The sapote fruit fly ( Anastrepha serpentina ) is a destructive pest of fruits and vegetables, including apples, avocados, grapefruit, mangoes, peaches, pears, and tangerines. This pest can cause serious economic losses by lowering the yield and quality of these fruits and vegetables and, in some cases, by damaging seedlings and young plants. Heavy infestations can result in the complete loss of these crops.

The sapote fruit fly regulations, contained in 7 CFR 301.99 through 301.99-10 (referred to below as the regulations), were established to prevent the spread of the sapote fruit fly into noninfested areas of the United States. The regulations also designate soil and a large number of fruits, nuts, vegetables, and berries as regulated articles.

In an interim rule effective on May 2, 2003, and published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2003 (68 FR 24605-24613 Docket No. 03-032-1), we quarantined a portion of Hidalgo County, TX, and restricted the interstate movement of regulated articles from the quarantined areas.

Based on trapping surveys by inspectors of Texas State and county agencies and by inspectors of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, we have determined that the sapote fruit fly has been eradicated from the quarantined portions of this county. The last finding of sapote fruit fly in the Hidalgo County, TX, quarantined area was June 17, 2003.

Since then, no evidence of sapote fruit fly infestation has been found in these areas. Based on our experience, we have determined that sufficient time has passed without finding additional flies or other evidence of infestation to conclude that the sapote fruit fly no longer exists in Hidalgo County, TX. Therefore, we are removing the county from the list of quarantined areas in § 301.99-10. With the removal of Hidalgo County, TX, from that list, there are no longer any areas in the continental United States quarantined for the sapote fruit fly.

Immediate action is warranted to relieve restrictions that are no longer necessary. A portion of Hidalgo County, TX, was quarantined due to the possibility that the sapote fruit fly could spread from those areas to noninfested areas of the United States. Since we have concluded that the sapote fruit fly no longer exists in this county, immediate action is necessary to remove the quarantine on Hidalgo County, TX, and to relieve the restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from those areas. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this action effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

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

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

This action amends the sapote fruit fly regulations by removing a portion of Hidalgo County, TX, from the list of quarantined areas.

We expect that the effect of this interim rule will be minimal. Small entities located within the quarantined area that sell regulated articles do so primarily for local intrastate, not interstate, movement, so the effect, if any, of this rule on these entities appears likely to be minimal. In addition, the effect on any small entities that may move regulated articles interstate has been minimized during the quarantine period by the availability of various treatments that allow these small entities, in most cases, to move regulated articles interstate with very little additional cost. Thus, just as the previous interim rule establishing the quarantined area in Hidalgo County, TX, had little effect on the small growers in the area, the lifting of the quarantine in the current interim rule will also have little effect.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

The Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel), is a destructive pest of citrus and other types of fruit, nuts, vegetables, and berries. The short life cycle of the Oriental fruit fly allows rapid development of serious outbreaks, which can cause severe economic losses. Heavy infestations can cause complete loss of crops.

The Oriental fruit fly regulations, contained in 7 CFR 301.93 through 301.93-10 (referred to below as the regulations), were established to prevent the spread of the Oriental fruit fly into noninfested areas of the United States. The regulations also designate soil and a large number of fruits, nuts, vegetables, and berries as regulated articles.

In an interim rule effective on January 6, 2003, and published in the Federal Register on January 10, 2003 (68 FR 1360-1362 Docket No. 02-130-1), we quarantined portions of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, CA, and restricted the interstate movement of regulated articles from the quarantined areas.

Based on trapping surveys conducted by inspectors of California State and county agencies and by inspectors of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, we have determined that the Oriental fruit fly has been eradicated from the quarantined portions of these two counties. The last finding of Oriental fruit fly in the Los Angeles and Orange Counties, CA, quarantined areas was June 4, 2003.

Since then, no evidence of Oriental fruit fly infestation has been found in these areas. Based on our experience, we have determined that sufficient time has passed without finding additional flies or other evidence of infestation to conclude that the Oriental fruit fly no longer exists in Los Angeles or Orange Counties, CA. Therefore, we are removing the entry for these counties from the list of quarantined areas in § 301.93-3(c).

Immediate action is warranted to relieve restrictions that are no longer necessary. Portions of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, CA, were quarantined due to the possibility that the Oriental fruit fly could spread from those areas to noninfested areas of the United States. Since we have concluded that the Oriental fruit fly no longer exists in those counties, immediate action is necessary to remove the quarantines on Los Angeles and Orange Counties, CA, and to relieve the restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from those areas. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this action effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

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

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

This action amends the Oriental fruit fly regulations by removing a portion of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, CA, from the list of quarantined areas.

County records indicate that within the quarantined portions of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, there are 389 small entities who could be affected by the lifting of the quarantine in this interim rule. These include 351 fruit sellers, 3 growers, 33 nurseries, 1 certified farmers' market, and 1 swapmeet. These 389 entities comprise less than 1 percent of the total number of similar entities operating in the State of California.

We expect that the effect of this interim rule on the small entities referred to above will be minimal. Small entities located within the quarantined area that sell regulated articles do so primarily for local intrastate, not interstate, movement, so the effect, if any, of this rule on these entities appears likely to be minimal. In addition, the effect on any small entities that may move regulated articles interstate has been minimized during the quarantine period by the availability of various treatments that allow these small entities, in most cases, to move regulated articles interstate with very little additional cost. Thus, just as the previous interim rule establishing the quarantined area in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, CA, had little effect on the small growers in the area, the lifting of the quarantine in the current interim rule will also have little effect.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, because those procedures would significantly delay issuance of the approval design and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. The FAA, therefore, finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.

On October 29, 2001, JRG Design Inc. applied for a supplemental type certificate for a Boeing Model 747SP airplane to combine the functions of a service compartment and a Class C cargo compartment in the aft lower lobe compartment. Boeing Model 747SP series airplanes, currently approved under Type Certificate A20WE, are large transport category airplanes with upper and main passenger decks. The airplanes are limited to 400 passengers or fewer, depending on the interior configuration. As part of the type design, certified Class C cargo compartments are installed below the main deck.

JRG Design Inc. proposes to modify the interior of a 747SP airplane for use by a head-of-state. As part of the modification, JRG proposes to include two ladders from the main deck into the aft lower lobe cargo compartment and to use that compartment as a combined service compartment and Class C cargo compartment. The compartment would use materials meeting the flammability standards for Class C cargo compartments and would include smoke detectors. Access would be limited to one trained crewmember and would be allowed during flight, but not during taxi, takeoff or landing or if there were a fire.

As part of the safety enhancement necessary to allow occupancy of the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment by a crewmember, JRG proposes the installation of warning and emergency equipment, as defined for a lower lobe service compartment in § 25.819. Speakers, warning lights, and buzzers will be installed in the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment to warn an occupant of turbulent conditions, the presence of smoke or fire, or the need to leave the area. A crew interphone will be provided for communications with the flight deck. In addition, emergency equipment will be provided to that occupant in case of decompression. No seat will be installed in this area, as required by § 25.819(f), because of the reduced height and accessibility of the area.

JRG Design Inc. indicates that the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment will meet the Class C cargo requirements of § 25.857(c). The compartment will be equipped with an approved built-in fire extinguisher or suppression system which is controllable from the cockpit to eliminate the need to send someone into the compartment to fight a fire. In the event of a fire, the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment will be evacuated, and the pilot will activate the fire suppression system. A means will be provided to prevent inadvertent access to the compartment when the fire suppression system has been activated.

The existing regulations address separate service areas and Class C cargo compartments but do not address a single compartment that has both uses. The requirements for these compartments are not only different, but also incompatible. For example, the service compartment may be occupied (except during taxi, takeoff, and landing), but the Class C cargo compartment must not be occupied. In addition, fire fighting is dealt with differently in the two compartments. The crew fights a fire in a service compartment, whereas a flooding extinguisher system is used in a Class C cargo compartment.

The concept of a single, multi-use compartment which JRG proposes would be acceptable, if the FAA could be assured that whether the compartment is used as a service compartment or as a Class C cargo compartment, the level of safety would be equivalent to that of a separate service compartment or a separate Class C cargo compartment. Therefore, special conditions that provide an equivalent level of safety are being required; these special conditions pertain to visible and audible warnings, placards and limitations, equipment, evacuation routes, training, and the use of ladders between the main deck and the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment.

Under the provisions of § 21.101 Amendment 21-69, effective September 16, 1991, JRG Design Inc. must show that the Model 747SP airplane, as modified, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate A20WE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change.

The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate A20WE for the Boeing Model 747SP series airplanes include 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-8 and 25-15, 25-17, 25-18, 25-20 and 25-39, with certain exceptions and special conditions as listed in the type certificate data sheet. The U.S. type certification basis for the Boeing Model 747SP series airplane is established in accordance with 14 CFR 21.17 and 21.21 and the type certification application date. The type certification basis is listed in Type Certificate Data Sheet No. A20WE.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( i.e. , 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for a Boeing Model 747SP series airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Boeing Model 747SP airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

Special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101(b)(2) Amendment 21-69, effective September 16, 1991.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

The Boeing Model 747SP airplane will incorporate a novel or unusual design feature; specifically, the aft lower lobe compartment will be used as a combined service compartment and Class C cargo compartment.

The requirements for lower deck service compartments (in § 25.819) are incompatible with the requirements for cargo compartments (in §§ 25.855, 25.857, and 25.858). For example, to use the fire control system of a Class C cargo compartment, the compartment must be unoccupied, because the means of fire control is to flood the compartment with fire suppressant. The fire control system of a service compartment, however, would not normally utilize a flood-type fire suppressant, since the compartment might be occupied.

The requirements in these special conditions allow the aft lower lobe to be used as a combined service compartment and Class C cargo compartment during flight. To make this concept work, the special conditions require certain visible and audible warnings, placards and limitations, evacuation routes, equipment, and training; the special conditions also establish requirements for use of ladders between the main deck and the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment.

The applicant has not proposed a means of satisfying regulatory requirements governing occupancy of the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment during taxi, takeoff, and landing. Therefore, the FAA will specify appropriate limitations for such occupancy.

Currently, § 25.819 specifies that a service compartment may be occupied and does not need to be evacuated under certain normal conditions or under certain unsafe conditions ( e.g. , in the case of fire, the occupant could function as a firefighter). Sections 25.855 and 25.857, however, specify that a Class C cargo compartment must not be occupied, that fire detection must be automatic, and that fire suppression must rely on a total flood system. To maintain the advantages of both a service compartment and a Class C cargo compartment, certain warnings need to be provided.

Special Condition 1a. requires a visible advisory in the cockpit to notify the flightcrew when the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment is occupied. The potential exists that the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment may inadvertently be occupied when it should not be, such as during taxi, takeoff or landing or during certain emergencies. Special Condition 1(a) ensures that the flightcrew is aware that the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment is occupied and that the flightcrew takes appropriate action to evacuate the compartment before flooding it with fire suppressant. There must be a placard or sign nearby which indicates that the light means that the compartment is occupied.

Special Condition 1b. requires an “on/off” visible warning stating “Do Not Enter” (or similar words) to be located outside and on or near the door from the main deck to the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment. The warning is to be controlled from the flight deck to prevent someone from entering the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment when it should not be occupied, such as during taxi, takeoff or landing or when smoke or fire has been detected. Opening the door during a fire would degrade the effectiveness of the fire suppressant and allow smoke, flame, and/or fire suppressant into the cabin.

Special Condition 1c. requires a visible and audible warning in the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment to notify an occupant that he or she must evacuate the compartment. This warning must be one which can be seen and heard from any part of the compartment. The visible and audible warning is to be controlled from the flight deck. Because the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment may be occupied on the ground or in the air, a warning must be provided to notify an occupant to leave the compartment prior to taxi, takeoff or landing or during certain emergencies (other than fire, which is dealt with under Special Condition 1(e). A visible warning is required, in case the audible warning becomes masked or distorted by engine, equipment, or ground noises.

Special condition 1d. requires a visible and audible warning in the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment to notify an occupant of the need to use a portable oxygen bottle in the event of decompression. This warning must be one which can be seen and heard from any part of the compartment and must be distinct from other warnings in the compartment to prevent confusion and to elicit correct action. The decompression warning must be automatic ( i.e. , not require separate crew action) to ensure that an occupant of the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment does not delay putting on the mask attached to the portable oxygen bottle. This section of the special conditions is partially in lieu of the visible effect provided by the automatic presentation feature required by § 25.1447.

Special Condition 1e. requires a visible and audible warning in the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment when a fire is detected to notify an occupant that he or she must evacuate the compartment. The warning must be one which can be seen and heard from any part of the compartment and must be distinct from other warnings in the compartment in order to prevent confusion and to elicit the correct actions. The fire or smoke detection warning must be automatic ( i.e., not require or depend on separate crew action) to ensure that an occupant of the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment leaves before the flightdeck crew releases fire suppressant in the compartment.

The aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment must be evacuated if a fire occurs. In addition, there must be a way to prevent access into the compartment during taxi, takeoff or landing or in the event of a fire. Placards and limitations are specified for these situations.

Special Condition 2a. requires a placard to be located outside the hatch to the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment doors, indicating that access is limited to one crewmember trained in evacuation procedures. The accommodations and the availability of only one oxygen bottle necessitate limiting access.

Special Condition 2b. requires placards to be located inside and outside the hatches of the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment, indicating that the compartment hatch must remain closed, except when someone is entering, occupying, or leaving the compartment. The smoke and fire detection and suppression systems are to be certified with the hatches closed; therefore, the hatches must remain closed.

Special Condition 2c. requires placards inside and outside the hatches of the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment, indicating that occupancy of the compartment should be of minimum duration. Because of this limitation, the requirement of § 25.819(f) to provide a seat is unnecessary.

Special Condition 2d. requires a limitation to be placed in the airplane flight manual (AFM) and placards to be posted inside and outside the hatches of the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment, all stating that the compartment may not be occupied during taxi, takeoff, or landing or during a fire. These placards are being required, because the compartment is not being certified for occupancy during taxi, takeoff, or landing and because the compartment must not be occupied during a fire so that an occupant is not exposed to fire or to fire suppressant. These placards are somewhat redundant, given the warning required under 1(b) and 1(c) but would provide information to an occupant, if the flightcrew failed to activate the warnings of 1(b) and 1(c).

Special Condition 2e. requires that the AFM supplement include the following with respect to the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment:

• Flightdeck crew instructions for allowing access

• Procedures, including warning and evacuation procedures, for the flightcrew to follow in the event of fire or smoke

• Procedures, including warning and evacuation procedures, for the flightcrew to follow in the event of decompression; and

• Limitations on occupancy during taxi, takeoff, or landing.

This special condition also requires that the weight and balance manual include cargo loading restrictions requiring cargo to be loaded and restrained so as to maintain escape paths. These requirements are to ensure that a single member of the flightcrew could access the cargo compartment safely during flight and exit safely during failure conditions.

Special Condition 2f. Because access is being provided to the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment, there is concern that during flight, passengers may retrieve hazardous materials or weapons stored in luggage. Access could be prevented by locking the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment, and that is being specified as one solution (in Special Condition 2(f)(1)). However, this airplane is being designed for use by a head-of-state, it will have limited access, and it will have placards limiting access. Furthermore, there will be notification to the flightcrew when the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment is occupied (in Special Condition 1(a)). Special Condition 2(f)(2), therefore, would prohibit the airplane from being operated for hire or offered for common carriage.

