On August 9, 2000, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) published an interim rule (65 FR 48641) to add Jefferson County, Washington, as an area of application to the Kitsap, WA, nonappropriated fund (NAF) wage area and to make miscellaneous changes in certain Federal wage system wage areas. The interim rule had a 30-day period for public comment, during which we received no comments.

The Naval Ordnance Center, Pacific Division, Detachment Port Hadlock, now has a small club in Jefferson County. The club employs two NAF FWS employees. Under section 532.219 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, each NAF wage area “shall consist of one or more survey areas, along with nonsurvey areas, having nonappropriated fund employees.” The Kitsap wage area consisted of one survey county, Kitsap County, and one area of application county, Clallam County, WA.

OPM considers the following regulatory criteria under 5 CFR 532.219 when defining FWS wage area boundaries:

(i) Proximity of largest activity in each county;

(ii) Transportation facilities and commuting patterns; and

(iii) Similarities of the counties in:

(A) Overall population;

(B) Private employment in major industry categories; and

(C) Kinds and sizes of private industrial establishments.

Jefferson County cannot be defined as a separate NAF wage area because the county does not meet the regulatory criteria to be a separate NAF wage area. However, nonsurvey counties can be combined with a survey area to form a wage area. Therefore, we are defining Jefferson County as an area of application to an existing NAF wage area.

The Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, in the Kitsap survey area, is the closest major Federal installation to Port Hadlock. It is approximately 53 km (33 miles) from Port Hadlock. Commuting patterns data for Jefferson County indicate that 6 percent of the county's resident workforce commutes to work in the Kitsap survey area. Transportation facilities consist of major interstates and highways. Residents of Jefferson County who commute into Pierce and Snohomish Counties must use a ferry or drive around Puget Sound to reach either of these counties. A review of employment and kinds and sizes of industrial establishments shows that Jefferson County is closely similar to the Kitsap survey area.

The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC), the national labor-management committee that advises OPM on FWS pay matters, reviewed and concurred by consensus with this change.

FPRAC also reviewed the Champaign-Urbana, IL, FWS wage area and determined that the wage area's counties are properly defined under the regulatory criteria for defining FWS wage areas. However, the Committee agreed by consensus to recommend that OPM rename the wage area as the Central Illinois FWS wage area because this name better describes the boundaries of the wage area. FPRAC reviewed the El Paso FWS wage area and determined that the wage area's counties are also properly defined. The Committee agreed by consensus to recommend that OPM update the name of White Sands Proving Grounds because the Department of Defense now refers to it as White Sands Missile Range. White Sands Proving Grounds was listed under the El Paso and Albuquerque wage areas; therefore, we have updated the name in the listing for both wage areas.

On May 5, 2000, we published a final rule (65 FR 26199) that redefined certain counties in the Southern Colorado and Denver, CO, FWS wage areas. FPRAC agreed to redefine Pitkin County, CO, from the Southern Colorado wage area to the Denver wage area. Because of a typographical error, Pitkin County appeared under both wage area listings in appendix C of subpart B of part 532 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations. We should have removed Pitkin County from the Southern Colorado wage area listing in the final rule. This final rule corrects the previous final rule and reflects FPRAC's recommendation for the county.

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

This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 920, as amended (7 CFR part 920), regulating the handling of kiwifruit grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The marketing order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, California kiwifruit handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable kiwifruit beginning August 1, 2000, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This rule continues to decrease the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2000-2001 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.05 to $0.03 per 22-pound volume fill container or equivalent of kiwifruit.

The California kiwifruit marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of the Department, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers of California kiwifruit. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate.

The assessment is normally formulated and discussed in a public meeting. A public meeting was held on July 11, 2000. Because a Committee quorum (eight Committee representatives) was not present at the meeting, the Committee voted on the budget and assessment rate by telephone on July 13, 2000. Thus, all directly affected persons had an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 1998-1999 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and the Department approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by the Secretary upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to the Secretary.

In the telephone conference call on July 13, 2000, the Committee unanimously recommended 2000-2001 expenditures of $81,575 and an assessment rate of $0.03 per 22-pound volume fill container or equivalent of kiwifruit. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $83,800. The assessment rate of $0.03 is $0.02 lower than the rate previously in effect. The Committee voted to reduce 2000-2001 budgeted expenditures and the assessment rate to lessen the financial burden on California kiwifruit handlers.

The following table compares major budget expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2000-2001 and 1999-2000 fiscal periods:

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering the amount of funds in the Committee's operating reserve, anticipated expenses, and expected shipments of California kiwifruit. Kiwifruit shipments for the year are estimated at 2,704,545 22-pound volume fill containers or equivalents of kiwifruit, which should provide $81,136 in assessment income at an assessment rate of $.03 per container, $439 less than the estimated expenses. Income derived from handler assessments, along with $24,000 carry-in from the Committee's operating reserve, will be adequate to meet budgeted expenses and to establish an adequate reserve (estimated to be $23,561 at the end of the 2000-2001 fiscal period). Reserve funds will be kept within 1 fiscal period's expenses, the maximum permitted under § 920.42 of the order.

The assessment rate will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by the Secretary upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or the Department. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. The Department will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2000-2001 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by the Department.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.

There are approximately 400 producers of kiwifruit in the production area and approximately 56 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts less than $500,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $5,000,000.

None of the 56 handlers subject to regulation have annual kiwifruit sales of at least $5,000,000, excluding receipts from any other sources. Ten of the 400 producers subject to regulation have annual sales of at least $500,000; and the remaining 390 producers have sales less than $500,000, excluding receipts from any other sources. The majority of California kiwifruit producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.

This rule continues to decrease the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2000-2001 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.05 to $0.03 per 22-pound volume fill container or equivalent. The Committee unanimously recommended 2000-2001 expenditures of $81,575 and an assessment rate of $0.03 per 22-pound volume fill container or equivalent. The assessment rate of $0.03 is $0.02 lower than the previous rate. The quantity of assessable kiwifruit for the 2000-2001 fiscal period is estimated at 2,704,545 22-pound volume fill containers or equivalent. Thus, the $0.03 rate should provide $81,136 in assessment income, $439 less than the estimated expenses.

The estimated assessments of $81,136 combined with the $24,000 from the Committee's operation reserve will allow the Committee to meet its expenses and to establish an adequate reserve (estimated to be $23,561 at the end of the 2000-2001 fiscal period). Reserve funds will be kept within 1 fiscal period's expenses, the maximum permitted under § 920.42 of the order.

The following table compares major budget expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2000-2001 and 1999-2000 fiscal years:

The Committee reviewed and unanimously recommended 2000-2001 expenditures of $81,575 which includes decreases in administrative staff and field salaries and office costs. The Committee also unanimously recommended lowering the assessment rate from $0.05 to $0.03 to lessen the financial burden on handlers.

Prior to arriving at this budget, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Finance and Assessment Subcommittee. These groups discussed alternative expenditure levels. The subcommittee looked at maintaining the assessment rate at its current level, but determined that the handler financial burden should be lessened. The assessment rate of $0.03 per 22-pound volume fill container or equivalent of assessable kiwifruit was recommended by the Committee and was derived by considering the funds in the Committee's operating reserve, anticipated expenses, and expected shipments of California kiwifruit.

Kiwifruit shipments for the year are estimated at 2,704,545 22-pound volume fill containers or equivalents of kiwifruit, which should provide $81,136 in assessment income, $439 less than the estimated expenses. Income derived from handler assessments, along with the $24,000 carry-in from the Committee's operating reserve, will be adequate to meet budgeted expenses and to establish an adequate reserve (estimated to be $23,561 at the end of the 2000-2001 fiscal period). Reserve funds will be kept within 1 fiscal period's expenses, the maximum permitted under § 920.42 of the order.

A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the grower price for the 2000-2001 season will be approximately $12.32 per 22-pound volume fill container or equivalent of kiwifruit. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2000-2001 fiscal period as a percentage of total grower revenue is estimated at 0.2 percent.

This action continues to decrease the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers.

In addition, the Committee's July 11, 2000, meeting was widely publicized throughout the California kiwifruit industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the July 11, 2000, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

Additionally, all attendees were advised of the conference call to be conducted on July 13, 2000. Finally, interested persons were invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California kiwifruit handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

The Department has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

An interim final rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2000 (65 FR 49472). Copies of that rule were also mailed or sent via facsimile to all kiwifruit handlers. Finally, the interim final rule was made available through the Internet by the Office of the Federal Register. A 60-day comment period was provided for interested persons to respond to the interim final rule. The comment period ended on October 13, 2000. No comments were received.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

What events have caused this AD? The Federal Office for Civil Aviation (FOCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Switzerland, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Pilatus Model PC-12 and PC-12/45 airplanes. The FOCA reports that 3 airplanes had rubbing pipes, 2 with consequent leakage of engine oil. Inadequate clearance caused these components to touch and rub.

