled “Technical Support Document for the Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Concepts” (EPA 821-R-03-005, February 2003). On the same date, EPA also published proposed revisions to the current EPA procedure for determining test sensitivity under EPA's CWA programs (available at 40 CFR part 136, appendix B) (68 FR 11770). The proposed revisions include clarifications and improvements based on the assessment of the MDL, ML, and other approaches for defining test sensitivity; peer review of the assessment; and stakeholder comments on the existing MDL procedure.

The 120-day public comment periods established for the proposed rule and NODA were scheduled to end July 10, 2003. EPA received a request to extend the public comment for the proposed rule period beyond that due date.

In order to give the public enough time to review and comment on the proposed rule, EPA is reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days to August 15, 2003, for each of those documents.

This document reopens the public comment periods established in the Federal Register issued on March 12, 2003 (68 FR 11770 and 68 FR 11791). In those documents, EPA requested public comments on the Agency's proposed rule and on the assessment document entitled “Technical Support Document for the Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Concepts” (EPA 821-R-03-005, February, 2003). EPA is hereby reopening the comment periods to August 15, 2003.

To submit comments, or access the official public docket, please follow the detailed instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of the March 12, 2003 Federal Register actions for the proposed rule (68 FR 11771-11772) and the NODA (68 FR 11791-11792). If you have questions, consult the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this action.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS 111)

• Animal production (NAICS 112)

• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)

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

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2003-0092. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ . A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_40/40cfr180_00.html , a beta site currently under development.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

1. Electronically . If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2003-0092. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0092. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM . You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0092.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0092. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the proposed rule or collection activity.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

This proposed rule provides a comment period of 60 days for any person to state an interest in retaining a tolerance proposed for revocation. If EPA receives a comment within the 60-day period to that effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance immediately. However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of any needed supporting data and will issue an order in the Federal Register under FFDCA section 408(f) if needed. The order would specify data needed and the time frames for its submission, and would require that within 90 days some person or persons notify EPA that they will submit the data. If the data are not submitted as required in the order, EPA will take appropriate action under FFDCA.

EPA issues a final rule after considering comments that are submitted in response to this proposed rule. In addition to submitting comments in response to this proposal, you may also submit an objection at the time of the final rule. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. After the specified time, issues resolved in the final rule cannot be raised again in any subsequent proceedings.

EPA is proposing to revoke specific meat, milk, poultry, and egg tolerances for residues of the insecticides aldicarb, carbofuran, diazinon, and dimethoate; herbicides atrazine, metolachlor, and sodium acifluorfen; fungicides fenarimol, propiconazole, and thiophanate-methyl; and the defoliant cacodylic acid because the Agency has concluded that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues in or on the commodities associated with those tolerances, and therefore these tolerances are no longer needed. Also, EPA is proposing to modify specific fenarimol tolerances.

The determinations that there are no reasonable expectations of finite residues for the tolerances listed in this document were made based on feeding studies submitted since the time that the tolerances were originally established. These feeding studies used exaggerated amounts of the compound and did not show measurable residues of the pesticides tested. The Agency originally made the determination that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues for the pesticide active ingredient/commodity combinations listed in this proposal in memoranda of March 6, 2002; March 25, 2002; April 21, 2002; July 1, 2002; and July 23, 2002. Because there was no expectation of finite residues, in subsequent memoranda of May 3, 2002; June 3, 2002; July 11, 2002; and July 23, 2002, the Agency declared these tolerances as safe and counted these tolerances toward meeting the tolerance reassessment requirements listed in FFDCA section 408(q). Copies of these memoranda can be found in the public docket for this proposed rule. Because EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues, under 40 CFR 180.6 the tolerances are no longer needed under the FFDCA and can be proposed for revocation.

1. Aldicarb . Based on available ruminant feeding and storage stability data, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of aldicarb and its carbamate metabolites in milk and livestock commodities. The associated tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.269 for the combined residues of the insecticide and nematocide aldicarb (2-methyl-2-(methylthio)propionaldehyde O-(methylcarbamoyl) oxime and its cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites 2-methyl 2-(methylsulfinyl) propionaldehyde O-(methylcarbamoyl) oxime and 2-methyl-2- (methylsulfonyl) propionaldehyde O-(methylcarbamoyl) oxime in or on the following: cattle, fat; cattle, meat; cattle meat byproducts; goat, fat; goat, meat; goat, meat byproducts; hog, fat; hog, meat; hog, meat byproducts; horse, fat; horse, meat; horse, meat byproducts; and sheep, fat; sheep, meat; sheep, meat byproducts; and milk.