In addition to that required by § 25.819, Special Condition 3 requires the following equipment:

Special Condition 3a. requires that a portable oxygen bottle be available at all times and that it be sufficient to supply a member of the flightcrew who is occupying the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment (except during taxi, takeoff, or landing or during a fire). Because it would not be advisable to provide drop-down masks in a cargo compartment or to store a portable oxygen bottle in the compartment, the FAA is requiring that a portable oxygen bottle be mounted outside each main deck entrance of the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment. A member of the flightcrew must carry the portable oxygen bottle, when he or she enters the compartment. The supply of oxygen must be compatible with the emergency descent profile following a decompression.

Special Condition 3b. requires supplemental handheld lighting (with locator light) when an occupant is in the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment and power to the compartment is off, or the emergency escape path lighting is off or lost, or if visibility is poor. At least two flashlights are required. One flashlight would be located adjacent to each emergency exit in the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment at the foot of the stairs in the compartment. Note that this requirement is in addition to the automatic emergency lighting system required by § 25.819(a).

Special Condition 3c. obviates the need to comply with the requirements of § 25.819(f) for the installation of a forward or aft facing seat for each occupant of the compartment. The compartment's physical constraints, such as the reduced ceiling height and limited accessibility, make the installation of a seat impractical and prohibitive.

Special Condition 4 requires, in addition to the two evacuation routes (including an exit) specified by § 25.819(a), procedures to keep the evacuation routes clear. The cargo in the compartment must be restrained to ensure that the crewmember's paths to the exits are clear. Further, all entrances and exits from the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment must be capable of being closed after exiting. In addition to the concern for cargo blocking the escape paths, there is concern about hazardous quantities of smoke, flames, or fire suppressant entering compartments occupied by passengers or crew and about the loss of fire suppressant from the compartment during a fire. The aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment must be capable of being closed, because after evacuation it must comply with the requirements applicable to the Class C cargo compartment, including §§ 25.855, 25.857, and 25.858.

Because the design features required by these special features can fulfill their safety objectives only if crewmembers are properly trained in their use, these special conditions require the applicant to develop the following training materials:

Special Condition 5a. requires training materials about use of the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment and actions associated with the warnings and placards required by these special conditions.

Special Condition 5b. requires training materials about entering and exiting the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment, including emergency exiting, (associated with Special Conditions 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), and 3(b)).

Special Condition 5c. requires training materials about checking the pressure of the portable oxygen bottle prior to entering the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment (associated with Special Condition 3(a)).

Special Condition 5d. requires training materials about carrying a portable oxygen bottle when entering the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment (associated with Special Condition 3(a)).

Special Condition 5e. requires training materials about maintaining an exit aisle and access to the evacuation routes from the lower lobe service/cargo compartment (associated with Special Condition 3(c)).

The ladders between the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment and the main deck must meet the following requirements:

Special Condition 6a. requires that the ladders consist of a single segment.

Special Condition 6b. requires that the ladders have essentially rectangular treads.

Special Condition 6c requires that general illumination of at least 0.05 foot-candle, when measured along the centerlines of each tread, must be provided.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 747SP airplane. Should JRG Design Inc. apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate A20WE to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1) Amendment 21-69, effective September 16, 1991.

Under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. However, the issuance of a supplemental type certificate data sheet for the Boeing Model 747SP, as modified by JRG Design Inc., is imminent. The FAA finds, therefore, that good cause exists to make these special conditions effective upon issuance.

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

In addition to the audible warnings about detection of fire or smoke or decompression which are required by § 25.819(c), the following warnings are required:

a. A visible advisory in the cockpit to notify the flightcrew when the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment is occupied. The advisory light must be accompanied by a placard or message indicating that the compartment is occupied.

b. An (on/off) visible warning stating “Do Not Enter” (or similar words) located outside and on or near the door from the main deck to the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment. The warning is to be controlled from the flight deck.

c. A visible and audible warning in the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment to notify an occupant when he or she must evacuate the compartment. The warning must be one which can be seen and heard from any part of the compartment. The warning is to be controlled from the flight deck.

d. A visible and audible warning in the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment'which in the event of decompression'warns an occupant of the need to use a portable oxygen bottle. This warning must be one which can be seen and heard from any part of the compartment and must be distinct from other warnings in the compartment. The decompression warning must be automatic ( i.e., not require separate crew action), to ensure that an occupant of the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment does not delay using a portable oxygen bottle. This section of the special condition is partially in lieu of the visible effect provided by the automatic presentation feature required by § 25.1447.

e. A visible and audible warning in the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment—which in the event of a fire—warns an occupant of the need to evacuate the compartment. This warning must be one which can be seen and heard from any part of the compartment and should be distinct from other warnings in the compartment. The fire or smoke detection warning must be automatic ( i.e., not require a separate crew action) to ensure that an occupant of the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment leaves before the flight deck crew releases fire suppressant.

In addition to those required in part 25, the following placards and limitations are required:

a. A placard located outside the hatch to the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment, indicating that access to the compartment is limited to one crewmember trained in evacuation procedures.

b. A placard located inside and outside the hatches on the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment, indicating that the compartment hatches must remain closed, except when someone is entering, occupying, or leaving the compartment.

c. In lieu of compliance with § 25.819(f), a placard must be installed inside and outside the hatches on the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment, indicating that occupancy of the compartment should be of minimum duration.

d. A limitation in the AFM and a placard inside and outside the hatches to the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment, all stating that (1) the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment must not be occupied during taxi, takeoff, or landing or during a fire and (2) only authorized personnel are permitted access.

e. Instructions in the AFM regarding permissible occupancy of the compartment; limitations on occupancy of the compartment during taxi, takeoff or landing; procedures for warning occupants of the compartment that smoke or fire has been detected; procedures for fighting a fire in the compartment; procedures for warning occupants of the compartment that decompression has occurred; and cargo loading restrictions in the weight and balance manual.

f. A Limitation in the AFM Supplement stating that:

“Carriage of hazardous material and/or weapons in the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment is prohibited unless the following conditions are met:

(1) The compartment is locked during flight, and the key remains with the flight crew, or

(2) The airplane is not operated for hire or offered for common carriage. This provision does not preclude the operator from receiving remuneration to the extent consistent with 14 CFR part 125, 14 CFR part 91, and subpart F, as applicable.”

In addition to that required by §§ 25.819 and 25.829(a), the following equipment is required:

a. A portable oxygen bottle must be mounted outside each main deck entrance of the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment. The portable oxygen bottle must be sufficient to supply a member of the flightcrew who is occupying the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment and must be carried by the flightcrew member.

b. Flashlights or other supplemental handheld lighting, in addition to the emergency illumination required by § 25.829(a). At least two flashlights—each equipped with a locator light—must be provided. One flashlight must be located adjacent to each emergency exit in the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment at the foot of the stairs in the compartment.

c. The requirement of § 25.819(f) for a forward or aft facing seat for each occupant of the compartment is waived, because the physical constraints of the compartment, such as the reduced height and limited accessibility make the installation of a seat impractical and prohibitive.

In addition to the two evacuation routes (including an exit) specified by § 25.819(a), procedures must be established in the AFM Supplement to keep the evacuation routes clear. The cargo in the compartment must be restrained to ensure that the crewmember's paths to the exits are clear. Further, all entrances and exits from the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment must be capable of being closed after exiting. The aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment must be capable of being closed, because after evacuation it must comply with the requirements applicable to the Class C cargo compartment, including §§ 25.855, 25.857, and 25.858.

Training materials which address the following procedures must be provided:

a. Use of the aft lower lobe service/service compartment and actions indicated by the warnings and placards specified herein.

b. Entering and exiting the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment, including emergency exiting.

c. Checking the pressure of the portable oxygen bottle prior to entering the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment.

d. Carrying a portable oxygen bottle when entering the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment.

e. Maintaining an exit aisle and access to evacuation routes from the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment. Training must address how to keep the evacuation routes clear, i.e., how to restrain cargo in the compartment to ensure that the paths to the exits are clear.

f. A limitation in the AFM Supplement stating that all personnel accessing the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment must be trained in the procedures listed above.

The following requirements must be met for ladders between the main deck and the aft lower lobe service/cargo compartment:

a. The ladders must consist of a single segment.

b. The ladders must have essentially rectangular treads.

c. General illumination of at least 0.05 foot-candle, when measured along the centerlines of each ladder tread, must be provided.

On June 9, 2003, the FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace area at Susanville, CA (68 FR 34340). Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface is needed to contain aircraft executing the RNAV (GPS) RWY 29 and RNAV (GPS)-A SIAPs to Susanville Municipal Airport. This action will provide adequate controlled airspace for aircraft executing the RNAV (GPS) RWY 29 and RNAV (GPS)-A SIAPs to Susanville Municipal Airport, Susanville, CA.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking, proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments to the proposal were received. Class E airspace designations for airspace extending from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9K, dated August 30, 2002, and effective September 16, 2002, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E airspace area at Susanville, CA. The establishment of a RNAV (GPS) RWY 29 and RNAV (GPS)-A SIAPs to Susanville Municipal Airport has made this action necessary. The effect of this action will provide adequate airspace for aircraft executing the RNAV (GPS) RWY 29 and RNAV (GPS)-A SIAPs to Susanville Municipal Airport, Susanville, CA.

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

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on May 30, 2003 (68 FR 32357). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on September 4, 2003. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

Merial Ltd., 3239 Satellite Blvd., Bldg. 500, Duluth, GA 30096-4640, filed a supplement to NADA 134-314 for EQVALAN (ivermectin) Paste for Horses. The supplemental application provides for the use of ivermectin paste for the treatment and control of Craterostomum acuticaudatum , Petrovinema poculatum , and Coronocyclus spp., including: C. coronatus , and C. labratus . Also, the label descriptions of some currently- approved parasite genera are being revised to add included species for which data already exists in the NADA file and to reflect changes in scientific nomenclature. The supplemental NADA is approved as of April 2, 2003, and 21 CFR 520.1192 is amended to reflect the approval. The basis of approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary.

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

Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(iii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(iii)), this supplemental approval qualifies for 3 years of marketing exclusivity beginning April 2, 2003. This marketing exclusivity only applies to the parasites for which new data were required.

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

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

(a) Specifications . Each milligram (mg) of paste contains 0.0187 mg (1.87 percent) or 0.00153 mg (0.153 percent) of ivermectin.

(b) Sponsors . See sponsors in § 510.600(c) of this chapter for use as in paragraph (e) of this section:

(1) No. 050604 for use of a 1.87-percent paste as in (e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii)(A), and (e)(1)(iii) of this section and a 0.153-percent paste for use as in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.

(2) Nos. 051311 and 059130 for use of a 1.87-percent paste for use as in paragraph (e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii)(B), and (e)(1)(iii) of this section.

(d) Special considerations . See § 500.25 of this chapter.

(e) Conditions of use —(1) Horses —(i) Amount . 200 micrograms per kilogram (91 micrograms per pound) of body weight.

(ii) Indications for use —(A) For treatment and control of large strongyles (adults) ( Strongylus vulgaris (also early forms in blood vessels), S. edentatus (also tissue stages), S. equinus ; Triodontophorus spp., including T. brevicauda and T. serratus ; and Craterostomum acuticaudatum ); small strongyles including those resistant to some benzimidazole class compounds (adults and fourth-stage larvae) ( Coronocyclus spp., including C. coronatus , C. labiatus , and C. labratus ; Cyathostomum spp., including C. catinatum and C. pateratum ; Cylicocyclus spp., including C. insigne , C. leptostomum , C. nassatus , and C. brevicapsulatus ; Cylicodontophorus spp.; Cylicostephanus spp., including C. calicatus , C. goldi , C. longibursatus , and C. minutus ; and Petrovinema poculatum ); pinworms (adults and fourth-stage larvae) ( Oxyuris equi) ; ascarids (adults and third- and fourth-stage larvae) ( Parascaris equorum ); hairworms (adults) ( Trichostrongylus axei ); large-mouth stomach worms (adults) ( Habronema muscae ); bots (oral and gastric stages) ( Gasterophilus spp., including G. intestinalis and G. nasalis ); lungworms (adults and fourth-stage larvae) ( Dictyocaulus arnfieldi ); intestinal threadworms (adults) ( Strongyloides westeri ); summer sores caused by Habronema and Draschia spp. cutaneous third-stage larvae; and dermatitis caused by neck threadworm microfilariae, Onchocerca sp.

Effective January 24, 2003, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 divided the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) into two new agencies, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) in the Department of the Treasury and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives in the Department of Justice. The taxation of tobacco products remains a Department of the Treasury function and is the responsibility of TTB. References to the former ATF and the new TTB in this document reflect the time frame, before or after January 24, 2003.

On November 5, 2002, ATF published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (ATF Notice No. 962, 67 FR 67340) to solicit comments about the elimination of obsolete tobacco regulations in 27 CFR parts 40 and 275. These regulations prescribed eight statistical classes for large cigars subject to tax. The first seven classes (Classes A through G) covered large cigars selling for $235.294 or less per thousand, while the eighth class (Class H) covered those selling for more than $235.294 per thousand.

Since January 1, 2001, manufacturers of tobacco products report information about large cigars subject to tax in two statistical classes. Tobacco importers also no longer use these eight statistical classes. The reduction in the number of statistical classes reduces industry's reporting burden, but does not jeopardize our ability to protect the revenue or adversely affect our compilation of tobacco statistics for use by governments and the public.

We did not receive any comments on ATF Notice No. 962. For these reasons and those discussed in the notice, we are issuing this final rule.

We certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Consequently, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) do not apply. In accordance with 26 U.S.C. 7805(f), we sent the notice of proposed rulemaking to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

We have determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this final rule because it does not impose a collection of information.

In accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(d), we made the effective date of this final rule 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register .

We use standards, specifications, and recommended practices developed by standard-setting organizations and the oil and gas industry for establishing requirements for activities in the OCS. This practice, known as incorporation by reference, allows us to incorporate the provisions of technical standards into the regulations without increasing the volume of the Code of Federal Regulations. The legal effect of incorporation by reference is that the material is treated as if it were published in the Federal Register . This material, like any other properly issued regulation, then has the force and effect of law. We hold operators/lessees accountable for complying with the documents incorporated by reference in our regulations. The regulations, found at 1 CFR part 51, govern how MMS and other Federal agencies incorporate various documents by reference. Agencies can only incorporate by reference through publication in the Federal Register . Agencies must also gain approval from the Director of the Federal Register for each publication incorporated by reference. Incorporation by reference of a document or publication is limited to the specific edition or to the specific edition and supplement or addendum cited in the regulations.

Both API RP 14F and API RP 14FZ are incorporated by reference at 30 CFR 250.114. The requirements under this section apply only to platforms, artificial islands, fixed structures, and their facilities and not to electrical systems on floating facilities. Electrical systems on floating facilities are regulated by the U. S. Coast Guard (USCG). A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between MMS, U.S. Department of the Interior, and USCG, U.S. Department of Transportation, dated December 16, 1998, gave USCG the responsibility for electrical systems on floating facilities. Additionally, according to the MOU, USCG is responsible for aids to navigation, emergency lighting (standby lighting), survival craft, and general alarms, procedures for which, though included in both documents, are not under MMS regulations.

We have reviewed these documents and have determined that the latest editions of both documents should be incorporated into MMS regulations to ensure the use of the best available and safest technologies. The title of API RP 14F has been changed in the 4th edition to conform with API RP 500, “Recommended Practice for Classification of Locations for Electrical Installations at Petroleum Facilities Classified as Class I, Division 1 and Division 2,” which is currently incorporated into MMS regulations. Our review shows that the changes between the old (3rd) edition and the new (4th) edition are minor. Most of the changes apply to floating facilities and are, therefore, not part of this rulemaking for the reasons cited above. Also, the 3rd edition is not readily available to affected parties because it is out of print. The oil and gas industry is already building new structures in accordance with the provisions of the 4th edition of this standard. The 4th edition has been revised using an API standard editorial format.