What are the consequences if you do not correct the condition? This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of propulsion during flight.

Has FAA taken any action to this point? We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain Pilatus Models PC-12 and PC-12/45 airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 18, 2000 (65 FR 50466). The NPRM proposed to require a one-time inspection of the torque oil-pressure tubes and py pressure pipe; and adjust and replace, if necessary, the torque oil-pressure tubes and py pressure pipe.

Was the public invited to comment? Interested persons were afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposed rule or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

What is FAA's Final Determination on this Issue? After careful review of all available information related to the subject presented above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We determined that these minor corrections:

• Will not change the meaning of the AD; and

• Will not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed.

How many airplanes does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD affects 108 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate the following costs to accomplish the inspection:

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

Does this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

This revision of part 706 incorporates changes to the language and structure of the regulations and adds new provisions to implement the EFOIA. New provisions implementing the amendments are found at § 706.12 (defining “search” to include electronic searches), § 706.21 (electronic reading room), § 706.31 (format of disclosure), § 706.32 (timing of responses and expedited processing), and § 706.33 (material withheld). OPIC is already complying with these statutory requirements; this final rule serves as OPIC's formal codification of the applicable law and its practice.

Under the EFOIA, an agency may provide by regulation for multiple “tracks” in responding to FOIA requests depending upon the amount of time and work involved in responding to different kinds of requests (“multitrack processing”). OPIC will not implement multitrack processing. Because OPIC receives a limited number of FOIA requests each year and is able to respond to the great majority of them on a timely basis, OPIC does not need to provide separate processing tracks for more complicated versus simpler FOIA requests.

Revisions to OPIC's fee schedule can be found at § 706.34. The duplication charge will remain fifteen cents per page, while the document search and review charges will increase to $16 and $35 per hour, respectively. The amount at or below which OPIC will not charge a fee is set at $15.

This revision also notifies OPIC's business submitters of the requirement that OPIC transfer legal custody and control of certain records to the National Archives pursuant to applicable federal records schedules.

OPIC published a proposed rule at 65 FR 30369, May 11, 2000, and invited interested parties to submit comments. OPIC received one set of comments and made several changes to its proposed rule based on the commentator's suggestions.

OPIC adopted the following suggestions. First, OPIC revised § 706.31(b)(1) to describe more clearly how the Corporation handles FOIA requests that do not reasonably describe the records sought. The commentator stated that OPIC's proposed regulation did not “adequately guarantee that requesters whose requests need to be clarified will be contacted in a timely and effective manner so that their requests can be processed quickly.” The final rule specifies in more detail OPIC's procedures for treatment of ambiguous requests.

Second, OPIC modified § 706.34(e) concerning special service charges to clarify that requesters will be provided advance notice of the actual cost of any requested service(s) that OPIC has agreed to provide. OPIC provides special services such as certification of documents and rapid delivery methods as a convenience to its FOIA requesters. FOIA requesters are not required to use special services and may withdraw a request for special services if they do not wish to pay the stated cost.

OPIC considered, but did not adopt the following suggestions. First, OPIC did not adopt the suggestion that the Corporation include in its regulations a provision granting expedited processing to records that are subject to multiple ( i.e., five or more) pending FOIA requests. OPIC could establish this discretionary category of “expedited processing” under FOIA subsection 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(E)(i)(II), but the Corporation does not believe it would serve a useful purpose to do so. OPIC's FOIA program is flexible enough to accommodate multiple requests and respond to them in a timely manner without giving such requests expedited status.

The commentator was concerned that OPIC's response to multiple requests for identical records could be delayed if OPIC developed a FOIA backlog and such requests were not granted expedited status. Based on OPIC's experience processing FOIA requests, this concern is unfounded. OPIC does not adhere to a strict first-in, first-out regimen. OPIC begins processing each FOIA request upon receipt and handles each request as quickly as possible based on the complexity of the request. For example, a request for publicly-available information can be processed rapidly, often within one or two business days of receipt. By contrast, a request for confidential or financial information takes longer to process because OPIC must contact the business submitter for comments pursuant to Executive Order 12600 and this Part.

OPIC also notes that most multiple requests for OPIC records are requests for commercial or financial information. Because of the notice requirements described above, it would be extremely difficult to respond to such requests in fewer than 20 business days. Finally, as the commentator noted, OPIC's most recent Annual FOIA Report indicates that OPIC responds to FOIA requests in a timely manner.

Second, OPIC did not adopt the suggestion that the Corporation notify requesters of their right under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C) to seek immediate review by a court when the Corporation fails to respond to a FOIA request within twenty business days of receipt. The commentator suggested that OPIC provide such notice in its responses to FOIA requests. For such notification to be meaningful, however, OPIC would have to provide the notice prior to processing the FOIA request. This would place a burden on OPIC's limited FOIA resources and impose a requirement on OPIC that is not found in the FOIA.

Third, OPIC will not modify 1A706.11(c), which states: “In responding to requests for information, OPIC will consider only those records within its possession or control as of the date of the request.” The commentator considers this “date-of-request cut-off,” to be an inappropriate exclusion of more recently-created responsive records. OPIC will retain its practice of using a date-of-request cut-off because there is no other practical way for the Corporation to process FOIA requests and because this practice is consistent with FOIA case law.

The commentator suggests that OPIC adopt a date-of-processing cut-off. Because OPIC begins processing FOIA requests upon receipt, there is no meaningful distinction for the Corporation between the date of receipt and the date of processing. Further, without a cut-off date, OPIC would never be able to complete its response to a FOIA request for an active matter because new records could be created on a continual basis. In spite of this basic practice, however, the Corporation may make occasional exceptions to the date-of-request cut-off depending upon the circumstances of the request. Any such exception is within OPIC's sole discretion. This determination is consistent with recent FOIA case law. See, e.g., Public Citizen v. Dep't of State , 100 F.Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2000).

Finally, OPIC did not adopt the commentator's suggested language regarding referrals of documents to other agencies, although it did amend 1A706.33(b) as described below. The commentator suggested regulatory language that would require OPIC, prior to referring a record to another agency for review and release pursuant to a FOIA request, to identify an intention on the part of the originating agency to retain control over the record. OPIC believes this requirement would create an undue burden on its FOIA program.

To address the commentator's concerns, OPIC amended 1A706.33(b) to state that OPIC will not make a referral if OPIC can make a determination concerning release either by examining the document and/or by informal consultation with the originating agency. OPIC also amended the section to state that any necessary referrals will be made promptly upon OPIC's receipt of the FOIA request. As the commentator noted, OPIC has only made one referral to another agency within the last two years. Accordingly, OPIC does not believe that referrals within its FOIA program have resulted in delays to its FOIA requesters.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , the head of OPIC has certified that this regulation, as promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation implements the FOIA, a statute concerning the release of federal records, and does not economically impact Federal Government relations with the private sector. Further, under the FOIA, agencies may recover only the direct costs of searching for, reviewing, and duplicating the records processed for requesters. Based on OPIC's experience, these fees are nominal.

OPIC incorrectly stated that its proposed rule (65 FR 30369, May 11, 2000) was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), by memorandum dated October 12, 1993, exempted OPIC from the requirements of this Executive Order. Accordingly, OMB did not review this final rule or its predecessor proposed rule. OPIC did, however, incorporate the general principles stated in section 1(b) of the Executive Order in drafting its proposed and final rules.

This regulation will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This regulation is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This regulation will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

Part 884 implements Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5525.9, Compliance of DoD Members, Employees, and Family Members Outside the United States With Court Orders, December 27, 1988 and AFPD 51-10, Making Military Personnel, Employees, and Dependents Available to Civilian Authorities.

The South Fulton Avenue Bridge, mile 2.9, across the Eastchester Creek has a vertical clearance of 6 feet at mean high water, and 13 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The bridge owner, Westchester County Department of Public Works (WCDPW), requested a temporary deviation from the operating regulations to facilitate sidewalk replacement at the bridge. The existing operating regulations at 33 CFR 117.793(c) require the bridge to open on signal from three-hours before to three-hours after high tide. At all other times the bridge shall open on signal if at least four-hours advance notice is given.