2. Atrazine . Based on available ruminant and poultry feeding data, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of atrazine in fat, meat, and meat byproducts of hogs and poultry; and eggs. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.220 for residues of the herbicide atrazine in or on hog, fat; hog, meat; hog, meat byproducts; poultry, fat; poultry, meat; poultry, meat byproducts; and egg.

3. Cacodylic acid (dimethylarsinic acid) . Arsenic is ubiquitous and abundant in the environment. Studies show that arsenicals are methylated in animals to potentially significant levels of dimethyl arsonate. Also, available data show that background levels of dimethyl arsonate (cacodylate) found in beef tissues and milk may substantially exceed those incurred from the maximum theoretical dietary burden from ingestion of feed stuffs derived from raw agricultural commodities treated with cacodylic acid at the maximum supported use rates. Based on all these data, EPA determined that tolerances for residues of cacodylic acid in beef tissues and milk are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.311 for residues of the defoliant cacodylic acid (dimethylarsinic acid), expressed as As2 O3, in or on cattle, fat; cattle, kidney; cattle, liver; cattle, meat; and cattle meat byproducts (except kidney and liver).

Furthermore, in order to conform to current Agency practice, in 40 CFR 180.311, EPA is proposing to revise the tolerance commodity terminology for “cottonseed” to “cotton, undelinted seed.”

4. Carbofuran . Based on available dairy cattle feeding data, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of carbofuran and its metabolites in fat, meat, and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses and sheep. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.254 for the combined residues of the insecticide carbofuran (2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-benzofuranyl-N-methylcarbamate), its carbamate metabolite 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-3-hydroxy-7-benzofuranyl-N-methylcarbamate, and its phenolic metabolites 2,3-dihydro-2, 2-dimethyl-7-benzofuranol, 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-3,-oxo-7-benzofuranol and 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-3,7-benzofurandiol in or on the following commodities: Cattle, fat; cattle, meat; cattle meat byproducts; goats, fat; goats, meat; goats, meat byproducts; hogs, fat; hogs, meat; hogs, meat byproducts; horses, fat; horses, meat; horses, meat byproducts; sheep, fat; sheep, meat; and sheep, meat byproducts.

5. Diazinon . Based on available cattle dermal treatment and feeding data, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues in or on meat and meat byproducts from the registered uses of cattle ear tags or from consumption of diazinon-treated feed items by cattle. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). A tolerance for milk is not required as long as the ear tag labels maintain that use is for beef cattle and non-lactating dairy cattle, only. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.153 for residues of the insecticide diazinon in or on cattle, meat (fat basis) (PRE-S appli) and cattle, meat byproducts (fat basis) (PRE-S appli).

6. Dimethoate . Metabolism and feeding studies in ruminants and poultry showed no detectable residues of dimethoate in muscle, fat, kidney, liver, milk, and egg samples. However, residues of omethoate, its oxygen analog, were found in liver and egg whites samples and residues of dimethoate carboxylic acid were found in liver, egg whites, and milk samples. Based on these available ruminant and poultry metabolism and feeding data, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of concern in meat, fat, and kidney of livestock (ruminants and poultry) from ingestion of dimethoate treated crop and feed items. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.204 for total residues of the insecticide dimethoate (O,O-dimethyl S-(N-methylcarbamoylmethyl) phosphorodithioate) including its oxygen analog (O,O-dimethyl S-(N-methylcarbamoylmethyl) phosphorothioate) in or on the following commodities: Cattle, fat; cattle, meat; goat, fat; goat, meat; hog, fat; hog, meat; horse, fat; horse, meat; poultry, fat; poultry, meat; sheep, fat; and sheep, meat. Use of dimethoate on other commodities, including food and feed commodities, will be addressed in the “Report on FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Interim Risk Management Decision” (IRED), which EPA will complete in the near future.

Also, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 180.204 to remove the “(N)” designation from all entries to conform to current Agency administrative practice (“(N)” designation means negligible residues).