In the 4th edition of 14F, several subsections that were contained in the 3rd edition have been consolidated into one subsection titled “Protection Techniques Related to Equipment Installed in Locations Classified as Division 1 and Division 2.” This new subsection includes explosion proof equipment, hermetically sealed devices, intrinsically safe devices, nonincendive equipment, and purged enclosures. No new requirements were imposed.

In the 4th edition of 14F, cable-shielding considerations have been added to the Electrical Distribution Systems section. This allows for the installation of metal clad cables in lieu of sealed conduits for electrical wiring. The use of metal clad cables could result in savings to industry of up to 40 percent over the use of sealed conduits and conventional wiring practices. Both methods of cable shielding provide for equal safety.

Subsections have been added to the 4th edition of 14F to cover advances in technology in battery-powered DC supply systems (uninterruptible power supplies), electric oil-immersion heaters, cathodic protection, and hand-held electronic devices. These four new subsections cover equipment that is now in standard use on OCS structures, but that was not in the early 1990's when the 3rd edition was completed. These new subsections should not impose any new costs on the industry since operators are already using this equipment.

The two recommended practices addressed by this rulemaking are nearly identical. The original version (14F) is to be used with the electrical classification system contained in API RP 500. This system of electrical classification differentiates locations by “Divisions.” This document (API RP 500) is already incorporated by reference into the regulations. A similar document, API RP 505, “Recommended Practice for Classification of Locations for Electrical Installations at Petroleum Facilities Classified as Class I, Zone 0, Zone 1, and Zone 2,” is also currently incorporated by reference into the regulations. This system classifies hazardous locations by “Zones” based on how long a hazardous vapor is present. The new 14FZ document is to be used with API RP 505. The difference between the two pairs of documents, 14F/500 and 14FZ/505, is that 14F/500 uses two “Divisions” to classify hazardous areas while 14FZ/505 uses three “Zones” to define these classified hazardous areas. The 14F document defines techniques for protection from fires in the Division system. The 14FZ document defines protection techniques in the Zone system for hazardous locations. Both systems provide for safe work environments for personnel. The protection techniques identified for the Division system are not all acceptable for the Zone system and vice versa. The Zone system identifies more protection techniques than the Division system; however, both systems have proven their safety by comparisons of both systems through the National Electrical Code, Factory Mutual, and Underwriters Laboratories. The operator could realize cost savings if the Zone system (14FZ/505) is used in classifying and designing electrical systems.

We are incorporating the new 14FZ to complete the set of documents in the regulations and give lessees a choice in installing electrical systems. The incorporation of 14FZ will not impose any additional costs on the industry since it is nearly identical to RP 14F and may result in cost savings. The operators must use one set of documents or the other to design and install electrical systems on their facilities. The costs for complying with the documents are similar. We are merely giving the industry some flexibility with regard to classifying and installing electrical systems under either the API RP 500 system or the API RP 505 system.

The updated document API RP 14F 4th edition and the new document API RP 14FZ were published as a proposed rule on January 14, 2003.

Four organizations submitted comments on the proposed rulemaking. They are the (1) Shell Exploration and Production Company (Shell); (2) Waldemar S. Nelson & Co., Inc.; (3) Offshore Operators Committee (OOC); and (4) Department of Environmental Protection (Florida). All four commenters favor the incorporation of API RP 14F (4th edition) and 14FZ (1st edition).

Shell supports the incorporation of API RP14F and 14FZ into MMS regulations.

Waldemar S. Nelson & Co., Inc., strongly feel that incorporating the latest editions of API RP 14F and 4FZ enhances everyone's goal to provide for safer temporary and permanent electrical installations and more easily understood code wording, as well as enabling MMS rules to more closely reflect the latest code wording and philosophy of the National Electrical Code. All parties gain from this move as design and installation practices become more uniform and more economical without compromising safety. In many cases, safety is enhanced. By keeping up with the latest available technology and materials, offshore electrical installations can be designed to be more corrosion resistant than in the past.

The OOC commends the MMS for incorporating industry standards into its offshore operating regulations to ensure the use of the best available and safest technologies on the OCS. The incorporation of these two documents ensures that MMS regulations remain current with present design and installation requirements and guidelines for electrical systems on offshore production facilities.

The Department of Environmental Protection promotes the incorporation of API RP 14F and 14FZ into MMS regulations.

Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by the law. There may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by the law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of the comment. However, we will not consider anonymous 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 inspection in their entirety.

This document is not a significant rule and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

(1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.

The rule may have a positive economic impact because of the cost savings from using shielded cables in lieu of sealed conduits. Otherwise, the documents do not contain any significant revisions that will cause lessees or operators to change their business practices. The documents will not require the retrofitting of any facilities.

(2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.

(3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects or entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients.

(4) This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the RF Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). This rule applies to all lessees that operate on the OCS. Small lessees that operate under this rule would fall under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) North American Industry Classification System Codes 211111, Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction, and 213111, Drilling Oil and Gas Wells. The provisions of this rule will not have a significant economic effect on offshore lessees and operators, including those that are classified as small businesses. The SBA defines small business as having:

• Annual revenues of $5 million or less for exploration service and field service companies.

• Fewer than 500 employees for drilling companies and for companies that extract oil, gas, or natural gas liquids.

The incorporation of API documents into MMS regulations cover electrical installations on offshore structures. The documents to be incorporated by this rule have been used by the industry for many years, and the latest editions represent state-of-the-art industry equipment and practices. The structures currently being built are being constructed according to the requirements in either API RP 14F (4th edition) or API RP 14FZ.

The final rule's purpose is to update one document that is currently incorporated by reference in the regulations and to incorporate by reference a new, nearly identical document into the regulations. The differences between the newer document and the older document are very minor. The updated document consolidates several subsections in a new subsection covering protection techniques. In addition, cable shielding considerations were added to the updated document. This allows for the installation of metal clad cables in lieu of sealed conduits. The use of metal clad cables could result in savings to industry of up to 40 percent over the use of sealed conduits and conventional wiring practices. Other subsections have been added to the updated document to cover advances in technology. New subsections cover equipment that is now in standard use on OCS facilities, but that was not in use in the early 1990's when the older 3rd edition was completed and incorporated into the regulations. These new subsections should not impose any additional costs to industry since operators are already using this new equipment and technology. By incorporating both 14F and 14FZ, which are nearly identical, but utilize different classification systems, we are giving the industry a choice in electrical classification methods.

Under the North American Industry Classification System Code 211111, Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction, MMS estimates that a total of 1,380 firms drill oil and gas wells onshore and offshore. The group affected by this rule is the approximately 130 companies that are offshore lessees/operators. According to SBA criteria, approximately 90 companies are small businesses (70 percent). As discussed above, this rule imposes no new operational requirements, reporting burdens, or other measures that would increase costs to lessees/operators, large or small. Therefore, this rule has no significant economic impact on small entities.

Comments from the public are important to us. The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments from small businesses about Federal agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on the enforcement actions of MMS, call toll-free (888) 734-3247. You may comment to the SBA without fear of retaliation. Disciplinary action for retaliation by an MMS employee may include suspension or termination from employment with the Department of the Interior.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), SBREFA. This rule:

(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The rule will not cause any significant costs to lessees or operators. The only costs will be the purchase of the new documents and minor revisions to some operating and maintenance procedures. The minor revisions to operating and maintenance procedures may result in some minor costs or may actually result in minor cost savings.

(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

(c) Does not have significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This regulation does not require an information collection from 10 or more parties, and a submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. An OMB Form 83-I is not required.

According to Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have significant Federalism effects. This rule will not substantially and directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State governments. This rule will simply update one document and add one document incorporated by reference to ensure that the industry uses the best and safest technologies. This rule does not impose costs on States or localities. Any costs incurred affect only the oil industry and will be minor.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

According to Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have significant Takings implications. A Takings Implication Assessment is not required.

According to Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have Federalism implications. This rule will not substantially or directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State governments because it deals strictly with technical standards that the offshore oil and gas industry must use in designing, fabricating, and installing fixed offshore facilities. This rule will not impose costs on States or localities, nor will it require any action on the part of States or localities.

According to Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the NEPA of 1969 is not required.

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, this rule does not have tribal implications that impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments.

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Congress mandated that the Department establish and fund a program to provide a special supplemental food and nutrition education program to eligible low-income families overseas whose members have been determined to be at nutritional risk. This program is known as the Women, Infants, and Children Overseas (WIC Overseas) program. This interim final rule implements section 674 of this Act.

To be eligible for the DoD special supplemental food program, a person must be a member of the armed forces on duty at stations outside the U.S. (and its territories and possessions) or an eligible civilian serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the U.S. (and its territories and possessions). Additionally, the person must be found to be at nutritional risk. Specifically, to be certified as eligible to receive benefits under the program, a person must:

• Meet specified program income guidelines published by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and

• Meet one of the criteria listed in this regulation as indicative of nutritional risk. Determinations of income eligibility and nutritional risk will be made to the extent practicable using applicable standards used by the USDA in determining eligibility for the domestic Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program. In determining income eligibility, the Department will use the Department of Health and Human Services income poverty table for the state of Alaska.

The purpose of the program is to provide supplemental foods and nutrition education to serve as an adjunct to good health care during critical times of growth and development, in order to prevent the occurrence of health problems, including drug and other substance abuse, and to improve the health status of program participants. The benefit is similar to the benefit provided under the domestic WIC program.

Under the program, eligible participants are provided with drafts (paper food instruments, similar to vouchers) that may be redeemed at specified intervals for food packages. Participants access the food benefit by redeeming drafts at designated commissaries and NEXMARTS overseas. Food packages are prescribed by program staff who choose from a range of available food packages to tailor the benefit to the needs of program participants.

The program also provides nutrition education and counseling services to all participants at specified intervals. Nutrition education sessions are designed to stress the relationship between proper nutrition and good health with special emphasis on the nutritional needs of pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, infants, and children less than 5 years of age and to achieve a positive change in food habits, resulting in improved nutrition status and the prevention of nutrition-related health problems. Nutrition education promotes breastfeeding as the optimal method of infant nutrition. Nutritional education includes educating women participating in the program about the harmful effects of substance abuse. Nutrition education is an integral element of the WIC Overseas program; however, a participant may not be denied supplemental food benefits for failure to attend or participate in nutrition education activities. Nutrition education sessions are conducted in the context of the ethnic, cultural, and geographical preferences of participants.

The Secretary of Defense will establish a system for verifying appropriate use of the WIC Overseas Program funds. This will include procedures to verify that draft redemption complies with applicable date-to-use, dollar amount, and other relevant criteria.

To leverage available funding to make the WIC Overseas program available to the maximum number of participants, the Secretary of Defense may enter into agreement up to three years in length to procure a particular brand of a food item to provide to Program participants. The agreement would specify the procurement of the competitively selected brand exclusive of other brands of the same or similar food. Competitive selection of the contract brand would conform to competitive contracting procedures specified in title 10, chapter 137, U.S. Code. The agreement would provide for the manufacturer of the contract brand to rebate to the Secretary an amount that is an agreed ratio of the amounts paid by the Secretary for the procurement of the contract brand. Rebates collected under the agreements will be credited to the appropriation available for carrying out the WIC Overseas program and will be available for the program in the same period as the other sums in the appropriation.

The Secretary will provide for an appeals process that will allow individuals who are denied certification or recertification to appeal those decisions. The process will include a requirement that individuals denied certification or recertification be advised of their right of appeal, the relevant time limits, and the procedures to effect an appeal and will further provide a second level of review to individuals adversely impacted by an appeals decision.

This interim rule will impose additional information collection requirements to the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3511). Individuals will be required to apply for certification and periodic recertification to receive benefits.

This rule is being issued as an interim final rule, with comment period, as an exception to our standard practice of soliciting public comments prior to issuance. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) has determined that following the standard practice in this case would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest. This determination is based on the fact that this change directly implements a statutory entitlement enacted by Congress expressly for this purpose. All public comments are invited and will be carefully considered. We anticipate the issuance of a final rule within 6 months of the end of the comment period.

Executive Order 12866 requires certain regulatory assessments for any “significant regulatory action” defined as one that would result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or have other substantial impacts. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that each federal agency prepare, and make available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis when the agency issues a regulation which would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule is a significant regulatory action and has been revised by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The annual cost of this program is estimated to be about $24 million per year, beginning in Fiscal Year 2002. This rule is not economically significant and will not significantly affect a substantial number of small entities. The information collection notice was published on March 21, 2003 (68 FR 13906).

On February 5, 2003, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Shrewsbury River, New Jersey, in the Federal Register (68 FR 5858). We received one comment letter in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. No public hearing was requested and none was held.

The Route 36 Bridge, mile 1.8, across the Shrewsbury River at Highlands, New Jersey, has a vertical clearance of 35 feet at mean high water and 39 feet at mean low water.

The existing regulations listed at 33 CFR 117.755(a), require the Route 36 Bridge to open on signal; except that, from May 15 through October 15, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., the draw need open only at quarter before the hour and quarter after the hour.

The Coast Guard received requests from mariners to change the drawbridge operation regulations that govern the Route 36 Bridge. Presently the two moveable bridges across the Shrewsbury River, the Route 36 Bridge, and the Monmouth County highway bridge, have staggered opening schedules during the boating season. The mariners have asked the Coast Guard to change the opening schedule for the Route 36 Bridge in order to synchronize the bridge opening times for the two moveable bridges during the boating season to help reduce vessel transit delays and enhance boating safety.

The second moveable bridge across the Shrewsbury River, the Monmouth County highway bridge, at mile 4.0, with a vertical clearance of 15 feet at mean high water and 17 feet at mean low water. The existing regulations listed at 33 CFR 117.755(b), require the bridge to open on signal; except that, from May 15 through September 30, on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need open only on the hour and half hour.

This final rule will synchronize the bridge opening times at the two bridges by requiring the Route 36 Bridge to open on signal from May 15 through October 15, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., on the hour and half hour only.

The Coast Guard received one comment letter opposed to the proposed rule change. That comment opposed having synchronous bridge openings at the Route 36 Bridge, mile 1.8, and the Monmouth County highway bridge, at mile 4.0, across the Shrewsbury River in New Jersey.

The objection stated that powerboats would be required to wait for bridge openings creating an unsafe condition on the waterway which would result in hardship for marine businesses in the area.

The Route 36 Bridge, with a vertical clearance of 35 ft above mean high water, passes the vast majority of power vessels without requiring an opening. This rule change, to synchronize both bridges operating schedules, was requested to assist the lower-powered sailboats that cannot transit between the bridges quickly enough to make consecutive bridge openings. The ensuing 20-25 minute wait for sailboats in swift river currents creates a hazardous navigational condition.

The potential for an adverse effect on marine businesses is not supported by the fact that only a few power vessels may have to wait up to 20 minutes for bridge openings.

As a result of the above information the Coast Guard believes this final rule is reasonable and will meet the reasonable needs of navigation; therefore, no changes have been made to this final rule.

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

This conclusion is based on the fact that the synchronization of the opening times for the moveable bridges across the Shrewsbury River will better meet the present needs of navigation.

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

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

This conclusion is based on the fact that the synchronization of the opening times for the moveable bridges across the Shrewsbury River will better meet the present needs of navigation.

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 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 final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation because promulgation of changes to drawbridge regulations have been found to not have a significant effect on the environment. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES .

Regulatory History

On April 10, 2003, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Apalachicola River, River Junction, Florida in the Federal Register (68 FR 17571). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

The CSX swing bridge across the Apalachicola River, mile 105.9, presently opens on signal for the passage of vessels. The bridge owner has requested to change the operation regulations to reflect usage of the bridge by mariners. The request was made based upon a documented decrease in the number of requests for openings in the last three years. In 2000, the bridge opened 63 times for the passage of vessels. In 2001, the bridge opened 38 times for the passage of vessels. In the first five months of 2002, the bridge opened 15 times for the passage of vessels. Information gathered regarding the decrease in vessel movements indicates that the closure of a sand and gravel facility above the bridge and a prolonged drought are the main contributing factors. While water elevations may return to their pre-drought levels, there is presently no evidence that the number of requests for bridge openings will increase in the future due to limited industrial development along the waterway. Accordingly, the bridge owner requested to change the operation regulations so that the bridge be allowed to open on signal from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. Monday through Friday. At all other times, the bridge will open on signal if at least four hours advanced notification is given.

No comments were received to the NPRM and no changes were made to the proposed regulation.

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

This rule allows vessels ample opportunity to transit this waterway during normal weekdays and with minimal notification at all other times.

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

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

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 on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Paragraph 32(e) excludes the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges from the environmental documentation requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Since this final rule will alter the normal operating conditions of the drawbridge, it falls within this exclusion. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

Regulatory Information

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

The Coast Guard believes making this rule effective in less than thirty days after publication is reasonable because we coordinated this revised temporary operating schedule in advance with the mariners that use this waterway, and the continuation of the bridge repair work is vital in order to assure the continued safe operation of the bridge.

Historically, there are few requests to open this bridge and the bridge will be available to provide single span openings for all but approximately ten days during the effective period of this temporary rule.

The Long Beach Bridge has a vertical clearance of 20 feet at mean high water and 24 feet at mean low water. The existing regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(g).

The bridge owner, Nassau County Department of Public Works, asked the Coast Guard to temporarily change the drawbridge operation regulations to facilitate structural repairs at the bridge.

On September 5, 2002, we published a temporary final rule in the Federal Register (67 FR 56754). That rule allowed the bridge to open only a single lift span for bridge openings on the even hours 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. after a one-hour notice was given and from 11 p.m. through 5 a.m., the bridge was to remain in the closed position. Additionally, two consecutive, Monday through Friday, five day closures were also scheduled to occur during the rule's effective period. Those closure dates were to be announced in the Local Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard was notified by the bridge owner that the effective period for the bridge repairs must be extended to continue until April 30, 2004, in order to complete the project. The requirements published in (67 FR 56754) allowing the bridge to remain closed from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. daily, and the requirement for mariners to provide a one-hour advance notice for bridge openings will be eliminated during this second temporary final rule.

The two five days closures will still be scheduled to occur sometime after September 2003. The exact dates will be announced in the Local notice to Mariners.

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

This conclusion is based on the fact that there have been few requests to open the bridge historically.

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

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

This conclusion is based on the fact that there have been few requests to open the bridge historically.

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 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 final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation because promulgation of changes to drawbridge regulations have been found to not have a significant effect on the environment. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES .

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration requires certain safety precautions be in place prior to particular airshows, this rule ensures some of those precautions are in place.

A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of recreational watercraft and air show participants from the hazards associated with aerial displays as required by the Federal Aviation Administration. The combination of waterway distractions, and aerial displays, could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a temporary safety zone to control vessel movement through a portion of the Clinton River will help ensure the safety of persons and property at this event and help minimize the associated risk.

The temporary safety zone will encompass all waters approximately 4 miles West of the mouth of the Clinton River from a center point from the West at position 42°35.4′ N, 082°50.3′ W, and extending to the north and south shorelines of the Clinton River; from the East at center point position 42°35.8′ N, 082°49.8′ W to the north and south shorelines of the Clinton River. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum (NAD 83).

All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on scene patrol representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone, and therefore minor if any impacts to Mariners.

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

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

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The safety zone is only in effect from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on July 24, 2003, from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. on July 25, 2003, and from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. on July 26, 2003. It is expected that effects on vessel traffic will be minimal due to the short duration of the event on each day. The event does not interfere with the commercial shipping lanes. Before the effective period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the Clinton River by the Ninth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners, and Marine Information Broadcasts. Facsimile broadcasts may also be made.

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 Detroit ( see ADDRESSES ).

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

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

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

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

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

We have considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 32(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A written categorical exclusion determination is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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

We have analyzed this final 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.

On March 20, 2003, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Safety and Security Zones; Chesapeake Bay, Maryland and Tributaries” in the Federal Register (68 FR 13649). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.

Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia and Flight 93, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has issued several warnings concerning the potential for additional terrorist attacks within the United States. The threat of maritime attacks is real as evidenced by the attack on the USS Cole and the subsequent attack in October 2002 against a tank vessel off the coast of Yemen. These threats manifest a continuing threat to U.S. assets as described in the President's finding in Executive Order 13273 of August 21, 2002 (67 FR 56215, September 3, 2002) that the security of the U.S. is endangered by the September 11, 2001 attacks and that such aggression continues to endanger the international relations of the United States. See also Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks, (67 FR 58317, September 13, 2002); Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, Or Support Terrorism, (67 FR 59447, September 20, 2002). The U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) in Advisory 02-07 advised U.S. shipping interests to maintain a heightened state of alert against possible terrorist attacks. MARAD more recently issued Advisory 03-05 informing operators of maritime interests of increased threat possibilities to vessels and facilities and a higher risk of terrorist attack to the transportation community in the United States. The ongoing foreign hostilities have made it prudent for U.S ports and waterways to be on a higher state of alert because the al Qaeda organization and other similar organizations have declared an ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide. In this particular rule, to address the aforementioned security and safety concerns, and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against certain types of vessels would have on the public interest, the Coast Guard is establishing safety and security zones around these vessels. These safety and security zones prohibit entry into or movement within the specified areas.

This rule establishes safety and security zones around cruise ships and vessels carrying CDC, LNG, or LHG while underway, anchored, or moored in the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. This rule creates these safety and security zones while the above vessels are within navigable waters of the United States in the Captain of the Port (COTP) Baltimore zone, as defined in 33 CFR 3.25-15. While the COTP anticipates some impact on vessel traffic due to this regulation, these safety and security zones are deemed necessary for the protection of life, property, and the safety and security of navigation within the COTP Baltimore zone.

The Coast Guard received no comments on the proposed rule during the comment period published in the NPRM. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. As a result, no change to the proposed regulatory text was made with the exception of our deletion of a reference to 33 U.S.C. 1226 in the Authority paragraph because we determined that the reference was unnecessary.

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

We expect the economic impact of this 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 limited size of the zones, the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zones, and vessels may transit around the zones. In addition, vessels that may need to enter the zones may request permission on a case-by-case basis from the COTP Baltimore or his designated representatives.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit in a portion of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries near a vessel encompassed by the safety and security zones. Because the zones are of limited size and duration, it is expected that there will be minimal disruption to the maritime community. In addition, smaller vessels, which are more likely to be small entities, may transit around the zones and request permission from the COTP Baltimore on a case-by-case basis to enter the zones.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule would affect your small business and you have questions concerning it provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. 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 analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because this rule establishes a safety and security zone. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

1. The Regional Office has established an official public rulemaking file available for inspection at the Regional Office. EPA has established an official public rulemaking file for this action under FL-92-200324. The official public file 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 rulemaking file does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public rulemaking file is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 9:00 to 3:30 excluding federal holidays.

2. Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support document are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment, at the State Air Agency. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400.

3. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the Regulations.gov web site located at http://www.regulations.gov where you can find, review, and submit comments on Federal rules that have been published in the Federal Register , the Government's legal newspaper, and are open for comment.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be made available for public viewing at the EPA Regional Office, 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 the official public rulemaking file. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available at the Regional Office for public inspection.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate rulemaking identification number by including the text “Public comment on proposed rulemaking FL-92-200324” 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.

1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, 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. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to lesane.heidi@epa.gov. Please include the text “Public comment on proposed rulemaking FL-92-200324” in the subject line. EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly without going through Regulations.gov, 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.

ii. Regulations.gov. Your use of Regulations.gov is an alternative method of submitting electronic comments to EPA. Go directly to Regulations.gov at http://www.regulations.gov, then select Environmental Protection Agency at the top of the page and use the go button. The list of current EPA actions available for comment will be listed. Please follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 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.

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

2. By Mail. Send your comments to: Heidi LeSane, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Please include the text “Public comment on proposed rulemaking FL-92-200324” in the subject line on the first page of your comment.

3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Heidi LeSane, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 12th floor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 9 to 3:30 excluding federal holidays.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically to EPA. 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 official public regional rulemaking file. 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 file and available for public inspection without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 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 your estimate.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternatives.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate regional file/rulemaking identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments.

The air quality maintenance plan is a requirement of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments for nonattainment areas that come into compliance with the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The Jacksonville Area (Duval County) was designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment. However, for the 3-year period, (1987 through 1989), air quality measurements for the Jacksonville Area showed compliance with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The area continued to attain the 1-hour ozone standard and the State requested that the EPA redesignate the Jacksonville area attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard on June 23, 1993. Included with this request was a 10-year air quality maintenance plan covering the years 1995 to 2005. This plan was developed in accordance with the appropriate guidelines. The EPA published a Federal Register notice approving this plan on January 3, 1995, and it became effective on March 6, 1995 (60 FR 41).

Subsequent revisions to this maintenance plan have been made. The current plan was approved by the EPA on April 24, 2003, and became effective on May 27, 2003 (68 FR 20072) . Up to this point, FDEP has revised the original plan to update emissions inventories reflecting more accurate emission estimates, to define specific Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEB), to remove the motor vehicle inspection program (MVIP) credits, and to allocate a portion of the safety margin to the MVEB (66 FR 40137). This SIP revision satisfies the requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the second 10-year update for the Jacksonville area 1-hour ozone maintenance plan. Changes to the current maintenance plan include revisions to the emissions inventory for both on-road and non-road mobile sources, reflecting improved methodologies contained in the MOBILE6 and NONROAD emission models. New emissions data for both the base year (attainment year) and the projected years (2005 and 2015) are calculated. Also, updated MVEB in support of the transportation conformity process, are defined for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) for the county. The updated budgets for 2005 replace previous MVEB contained in the first maintenance plan, which were based on an older emissions estimate using MOBILE5 emission factors for on-road motor vehicles. Additionally, this maintenance plan update provides new MVEB for the year 2015. EPA has determined that the MVEB in the SIP are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. The availability of the SIP with MVEB for 2015 was placed on EPA's adequacy web page on January 7, 2003. No request for this SIP submittal or adverse comments were received by the end of the public comment period on February 7, 2003. In this action, EPA finds the 2015 MVEB adequate for transportation conformity, and is proposing to approve the MVEB for 2005 and 2015. Note, since the 2005 MVEB are replacing existing MVEB, these budgets are not subject to EPA's Adequacy process.

On December 20, 2002, the FDEP submitted revisions to Florida State's Implementation Plan for the new ten- year maintenance plan to provide a 10-year extension to the maintenance plan as required by section 175A(b) of the CAA as amended in 1990. The underlying strategy of the maintenance plan is to maintain compliance with the 1-hour ozone standard by assuring that current and future emissions of VOC and NO X remain at or below attainment year emission levels. The estimated emissions of ozone precursors ( i.e. ,VOC and NO X ) for the Jacksonville Area during the 1990 ozone season are provided in the following table.

Section 176(c) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c), states that transportation plans, programs, and projects must conform to an approved implementation plan. Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93, subpart T, the Transportation Conformity Rule, § 51.456(b), a specific emissions budget is defined for VOC and NO X for the Jacksonville area. The MVEB, based on the on-road mobile sources, are to be used by the local metropolitan planning organizations and transportation authorities to assure that transportation plans, programs, and projects are consistent with, and conform to, the long term maintenance of acceptable air quality in the Jacksonville Area.

The MVEB are defined for the county, for 2005 and 2015, in the state's submittal. The values, for both years, are equal to the 2005 on-road mobile source projected level of emissions plus a buffer of 24 percent. This buffer, which is an allocation from the safety margin, accounts for uncertainty in the projections and is available because of significant reductions of VOC and NO X that have occurred, and are projected to occur, primarily from mobile sources. The MVEB are constrained in each of the budget years to assure that the total emissions ( i.e. , all source categories) do not exceed the 1990 attainment year emissions. In no case are the projected total emissions ( i.e. , all source categories and including the allocation from the safety margin to the on-road mobile source category), for any year, greater than the attainment year emissions totals for either VOC or NO X . Under 40 CFR 93.101 the term safety margin is the difference between the attainment level (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met the air quality health standard. The safety margin credit can be allocated to the transportation sector, however the total emission level must stay below the attainment level. The following table defines the MVEB for Jacksonville Area.

For the year 2005, the safety margin was 82 tpd for VOC and 24.2 tpd for NO X . After partial allocation of the safety margin to the MVEB, the remaining safety margins are 73.7 tpd for VOC and 10.4 tpd for NO X . In 2015, the safety margin was 92.4 tpd for VOC and 46.5 tpd for NO X . After partial allocation of the safety margin to the MVEB, the remaining safety margins are now 68.7 tpd for VOC and 0.3 tpd for NO X .

EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the State of Florida SIP because they are consistent with the CAA and EPA policy. The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective September 22, 2003 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by August 21, 2003.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on September 22, 2003 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 22, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2).)

Throughout this document wherever “we”, “us”, or “our” are used we mean the Environmental Protection Agency.

In this action, we are approving a change in the legal designation of the Fort Collins area from nonattainment for CO to attainment, we're approving the maintenance plan that is designed to keep the area in attainment for CO for the next 13 years, we're approving changes to the State's Regulation No. 11 for the implementation of motor vehicle emissions inspections, and we're approving changes to the State's Regulation No. 13 for the implementation of the wintertime oxygenated fuels program.

We originally designated Fort Collins as nonattainment for CO under the provisions of the 1977 CAA Amendments ( see 43 FR 8962, March 3, 1978). On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted (Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q). Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), we designated the Fort Collins area as nonattainment for CO because the area had been designated as nonattainment before November 15, 1990. Under section 186 of the CAA, Fort Collins was classified as a “moderate” CO nonattainment area with a design value less than or equal to 12.7 parts per million (ppm), and was required to attain the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995. See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991. Further information regarding this classification and the accompanying requirements are described in the “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.” See 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992.

Under the CAA, we can change designations if acceptable data are available and if certain other requirements are met. See CAA section 107(d)(3)(D). Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may not promulgate a redesignation of a nonattainment area to attainment unless:

(i) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the national ambient air quality standard;

(ii) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under CAA section 110(k);

(iii) The Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions;

(iv) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A; and,

(v) the State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.

Before we can approve the redesignation request, we must decide that all applicable SIP elements have been fully approved. Approval of the applicable SIP elements may occur simultaneously with final approval of the redesignation request. That's why we are also approving the revisions to Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13.

Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of revisions to a SIP. The CAA requires States to observe certain procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to us. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur prior to the revision being submitted by a State to us.

The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) held a public hearing for the Fort Collins CO redesignation request, the maintenance plan, and the revisions to Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 on July 18, 2002. The AQCC adopted the redesignation request, maintenance plan, and revisions to Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 directly after the hearing. These SIP revisions became State effective September 30, 2002, and were submitted by the Governor to us on August 9, 2002.

We have evaluated the Governor's submittal and have concluded that the State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. As required by section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, we reviewed these SIP materials for conformance with the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V and determined that the Governor's submittal was administratively and technically complete. Our completeness determination was sent on October 11, 2002, through a letter from Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, to Governor Bill Owens.