This deviation to the operating regulations allows the owner of the South Fulton Avenue Bridge to keep the bridge in the closed position from 8 a.m. Monday through 4:30 p.m. Thursday, for four weeks, October 23, 2000 through November 17, 2000. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times.

The supplemental information is organized in the following order:

On November 15, 1990, Jefferson and Shelby Counties, Alabama, were designated as the Birmingham marginal ozone nonattainment area. Section 182(f)(1)(A) of the CAA provides for an exemption for New Source Review offsets for nitrogen oxides (NO X ) in ozone nonattainment areas where a state shows and EPA agrees that additional NO X reductions would not contribute to attainment of the ozone standard in that area. In 1992, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) requested and received from EPA a NO X exemption under this statutory provision for the Birmingham marginal ozone nonattainment area (58 FR 45439).

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets forth five specific requirements that states must include in a redesignation request in order for EPA to redesignate an area from nonattainment to attainment. EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the General Preamble for the Implementation of the CAA, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), supplemented at 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). The primary memorandum providing further guidance with respect to section 107(d)(3)(E) is dated September 4, 1992, and issued by the Director, Air Quality Management Division, Subject: Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment (Calcagni Memorandum).

Based on three years of air quality data from 1991-1993, the Birmingham area attained the 1-hour ozone standard, thus meeting the requirement for the area to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1993. The area continued to maintain the ozone NAAQS through 1994. The State of Alabama through ADEM submitted a request for redesignation of the Birmingham marginal ozone nonattainment area to attainment on March 16, 1995. In a letter dated February 15, 1995, addressing the prehearing submittal, EPA requested that ADEM submit supplemental information needed for the redesignation request to be approvable. ADEM submitted this supplemental information to EPA on July 21, 1995. A direct final rule approving the redesignation request was signed by the Regional Administrator and forwarded to the EPA Federal Register Office on August 15, 1995. The direct final rule contained a 30 day period for public comment on the redesignation request.

Prior to publication of the document, EPA determined that the area registered a violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based on an exceedance that occurred August 18, 1995. As a result, EPA directed the Office of Federal Register to recall the direct final rule from being published. The ambient data was quality assured according to established procedures for validating such monitoring data. Subsequently, EPA withdrew the approval notice, and disapproved the maintenance plan and redesignation request. EPA also revoked the NO X waiver for the Birmingham area which was previously granted based on a determination that the area had clean air quality data (62 FR 49158, September 19, 1997). Additional violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS were recorded in the Birmingham area during the 1996 and 1997 ozone seasons, prompting EPA to request that the State of Alabama adopt a federally enforceable commitment to submit a SIP revision that would provide for the attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Because ADEM submitted the final commitment without Board adoption which prevented approval into the federally enforceable SIP, Region 4 informed the State that a SIP call would be initiated.

The proposed rulemaking notice announcing the SIP call was published in the Federal Register on December 16, 1999, (See 64 FR 70205). In that action, EPA proposed to require the State of Alabama to submit an attainment SIP within six months after final action is taken on the SIP call and to implement controls by May 2003.

To assure that SIPs provide for the attainment and maintenance of the relevant NAAQS, section 110(k)(5) of the CAA authorizes EPA to find that a SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain a NAAQS, and to require (“call for”) the State to submit, within a specified period, a SIP revision to correct the inadequacy. This CAA requirement for a SIP revision is known as a “SIP call.” The CAA authorizes EPA to allow a state up to 18 months to respond to a SIP call. EPA is issuing this SIP call, because violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS have been recorded in the Birmingham area for the last several 3-year periods, which were after the required attainment date of November 15, 1993. EPA is authorized under section 110(k)(5) to issue this SIP call requiring the State of Alabama to develop a 1-hour ozone attainment plan as a SIP revision for the Birmingham area because EPA finds the current Alabama SIP inadequate to assure attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Also, in consideration of the length of time that has passed since the required attainment date of November 15, 1993, the substantial air quality modeling already completed, and the ongoing discussions with ADEM, EPA believes it is reasonable to require the State of Alabama to make the submittal within six months of finalization of this SIP call.

If EPA finds the State of Alabama has failed to submit a complete 1-hour ozone attainment plan for the Birmingham nonattainment area as required by this SIP call, or disapproves the attainment plan, EPA will apply sanctions within 18 months of the finding as authorized by sections 110(m), 179(a)(1), and 179(a)(2) of the CAA. Sanctions available to EPA under section 179 of the CAA include highway sanctions and emission offsets. Pursuant to EPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR 52.31, the emission offset sanction is applied first. Under this sanction, the ratio of emission reductions that must be obtained to offset increased emissions caused by new major sources or modifications to major sources in the Birmingham area must be at least two to one. If the State of Alabama does not make a complete submission within six months after the offset sanction applies, then the highway funding sanction will apply, in accordance with CAA sections 179(a) and (b)(1) and 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, sanctions would apply in the same manner if the State of Alabama submits a plan that EPA determines is incomplete or that EPA disapproves. Finally, CAA section 110(c) provides that EPA promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) no later than 24 months after a finding of failure to submit a SIP unless the State of Alabama has submitted and EPA has approved the attainment plan.

EPA received seventeen comments in response to the proposed SIP call. EPA compiled the comments into seven categories, and they are addressed below.

Comment 1. “Even though ADEM” s regulatory development is short in comparison to most states, a minimum of six months is necessary from proposal to effective date. If, for example, significant comments are received, this process can be even longer. Moreover, a sufficient time period should be given to enable the stakeholder group to provide adequate input. Six months is simply not enough time to fully address the area's ozone problem.”

Response: EPA is authorized under section 110(k)(5) to issue this SIP call requiring the State of Alabama to develop a 1-hour ozone attainment SIP revision for the Birmingham area. EPA can allow up to 18 months for a State to submit a plan, but has the discretion to determine what is a reasonable timeframe for submission of a plan in response to a SIP call. EPA believes that six months is reasonable. In a letter dated February 4, 1997, EPA requested that the State of Alabama provide a timeline identifying when a 1-hour attainment SIP would be submitted. In response, ADEM submitted a timeline in a letter dated March 13, 1997, that had a submission date for the 1-hour attainment SIP of March 1998. Because of several policy changes associated with the new 8-hour ozone standard, EPA requested that the State of Alabama adopt a federally enforceable commitment to submit a SIP that would provide for the attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. ADEM submitted the final commitment without Board adoption, precluding approval into the federally enforceable SIP. That commitment included a final submittal date of September 1999. In consideration of the length of time that EPA has already spent working with ADEM in an effort to develop an attainment plan and the substantial air quality modeling already completed toward this end, EPA believes it is reasonable to require the State of Alabama to submit the attainment SIP in six months. ADEM prepared a draft attainment demonstration and submitted it to EPA on September 10, 1999. EPA submitted comments on the draft submittal, and ADEM submitted a revised attainment demonstration on April 21, 2000, in response to EPA's comments. The draft attainment demonstration would achieve the emission reductions through controls on power plants and a low sulfur fuel program. EPA Region 4 continues to work with ADEM to resolve all remaining issues with the draft plan to ensure that the regulations necessary for attainment are adopted in a timely fashion.

Comment 2. “The consultative requirements of our Conformity SIP require that the signatory parties be given an opportunity to comment on a draft SIP revision before undertaking the rulemaking process. This lengthens the time between EPA's preliminary approval of our draft SIP revision and the beginning of the formal rulemaking process.”

Response: The transportation conformity interagency consultation process is continuous throughout the development of a SIP and transportation plans. Its purpose is to ensure that the transportation plan is developed in a manner that supports the state's efforts toward attainment/maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. If consultation is conducted on a continual basis and issues are discussed up-front in the plan development stage, then it should not lengthen the rulemaking process. In fact, consultation should streamline it, by resolving issues early in the process. Formal concurrence by all interagency partners is not a prerequisite for the State to move forward in its SIP development and rulemaking.

Comment 3. “EPA has acknowledged the difficulties, both technical and procedural, in preparing approvable ozone attainment SIPs across the country by frequently extending submission and attainment times in other urban areas.”

Response: EPA has provided flexibility for some areas with respect to SIP submission requirements and with attainment dates. In the early to mid-1990's, EPA was concerned that many areas in the eastern United States were having difficulty demonstrating attainment by the statutory deadline because of the potential transport of ozone and its precursors (volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NO X ) from other States. On March 2, 1995, EPA issued a policy document, entitled Ozone Attainment Demonstrations , providing that eastern states that participated in a process to assess regional transport could follow a two-phase submission process for attainment demonstrations for ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or severe. The 37 easternmost states participated in this process, which was called the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG). OTAG also included representatives from industry, environmental groups, and academia. Over approximately two years, OTAG conducted studies and made recommendations to EPA. In response to OTAG recommendations, EPA called on twenty-two states and the District of Columbia to reduce emissions of NO X that were transported to other states (NO X SIP Call) , 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998).