7. Fenarimol . Fenarimol tolerances were reassessed according to the FQPA standard in the August 2002 “Report of the FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision (TRED) for Fenarimol.” The Agency extrapolated data from a 28-day ruminant feeding study of exaggerated dietary burdens to the 1X feeding rate, and examined the expected impact of the average theoretical dietary burden from wet apple pomace (calculated using Food and Drug Administration monitoring data for apples). Of the currently registered uses of fenarimol, wet apple pomace is the only commodity considered a livestock feed item. (Dry apple pomace is no longer considered a significant feed item). For cattle, goats, horses, and sheep, the Agency concluded from monitoring, feeding, and metabolism data that tolerances for liver should be effectively decreased from 0.1 to 0.05 parts per million (ppm) and tolerances for meat byproducts should be increased from 0.01 to 0.05 ppm based on the highest residue found on an organ tissue; i.e., liver. Because both liver and meat byproduct tolerances were reassessed at the same level (0.05 ppm) for cattle, goats, horses, and sheep, the Agency recommended covering residues in liver by the reassessed tolerances for meat byproducts, revising each commodity terminology to “meat byproducts, except kidney,” and revoking existing liver tolerances at 0.1 ppm since they are no longer needed. EPA issued a finding in this TRED that these revised tolerances are safe, as required by section 408 of FFDCA.

Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the separate tolerances in 40 CFR 180.421 for residues of the fungicide fenarimol in or on cattle, liver; goat, liver; horse, liver; and sheep, liver. Also, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 180.421 to increase the tolerances for the meat byproducts of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep, each from 0.01 to 0.05 ppm, and to revise their commodity terminologies to cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney; goat, meat byproducts, except kidney; horse, meat byproducts, except kidney; and sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney.

Expected fenarimol residues in muscle, fat and kidney are calculated from the 28-day data to be less than or near the enforcement method's limit of detection (0.003 ppm). Therefore, the Agency concluded that for muscle, fat and kidney of ruminants it is not possible to establish with certainty whether finite residues will be incurred, but there is a reasonable expectation of finite residues under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(2). While EPA reassessed fenarimol tolerances for cattle, goats, horses, and sheep in the TRED, including meat, kidney, and fat tolerances at 0.01 ppm, the method limit of quantitation, the Agency will address them in a Federal Register document to be published in the near future.

In addition, the fenarimol tolerance for milk (0.003 ppm) should be revoked because residues in milk for dairy cattle are predicted to be significantly less than the enforcement method's limit of detection (0.001 ppm). Based on the available data, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of fenarimol in milk and that the tolerance is no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.421 for residues of the fungicide fenarimol in milk.

Moreover, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of residue transfer to livestock commodities via consumption of fenarimol-treated crop and feed items because no feed items for poultry and hogs are associated with active fenarimol registrations. The tolerances for eggs, poultry, and hogs are no longer needed and should be revoked. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.421 for residues of the fungicide fenarimol in or on the following commodities: Hog, fat; hog, kidney; hog, liver; hog, meat; hog, meat byproducts; poultry, fat; poultry, meat; poultry, meat byproducts; and egg.

Furthermore, in order to conform to current Agency practice, in 40 CFR 180.421, EPA is proposing to revise the tolerance commodity terminology for “pecans” to “pecan.”

8. Metolachlor . Based on available ruminant feeding data and the maximum theoretical dietary burden for swine, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of metolachlor and its metabolites in fat, kidney, liver, meat, and meat byproducts of hogs. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.368 for the combined residues (free and bound) of the herbicide metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide] and its metabolites, determined as the derivatives, 2-[(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)amino]-1-propanol and 4-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-5- methyl-3-morpholinone, each expressed as the parent compound, in or on hog, fat; hog, kidney; hog, liver; hog, meat; and hog, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver.

9. Propiconazole . Based on available poultry metabolism and feeding data, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of propiconazole and its metabolites (determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid) in poultry muscle, liver, fat, and egg samples from hens fed 10X the maximum theoretical dietary burden for poultry. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke tolerances in 40 CFR 180.434 for the combined residues of the fungicide 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl] methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole and its metabolites determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid and expressed as parent compound in or on poultry, fat; poultry, kidney; poultry, liver; poultry, meat; poultry, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver; and egg.