We have reviewed the Fort Collins CO redesignation request and maintenance plan and believe that approval of the request is warranted, consistent with the requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). The following are descriptions of how the section 107(d)(3)(E) requirements are being addressed.

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA states that for an area to be redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS. As described in 40 CFR 50.8, the national primary ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide are 9 parts per million (10 milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8-hour average concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year, and 35 parts per million (40 milligrams per cubic meter) for a 1-hour average concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year. 40 CFR 50.8 continues by stating that the levels of CO in the ambient air shall be measured by a reference method based on 40 CFR part 50, Appendix C and designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or an equivalent method designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53. Attainment of the CO standards is not a momentary phenomenon based on short-term data. Instead, we consider an area to be in attainment if each of the CO ambient air quality monitors in the area doesn't have more than one exceedance of the relevant CO standard over a one-year period. 40 CFR 50.8 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix C. If any monitor in the area's CO monitoring network records more than one exceedance of the relevant CO standard during a one-year calendar period, then the area is in violation of the CO NAAQS. In addition, our interpretation of the CAA and EPA national policy  1 has been that an area seeking redesignation to attainment must show attainment of the CO NAAQS for at least a continuous two-year calendar period. In addition, the area must also continue to show attainment through the date that we promulgate the redesignation in the Federal Register .

Colorado's CO redesignation request for the Fort Collins area is based on an analysis of quality assured ambient air quality monitoring data that are relevant to the redesignation request. As presented in Part II, Chapter 1, section B of the State's maintenance plan, ambient air quality monitoring data for consecutive calendar years 1992 through 2001 show a measured exceedance rate of the CO NAAQS of 1.0 or less per year, per monitor, in the Fort Collins nonattainment area  2 . All of these data were collected and analyzed as required by EPA ( see 40 CFR 50.8 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix C) and have been archived by the State in our Aerometric Information and Retrieval System (AIRS) national database. Further information on CO monitoring is presented in Part II, Chapter 1, section B of the maintenance plan and in the State's Technical Support Document (TSD). We have evaluated the ambient air quality data and have determined that the Fort Collins area has not violated the CO standard and continues to demonstrate attainment.

The Fort Collins nonattainment area has quality-assured data showing no violations of the CO NAAQS for 1992 and 1993 which are the years the State used to support the redesignation request. In addition, data from the most recent consecutive two-calendar-year period ( i.e. , 2000 and 2001) also show no violations. Therefore, we believe the Fort Collins area has met the first component for redesignation: Demonstration of attainment of the CO NAAQS. We note too that the State of Colorado has also committed, in the maintenance plan, to continue the necessary operation of the CO monitor in compliance with all applicable federal regulations and guidelines.

To be redesignated to attainment, section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires that an area must meet all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA. We interpret section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) to mean that for a redesignation to be approved by us, the State must meet all requirements that applied to the subject area prior to or at the time of the submission of a complete redesignation request. In our evaluation of a redesignation request, we don't need to consider other requirements of the CAA that became due after the date of the submission of a complete redesignation request.

On December 12, 1983, we approved the Fort Collins CO element revisions to Colorado's SIP as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA ( see 48 FR 55284). In addition, we have analyzed the SIP elements that we are approving as part of this action and we have determined they comply with the relevant requirements of section 110(a)(2).

The Fort Collins CO element of the Colorado SIP, that we approved on December 12, 1983 (48 FR 55284), was based on emission reductions from the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), Automobile Inspection and Readjustment Program, Improved Public Transit, and Traffic Flow Improvements. The anticipated date for attaining the 8-hour CO NAAQS was December 31, 1987.

Through a letter dated May 26, 1988, we notified the Governor of Colorado that the Fort Collins area did not attain the CO NAAQS by the end of 1987. This letter stated that Colorado was to address deficiencies in the SIP and that the State would also have to address requirements in our forthcoming post-1987 policy for carbon monoxide.

EPA did not finalize its post-1987 policy for carbon monoxide because the Clean Air Act (CAA) was amended on November 15, 1990. Fort Collins was designated nonattainment for CO and was required to attain the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995. See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991.

Before the Fort Collins “moderate” CO nonattainment area may be redesignated to attainment, the State must have fulfilled the applicable requirements of part D. Under part D, an area's classification indicates the requirements to which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas, whether classified or nonclassifiable. Subpart 3 of part D contains specific provisions for “moderate” CO nonattainment areas.

The relevant subpart 1 requirements are contained in sections 172(c) and 176. Our General Preamble ( see 57 FR 13529 to 13532, April 16, 1992) provides EPA's interpretations of the CAA requirements for “moderate” CO areas that are less than or equal to 12.7 ppm.

The General Preamble ( see 57 FR 13530, et seq. ) provides that the applicable requirements of CAA section 172 are 172(c)(3) (emissions inventory), 172(c)(5)(new source review permitting program), 172(c)(7)(the section 110(a)(2) air quality monitoring requirements)), and 172(c)(9) (contingency measures). It is also worth noting that we interpreted the requirements of sections 172(c)(2) (reasonable further progress—RFP) and 172(c)(6)(other measures) as being irrelevant to a redesignation request because they only have meaning for an area that is not attaining the standard. See EPA's September 4, 1992, John Calcagni memorandum entitled, sbull I11“Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment”, and the General Preamble, 57 FR at 13564, dated April 16, 1992. Finally, the State has not sought to exercise the options that would trigger sections 172(c)(4)(identification of certain emissions increases) and 172(c)(8)(equivalent techniques). Thus, these provisions are also not relevant to this redesignation request.

Regarding the requirements of sections 172(c)(3)(inventory) and 172(c)(9)(contingency measures), please refer to our discussion below of sections 187(a)(1) and 187(a)(3), which are provisions of subpart 3 of Part D of the CAA that address the same requirements as sections 172(c)(3) and 172(c)(9).

For the section 172(c)(5) New Source Review (NSR) requirements, the CAA requires all nonattainment areas to meet several requirements regarding NSR, including provisions to ensure that increased emissions will not result from any new or modified stationary major sources and a general offset rule. The State of Colorado has a fully-approved NSR program (59 FR 42500, August 18, 1994) that meets the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(5). The State also has a fully approved Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program (59 FR 42500, August 18, 1994) that will apply after our approval of the redesignation to attainment.

For the CAA section 172(c)(7) provisions (compliance with the CAA section 110(a)(2) Air Quality Monitoring Requirements), our interpretations are presented in the General Preamble (57 FR 13535). CO nonattainment areas are to meet the “applicable” air quality monitoring requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.

Information concerning CO monitoring in Colorado is included in the Monitoring Network Review (MNR) prepared by the State and submitted to EPA. Our personnel have concurred with Colorado's annual network reviews and have agreed that the Fort Collins network remains adequate. In Part II, Chapter 2, section E. of the maintenance plan, the State commits to the continued operation of the existing CO monitor (along with the siting of a second CO monitor), according to all applicable Federal regulations and guidelines, currently and after the Fort Collins area is redesignated to attainment for CO.

Section 176 of the CAA contains requirements related to conformity. Although EPA's regulations ( see 40 CFR 51.396) require that states adopt transportation conformity provisions in their SIPs for areas designated nonattainment or subject to an EPA-approved maintenance plan, we have decided that a transportation conformity SIP is not an applicable requirement for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d) of the CAA. This decision is reflected in EPA's 1996 approval of the Boston carbon monoxide redesignation. ( See 61 FR 2918, January 30, 1996.)

The relevant subpart 3 provisions were created when the CAA was amended on November 15, 1990. The new CAA requirements for “moderate” CO areas, such as Fort Collins, required that the SIP be revised to include a 1990 base year emissions inventory (CAA section 187(a)(1)), contingency provisions (CAA section 187(a)(3)), corrections to existing motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs (CAA section 187(a)(4)), periodic emission inventories (CAA section 187(a)(5)), and the implementation of an oxygenated fuels program (CAA section 211(m)(1)). How the State met these requirements and our approvals, are described below:

A. 1990 base year emissions inventory (CAA section 187(a)(1)): The Governor submitted a 1990 base year emissions inventory for Fort Collins on December 31, 1992, with revisions being submitted on March 23, 1995. We approved this 1990 base year CO emissions inventory on December 23, 1996 (see 61 FR 67466).

B. Contingency provisions (CAA section 187(a)(3)): The Governor submitted a contingency measure, enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance, on February 18, 1994. We approved this contingency measure on December 23, 1997 ( see 62 FR 67006).

C. Corrections to the Fort Collins basic I/M program (CAA section 187(a)(4)): On January 14, 1994, and June 24, 1994, the Governor submitted revisions to the Colorado basic I/M program portion of its SIP which included the program in Fort Collins. We approved these basic I/M program revisions on March 19, 1996 ( see 61 FR 11149).

D. Periodic emissions inventories (CAA section 187(a)(5)): As the Governor did not submit a complete redesignation request and maintenance plan before September 30, 1995, a periodic emission inventory (for calendar year 1993) was required for Fort Collins. On September 16, 1997, the Governor submitted a SIP revision for a 1993 periodic emission inventory for Fort Collins. We approved this revision on July 15, 1998 (see 63 FR 38087). On May 10, 2000, the Governor submitted a subsequent 1996 periodic emission inventory for Fort Collins. We approved this revision on October 24, 2000 ( see 65 FR 63546).

E. Oxygenated fuels program implementation (CAA section 211(m)): To address the oxygenated fuels requirements of the CAA, the Governor initially submitted a revision to Colorado's Regulation No. 13 on November 27, 1992. We approved this revision on July 24, 1994 (see 59 FR 37698). Regulation 13 was again revised, to shorten the oxygenated fuels program season, and the Governor submitted further revisions to Regulation No. 13 on September 29, 1995, and December 22, 1995. We approved these revisions on March 10, 1997 ( see 62 FR 10690). The most recent changes by the State to Regulation No. 13 to shorten the oxygenated fuels program season, that affected the Fort Collins area, were submitted by the Governor on August 19, 1998, in conjunction with the Colorado Springs CO redesignation to attainment. We approved these revisions on August 25, 1999 ( see 64 FR 46279).

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA states that for an area to be redesignated to attainment, it must be determined that the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k).

As noted above, EPA previously approved SIP revisions for the Fort Collins CO nonattainment area that were required by the 1990 amendments to the CAA. In this action, we are also approving the maintenance plan and revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 and the State's commitment to maintain an adequate monitoring network (contained in the maintenance plan.) Thus, with this final rule to approve the Fort Collins redesignation request, maintenance plan, and revisions to Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13, we will have fully approved the Fort Collins CO element of the SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA.

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA provides that for an area to be redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must determine that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan, implementation of applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions.

The CO emissions reductions for Fort Collins, that are further described in Part II, Chapter 1, sections A.3 of the Fort Collins maintenance plan, were achieved primarily through the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), a basic motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, oxygenated fuels, and control of wood burning emissions.

In general, the FMVCP provisions require vehicle manufacturers to meet more stringent vehicle emission limitations for new vehicles in future years. These emission limitations are phased in (as a percentage of new vehicles manufactured) over a period of years. As new, lower emitting vehicles replace older, higher emitting vehicles (“fleet turnover”), emission reductions are realized for a particular area such as Fort Collins. For example, EPA promulgated lower hydrocarbon (HC) and CO exhaust emission standards in 1991, known as Tier I standards for new motor vehicles (light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks) in response to the 1990 CAA amendments. These Tier I emissions standards were phased in with 40% of the 1994 model year fleet, 80% of the 1995 model year fleet, and 100% of the 1996 model year fleet.

As stated in Part II, Chapter 1, section A.3 of the maintenance plan, significant additional emission reductions were realized from Fort Collins's basic I/M program. Colorado's Regulation No. 11, “Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program”, contains a full description of the requirements for the Fort Collins I/M program. The program requires biennial inspections of vehicles at independent inspection stations. We note that further improvements to the Fort Collins area's basic I/M program, to meet the requirements of EPA's November 5, 1992, (57 FR 52950) I/M rule, were approved by us into the SIP on March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11149).

Oxygenated fuels are gasolines that are blended with additives that increase the level of oxygen in the fuel and, consequently, reduce CO tailpipe emissions. Colorado's Regulation 13, “Oxygenated Fuels Program”, contains the oxygenated fuels provisions for the Fort Collins nonattainment area. Regulation 13 requires all Fort Collins-area gas stations to sell fuels containing a 2.7% minimum oxygen content (by weight) during the wintertime CO high pollution season. The use of oxygenated fuels has significantly reduced CO emissions and contributed to the area's attainment of the CO NAAQS.

Fort Collins has also been implementing the requirements of Colorado's Regulation No. 4 “New Wood Stoves and the use of Certain Woodburning Appliances During High Pollution Days.” Regulation No. 4 for Fort Collins requires all new wood burning stoves and fireplace inserts sold to meet both State and Federal emission control standards.

We have evaluated the various State and Federal control measures, the original 1990 base year emission inventory, and the 1993 and 1996 periodic emission inventories, and believe that the improvement in air quality in the Fort Collins nonattainment area has resulted from emission reductions that are permanent and enforceable.

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA provides that for an area to be redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must have fully approved a maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the promulgation of the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan that demonstrates continued attainment for the subsequent ten-year period following the initial ten-year maintenance period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures, with a schedule for adoption and implementation, that are adequate to assure prompt correction of a violation. In addition, we issued further maintenance plan interpretations in the “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992), “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Supplemental” (57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992), and the EPA guidance memorandum entitled “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment” from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, dated September 4, 1992 (hereafter the September 4, 1992 Calcagni Memorandum).

In this Federal Register action, EPA is approving the maintenance plan for the Fort Collins CO nonattainment area because we believe, as detailed below, that the State's maintenance plan submittal meets the requirements of section 175A and is consistent with our interpretations of the CAA, as reflected in the documents referenced above. Our analysis of the pertinent maintenance plan requirements, with reference to the Governor's August 9, 2002, submittal, is provided as follows:

EPA's interpretations of the CAA section 175A maintenance plan requirements are generally provided in the General Preamble (see 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) and the September 4, 1992, Calcagni Memorandum referenced above. Under our interpretations, areas seeking to redesignate to attainment for CO may demonstrate future maintenance of the CO NAAQS either by showing that future CO emissions will be equal to or less than the attainment year emissions or by providing a modeling demonstration. For the Fort Collins area, the State selected the emissions inventory approach for demonstrating maintenance of the CO NAAQS.

The maintenance plan that the Governor submitted on August 9, 2002, includes comprehensive inventories of CO emissions for the Fort Collins area. These inventories include emissions from stationary point sources, area sources, non-road mobile sources, and on-road mobile sources. The State selected 1992 as the year from which to develop the attainment year inventory and included interim-year projections out to 2015. More detailed descriptions of the 1992 attainment year inventory and the projected inventories are documented in the maintenance plan in Part II, Chapter 2, section A, Table 2 and Table 3, and in the State's TSD. The State's submittal contains detailed emission inventory information that was prepared in accordance with EPA guidance. Summary emission figures from the 1992 attainment year, the interim projected years, and the final maintenance year of 2015 are provided in Table III.-1 below.

As we noted above, total CO emissions were projected forward by the State for the years 1998, 2005, 2010, and 2015. We note the State's approach for developing the projected inventories follows EPA guidance on projected emissions and we believe they are acceptable. 3 The projected inventories show that CO emissions are not estimated to exceed the 1992 attainment level during the time period 1992 through 2015 and, therefore, the Fort Collins area has satisfactorily demonstrated maintenance.

We note in Table III-1 there are significant reductions projected in years 2005, 2010, and 2015 for area sources. The majority of the area source projected reductions are from the State's estimates for less woodburning in future years. We believe this projection of less woodburning is reasonable in view of the information provided in Attachment 3 of the State's TSD. Attachment 3 is entitled “Outdoor Air Quality Survey, Spring 2002, Report: City of Fort Collins” and includes survey data with special emphasis on woodburning and woodsmoke. Further information on these projected emissions may also be found in the State's TSD.