In addition, EPA has issued guidance providing that an area that is affected by transport may receive an attainment date extension that reflects the time for the implementation of regional NO X reductions or the attainment date for any upwind nonattainment area that is the source of transport and that has a later attainment date.

The policy concerning SIP submission dates for serious and severe areas is inapplicable here. The regional analysis that formed the basis for the two-phased approach for serious and severe areas has been completed since 1998. EPA addressed more fully in the response to comment 1, the factors EPA considered in determining the appropriate SIP submittal date for the Birmingham attainment demonstration.

With respect to the attainment date for the Birmingham area, EPA is not setting an attainment date through this action. Alabama will need to establish an appropriate attainment date in its SIP submittal. At this time, EPA believes that the attainment demonstration for Birmingham should provide for attainment by November 2003, since EPA is unaware of any evidence that Birmingham is affected by transport from a nonattainment area with an attainment date later than 2003.

Comment 4. “A new local stakeholder group should be required and constituted which includes representatives from health, government, business, environmental, and public interests. This group will advise and provide input for the SIP. The potential exists for considerable local opposition to the plan if the public is not involved in the planning process.”

Response: It is important to note that EPA does not require states to form a stakeholders group to assist with the development of SIPs, including attainment demonstrations. It is up to the state to decide whether or not to involve a stakeholder group. EPA does require that the State of Alabama hold a public hearing before submitting a final SIP. Therefore, the public will have an opportunity to provide input on the Birmingham 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration at the public hearing.

Although not required, in 1997, ADEM did form an Advisory Committee to assist with the development of a control strategy for the Birmingham area. Representatives from ADEM, other State agencies, EPA, private industry, and other local stakeholders made up this Advisory Committee.

Comment 5. “EPA's delay in addressing the draft SIP has put the EPA desired compliance deadline of May 2003 in jeopardy for Alabama Power. Without an approved SIP, we are quickly reaching the point where a May 2003 compliance deadline is not possible at any reasonable cost. We have already had to postpone awarding a contract for required equipment and are in the process of rescheduling the planned unit outages. We have control over our unit outages, however the equipment implementation challenges aren't necessarily confined to internal resources. In fact, most critical paths pertain to external circumstances. There are many NO X control projects in the region, with many vying for the same supply materials, manufacturers, and labor. The more delay in obtaining an approved Alabama SIP from EPA, the longer it will take to procure these finite external resources.”

Response: Alabama Power did not specify in its comment letter the types of controls that would be implemented at the two utility plants identified in the draft attainment demonstration. Even if Alabama Power chose a more complicated control to implement such as selective catalytic reduction, EPA has estimated that this control could be readily installed within 21 months which is within the timeframe to meet a 2003 compliance deadline. With respect to Alabama Power experiencing a delay due to the lack of supply materials, manufacturers, and labor, EPA examined each of these considerations and found that an adequate supply of each would be available. For a more detailed discussion on all of this information, see the report released in September 1998, by the EPA Office of Air and Radiation, Acid Rain Division entitled, “Feasibility of Installing NO X Control Technologies in 2003.” The web address for the feasibility report is http://www.epa.gov/capi/ipm/npr.htm.

Comment 6. “The plan should address the underlying issues of transportation planning and sprawling development patterns that can result from unintelligent transportation investments. Thus, the plan should be comprehensive and incorporate a balanced portfolio of available control strategies. I agree that the State of Alabama should develop a plan that will solve the ozone pollution problem in Jefferson and Shelby counties. The plan needs to be comprehensive and must incorporate input from the public. The following elements should be included: all available control measures—including vehicle emissions testing and transportation control measures which were not included in the draft SIP revision.”

Response: Birmingham is designated as a marginal nonattainment area for the ozone NAAQS. In marginal nonattainment areas, EPA does not require that vehicle emissions testing be used as a control measure. Further, EPA does not require states to implement any particular transportation control measures. To demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS, the State has the option of choosing between a variety of control measures. States are given this flexibility to ensure that the most effective and feasible control measures for the affected area are implemented. In its draft plan, Alabama has opted to place stricter standards on two utilities and to continue implementing its low sulfur fuel program. Alabama also adopted an emergency rule to require reformulated gasoline or a low sulfur fuel in 1998, to provide further reductions in ozone precursors in the Birmingham nonattainment area. Alabama's low sulfur fuel rule indirectly addresses concerns relating to the impact of mobile sources due to sprawl by requiring stricter standards for fuel. Further, on December 21, 1999, EPA finalized the Tier 2/Low Sulfur rules which place stricter standards on cars, light duty trucks and the fuel used to operate these vehicles. Under that program, cars will be cleaner nationwide starting in model year 2004.

Comment 7. “USEPA should call upon ADEM to educate and involve the public with respect to modeling of air quality conditions in the region and modeling of improvements to air quality resulting from alternative control strategies. As we are beginning to see in Atlanta, strategies to comply with air quality standards have become a complex computer modeling exercise unknown, and without USEPA intervention unknowable, to even the most attentive and interested stakeholders. A public education and involvement program focusing upon the modeling component of SIP development should condition any extension of the submittal date.”

Response: ADEM and the Jefferson County Bureau of Environmental Health both have Education and Outreach programs that focus on educating the public on various issues including air quality modeling. EPA does not have the authority to require states to sponsor such education and outreach programs. However, EPA does support the outreach efforts of both ADEM and Jefferson County through the CAA section 105 grant program, and encourages them to continue to work with and inform the public about air quality issues.

EPA finds that the State of Alabama's SIP is inadequate in that it fails to assure attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the Birmingham nonattainment area. To address this inadequacy, EPA is calling on the State of Alabama to submit a 1-hour ozone attainment plan as a SIP revision for the Birmingham nonattainment area within six months of the publication date of today's action. In addition, the sanctions contained in sections 179(a) and (b) of the CAA and in 40 CFR 50.31 will apply in accordance with 40 CFR 50.31 if EPA determines that the State fails to submit the required attainment demonstration plan for Birmingham, or the State submits a plan that EPA finds is incomplete or that EPA disapproves.

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

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

This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. In issuing this SIP Call, EPA is acting under section 110(k)(5), which requires the Agency to require a State to correct a deficiency that EPA has found in the State implementation plan (SIP). Through this action, EPA has determined that the Birmingham 1-hour ozone nonattainment area has been in violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS over the last several 3-year periods and is requiring the State to submit a plan demonstrating how the area can be brought back into attainment. This action calling on the State does not change the established relationship between the State and EPA under title I of the CAA. Under title I of the CAA States have the primary responsibility to develop plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The State has discretion to choose the control requirements necessary to bring the area into attainment with the NAAQS. Finally, this action will not impose substantial direct compliance costs. This action affects one area in one State. While the State will incur some costs to develop the plan, those costs are not expected to be substantial. Moreover, under section 105 of the CAA, the federal government supports the States' SIP development activities by providing partial funding of State programs for the prevention and control of air pollution. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did consult extensively with State and local officials regarding the requirements of this SIP Call as noted in section I and in response to comment 1 above.

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 final rulemaking is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant, nor does it involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children.

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.” Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. This action requires the State of Alabama to develop a SIP to attain the national ambient air quality standard for ozone for the Birmingham, Alabama, area. There are no tribal governments affected by this rulemaking. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute 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 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rulemaking on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined in the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 12.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SIP Call does not establish any new requirements applicable to small entities. EPA is issuing this SIP call because it finds that the State of Alabama's SIP is inadequate to assure attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the Birmingham nonattainment area. In submitting its 1-hour ozone attainment plan SIP revisions as required by this SIP call, Alabama has discretion in formulating the components of that attainment plan.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) (“UMRA”), establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1532, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for any proposed or final rule that “includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more * * * in any one year. A “Federal mandate” is defined under section 421(6), 2 U.S.C. 658(6), to include a “Federal intergovernmental mandate” and a “Federal private sector mandate.” A “Federal intergovernmental mandate,” in turn, is defined to include a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,” section 421(5)(A)(i), 2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i), except for, among other things, a duty that is “a condition of Federal assistance,” section 421(5)(A)(i)(I). A “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector,” with certain exceptions, section 421(7)(A), 2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A).