10. Sodium acifluorfen . Label restrictions prohibit use of sodium acifluorfen-treated peanut and soybean forage or hay for feed and grazing livestock on these treated crops. There is no reasonable expectation of residues being transferred to livestock commodities via consumption of feed items derived from crops treated with sodium acifluorfen according to current use directions. Based on the registered food/feed use patterns, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of sodium acifluorfen and its metabolites in kidney and liver of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep; fat, meat, and meat byproducts of poultry; eggs, and milk. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.383 for combined residues of the herbicide sodium salt of acifluorfen (sodium 5-[2-chloro-4-trifluoromethyl) phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acid) and its metabolites (the corresponding acid, methyl ester, and amino analogues) in or on the following commodities: Cattle, kidney; cattle, liver; goat, kidney; goat, liver; hog, kidney; hog, liver; horse, kidney; horse, liver; poultry, fat; poultry, meat; poultry, meat byproducts; sheep, kidney; sheep, liver; egg; and milk.

11. Thiophanate-methyl . Based on available ruminant and poultry feeding data, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of thiophanate-methyl, its oxygen analogue, and benzimidazole metabolites in fat, liver, meat, and meat byproducts of hogs and poultry. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.371 for residues of the fungicide thiophanate-methyl (dimethyl[(1,2-phenylene)-bis(iminocarbonothioyl)] bis [carbamate]), its oxygen analogue dimethyl-4,4-o-phenylene bis(allophonate), and its benzimidazole-containing metabolites (calculated as thiophanate-methyl) in or on hog, fat; hog, liver; hog, meat; hog, meat byproducts, except liver; poultry, fat; poultry, liver; poultry, meat; and poultry, meat byproducts, except liver.

A “tolerance” represents the maximum level for residues of pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq ., as amended by the FQPA of 1996, Public Law 104-170, authorizes the establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements, modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods (21 U.S.C. 346(a)). Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore “adulterated” under section 402(a) of the FFDCA. Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 342(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be sold and distributed, the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances under the FFDCA, but also must be registered under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. et seq .). Food-use pesticides not registered in the United States must have tolerances in order for commodities treated with those pesticides to be imported into the United States.

When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on raw agricultural commodities, consideration must be given to the possible residues of those chemicals in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs produced by animals that are fed agricultural products (for example, grain or hay) containing pesticide residues (40 CFR 180.6). When considering this possibility, EPA can conclude that:

1. Finite residues will exist in meat, milk, poultry and/or eggs.

2. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will exist.

3. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will not exist. If there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs, tolerances do not need to be established for these commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and 40 CFR 180.6(c)).

EPA has evaluated the meat, milk, poultry, and egg tolerances proposed for revocation in this proposed rule and has concluded that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of the listed pesticide active ingredients in or on those commodities.

Regarding the proposed modification of fenarimol tolerances, EPA is required to determine wheter each of the amended tolerances meets the safety standards under the FQPA. A safety finding determination is found in detail in the August 2002 TRED for fenarimol. An electronic copy of the TRED for fenarimol is available on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm .

EPA is proposing that these actions become effective on the day of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register .

The Agency has determined that most of the tolerances herein proposed for revocation are no longer needed, based on no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues. Therefore, the Agency believes that this revocation date allows users to continue utilizing existing pesticide stocks and that commodities treated with these pesticides in a manner that is lawful under FIFRA will continue to clear the channels of trade since there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues. Also, because fenarimol tolerances for liver, when revised would become duplicates covered by revised “meat byproduct, except kidney” tolerances, they are no longer needed as separate liver tolerances.

In addition, because the modifications to increase specific fenarimol tolerances proposed herein are safe, as required by section 408 of FFDCA, the Agency believes that these modifications become effective on the day of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register .

If you have comments regarding the effective date, please submit comments as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION .

By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996. As of July 2, 2003, EPA has reassessed over 6,510 tolerances. This document proposes to revoke a total of 105 tolerances, all of which were previously counted as reassessed. Therefore, none are counted in a final rule toward the August 2006 review deadline of FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by FQPA in 1996.

The tolerance revocations in this proposal are not discriminatory and are designed to ensure that both domestically produced and imported foods meet the food safety standards established by the FFDCA. The same food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported foods.