As described in Part II, Chapter 2, Section B, of the maintenance plan, as of January 1, 2004, the Basic I/M program (of Regulation No. 11) and the oxygenated fuels program (Regulation No. 13) will not be a part of the Federally enforceable SIP for the Fort Collins area. No CO emission reduction credit for these programs has been taken for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 in the maintenance demonstration. The mobile source emissions presented in Table III-1 also reflect the elimination of these programs for the Fort Collins area.

The State performed an analysis (Section of the State's TSD entitled Fort Collins Urban Growth Area Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Mobile Source Carbon Monoxide Emissions Inventories”) and determined that both the Basic I/M and the oxygenated fuels program could be eliminated for the Fort Collins area without jeopardizing maintenance of the CO NAAQS. This analysis was performed using EPA's MOBILE6 emission factor model and the latest transportation and planning data from the North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council's (NFRTAQPC) 2025 transportation plan. The methodology and analysis were reviewed by us and we have determined they are acceptable. The results of the modeling were presented in the revised maintenance plan's “Table 2.”, and are also included in our Table III-1 above. Based on our review of the State's analysis, we agree that the Fort Collins area continues to demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS and we approve the elimination of the Basic I/M program and oxygenated fuels program for Larimer County and the Fort Collins area.

Continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in the Fort Collins area depends, in part, on the State's efforts to track indicators throughout the maintenance period. This requirement is met in two sections of the Fort Collins CO maintenance plan; Part II, Chapter 2, sections E and F.2.

In Part II, Chapter 2, section E the State commits to continue the operation of the CO monitor (in Section E, the State commits to site a second CO monitor) in the Fort Collins area and to annually review this monitoring network and make changes as appropriate.

In Part II, Chapter 2, section F.2, the State commits to track mobile sources' CO emissions (which are the largest component of the inventories) through the ongoing regional transportation planning process that is done by NFRTAQPC in coordination with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (APCD), the AQCC, and EPA.

Based on the above, we are approving these commitments as satisfying the relevant requirements and we note that this final rulemaking approval will render the State's commitments federally enforceable.

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include contingency provisions. To meet this requirement, the State has identified appropriate contingency measures along with a schedule for the development and implementation of such measures.

As stated in Part II, Chapter 2, section F of the maintenance plan, the contingency measures for the Fort Collins area will be triggered by a violation of the CO NAAQS. (However, the maintenance plan does note that an exceedance of the CO NAAQS may initiate a voluntary, local process by the NFRTAQPC and APCD to identify and evaluate potential contingency measures.)

The APCD, in coordination with the NFRTAQPC and AQCC, will initiate a subcommittee process to begin evaluating potential contingency measures no more than 60 days after being notified by the APCD that a violation of the CO NAAQS has occurred. The subcommittee will present recommendations to the NFRTAQPC and APCD within 120 days of notification and the NFRTAQPC and APCD will present recommended contingency measures to the AQCC within 180 days of notification. The AQCC will then hold a public hearing to consider the contingency measures recommended by the NFRTAQPC and APCD, along with any other contingency measures that the AQCC believes may be appropriate to effectively address the violation of the CO NAAQS. The necessary contingency measures will be adopted and implemented within one year after the violation occurs.

The potential contingency measures are identified in Part II, Chapter 2, section F, of the Fort Collins CO maintenance plan. As required by section 175A(d) of the CAA, these include all measures that were part of the nonattainment area plan that have been removed from the SIP as part of the redesignation—in this case, the Basic I/M program as it appeared in Regulation No. 11 prior to July 18, 2002, with the addition of any on-board diagnostics components as required by Federal law, and the oxygenated fuels program as it appeared in Regulation No. 13 prior to July 18, 2002. In addition, the maintenance plan mentions the following as other possible contingency measures: An enhanced I/M program, transportation control measures, and mandatory woodburning restrictions. The maintenance plan indicates that the State may evaluate other potential strategies to address any future violations in the most appropriate and effective manner possible.

Based on the above, we find that the contingency measures provided in the State's Fort Collins CO maintenance plan are sufficient and meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA.

In accordance with section 175A(b) of the CAA, Colorado has committed to submit a revised maintenance plan eight years after our approval of the redesignation. This provision for revising the maintenance plan is contained in Part II, Chapter 2, section G of the Fort Collins CO maintenance plan.

With the CAA Amendments of 1990, the Fort Collins area was designated nonattainment for CO and classified as “moderate” ( see 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). As the Fort Collins area was designated nonattainment for CO, the nonattainment plan provisions of CAA section 172 (among other sections of the CAA) applied. Among other requirements, CAA section 172(c)(9) required mandatory contingency measures that were to go automatically into place should the area not attain the CO standard by its prescribed attainment date of December 31, 1995. In response to this requirement, the Governor submitted a SIP revision on February 18, 1994, that included an enhanced I/M program as the identified contingency measure. We approved this contingency measure, as meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, on December 23, 1997 ( see 62 FR 67006).

As the Fort Collins CO nonattainment area attained the CO standard before December 31, 1995, this contingency measure was never implemented and is no longer necessary. Should the Fort Collins area violate the CO standard after being Federally redesignated to attainment, the contingency measures identified in Part II, Chapter 2, section F, and their implementation mechanism, are considered by us to be sufficient. Therefore, we are removing the identified contingency measure from the SIP that we had previously approved on December 23, 1997 ( see 62 FR 67006).

One key provision of our conformity regulation requires a demonstration that emissions from the transportation plan and Transportation Improvement Program are consistent with the emissions budget(s) in the SIP (40 CFR sections 93.118 and 93.124). The emissions budget is defined as the level of mobile source emissions relied upon in the attainment or maintenance demonstration to maintain compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area. The rule's requirements and EPA's policy on emissions budgets are found in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62193-96) and in the sections of the rule referenced above.

Part II, Chapter 2, section D and Table 4 of the maintenance plan define the CO motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Fort Collins CO attainment/maintenance area as 99 tons per day for 2005 through 2009, 98 tons per day for 2010 through 2014, and 94 tons per day for 2015 and beyond.

The transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets were derived by taking the difference between the attainment year (1992) total emissions and the projected future years' total emissions. This difference is the “safety margin,” part or all of which may be added to projected mobile sources CO emissions to arrive at a motor vehicle emissions budget to be used for transportation conformity purposes. The safety margins, less one ton per day, were added to projected mobile sources CO emissions for 2005, 2010, and 2015. The derivation and determination of safety margins and motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Fort Collins CO maintenance plan is further illustrated in Table IV-1 below and in Part II, Chapter 2, Table 4 of the maintenance plan:

Our analysis indicates that the above figures are consistent with maintenance of the CO NAAQS throughout the maintenance period. Therefore, we are approving the 99 tons per day for 2005 through 2009, 98 tons per day for 2010 through 2014, and 94 tons per day for 2015 and beyond, CO emissions budgets for the Fort Collins area.

Pursuant to section 93.118(e)(4) of EPA's transportation conformity rule, as amended, EPA must determine the adequacy of submitted mobile source emissions budgets. EPA reviewed the Fort Collins CO budgets for adequacy using the criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and determined that the budgets were adequate for conformity purposes. EPA's adequacy determination was made in a letter to the Colorado APCD on January 15, 2003, and was announced in the Federal Register on February 4, 2003 (68 FR 5638). As a result of this adequacy finding, the budgets took effect for conformity determinations in the Fort Collins area on February 19, 2003. However, we are not bound by that determination in acting on the maintenance plan.

In addition to the above, the State has made a commitment regarding transportation conformity, in Part II, Chapter 2, section D of the maintenance plan. Because informal roll-forward analyses, prepared by the State, indicate that the 2015 CO emissions budget may be exceeded by 2030, the State has committed to the re-implementation of the Basic I/M program (with any Federally required on-board diagnostic tests) for the Fort Collins area in 2026. This commitment by the State is included in the maintenance plan for purposes of 40 CFR 93.122(a)(3)(iii), which provides that emissions reduction credit from such programs may be included in the transportation conformity emissions analysis if the maintenance plan contains such a written commitment. We agree with this interpretation of 40 CFR 93.122(a)(3)(iii) and are making this State commitment Federally enforceable with our approval of the Fort Collins CO maintenance plan.

Colorado's Regulation No. 11 is entitled “Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program”. In developing the Fort Collins CO maintenance plan, the State evaluated a number of options for revising the current motor vehicle emissions inspection program. The final decision, based on the use of our Mobile6 emission factor model, was to eliminate the Basic I/M program from the Federal SIP beginning on January 1, 2004. A description of the State's process for the evaluation of potential options for Regulation No. 11 is found in Part I, Chapter 2, section B of the Governor's submittal. We note that Part I, Chapter 2 is only for informational purposes and was not submitted as a revision to the SIP. Part II, Chapter 2, is the maintenance plan that we are approving and it reflects the AQCC-adopted revisions, as an amendment to the SIP, to Regulation No. 11. These revisions to Regulation No. 11 were submitted, as a separate revision to the SIP, for our approval in conjunction with redesignation request and maintenance plan.

The revisions adopted by the AQCC on July 18, 2002, and submitted by the Governor on August 9, 2002, remove the Fort Collins area component of the Colorado automobile inspection and maintenance program (“AIR Program”) from the Federally-approved SIP, but does not make any change in the State laws implementing the program. This means that the “AIR Program” for the implementation of the Basic I/M program will remain in full force and effect as a State-only program under State laws, but it will not be Federally-enforceable after January 1, 2004. The maintenance plan reflects this change in Regulation No. 11 in that the mobile source CO emissions were calculated without the CO emissions reduction benefit of a Basic I/M program starting in 2004 and continuing through 2015. We note that even with the elimination of the Basic I/M program and the elimination of the Oxygenated Fuels Program, discussed below, for the Fort Collins area beginning on January 1, 2004, the area was still able to meet our requirements to demonstrate maintenance of the CO standard through 2015.

We have reviewed and are approving these State-adopted changes to Regulation No. 11.

Colorado's Regulation No. 13 is entitled “Oxygenated Fuels Program” (hereafter referred to as Regulation No. 13). The purpose of this regulation is to reduce CO emissions from gasoline powered motor vehicles in the Fort Collins area through the wintertime use of oxygenated gasolines. Section 211(m) of the CAA originally required the State to implement an oxygenated fuels program in the Fort Collins area. Section 211(m) states that the oxygenated fuels program must cover no less than a four month period each year unless EPA approves a shorter period. We can approve a shorter implementation period if a State submits a demonstration that a reduced implementation period will still assure that there will be no exceedances of the CO NAAQS outside of this reduced period. This was done previously when we approved revisions to Regulation No. 13 for the Denver area that shortened the oxygenated fuels season and oxygenate content ( see 62 FR 10690, March 10, 1997 and 64 FR 46279, August 25, 1999). When an area is redesignated to attainment, the oxygenated fuels program may be further shortened or eliminated entirely as long as the State is able to show the program is not needed to demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS ( see 65 FR 80779, December 22, 2000).

In developing the Fort Collins CO maintenance plan, the State evaluated options for revising the current oxygenated gasoline program. A description of the State's process for the evaluation of potential options for Regulation No. 13 is found in Part I, Chapter 2, section B of the Governor's August 9, 2002, submittal. We note that Part I, Chapter 2 is only for informational purposes and was not submitted as a revision to the SIP. Part II, Chapter 2, is the maintenance plan that we are approving and it reflects the AQCC-adopted revisions, as an amendment to the SIP, to Regulation No. 13. These revisions to Regulation No. 13 were submitted, as a separate revision to the SIP, for our approval in conjunction with the redesignation request and maintenance plan.

The current EPA-approved oxygenated gasoline program for the Fort Collins area has the following three requirements: (1) The control period is from November 1st through February 7th of each winter season, (2) an oxygen content of at least 2.0% by weight is required from November 1st through November 7th, (3) and an oxygen content of at least 2.7% by weight is required from November 8th through February 7th.

In conjunction with the submittal of the Fort Collins CO maintenance plan, the State of Colorado is seeking EPA's approval of revisions to Regulation No. 13 that would eliminate the oxygenated fuels program for the Fort Collins area beginning on January 1, 2004.

As we discussed above, and as presented in Part II, Chapter 2, Table 2 of the maintenance plan, the removal of the CO emission reductions associated with the implementation of Regulation No. 13 were incorporated by the State into the emission projections, using our Mobile6 emissions model, beginning in 2004 and were projected through the final maintenance year of 2015. Even with the elimination of both Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 for the Fort Collins area starting in 2004, maintenance of the CO NAAQS was successfully demonstrated.

In addition to the revision noted above for the Fort Collins area, the State made several other minor changes to Regulation No. 13 that were also adopted by the AQCC at the July 18, 2002, public hearing. These changes involved: (1) Section I.D.—the deletion of several out-dated definitions and the addition of necessary definitions for the newly-created Broomfield County, (2) section II. A.—Greeley changes and the addition of Broomfield County, (3) sections II. B and II. C.—the deletion of the previous Denver area's maximum blending requirement, (4) section II. D.—, the removal of the obsolete “Pre-Program Registration Requirements” (dating from 1995) for the Denver area, and (5) section III. G.—changes to the State's “Statement of Basis and Purpose”. We note, though, EPA does not Federally approve the State's “Statement of Basis and Purpose.”

We have reviewed these changes to Regulation No. 13, that the State adopted on July 18, 2002, and the Governor submitted on August 9, 2002. We are approving these revisions as they are consistent with maintenance of the CO NAAQS for the Fort Collins area and meet the requirements of section 211(m) of the CAA.

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. As stated above, the Fort Collins area has shown continuous attainment of the CO NAAQS since 1992 and has met the applicable Federal requirements for redesignation to attainment. The maintenance plan and associated SIP revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 will not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

In this action, EPA is approving the Fort Collins carbon monoxide redesignation request, maintenance plan, and the revisions to Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13.

EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective September 22, 2003 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by August 21, 2003.

If EPA receives such comments, then we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on September 22, 2003 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , OMB must approve all “collections of information” by EPA. The act defines collection of information” as a requirement for “answers to identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons” 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply as this rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. )

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the SIP final approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. , v. U.S. EPA , 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). Redesignation of an area to attainment under sections 107(d)(3)(D) and (E) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements. Redesignation to attainment is an action that affects the legal designation of a geographical area and does not impose any regulatory requirements. Therefore, because the final approval of the redesignation does not create any new requirements, I certify that the final approval of the redesignation request will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (”Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. In addition, redesignation of an area to attainment under sections 107(d)(3)(D) and (E) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.”

This final rule does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It 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. This action does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

This 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)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). This rule will be effective September 22, 2003 unless EPA receives adverse written comments by August 21, 2003.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 22, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act.))

EPA's removal of this immediate final rule is based on the Agency receiving written comments that opposed this authorization. The EPA is removing the immediate final rule, Texas: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions, published on April 15, 2003, at 68 FR 18126, which authorized changes to Texas' hazardous waste rules. EPA stated in the immediate final rule that if EPA received written comments that opposed this authorization during the comment period, EPA would publish a timely notice of withdrawal in the Federal Register . The immediate final rule became effective June 16, 2003. However, since EPA received comments that opposed this action, EPA is today removing the immediate final rule. EPA will address the comments received during the comment period in a subsequent final action.

The Federal Maritime Commission initiated this proceeding by a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPR”) published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2003, 68 FR 15978. The NPR solicited comment on the proposed rule from the public. Three comments were received. Comments were submitted by Distribution-Publications, Inc. (“DPI”) and Pacific Coast Tariff Bureau (“PCTB”), both tariff publishers. Attorney Howard Levy also filed a comment.