EPA believes that it is questionable whether a requirement to submit a SIP revision constitutes a federal mandate. The obligation for a State to revise its SIP arises out of sections 110(a) and 110(k)(5) of the CAA and is not legally enforceable by a court of law, and at most is a condition for continued receipt of highway funds. Therefore, it is possible to view an action requiring such a submittal as not creating any enforceable duty within the meaning of section 421(5)(9a)(I) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(a)(I)). Even if it did, the duty could be viewed as falling within the exception for the condition of Federal assistance under section 421(5)(a)(i)(I) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(a)(i)(I)).

In addition, even if the obligation for a State to revise its SIP does create an enforceable duty within the meaning of UMRA, this SIP Call does not trigger section 202 of UMRA because the aggregate to the State, local, and tribal governments to comply are less than $100,000,000 in any one year. Because this SIP Call does not trigger section 202 of UMRA, the requirement in section 205 of UMRA that EPA identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt to the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule is not applicable.

Furthermore, EPA is not directly establishing any regulatory requirements that may significantly impact or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments. Thus, EPA is not obligated to develop under section 203 of UMRA a small government agency plan. Finally, with regard to the intergovernmental consultation provisions of section 204 of UMRA, EPA carried out numerous consultations with the State of Alabama over several years as noted in section I above and in response to comment 1.

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. section 804(2).

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) 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.

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

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 December 26, 2000. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action does not affect the finality of this action 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 action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

This Supplementary Information section is organized as follows:

In this action, we are converting our limited approval of Connecticut's I/M program as a revision to the SIP to a full approval.

This notice deals with a revision to the State of Connecticut's Clean Air Act SIP submitted by the State of Connecticut on November 16, 1999 for certain program elements necessary to complete the enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. Today we are acting only upon this November 16, 1999 submittal to determine that Connecticut submitted revisions meeting all of the conditions necessary to convert the limited approval of the enhanced I/M plan to a full approval. In so doing we are not reopening our March 10, 1999 final rulemaking granting limited approval of Connecticut's enhanced I/M SIP submitted on June 24, 1998, as supplemented on November 13, 1998.

Approval of Connecticut's I/M program SIP required submission of information to meet the requirements of the following sections of the regulations: Network Type and Program Evaluation—40 CFR 51.353; Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection—40 CFR 51.360; Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight—40 CFR 51.362; Quality Assurance—40 CFR 51.363; Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors—40 CFR 51.364; Public Information and Consumer Protection—40 CFR 51.368; Compliance with Recall Notices—40 CFR 51.370; and On-road Testing—40 CFR 51.371.

On November 16, 1999, Connecticut submitted revisions to its enhanced I/M SIP to EPA in order to correct conditions for full approval. The following is a description of the measures which Connecticut has submitted to meet each of the deficient areas described in the March 10, 1999 limited approval.

1. Network Type and Program Evaluation—40 CFR 51.353 —Connecticut will utilize the NYTEST test performed on 1100 randomly selected vehicles in the test lanes. This is an acceptable option for program evaluation testing as explained in Inspection and Maintenance Program Evaluation Methodologies (EPA420-S-98-015). The legal authority for program evaluation is in Section 14-164c(e)(C) and Section 164h(a) and (b) of the Connecticut General Statutes. This section of the SIP now meets the requirements of EPA's I/M rule.

2. Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection—40 CFR 51.360 —Connecticut has submitted revised regulation Section 14-164c-11a, entitled “Emissions Repairs Expenditure Requirements to Receive Waiver,” requiring a $450 expenditure for a waiver starting in January 2000, and $450 adjusted each year for the cost of living beginning in January 2001. This regulation was effective on June 24, 1999. This section of the SIP now meets the requirements of EPA's I/M rule.

3. Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight—40 CFR 51.362 —Exhibit 3 of the November 16, 1999 SIP submittal describes in detail an enforcement oversight program meeting the requirements of this section. The legal authority for this aspect of the program is at Section 14-164c(j) of the Connecticut General Satutes. This section of the SIP now meets the requirements of EPA's I/M rule.

4. Quality Assurance—40 CFR 51.363 —The state has submitted the needed procedures manuals in Exhibit 4 of the November 16, 1999 submittal. This section of the SIP now meets the requirements of EPA's I/M rule.

5. Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors—40 CFR 51.364 —Exhibit 5 of the November 16, 1999 submittal contains a description of enforcement authority Connecticut has over the contractor that is operating the I/M program. Essentially, Connecticut can hold the contractor liable under the contract for monetary penalties for violations of the contract and the contract provides for disbarment of inspectors upon a finding of program violations or incompetence. The submittal also includes Connecticut Regulations pertaining to disciplinary and termination action with respect to state of Connecticut employees: Regulation 5-240-1.—Suspension.; Regulation 5-240-2.—Demotion.; and Regulation 5-240-3.—Dismissal. This section of the SIP now meets the requirements of EPA's I/M rule.

6. Public Information and Consumer Protection—40 CFR 51.368 —Connecticut has submitted additional material in Exhibit 6 of the November 16, 1999. With this supplementary material the SIP meets all requirements of this section of EPA's I/M Rule.

7. Compliance with Recall Notices—40 CFR 51.370 —Connecticut has provided in Exhibit 7 of the November 16, 1999 submittal an agreement with the contractor to enforce compliance with all recall notices prior to completing the next inspection. This agreement is adequate to meet the requirements of EPA's I/M rule.

8. On-road Testing—40 CFR 51.371 —Connecticut has submitted a detailed description of remote sensing program screening 5500 vehicles per year. Legal authority for this program is at Section 14-164c(f) of the Connecticut General Statutes. When the March 10, 1999 limited approval was granted, states were required to have as part of the off-road testing program a requirement that vehicles which exceeded standards for this program be subjected to an out-of-cycle I/M test. However, the I/M flexibility rule EPA published in the Federal Register on July 24, 2000 (65 FR 45526) allows states to develop on-road testing programs that do not mandate out-of-cycle testing and repair. With this change to EPA's I/M rule, the Connecticut program meets the requirements of this section.

EPA's review of this material indicates that Connecticut has corrected all of the deficiencies with regard to I/M as described in the March 10, 1999 limited approval of the program.

EPA is converting its limited approval of Connecticut's enhanced I/M program to a full approval. An extensive discussion of Connecticut's enhanced I/M program and our rationale for our limited approval action was provided in the previous final rule for the Connecticut enhanced I/M program published on March 10, 1999 (see 64 FR 12005). This action to convert our limited approval to a full approval is being published without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and because we anticipate no adverse comments. In a separate document in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register publication, we are proposing to convert our limited approval of Connecticut's enhanced I/M program SIP revision to a full approval if relevant adverse comments are filed. This action will be effective without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comment by November 27, 2000. If we receive such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. If no such comments are received by November 27, 2000, you are advised that this action will be effective on December 26, 2000. You should send comments to the EPA-New England office listed in the Addresses section of this notice.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 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. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 December 26, 2000. EPA encourages interested parties to comment in response to the proposed rule rather than petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the comment period allowed for in the proposal. 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).)

On July 15, 1994, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) formally submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for purposes of meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The revision consists of changes to Massachusetts' 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix A, “Emission Offsets and Nonattainment Review.” The DEP submitted additional changes to 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix A on April 14, 1995. The effect of the revisions is to make the DEP's rules regarding the permitting of new major sources or major modifications in nonattainment areas consistent with CAA requirements. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

The air quality planning requirements for nonattainment NSR are set out in part D of subchapter I of the Act. The EPA has issued a “General Preamble” describing EPA's preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under part D, including those State submittals containing nonattainment area NSR SIP requirements [see 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)]. Because EPA is describing its interpretations here only in broad terms, the reader should refer to the General Preamble for a more detailed discussion of the interpretations of part D advanced in today's proposal and the supporting rationale.

The general nonattainment NSR requirements are found in sections 172 and 173 of part D of subchapter I of the Act and must be met by all nonattainment areas. The following paragraphs reference the nonattainment NSR requirements required to be submitted to EPA by November 15, 1992 and explain how Massachusetts' rules meet those requirements. Massachusetts' existing SIP already contained some of these provisions while others are being approved today.

1. Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.00 appendix A, section (5) (a) & (b), establishes provisions in accordance with section 173(a)(1)(A) of the CAA to assure that calculations of emissions offsets are based on the same emissions baseline used in the demonstration of Reasonable Further Progress (RFP).

2. Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.00 appendix A, section (6)(b)1 and 2, establishes provisions in accordance with section 173(c)(1) of the CAA to allow offsets to be obtained in another nonattainment area if: (i) The area has an equal or higher nonattainment classification and, (ii) emissions from the other nonattainment area contribute to an NAAQS violation in the area in which the source would construct.

3. Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.00 appendix A, section (6)(a) and (b), establishes provisions in accordance with sections 173(a) and 173(c)(1) of the CAA that any emissions offsets obtained in conjunction with the issuance of a license to a new or modified source shall be federally enforceable before permit issuance and must be in effect and enforceable by the time the new or modified source commences operation.

4. Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.00 appendix A, section (6)(d), establishes provisions in accordance with section 173(c)(1) of the CAA to assure that emission increases from new or modified sources are offset by real reductions in actual emissions.

5. Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.00 appendix A, section (6)(h), establishes provisions in accordance with section 173(c)(2) of the CAA to prevent emissions reductions otherwise required by the Act from being credited for purposes of satisfying part D offset requirements.

6. The 1990 CAAA modified the Act's provisions on growth allowances in nonattainment areas by (1) eliminating existing growth allowances in the nonattainment area that received a notice prior or subsequent to the Amendments that the SIP was substantially inadequate, and (2) restricting growth allowances to only those portions of nonattainment areas formally targeted as special zones for economic growth (Sections 173(b) and 173(a)(1)(B) of the CAA). Massachusetts' regulations do not contain provisions for growth allowances and are consequently consistent with the Act.

7. Massachusetts has a practice of supplying information from nonattainment NSR licenses to EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse in accordance with section 173(d) of the CAA.

8. Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.00 appendix A, section (8)(a), establishes provisions, in accordance with section 173(a)(3) of the CAA, to ensure that owners or operators of each proposed new or modified major stationary source demonstrate, as a condition of license issuance, that all other major stationary sources under the same ownership in the State are in compliance with the CAA.

9. Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.00 appendix A, section (8)(b) establishes provisions in accordance with section 173(a)(5) of the CAA that, as a prerequisite to issuing any Part D permit, require an analysis of alternative sites, sizes, production processes and environmental control techniques for proposed sources that demonstrate that the benefits of the proposed source significantly outweigh the environmental and social costs imposed as a result of its location, construction, and modification.

10. Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.00 appendix A, section (8)(c) establishes provisions in accordance with section 173(a)(4) of the CAA that, as a prerequisite to issuing any Part D permit, the Administrator has not determined that the applicable implementation plan is not being adequately implemented for the proposed nonattainment area in which the proposed source is to construct or be modified.

EPA is not taking action today on a February 11, 2000 submittal addressing NSR in attainment areas within the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). Because Western Massachusetts is currently designated as a serious nonattainment area, these requirements are not currently relevant there. In addition, as of January 16, 2001, EPA's reinstatement of the one-hour ozone NAAQS in Eastern Massachusetts will be effective and the area will be nonattainment. Consequently, Massachusetts' SIP revisions on the OTR will also not be relevant in the near future in Eastern Massachusetts. Massachusetts is currently applying serious nonattainment NSR requirements to all subject sources statewide. EPA is reviewing the OTR revisions and will take action on them in the near future. Such action would clearly need to occur before any redesignation to attainment within Massachusetts.

The general nonattainment NSR requirements are found in sections 172 and 173 of part D of subchapter I of the Act and must be met by all nonattainment areas. The requirements for ozone nonattainment areas that supplement or supersede these requirements are found in subpart 2 of part D. In addition to requirements for ozone nonattainment areas, subpart 2 includes section 182(f), which states that requirements for major stationary sources of VOC shall apply to major stationary sources of oxides of nitrogen ( NO X ) unless the Administrator makes certain determinations related to the benefits or contribution of NO X control to air quality, ozone attainment, or ozone air quality. States were required under section 182(a)(2)(C) to adopt new NSR rules for ozone nonattainment areas by November 15, 1992.

Pursuant to section 172(c)(5) of the CAA, State implementation plans must require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources in nonattainment areas. The federal statutory permit requirements for ozone nonattainment areas are generally contained in revised section 173, and in subpart 2 of subchapter I, part D of the CAA. These are the minimum requirements that States must include in an approvable implementation plan. For all classifications of ozone nonattainment areas, States must adopt the appropriate major source thresholds and offset ratios, and must adopt provisions to ensure that any new or modified major stationary source of NO X satisfies the requirements applicable to any major source of VOC, unless a special NO X exemption is granted by the Administrator under the provision of section 182(f). For serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas, State plans must implement section 182(c)(6) with regard to modifications of major sources. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts' attainment status is discussed above.

The following paragraphs reference the serious ozone nonattainment requirements that Massachusetts was required to submit to EPA by November 15, 1992 and how Massachusetts has met those requirements.

1. Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.00 appendix A, section (2), definition of “Major Stationary Source,” establishes provisions in accordance with the serious nonattainment area requirements provided in sections 182(c) and 182(f) of the CAA, by setting a major source threshold level of 50 TPY for VOC and for NO X .

2. Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix A, Section (6)(e), establishes provisions in accordance with sections 183(c)(10) and 182(f) of the CAA, by setting an offset ratio of 1.2 to 1 for major sources or major modifications of VOC or NO X .

3. Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix A, Section (2), definition of “Significant,” paragraphs (a) and (b), establishes provisions that are consistent with the “De Minimis rule” requirements of section 182(c)(6) of the CAA.

4. Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix A, Sections (3)(e), (f) and (g), establish provisions that are consistent with the special rules for modifications in sections 182(c)(7) and (8) of the CAA.

Massachusetts also added or revised definitions and permitting procedures to clarify specific requirements of 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix A and to make the rule consistent with the nonattainment NSR permit requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.165. The list of the new or revised definitions includes: Actual Emissions; Allowable Emissions; Begin Actual Construction; Building, Structure, Facility or Installation; Clean Coal Technology; Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project; Coastal Waters; Navigable Rivers and Lakes; Commence; Construction; Corresponding Onshore Area; Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit; Generating unit; Emissions Unit; Energy Input; Fossil Fuel Fired Boiler; Fossil Fuel Fired Electric Plant; Fugitive Emissions; Indian Governing Body; Indian Tribe; Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER); Major Modification; Major Stationary Source; Necessary Preconstruction Approvals or Permits; Net Emissions Increase; Outer Continental Shelf; Outer Continental Shelf Source; Pollution Control Project; Reasonable Further Progress; Repowering; Representative Actual Annual Emissions; Secondary Emissions; Significant; Stationary Source; Temporary Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project; Nonroad Engine; Nonroad Vehicle; Procedures for Shutdown Credits; Procedures for Source Obligation. For further details concerning the revisions to Massachusetts' 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix A and EPA's evaluation, please refer to the memorandum from Brendan McCahill, Environmental Engineer, to Steven Rapp, Manager, Air Permits Program entitled, “Technical Support Document—Massachusetts New Source Review Revisions,” dated October 18, 2000.

EPA is approving the revisions to Massachusetts 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix A, “Emission Offsets and Nonattainment Review.” The Agency has reviewed this request for revision of the Federally-approved State implementation plan for conformance with the provisions of the 1990 amendments enacted on November 15, 1990. These revisions meet the nonattainment area NSR provisions of Part D of the CAA.

EPA is publishing this rule 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, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This action will be effective December 26, 2000 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by November 27, 2000.

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 December 26, 2000 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 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. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 December 26, 2000. Interested parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the comment period allowed for in the proposal. 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).)

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

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

1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-301073. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

EPA issued a final rule, published in the Federal Register of August 6, 1999 (64 FR 42839) (FRL-6091-9), which announced that on its own initiative under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) (Public Law 104-170) it established time-limited tolerances for the combined residues of (N-(4-fluorophenyl)-N-(1- methylethyl)-2-[[-(trifluoromethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]oxy]acetamide and its metabolites containing the 4-fluoro-N-methylethyl benzenamine, in or on wheat grain at 1 ppm, wheat forage at 10 ppm, wheat hay at 2 ppm, wheat straw at 0.5 ppm, meat, kidney, and fat of cattle, goats, horses, hogs, and sheep at 0.05 ppm and meat by-products (other than kidney) of cattle, goats, horses, hogs, and sheep at 0.1 ppm, with an expiration date of July 31, 2001. EPA established these tolerances because section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Such tolerances can be established without providing notice or period for public comment.