EPA is working to ensure that the U.S. tolerance reassessment program under FQPA does not disrupt international trade. EPA considers Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) in setting U.S. tolerances and in reassessing them. MRLs are established by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, a committee within the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international organization formed to promote the coordination of international food standards. It is EPA's policy to harmonize U.S. tolerances with Codex MRLs to the extent possible, provided that the MRLs achieve the level of protection required under FFDCA. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual Reregistration Eligibility Decision documents. EPA has developed guidance concerning submissions for import tolerance support (65 FR 35069, June 1, 2000) (FRL-6559-3). This guidance will be made available to interested persons. Electronic copies are available on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/ . On the Home Page select “Laws, Regulations, and Dockets,” then select “Regulations and Proposed Rules” and then look up the entry for this document under “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ .

In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to revoke and modify specific tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions (i.e., modification of a tolerance and tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), the Agency previously assessed whether raising of tolerance levels or revocations of tolerances might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These analyses were published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), respectively, and were provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account these analyses, and the fact that there is no reasonable expectation that residues of the pesticides listed in this proposed rule will be found on the commodities discussed in this proposed rule (so that the lack of the tolerance could not prevent sale of the commodity), I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Furthermore, for the pesticides named in this proposed rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present proposed revocations that would change EPA's previous analysis. Any comments about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along with comments on the proposal, and will be addressed prior to issuing a final rule. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 96-45, FCC 03-115, released on May 21, 2003. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was also released with a companion Order on Reconsideration and Report and Order (Order). The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20554.

1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we seek further comment on potential modifications to our rules regarding availability of enhanced Federal Lifeline and Link-Up assistance to qualifying low-income consumers living “near reservations.”

2. We seek further comment on the proposals in the record to identify geographic areas that are adjacent to the reservations, consistent with the goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up to the most underserved areas of the Nation. As set forth in the Tribal Stay and Order , 65 FR 58721, October 2, 2000, the term “near reservation,” as defined by BIA at the time of adoption of the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking , 65 FR 47941, August 4, 2000, and codified in our rules in this Order, includes wide geographic areas that do not possess the same characteristics that warrant the targeting of support to reservations, such as geographic isolation, high rates of poverty, and low telephone subscribership. As several commenters note, this definition of “near reservation” incorporates many highly populated, urban areas across the Nation, including major cities such as Phoenix, Sacramento, Seattle, and Las Vegas. As set forth in the Tribal Stay and Order , we continue to find that using this definition of “near reservation” will not target enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up appropriately.

3. We issue this FNPRM to obtain more detailed information on proposals contained in the current record, as well as additional proposals that may be more consistent with our goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support to only the most underserved areas of our Nation and that may impose fewer administrative burdens. For instance, USCC recommends excluding major metropolitan areas from the enhanced low-income programs by excluding Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs) from receiving enhanced low-income support. Washington UTC suggests that enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support be provided in the entirety of any telephone exchange that contains all or any portion of a tribal reservation. In addition, Smith Bagley, Inc. (SBI) proposes that a person qualify for enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up benefits if he or she resides within 50 miles of a recognized Native American reservation and in a county that has a population density of no more than 50 persons per square mile.

4. We seek comment on data that addresses whether these proposed target areas share the same characteristics of reservation areas. For example, SBI fails to explain why it recommends choosing a population density of 50 persons per square mile. We seek record support regarding these issues. Moreover, the proposals of USCC, Washington UTC, and SBI may not adequately ensure that the enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support mechanisms are targeted only to those areas that share the same attributes as reservations. For example, we believe that these proposals may not exclude large cities from the definition of “near reservation.” We seek comment on how these proposals may be tailored to exclude such large cities.

5. We seek comment on how to minimize any administrative burdens raised by these proposals. For example, SBI proposes that the Commission produce and distribute maps outlining all areas that are within a 50 mile radius of a reservation in which the county contains less than 50 persons per square mile. We believe that the Commission may not be the appropriate entity to undertake such tasks because it has no particular expertise with regard to such mapmaking. In addition, we are not aware of any current map that contains all reservations as defined by the Commission. We seek comment on alternative sources for such maps. We seek comment on the feasibility of having prospective ETCs bear the cost and burden of producing their own maps showing the areas in which they request ETC designation.