All of the comments were generally supportive of the proposed rule. Both tariff publishers endorsed the scope of errors to be corrected under the rule. The comments of DPI specifically noted that the 48-hour window to correct electronic transmission errors in service contract filings is the right amount of time for the correction process. The comments of PCTB also included a suggestion that the SERVCON system should be altered further to reintroduce the ability of a filer to completely withdraw a filed service contract or amendment that contains erroneous matter.

Section 8(c) of the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (“OSRA”), 46 U.S.C. app. 1707(c), and the Commission's current service contract regulations, 46 CFR part 530, subpart A, require service contracts between shippers and ocean common carriers in the foreign commerce of the United States to be filed electronically with the Commission on a confidential basis. Only an “authorized person,” as defined in 46 CFR 530.3(c), can access the confidential section of the Commission's electronic service contract filing system, SERVCON, available via the Commission's website. Some carriers use individual employees as the authorized person to file their service contracts; however, the majority of carriers authorize third parties to make their service contract filings. The filings may consist of an original service contract or an amendment to an existing service contract.

Current regulations provide for the amendment, correction, and cancellation of service contract filings (46 CFR 530.10). This final rule will provide filers the ability to correct purely electronic “transmission errors” made when filing either the original service contract or an amendment to a service contract into SERVCON, or errors made in the process of converting the service contract filing into electronic format for submission to the SERVCON system.

Under this final rule only errors resulting from electronic transmission and data conversion for SERVCON format may be corrected. Examples of substantive service contract changes that are not permitted under the new 46 CFR 530.10(d) are: Change of rates; deletion of a port or point to be served or a commodity to be carried under the contract; addition or deletion of a shipper entitled to access the service contract; and modification of the duration or minimum quantity commitment of the contract. This is not an exhaustive list, but instead serves as a specific example for general guidance. These and other similar types of changes should continue to be made as “amendments” under 46 CFR 530.10(b) or, if retroactivity is deemed necessary, by filing a request for permission to correct a clerical or administrative error in the terms of a filed service contract under 46 CFR 530.10(c).

Corrections to an initial filing are allowed within 48 hours from the time and date of receipt recorded in SERVCON (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal public holidays). For example, an initial filing received at 5 p.m. on a Friday must be corrected before 5 p.m. the following Tuesday. The SERVCON system currently has and will continue to have the ability to identify such corrected service contract filings. The Bureau of Trade Analysis will monitor the use of the correction process; any abuse of the limited permission in the rule would be considered a violation of the Commission's regulations.

Under this new rule, the SERVCON system will be modified to accept only corrected service contracts that the filer identifies as such and for which the filer provides a description of the changes being made by the correction process. A new field will be added to the online filing system as a checkbox for the filer to identify the submission as a corrected service contract. If the filer fails to use this new checkbox, the contract will be rejected because the SERVCON system will not accept service contracts that have duplicate file names or service contract or amendment numbers. The system also will flag resubmitted contracts and will give a unique internal file name to the corrected transmission for FMC monitoring purposes. A new separate SERVCON field for filers to enter a description of the corrections being made will be provided.

The Commission has determined that it will not add a “withdrawal” function to the final rule as recommended by PCTB. The Commission's previous Automated Tariff Filing and Information (“ATFI”) system did have a “withdrawal” function that permitted a filer to withdraw a service contract filing containing erroneous matter on the same date that it was filed and allowed the re-filing of the appropriate copy. That “withdrawal” function was eliminated when the ATFI system was discontinued September 30, 1999. Presumably, filers have been accomplishing any needed “withdrawals” of service contracts by filing an amendment to cancel an unintentionally filed document, which is permitted under 46 CFR 530.10(b). Therefore, even though the final rule does not permit reuse of the service contract number and file name, or the complete withdrawal of an unintended contract filing as suggested by PCTB, the Commission does not believe it is necessary to add a separate “withdrawal” feature to the SERVCON system. The 48-hour window to correct a transmission error contained in the final rule, 46 CFR 530.10(d), adequately provides an opportunity for filers to address erroneous service contract filings. For example, under the final rule the SERVCON system will accept a correction via the Corrected Transmission (“CT”) function to allow an erroneous service contract number, organization number, or document file name on an initial contract filing to be corrected.

This is a summary of the Commission's Order on Reconsideration, FCC 03-139 in CC Docket No. 96-262, adopted on June 19, 2003 and released on June 25, 2003. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the FCC's copy contractor, Qualex International, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402 Washington, DC 20554. The full text also may be downloaded at http://www.fcc.gov. Introduction. On July 21, 2000, One Call Communications, Inc. d/b/a Opticom (“One Call”) filed a petition for reconsideration and clarification of the Commission's CALLS Order. See Access Charge Reform, CC Docket No. 96-262, Sixth Report and Order in CC Docket Nos. 96-262 and 94-1, Report and Order in CC Docket No. 99-249, Eleventh Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-45, 65 FR 38684, June 21, 2000. In its petition, One Call sought to apply to payphone lines the common line cost recovery mechanism for single-line business and residential subscriber lines established in the CALLS Order, rather than the cost recovery mechanism applicable to multi-line business lines. In this document, the Commission grants One Call's request to reconsider the treatment of payphone lines under the Commission's access charge rules. Specifically, the Commission adopts a rule exempting payphone lines from the PICC, and the Commission denies One Call's request that payphone lines be treated as single-line business lines for purposes of assessment of the SLC.

The PICC for Payphone Lines. The Commission finds that payphone lines should be exempt from the PICC. In furtherance of section 276(a), the Commission has determined that payphone line rates should be set according to the cost-based new services test. See 47 U.S.C. 276(a) (1) and the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket 96-128, Report and Order, 61 FR 52307, October 7, 1996. The multi-line business PICC, however, does not recover the costs of the lines on which it is assessed. Rather, it recovers revenues that would be recovered through charges on residential and single-line business lines, if those charges were not capped. Thus, because the PICC is not cost-based, it does not comply with the new services test.

The Commission notes that, in adopting section 276(b), Congress desired to “promote the widespread deployment of payphone services to the general public.” See 47 U.S.C. 276(b)(1). The Commission believes that this is consistent with a universal service function that payphones provide to those who cannot otherwise afford telephone service. The Commission concludes that it is bad policy to impose a non-cost-based charge, such as the PICC, on payphone lines because doing so may limit the deployment of payphone services that serve these important functions. Given Congress's stated intent to preserve the availability of payphones, the universal service functions payphones provide, and that the PICC does not reflect costs incurred for the provision of payphone service, the Commission finds it desirable to exempt payphone lines from the PICC. Although the Commission's Order establishes that payphone lines are exempted from the PICC on a going-forward basis, the Commission makes no finding with respect to the application of PICCs to payphone lines prior to the effective date of the Order.

Therefore, price cap LECs that still assess the PICC on multi-line business lines must adjust their rates in their next annual access tariff filings to reflect that the PICC no longer applies to payphone lines. Price cap LECs may recover the revenue previously recovered through assessing the PICC on payphone lines by adjusting their multi-line business PICCs. To the extent the PICC cap prevents such recovery, price cap LECs may recover the revenue shortfall through Carrier Common Line Charges (CCLCs).

The Appropriate SLC for Payphone Lines . The Commission rejects One Call's proposal that payphone lines be treated as single-line business lines for the purpose of assessing the SLC. Although the multi-line business PICC represents a subsidy flowing from multi-line business lines to residential and single-line business lines, the multi-line business SLC is a cost-based charge. The SLCs are the primary method by which incumbent LECs recover their interstate common line costs, and the SLC caps ensure that the SLCs never recover more than the carrier's per-line permitted revenues. See 47 CFR 69.152(d), (e) and (k). Moreover, the Commission's rules prevent a LEC from subsidizing one class of customers through the SLCs assessed on another class of customers. See id. Thus, the assessment of multi-line business line SLCs on payphone lines does not result in any subsidy to other lines. In addition, to prevent a BOC from overrecovering its costs for a payphone line, the BOC must reduce the monthly per-line charge for payphone lines determined in a state proceeding under the new services test by the amount of the SLC. If the Commission were to treat payphone lines as single-line business lines, however, the amount by which a LEC's per-line revenue requirement exceeds the single-line business line SLC cap, which is lower than the multi-line business SLC cap, would then need to be recovered through increased PICCs on multi-line businesses. This would result in multi-line business lines subsidizing LEC-owned payphone lines in contravention of the mandate of section 276(a) against such subsidization. See 47 U.S.C. 276(a)(1).

Final Regulatory Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). See 15 U.S.C. 632.

The CALLS Order revised the Commission's system of common line access charges by increasing the residential and single-line business line SLC, while simultaneously eliminating the PICC for these lines. The CALLS Order also required annual reductions in traffic sensitive switching and trunking access rates until they reached a specified level. In addition, the CALLS Order also established an interstate access universal support mechanism that provides explicit support to replace support that was implicit in interstate access charges.

This document responds to a petition for reconsideration that sought, for payphone lines, the application of the common line cost recovery mechanism for residential and single-line business lines established in the CALLS Order, rather than the cost recovery mechanism applicable to multi-line business lines. This document grants the petition insofar as it sought the elimination of the PICC for payphone lines, and denies the request that payphone lines be subject to the SLC applicable to single-line business and residential lines. The rule revision will result in a positive net impact on small entities, in that operator service providers will no longer be assessed the PICC on payphone lines. In addition, because small and rural incumbent price cap LECs will be able to increase their PICCs or common line carrier charges to offset the reduction in the number of lines being assessed the PICC revenue, their overall common line revenues will not be affected. Thus, the Commission expects that the rule revision will have a de minimis impact on these affected small entities. Therefore, the Commission certifies that the requirements of the document will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Commission will send a copy of the document, including a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the document (or summary thereof) and this final certification will be published in the Federal Register , and will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

Paperwork Reduction Analysis. The action contained herein has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and it contains no new or modified information collections subject to Office of Management and Budget review.

Ordering Clauses. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201-209, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 201-209, and 276, this Order and Order on Reconsideration is adopted. One Call's Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification is granted to the extent indicated herein and otherwise is denied. The Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. The provisions of this Order shall be effective on October 1, 2003.

This is a synopsis of the Report and Order (“ R&O ”) in MM Docket No. 02-113, FCC 02-150, adopted April 4, 2003, and released April 16, 2003. The complete text of this R&O is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC and may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The R&O is also available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov.

1. The Commission has adopted this R&O announcing its policy to be followed when requests to extend digital television (DTV) construction deadlines are denied. The Commission announced a set of graduated sanctions that it will impose. Under the first step of its approach, the Commission will deny the request for an unqualified extension and admonish the station for its failure to comply with its DTV construction obligation. The station will be required to submit a report within thirty (30) days outlining the steps it intends to take to complete construction and the approximate date that it expects to reach each of these construction milestones. Absent extraordinary and compelling circumstances, the construction completion date will be no later than six months from the date of admonishment. Sixty (60) days later, the station will be required to submit a report detailing its progress on meeting its proposed construction milestones and justifying any delays it has encountered. If at any time during this six month period, the station fails to demonstrate that it is taking all reasonable steps to complete construction or fails to justify the further delays it has encountered, or the Commission otherwise find that the licensee has acted in bad faith, the Commission will consider the imposition of additional sanctions including proceeding immediately to the second step.

2. Under the second step in the approach, if the station has not come into compliance with the DTV construction rule within the six month period, then, absent extraordinary and compelling circumstances, the Commission will impose further sanctions against the licensee. The Commission will issue a Notice of Apparent Liability for forfeiture to the licensee. It will require that the station report every thirty (30) days on its proposed construction milestones and its efforts to meet those milestones. Once again, failure to adequately demonstrate that the station was taking all reasonable steps towards construction and to justify any additional delays that were encountered, will result in the imposition of additional sanctions.

3. Under the third and final step in the approach, if the station still had failed to come into compliance with the DTV construction rule within an additional six-month period of time ( i.e. , one year from the date of the formal admonition), then, absent extraordinary and compelling circumstances, the Commission will consider its construction permit for its DTV facilities to have expired and will rescind the station's DTV authorization. The Commission concluded that no hearing was necessary prior to rescinding the station's DTV authorization. The Commission also concluded that it would not make the station's vacant DTV allotment available. The Commission also announced that the station will be required to surrender its analog authorization at the end of the DTV transition.

4. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 1 and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 67 FR 38459, June 4, 2002. 2 The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking including comment on the IRFA. The comments received are discussed below. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. 3

5. The Commission adopts these remedial measures to prevent undue delay in the required build out of DTV facilities.

6. New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc (NLEC) filed comments on the IRFA. NLEC complains that television stations will have to spend millions of dollars to comply with the DTV construction requirement. However, that matter was previously considered in the DTV rulemaking proceeding wherein the Commission adopted the DTV construction requirement and timetable. In the instant proceeding, the Commission only considered what steps to take when a station fails to meet its construction requirement. Therefore, NLEC's comments were not on point.

7. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 4 The RFA defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 5 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 6 A “small business” concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 7

8. The proposals in the R&O will affect only full-power television broadcasters. As of September 30, 2001, the Commission had licensed a total of 1,686 full-power television stations. 8 SBA defines television broadcasting establishments that have $12 million or less in annual receipts as a small business. 9 According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 906 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire year. 10 Of this total, 728 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 71 had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of the firms are considered small.

9. The R&O contains a new reporting requirement. Stations that fail to construct their DTV stations by the requisite deadline and fail to justify an extension of their DTV construction permit will fall into the remedial measures set forth in the document. Among the remedial measures, is the requirement that the station submit periodic reports detailing their efforts to comply with the extended DTV construction deadline. The reports will be filed in letter form with the Secretary's office.

10. 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 and 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. 11

11. The R&O contains remedial steps for failure of broadcast stations to comply with the DTV construction schedule. These steps are applied only after a station has failed to demonstrate this it qualifies for an extension of its schedule. The Commission's rules and policies already contain flexible measures for allowing stations in smaller markets to seek an extension of their DTV construction deadline. Those measures remain unchanged by the R&O.

12. One of the sanctions that may be used is the issuance of a notice of apparent liability for forfeiture to stations that do not comply with their DTV construction obligation. We already take small entity status, including potential inability to pay, into account when assessing the need for, and amount of, monetary forfeitures. 12

13. None.

14. The Commission will send a copy of the R&O , including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. 13 In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the R&O including this FRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the R&O and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register . 14

15. Authority. This R&O is issued pursuant to authority contained in sections 4(i), 303, and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, and 307, and section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

16. The Request for Reconsideration filed by Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., is denied.

17. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 303, 307, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 303, 307, 309, and 310, and section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, this R&O is adopted.

18. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this R&O , including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

This interim rule adds a new subpart at DFARS 207.70 to implement Section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Pub. L. 107-314). Section 801 added 10 U.S.C. 2308, which provides that DoD may acquire a higher quantity of an end item than the quantity specified in a law providing for the funding of the acquisition, if the agency head makes certain findings with regard to the acquisition.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. , because any additional quantities acquired as a result of this rule must be acquired without additional funding. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2002-D036.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to publish an interim rule prior to affording the public an opportunity to comment. This interim rule implements Section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Pub. L. 107-314), which authorizes DoD to acquire a higher quantity of an end item than the quantity specified in law, under certain conditions. Section 801 required issuance of final implementing regulations by April 1, 2003. Comments received in response to this interim rule will be considered in the formation of the final rule.