EPA received a request to extend the use of (N-(4-fluorophenyl)-N-(1-methylethyl)-2-[-(trifluoromethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]oxy]acetamide for this year's growing season due to the lack of registered pesticides that provide adequate control of annual ryegrass in wheat. Italian ryegrass or annual ryegrass is one of the most difficult to control weeds in wheat. It is extremely competitive with wheat; as few as 20 plants per square meter can reduce wheat yield by 30%. Ryegrass is not a new species to the Pacific Northwest. It has been effectively controlled in past years by herbicides such as diclofop. However, resistance to diclofop was first identified in Oregon in the early 1980s. Diclofop is now ineffectual against controlling annual ryegrass in wheat. After having reviewed the submission, EPA concurs that emergency conditions exist. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of (N-(4-fluorophenyl)-N- (1-methylethyl)-2-[[-(trifluoromethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]oxy]acetamide on wheat for control of annual ryegrass in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of (N-(4-fluorophenyl)-N-(1-methylethyl)-2-[-(trifluoromethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]oxy]acetamide in or on wheat. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and decided that the necessary tolerance under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. The data and other relevant material have been evaluated and discussed in the final rule of August 6, 1999 (64 FR 42839) (FRL-6091-9). Based on that data and information considered, the Agency reaffirms that extension of the time-limited tolerance will continue to meet the requirements of section 408(l)(6). Therefore, the time-limited tolerances are extended for an additional two-year period. EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register to remove the revoked tolerances from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Although these tolerances will expire and are revoked on July 31, 2003, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerances remaining in or on wheat grain, wheat forage, wheat hay, wheat straw, and meat, fat, meat by-products, and kidney of cattle, goats, horses, hogs, and sheep after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide is applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA and the application occurred prior to the revocation of the tolerance. EPA will take action to revoke these tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.

Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) provides essentially the same process for persons to “object” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket control number OPP-301073 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before December 26, 2000.

1. Filing the request . Your objection must specify the specific provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.

Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. C400, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 260-4865.

2. Tolerance fee payment . If you file an objection or request a hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(I) or request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33(m). You must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please identify the fee submission by labeling it “Tolerance Petition Fees.”

EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement “when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.” For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at tompkins.jim@epa.gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

3. Copies for the Docket . In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit III.A., you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion in the official record that is described in Unit I.B.2. Mail your copies, identified by docket control number OPP-301073, to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB described in Unit I.B.2. You may also send an electronic copy of your request via e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov. Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 file format or ASCII file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.

A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

This final rule establishes time-limited tolerances under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review October 4, 1993 (58 FR 51735). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any prior consultation as specified by Executive Order 13084, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments May 19, 1998 (63 FR 27655); special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations February 16, 1994 (59 FR 7629); or require OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks April 23, 1997 (62 FR 19885). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a FIFRA section 18 petition under FFDCA section 408, such as the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism August 10, 1999 (64 FR 43255). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4).

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 this final rule in the Federal Register . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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

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

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-301072. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

EPA issued a final rule, published in the Federal Register of May 12, 1998 (63 FR 91) (FRL-5787-8), which announced that on its own initiative under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) (Public Law 104-170) it established a time-limited tolerance for the residues of azoxystrobin and its z -isomer in or on watercress at 1.0 ppm, with an expiration date of June 30, 1999. EPA established the tolerance because section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA, requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Such tolerances can be established without providing notice or period for public comment. This tolerance was subsequently extended until October 30, 2000 in the Federal Register of May 12, 1999 (64 FR 91) (FRL-6074-2).

EPA received a request to extend the use of azoxystrobin on watercress for this year's growing season due to the continuation of the emergency situation. After having reviewed the submission, EPA concurs that emergency conditions exist. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of azoxystrobin on watercress for control of cercospora leaf spot disease in Florida.

EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of azoxystrobin in or on watercress. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and decided that the necessary tolerance under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. The data and other relevant material have been evaluated and discussed in the final rule of May 12, 1998 (63 FR 91) (FRL-5787-8). Based on that data and information considered, the Agency reaffirms that extension of the time-limited tolerance will continue to meet the requirements of section 408(l)(6). Therefore, the time-limited tolerance is extended for an additional 2-year period. EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register to remove the revoked tolerance from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Although this tolerance will expire and is revoked on October 30, 2002, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on watercress after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide is applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA and the application occurred prior to the revocation of the tolerance. EPA will take action to revoke this tolerance earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.

Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) provides essentially the same process for persons to “object” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket control number OPP-301072 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before December 26, 2000.

1. Filing the request . Your objection must specify the specific provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.

Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. C400, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 260-4865.

2. Tolerance fee payment . If you file an objection or request a hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i) or request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33(m). You must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please identify the fee submission by labeling it “Tolerance Petition Fees.”

EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement “when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.” For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at tompkins.jim@epa.gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

3. Copies for the Docket . In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit III.A., you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion in the official record that is described in Unit I.B.2. Mail your copies, identified by docket control number OPP-301072, to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB described in Unit I.B.2. You may also send an electronic copy of your request via e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov. Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 file format or ASCII file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.

A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

This final rule establishes a time-limited tolerance under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any prior consultation as specified by Executive Order 13084, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR 27655, May 19, 1998); special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or require OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a FIFRA section 18 petition under FFDCA section 408, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4).

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 this final rule in the Federal Register . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

We conclude that Arizona's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Arizona final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Arizona has responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations on its authority retained by EPA in accordance with RCRA, including the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for such requirements and prohibitions. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Arizona, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

The effect of this decision is that a facility in Arizona subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Arizona continues to have enforcement responsibilities under its state law to pursue violations of its hazardous waste program. EPA continues to have independent authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, the authority to:

• Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;

• Enforce RCRA requirements (including state-issued statutes and regulations that are authorized by EPA and any applicable federally-issued statutes and regulations) and suspend or revoke permits; and

• Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions.

This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Arizona is being authorized by today's action are already effective, and are not changed by today's action.

EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register we are publishing a separate document that proposes to authorize the state program changes.

If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the rule becomes effective. EPA will base any further decision on the authorization of the state program changes on the proposal mentioned in the previous paragraph. We will then address all public comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time. If we receive comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste program, we will withdraw that part of this rule but the authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the date specified above. The Federal Register withdrawal document will specify which part of the authorization will become effective, and which part is being withdrawn.

Arizona initially received Final Authorization on November 20, 1985 to implement its base hazardous waste management program. Arizona received authorization for revisions to its program on August 6, 1991, July 13, 1992, November 23, 1992, October 27, 1993, June 12, 1995, May 6, 1997 and October 28, 1998 (63 FR 57605-57608 effective December 28, 1998).

Subsequent of these authorizations the State of Arizona has revised its hazardous waste program, making conforming changes to its regulations in line with the Federal requirements. The EPA has reviewed these changes and has made an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of adverse comment, that Arizona's hazardous waste program revisions satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Consequently, EPA intends to grant final authorization for these revisions.

On May 25, 2000, Arizona submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Arizona's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. These provisions are analogous to the indicated RCRA statutory provisions or Federal RCRA regulations as of September 9, 1998. The Arizona provisions are from the RCRA Cluster VII and VIII hazardous waste regulations unless otherwise stated. Therefore, upon authorization, the following Arizona hazardous waste requirements that are either equivalent or more stringent than the corresponding federal requirements will apply in lieu of the federal requirements:

In an effort to improve GSA's external directives system, GSA has undertaken a review of the Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR). The FPMR prescribes Governmentwide regulations for real property, personal property, and other programs and activities within GSA's regulatory authority. As part of this review, GSA is removing FPMR 101-2 because it is procedural rather than regulatory. Current guidance issued by the Department of Treasury may be found in the Treasury Financial Manual (TFM) Vol. 1, Part 6, Chapter 4000.

The General Services Administration has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 4 U.S.C. 601, et seq. , because there is no requirement that the rule be published in the Federal Register for notice and comment.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because this final rule does not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public which require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 501 et seq.

This final rule is also exempt from congressional review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to agency management and personnel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The changes in Base Flood Elevations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The changes in Base Flood Elevations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On November 19, 1999, the Coast Guard published an interim rule and request for comments entitled “Licensing and Manning for Officers of Towing Vessels” in the Federal Register [64 FR 63213]. The interim rule that was to become effective on November 20, 2000, established new licenses and revised training for officers of towing vessels.

Since promulgation of the interim rule, the Coast Guard has become aware that certain provisions in the rule may require clarification. The Coast Guard plans to publish clarification in a separate interim rule. To ensure that it makes clear all options, and that it gives all affected parties enough time to comply with the new and revised requirements, the Coast Guard is postponing the effective date of the interim rule of November 19, 1999, for six months. The Coast Guard considers a postponement of six months to be adequate for better implementation of the new requirements, the revised standards for training set forth in that interim rule, and outreach.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, PP Docket No. 00-67, FCC 00-342, adopted September 14, 2000; released September 15, 2000. The full text of the Commission's Report and Order is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. The Report and Order contains a new information collection subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new information collection contained in this proceeding.

1. The R&O adopts labeling requirements for three categories of digital television receivers and other consumer electronics TV receiving devices. The labeling requirements are designed to ensure that consumers understand the capability of digital television equipment to operate with cable television systems providing digital services. Following are the three consumer electronics TV receiving device labels that the Commission adopted. Commission rules require that any digital consumer electronics TV receiving device that does not provide one or more of the feature sets described in the labels may not be marketed as “cable ready” or “cable compatible” and that digital consumer electronics TV receiving devices that do provide one or more of these feature sets must be labeled as such. Because the new labeling requirements fall on consumer electronics equipment, the new rules are found in part 15 of 47 CFR (“Radio Frequency Devices”) rather than part 76 (“Multichannel Video and Cable Television Service”).

(a) “Digital Cable Ready 1” is a consumer electronics TV receiving device capable of receiving analog basic, digital basic and digital premium cable television programming by direct connection to a cable system providing digital programming. This device does not have a 1394 connector or other digital interface. A security card (or POD) provided by the cable operator is required to view encrypted programming.

(b) “Digital Cable Ready 2” is a consumer electronics TV receiving device capable of receiving analog basic, digital basic and digital premium cable television programming by direct connection to a cable system providing digital programming. This receiving device will incorporate all features defined in Digital Cable Ready 1 and will also include the 1394 digital interface connector. A security card/POD provided by the cable operator is required to view encrypted programming.

(c) “Digital Cable Ready 3” is a consumer electronics TV receiving device capable of receiving analog basic, digital basic and digital premium cable television programming. This device will incorporate all features defined in Digital Cable Ready 1 and will also receive advanced and interactive digital services by direct connection to a cable system providing digital programming and advanced and interactive digital services. A security card/POD provided by the cable operator is required to view encrypted programming.

2. The R&O also keeps PP Docket No. 00-67 open in order to give the Commission the option of incorporating into its rules specifications, on which the industries are still working, for the Digital Cable Ready 3 receiver. Additionally, the R&O requires the cable and consumer electronics industries to report at intervals to the Commission on progress in implementing earlier agreements on technical standards for direct connection of digital television receivers to digital cable systems and on providing tuning and program scheduling information (Program and Scheduling Information Protocol or “PSIP” information) to support the navigation function of DTV receivers. The first report is due November 30, 2000 and subsequent reports are due April 30 and October 31, 2001 and April 30 and October 31, 2002.

3. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 65 FR 24671, April 27, 2000, in this proceeding also sought comment about scrambling of digital broadcast signals and their placement on cable service tiers and about whether the digital transition necessitates any amendment to Commission requirements that cable operators offer supplemental equipment to subscribers to enable them to utilize certain special features of their digital television receivers ( e.g., “picture in picture”). The R&O concludes the pending digital must carry proceeding is the appropriate venue for resolving digital broadcast signal carriage issues and that no action is required at this time with respect to our supplemental equipment rules.

4. Additionally, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding addressed licensing terms for copy protection technology. Because the question that emerged in the filed comments relates to the Commission's navigation devices rules, the Commission addressed this issue in a separate decision in the navigation devices docket. See Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Memorandum Opinion & Order, and Declaratory Ruling in CS Docket No. 97-80, Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996-Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices, FCC 00-341, adopted Sept. 14, 2000.

This Report and Order contains new information collection(s) subject to the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA, with a request for emergency approval. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment. Public and agency comments are due December 26, 2000. Comments should address: (a) whether the new or modified collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment.

Form No.: Not Applicable.

Type of Review: New Collection.

Respondents: Business or other for profit.

Number of Respondents: 102.

Estimated Time Per Response: 10-80 hours.

Total Annual Burden: Varies by year and information collection (for progress reports, burden is 160 hours in 2000 and 320 hours per year in 2001 and 2002; for labeling, burden is 1,400 hours in 2001 and 1,000 hours/year in each later year).

Cost to Respondents: Progress reports total cost is $12,000 in 2000 and $24,000/year in each of 2001 and 2002. Labeling total cost is $28,000 in 2001 and $25,000/year in future years.

Needs and Uses: The labeling requirements will ensure that consumers understand the capability of digital television equipment to operate with cable television systems. This will not only aid consumers in making informed purchasing decisions with respect to DTV equipment but also promote the overall transition from analog to digital television. The progress reports will allow the Commission to monitor industry development of specifications for the Digital Cable Ready 3 receiver, as well as tracking industry progress in implementing earlier agreements on technical standards for direct connection of digital television receivers to digital cable systems and on providing tuning and program scheduling information (Program and Scheduling Information Protocol or “PSIP” information) to support the navigation function of DTV receivers. Through oversight and identification of outstanding areas of disagreement, the Commission will be able to encourage the industries to reach agreement on and put into effect specifications for DTV products that will offer major benefits to American consumers.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)  1 requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 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.”  2 The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)  3 in this proceeding proposed rules to resolve outstanding compatibility issues between cable television systems and consumer electronics equipment, in particular, requirements for labeling digital television (DTV) receivers to describe their capabilities to operate with digital cable television systems, and questions regarding licensing terms for copy protection technology. Out of an abundance of caution, the Commission published an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the NPRM, even though the Commission was reasonably confident that any economic effect on small entities would be minimal. The IRFA sought written public comment on the proposed rules and our tentative conclusions in the IRFA. We received one written comment in response to the IRFA, from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). 4

As noted, the NPRM in this proceeding raised two issues—labeling of digital television receivers and copy protection technology licensing terms. The second issue has now been moved to another proceeding and resolved therein via a declaratory ruling. 5 The present Report and Order addresses only the labeling of “consumer electronics TV receiving devices, including TV receivers, videocassette recorders, and similar devices, that include digital video signal processing capability and incorporate features intended to be used with digital cable television service.” The impact of the rules adopted is thus on manufacturers of consumer electronics TV receiving devices. The rules do not mandate any particular design or set of features for this equipment. They merely require manufacturers to attach specified labels to receiving devices that provide certain sets of features. Of course, manufacturers of consumer electronics TV receiving devices already package and label their products with various descriptive captions. Moreover, we believe that manufacturers generally find it in their interest to ensure that consumers understand the capabilities of the product being offered for sale. Hence, manufacturers actually have commercial incentives to label their products clearly. (Concomitantly, consumers also benefit from the information in product labels.) For these reasons, and for reasons we discuss additionally below, we certify, pursuant to the RFA, that the labeling requirements adopted in the present Report and Order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Report and Order directs the National Cable Television Association and the Consumer Electronics Association to file reports with the Commission on November 30, 2000, April 30, 2001, October 31, 2001, April 30, 2002, and October 31, 2002 detailing the progress of their efforts to develop standards for a bidirectional direct connection DTV receiver and their progress in implementing their February 2000 agreements on technical requirements for direct connection of digital television receivers to digital cable systems and on provision of tuning and program scheduling information to support the navigation functions of DTV receivers. Because the requirements apply only to these two trade associations, which together do not constitute a substantial number of entities, we certify, pursuant to the RFA, that the reporting requirements will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

On the labeling issue as described in the IRFA, the SBA stated, “The Commission * * * asserts that its labeling rules would have a minimal impact, because labeling would be standardized, costs would be spread over sufficient quantities of goods as to be insubstantial, and manufacturers could pass costs on to their subscribers. But this ignores the differences in output or customer base that may exist between a small company and a large company. A business with less output or fewer customers might find its per unit costs are higher. The Commission should explore any such potential cost discrepancies based on business size, not simply dismiss them as minimal.” As described in the Report and Order, pursuant to the new rule, manufacturers must label the pertinent products with labels that meet the requirements of § 2.925 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 2.925. Manufacturers of transceivers must already label their equipment to demonstrate compliance with the Commission's equipment authorization rules. Such labels must “be permanently affixed to the equipment and * * * be readily visible to the purchaser at the time of purchase.” Section 2.925(d). The manufacturer may choose the means to make the label permanent, including using a nameplate (of material of the manufacturer's choosing) fastened to the equipment with a permanent adhesive. While we do not wish to favor one type of labeling choice over another, we note that use of an adhesive label containing the additional information at issue should not create a significant economic impact for any manufacturer, and in fact probably represents an insignificant economic impact. The cost of paper labels with adhesive, containing brief information specified by rule, would appear to be minimal. Finally, the rules permit manufacturers to request alternative means of labeling. Section 2.925(e).

The Commission will send a copy of the present Report and Order, including a copy of this final certification, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including a copy of this final certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.