6. We also seek comment on additional proposals for defining the geographic areas that are near reservations to ensure that enhanced Lifeline and Link Up support is targeted to qualifying low-income consumers living in areas adjacent to, or near, reservations that share many of the same characteristics as the reservations. We request that commenters provide detailed information to assist us in determining how enhanced Lifeline and Link Up support should be targeted. Such information should include the population of the geographical area, the number of income-eligible subscribers, the distance of each area from the nearest reservation, whether there is any legal recognition of that area by the BIA, whether the area includes or is part of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), and the level of telephone subscribership in the area. Wireline Competition Bureau staff have estimated, through analysis of recent Census data of a sampling of zip codes in near reservation areas, that the level of telephone subscribership in Indian households is lower than the level of telephone subscribership for all households. We ask commenters to provide their own data comparing the level of telephone subscribership in Indian households in near reservation areas with the level of telephone subscribership in all households in near reservation areas, or comment on the Bureau's preliminary estimates. Bureau staff have also estimated that a greater percentage of Indian households in near reservation areas have incomes under $25,000, compared to all households in near reservation areas. We ask commenters to provide their own data comparing the percentage of low-income Indian households in near reservation areas with the percentage of all low-income households in near reservation areas, or comment on the Bureau's preliminary estimates. We note that the Bureau's most recent penetration report indicates that there is a correlation between low levels of household income and low levels of telephone subscribership.

7. Finally, we seek comment on the effect of any proposed “near reservation” definitions on the ETC designation process. As explained, we conclude that, pending resolution of the “near reservation” definition, petitions for ETC designation relating to near reservation areas will not be considered as petitions relating to tribal lands. Petitioners seeking ETC designation in such areas must follow the procedures outlined in the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for non-tribal lands prior to submitting a request for designation to the Commission under section 214(e)(6). The Commission reached this conclusion because it believed that near reservation areas do not invoke the same jurisdictional concerns and principles of tribal sovereignty that are associated with areas within the boundaries of reservations. Accordingly, we request that any proposed definitions of “near reservation” also include a discussion of the impact of such definition on the ETC designation process.

8. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains a proposed information collection. As part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections contained in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due on or before September 2, 2003. OMB comments are due on or before September 15, 2003. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

9. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic effect on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadline for comments on the FNPRM provided in the Comment Filing Procedures section. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

10. This FNPRM is being issued in order to ensure that enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support is targeted to the most underserved segments of our Nation. The Commission sought comment on the same questions present herein in the Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. This FNPRM seeks to bolster the record on how to define the geographic areas that are adjacent to reservations or are otherwise part of the reservation's community of interest, in a manner that is consistent with our goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support to the most underserved segments of the Nation. This action is taken pursuant to the Act's mandate that “[c]onsumers in all regions of the Nation * * * have access to telecommunications and information services. * * *”

11. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the FNPRM is contained in sections 1-4, 201-205 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

12. In the IRFA at paragraphs 11-31 of Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking , we described and estimated the number of small entities that would be affected by the determination to stay application of the enhanced low-income programs to “near reservation” areas and to consider alternative definitions. The proposals discussed in this FNPRM apply to the same entities. We therefore incorporate by reference paragraphs 11-31 of the Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking .

13. The measures under consideration in this FNPRM may, if adopted, result in additional reporting or other compliance requirements. A modified definition of “near reservation” may impact reporting requirements for carriers eligible to receive enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up. For example, such carriers may be required to compile maps or derive other means to determine whether qualifying low-income customers fall within any designated geographic areas. In addition, if the current stay is lifted and an alternative definition of “near reservation” is adopted, eligible carriers may be required to submit data regarding an increased number of qualifying low-income consumers. Such increased reporting requirements would be offset by increased opportunities to receive universal service support.

14. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

15. In the FNPRM, we outline the various alternative proposals that have been suggested to the Commission in response to the Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking . We seek comment on the cost and benefits of each of these alternative proposals, including the potential administrative burdens involved in implementing such proposals on eligible carriers. The Commission's rules relating to the receipt of enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up support apply equally to all eligible carriers providing service to qualifying low-income consumers. The proposals presented herein are consistent with these standards.

16. None.

17. We invite comment on the issues and questions set forth in the FNPRM. Pursuant to § 1.415 and § 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments on or before August 15, 2003, and reply comments on or before September 2, 2003. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings , 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.

18. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html . Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov , and should include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in reply. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Parties also should send four (4) paper copies of their filings to Sheryl Todd, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, Rm. 5-A520, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

19. Written comments by the public on the proposed information collections are due on or before September 2, 2003. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed information collections on or before September 15, 2003. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Edward Springer, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to edward.springer@omb.eop.gov .

20. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0531 (voice), 202-418-7365 (tty).

21. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4, 214(e), and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and 254, and § 1.429 of the Commission's rules, this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

22. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.