10 U.S.C. 2306c provides authority for DoD to enter into contracts for periods of not more than 5 years for certain services, and for items of supply related to those services, even though funds would otherwise be available for obligation only within the fiscal year for which appropriated. Such contracts are authorized if the head of the agency finds that (1) there will be a continuing requirement for the services consonant with current plans for the proposed contract period; (2) the furnishing of such services will require a substantial initial investment in plant or equipment, or the incurrence of substantial contingent liabilities for the assembly, training, or transportation of a specialized work force; and (3) the use of such a contract will promote the best interests of the United States by encouraging effective competition and promoting economies in operation. 10 U.S.C. 2306c is implemented at DFARS 217.171(a).

Section 827 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Pub. L. 107-314) amended 10 U.S.C. 2306c to add environmental remediation services for military installations to the types of services for which multiyear contracting is authorized. This interim rule amends DFARS 217.171(a), and adds a definition of “military installation” at DFARS 217.103, to implement Section 827.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. , because application of the rule is limited to contracts for environmental remediation services for military installations. In addition, before using the multiyear contracting authority provided by the rule, the head of the agency must determine that certain conditions exist, to include a determination that use of a multiyear contract will promote the best interests of the United States by encouraging effective competition and promoting economies in operations. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2003-D004.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to publish an interim rule prior to affording the public an opportunity to comment. This interim rule implements Section 827 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Pub. L. 107-314), which provides authority for DoD to enter into multiyear contracts for environmental remediation services for military installations. Section 827 became effective upon enactment on December 2, 2002. Comments received in response to this interim rule will be considered in the formation of the final rule.

In Executive Order 13149, “Greening the Government Through Federal Fleet and Transportation Efficiency”, section 505 requires Federal agencies to ensure that all Government-owned contractor-operated vehicles comply with all applicable goals and other requirements of the order. Section 302(c) requires agencies to collect data and report on performance in meeting the goals of the order, in accordance with requirements and guidance from the Department of Energy. In July 2000, the Department of Energy prepared the Guidance Document for Federal Agencies, as required by Executive Order 13149. Section 2-3 requires agencies to report data on Government-owned motor vehicle usage, using DOE's Federal Automotive Statistical Tool (FAST). FAST is accessed through http://fastweb.inel.gov/. Information required for FAST reporting must be obtained from contractors who have been authorized to obtain vehicles and related services pursuant to FAR paragraph 11.101(b)(1) and the new NFS 1811.101(b)(1) added under this interim rule.

This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This interim rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

NASA certifies that this interim rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , because fewer than 100 contracts awarded to both large and small businesses are affected.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13) applies because the changes contain recordkeeping or information collection requirements. The Office of Management and Budget approved this reporting requirement under OMB control number 2700-0106.

In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 418(d), NASA has determined that urgent and compelling reasons exist to promulgate this interim rule. The basis for this determination is that contractual reporting requirements contained in this interim rule are needed to ensure consistent reporting and an accurate baseline of Government vehicles beginning October 1, 2003. However, pursuant to Pub. L. 98-577 and FAR 1.501, NASA will consider public comments received in response to this interim rule in the formation of the final rule.

Under the Standard Time Act of 1918, as amended by the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260-64), the Secretary of Transportation has authority to issue regulations modifying the boundaries between time zones in the United States in order to move an area from one time zone to another. The standard in the statute for such decisions is “regard for the convenience of commerce and the existing junction points and division points of common carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.”

Time zone boundaries are set by regulation (49 CFR part 71). Currently, under regulation, the southeastern part of the county around Fort Yates is in the central time zone and the remainder of the county is in the mountain time zone. The area near Fort Yates has the greatest population, is the county seat, and has the greatest concentration of schools, businesses, medical facilities, houses of worship and recreational facilities. Areas to the south and east of the county observe central time. Morton County, which is north of Sioux County, is currently split between central and mountain time. Morton County has asked to be changed to central time and that request is currently pending before the Department. Grant County, which lies to the northwest and Adams County, which lies to the west, both observe mountain time.

The Standing Rock Indian Reservation is geographically located in both North and South Dakota and covers approximately 2.3 million acres. All of Sioux County is part of the reservation. The Standing Rock Sioux observe central time. Under the Uniform Time Act, as amended, the county is currently divided between central and mountain time for federal, state and county purposes.

In 2000, the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners for Sioux County asked the Department of Transportation to place the entire county on central time. A DOT representative informed the Standing Rock Sioux of this request by telephone and sent a letter to the Chairman of the Tribal Council. On September 27, 2000, a representative of DOT visited the county and met with a representative of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council to ascertain the Council's views on this request. The Tribal Representative explained that the tribe observed central time, had no plans to change that observance, and had no objection to the request of the Sioux County Board of County Commissioners.

On September 27, 2000, the DOT representative also held an informal public hearing at the Sioux County Courthouse to gather public views on this request. The hearing was widely advertised through local newspapers and radio and television stations. In addition, the public was invited to submit written comments to the Department on this possible change.

In addition to the County Commissioners and staff, one member of the public attended and presented testimony. The County Commissioners explained the inconvenience and confusion that resulted from the current time zone boundary. They outlined geographic and economic conditions in the area and explained how people and businesses in the county interacted with neighboring areas.

Frank Tomac, a resident living in western Sioux County, concurred with most of the arguments presented by the County Commissioners. He suggested, however, that the time zone boundary be placed at State Highway 31, rather than the western border of the county. Mr. Tomac noted that the western part of the county is rural and very sparsely populated. He noted that there is no road going east to west in this part of the county. Residents must either go into South Dakota or drive a considerable distance into Grant County to get to the eastern part of the county. Because of the proximity with the South Dakota border, Mr. Tomac noted that many of the public services in this area are provided in South Dakota. Other services are provided in Grant County, which is on mountain time. In response to his comments, the Commissioners decided to amend their request.

In a petition dated November 1, 2001, the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners for Sioux County asked the Department of Transportation to move the central portion of Sioux County, North Dakota, from the mountain time zone to the central time zone. In the petition, the Chairman asked:

In response to the Board's action, Mr. Tomac sent written comments reiterating his position and urging the Department to set the boundary at Highway 31. No other written comments have been filed to date in response to our invitation.

Under DOT procedures to change a time zone boundary, the Department will generally begin a rulemaking proceeding if the highest elected officials in the area make a prima facie case for the proposed change. DOT determined that the Resolution of the Chairman of the County Commissioners of Sioux County, ND made a prima facie case that warranted opening a proceeding to determine whether the change should be made. On September 17, 2002, DOT issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to make the requested change and inviting additional public comment. No comments were filed. We are, therefore, adopting the proposal without change.

As proposed in the NPRM, this change will go into effect during the next changeover from daylight saving time to standard time, which is on October 26, 2003.

This time zone proposal does not directly affect the observance of daylight saving time. Under the Uniform Time Act of 1966, as amended, the standard time of each time zone in the United States is advanced one hour from 2 a.m. on the first Sunday in April until 2:00 a.m. on the last Sunday in October, except in any State that has, by law, exempted itself from this observance.

This final 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. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11040; February 26, l979). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. The rule primarily affects the convenience of individuals in scheduling activities. By itself, it imposes no direct costs. Its impact is localized in nature.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we 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, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This rule will primarily affect individuals and their scheduling of activities. Although it will affect some small businesses, not-for-profits and, perhaps, several small governmental jurisdictions, it will not be a substantial number. In addition, the change should have little, if any, economic impact.

Therefore, the Office of the Secretary certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final 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 E.O. 12612 and have determined that this rule does not have sufficient implications for federalism to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and E.O. 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, (58 FR 58093; October 28, 1993) govern the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those costs. This final rule would not impose an unfunded mandate.

This final rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 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 rulemaking is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.

E.O. 13175 provides that government agencies consult with tribes on issues that impact the Indian community. The Department consulted with the Standing Rock Sioux before issuing the NPRM and during the comment period. We will notify the Tribe of this final rule.

Under the Uniform Time Act of 1918, as amended, (15 U.S.C. 260-264), either the Secretary of Transportation or Congress may move a time zone boundary in the United States. The current boundaries are set forth in regulations that are found in 49 CFR part 71.

DOT has issued guidance to communities concerning how to begin a rulemaking proceeding to change a time zone boundary. This guidance, which is non-binding, recommends that the highest governmental body representing the area affirmatively ask DOT to make the change. Depending on the area in question, the highest governmental body may be the town or county representatives, or the Governor or State legislature. We presume that this group represents the views of the community. We do not require that the community conduct a vote or referendum on this issue. We solicit the views of all interested parties, not just individuals and businesses in the affected area.

15 U.S.C. 261 states that the standard for making this decision is “regard for the convenience of commerce and the existing junction points and division points of common carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.” In order to determine what decision would support “the convenience of commerce,” the Department looks at a wide variety of factors about how the potential change would affect the community and surrounding areas.

Time zone boundaries were originally set up in the late 1800s. Although they were based on geographic considerations ( i.e. , the sun should be more or less overhead at noon), the exact boundary was set largely based on the convenience of commerce and the needs of the railroads. In addition, geographic boundaries, such as mountains and rivers, also play a role. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect variation in the time zone boundary alignment. In North Dakota, the western time zone boundary between central and mountain time extends to the North Dakota-Montana border in the north of the State near Williston and has largely followed natural boundaries such as Lake Sakakawea and the Missouri River. In recent years, however, there have been a number of requests by counties west of the river to change to central time. DOT changed Oliver County in 1992, and is currently considering requests from Sioux and Mercer Counties to move their time zone boundaries.

Currently, Morton County is one of the few counties in the United States split by a time zone boundary. The eastern portion of the county, which includes the county seat and largest city in the county (Mandan) is on central time. The western portion of the county, which is more rural, is on mountain time. The counties bordering Morton County are split between central and mountain time observance. Oliver County, Burleigh County (which includes the major city in the area, Bismarck), Emmons County, portions of Sioux County, and the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation all observe central time. Grant County, Hettinger County, Stark County, and Mercer County observe mountain time.

In a petition dated April 9, 2001, the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners for Morton County asked the Department of Transportation to move the western portion of Morton County, North Dakota, from the mountain time zone to the central time zone. In support of the petition, the Chairman noted the following factors:

On August 3, 2001, the Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking (66 FR 40666) announcing the proposed change and inviting public comment. A DOT representative conducted a hearing in New Salem, ND, on August 28, 2001. The hearing was attended by over 100 people and lasted several hours. The DOT representative tried to gauge the position of the attendees by an informal show of hands during the hearing. By show of hands, sixty were in favor of central time and fifty-four people were in favor of mountain time.

The NPRM also invited the public to submit written comments to the docket. There were over seventy submissions to the docket. The submissions included detailed letters, one form letter submitted by twelve people, and short messages expressing a preference for either the central or mountain time zone. We appreciate the time and effort of the people who expressed their opinion at the public meeting and through written comments, and who provided the factual basis upon which to make a decision.

Those in favor of mountain time noted that, based on the sun, Morton County is appropriately in the mountain time zone. These commenters observed that if the change were made, there would be very late sunrises and sunsets, and that the sun would not be overhead at noon. Several ranchers and farmers stated their belief that mountain time made it easier to do their chores and outdoor activities.

Others stated that they were not confused or inconvenienced by the present observance and had never missed an appointment in their impressively long lives. Some said, “if it ain't broke, don't fix it.” A number of people that live in the far west and south of the county noted that they were more tied to neighboring counties on mountain time than areas to the east. Others noted that a change would simply shift the inconvenience of living on a time zone boundary to their neighbors to the west.

A number of parents and grandparents noted the danger of sending children to school on icy or snowy, rural schools before sunrise, and before adequate plowing or road treatment. A few anticipated that later sunsets would interfere with serving dinner and getting young children to sleep.

A number of people expected adverse impacts on education and schools, if the change were made. For example, several discussed local schools' reliance on interactive instructional television and voiced their concern that a change would adversely impact class scheduling. Others discussed school sports events and the potential difficulties in scheduling both students and parents.

Several commenters noted that they use the current time boundary to their advantage. For example, one can schedule early medical appointments in Bismarck and get home before school starts. Others are able to participate in more community or school activities because they work in central time and get home an hour earlier than they would if they also lived in central time. A number of commenters expressed a strong personal preference for mountain time and said it just worked better for them.

Those in favor of central time had equally articulate, and passionate, reasons for their position. In general, all of these commenters stressed their reliance on services and activities located in Bismarck and Mandan. They noted the county seat is in Mandan and that one needed to go to the central time zone for most county, state, and court services. Many of these commenters noted that they generally go to the central time zone for shops, farm supplies and equipment, medical services (including the major hospital and various clinics), and entertainment. The major daily newspaper and most radio and television stations come from Bismarck. The major airport in the area is in Bismarck.

A number of commenters focused on how the current time observance impacts business. These commenters focused on problems caused by miscommunication, lost time because of different office and lunch hours across time zones, and the need to continually clarify whether appointments are on central or mountain time. One commenter noted that the de facto standard for business in the county is central time. Several ranchers and farmers stated that central time would be more convenient and efficient for their work.

Many commenters noted their personal preference for central time and gave detailed explanations about how a change would make their lives easier and less confusing. Some of these commenters live far west or south in the county, and include ranchers and farmers. Several commenters noted that, for all practical purposes, most people in Morton County already live their lives on central time.

There were several comments that central time would benefit students and schools. One commenter noted that most interactive television programming comes from Bismarck. Others noted that most higher education institutions are in the central zone. One commenter noted that the impact on sport scheduling could be beneficial if a change were made.

We find that it would suit the “convenience of commerce” to move the western portion of Morton County from the mountain to the central time zone. Based on the facts presented, the county is very reliant on areas in the central time zone, especially Bismarck and Mandan to provide a majority of goods and services. Having the entire county in one time zone would reduce confusion and would make the boundary more understandable.

A number of commenters suggested that the time zone boundary be moved to the Montana border in order to order to end confusion over time observance in the State. Several noted that the time zone boundary between central and mountain time already extends to the Montana-North Dakota border in the northern part of the State and noted that it works well. This broader request is outside the scope of this present proceeding. In order to consider a change to additional counties, we would need an official request by the County Commissioners of the affected counties, the Governor, or the North Dakota legislature.

A few commenters also asked us to end daylight saving time observance in the State. That issue is also outside the scope of this rulemaking. Under the Uniform Time Act, a State is free to observe, or not observe, daylight saving time. If it chooses to observe, it must begin and end its observance on the federally-mandated dates. Commenters that wish to be exempted from daylight saving time should explore this option with their state representatives.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979.) We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full regulatory analysis is unnecessary. The rule primarily affects the convenience of individuals in scheduling activities. By itself, it imposes no direct costs. Its impact is localized in nature.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small business, 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. This rule primarily affects individuals and their scheduling of activities. Although it will affect some small businesses, not-for-profits, and perhaps, several small governmental jurisdictions, it will not be a substantial number. In addition, the change should have little, if any, economic impact. I, therefore, certify under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 12612 and have determined that this rule does not have sufficient implications for federalism to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule has no substantial effects on the States, or on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local officials.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and Executive Order 12875, enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, (58 FR 58093; October 28, 1993) govern the issuance of Federal regulations that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation). This rule does not impose such a mandate.

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

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

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

This rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.

On November 15, 1991, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule amending the treadwear testing procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) to permit the use of front-wheel drive passenger cars, as well as light trucks, and MPVs (56 FR 57988). Previously, UTQGS specified testing of tires using only rear-wheel drive passenger cars. The effective date of the amendment was December 16, 1991. However, this new language was later inadvertently deleted in an unrelated amendment. The document published on June 12, 2003 corrected NHTSA's inadvertent deletion of that regulatory language. However, the section heading for § 575.104 contained a typographical error. This document corrects the § 575.104 heading.

In FR Doc. 03-14693 published on June 12, 2003 (68 FR 35184) make the following correction. On page 35185, in the first column, the section heading is corrected to read as follows: