Under the Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 4801-4819), a pork referendum was conducted during the period August 18, 2000, through September 21, 2000. The referendum was conducted pursuant to referendum rules published July 13, 2000, [65 FR 43498] Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Program: Procedures for the Conduct of Referendum: final rule. The referendum was conducted among eligible pork producers who owned and sold one or more hogs or pigs and importers who imported pigs, hogs, pork or pork products to determine whether they favored the continuation of the Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Order. Producer in-person voting in the referendum was held September 19, 20, 21, 2000, at county FSA offices. Producer absentee ballots were available at those offices from August 18, 2000, through September 18, 2000. Importers could obtain ballots from the FSA headquarters office in Washington, DC, from August 18, 2000, through September 21, 2000. The representative period to establish voter eligibility was the period from August 18, 1999, through August 17, 2000.

Persons who wished to vote in the pork checkoff referendum had to complete and sign a registration and certification form that required the minimum information necessary to establish the identity of the person voting and to permit other interested persons an opportunity to challenge a person's vote. The registration and certification forms—Form LS-72-2, In-Person Registration and Certification (Envelope); Form LS-73, Pork Producer Absentee Voting; and Form LS-76, Pork Importer Mail Voting—required that a person include their name and address, or the name and address of the entity they represented if applicable, and the person's telephone number.

During the conduct of the referendum a question was raised concerning whether a ballot would be invalid if no telephone number was included on the registration and certification form. The telephone number was for the FSA county offices' administrative convenience to contact the voter in the event that such contact became necessary. The Agricultural Marketing Service never intended to invalidate an otherwise complete ballot simply because there was no phone number.

In a final rule published in the Federal Register on October 18, 1999 (64 FR 56142-56148, Docket No. 95-029-2), we amended the Animal Welfare regulations to require that a perimeter fence be placed around outdoor housing facilities for marine mammals and certain other regulated animals.

In the rule portion, § 3.127(d) contains an error in the list of large felines. We identified large felines as “lions, tigers, leopards, cougars, bobcats, etc.” However, bobcats are not considered large felines based on generally accepted and published morphometric (measurement of height, weight, length, girth, etc.) data. Therefore, we are removing bobcats from the list of large felines in § 3.127(d). Based on this change, all outdoor housing facilities (i.e., facilities not entirely indoors) for bobcats would require a 6-foot perimeter fence or an alternative method identified in § 3.127(d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), and (d)(4) rather than an 8-foot fence.

This document also revises the authority citation for 9 CFR part 3 to reflect a revision to 7 CFR part 371 that took effect after our final rule was published.

The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the approval design and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary since the substance of this special condition has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making this special condition effective upon issuance.

Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or special condition number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered. The special condition may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this special condition must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Rules Docket No. SW008.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

On November 5, 1990, Sikorsky applied for a new type certification of Model S-92 helicopters. Since applying for the new type certification, Sikorsky has requested two extensions of the type certification period. The first extension to August 29, 1999 was approved by the FAA on October 7, 1994, and the second extension to May 31, 2000 was approved on July 21, 1995. Sikorsky Model S-92 helicopters are 19-passenger Transport Category helicopters, powered by two General Electric Model CT7-8 engines. They will incorporate one auxiliary power unit for engine starting and back-up electrical power. The helicopters will have a conventional aluminum structure with some composite parts and highly integrated digital avionics.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Sikorsky must show that Sikorsky Model S-92 helicopters meet the applicable provisions of the regulations as listed below:

• 14 CFR Part 29, Amendment 29-1 through Amendment 29-45, inclusive;

• 14 CFR Part 36, Appendix H, Amendments 36-1 through the amendment effective at the time of certification; and

• Any special conditions, exemptions, and equivalent safety findings deemed necessary.

In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions and equivalent safety findings that are not relevant to this special condition.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these helicopters because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, Sikorsky Model S-92 helicopters must comply with the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

Special conditions, as appropriate, are issued in accordance with § 11.49, as required by §§ 11.28 and 11.29(b), and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.17(a)(2).

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

Sikorsky Model S-92 helicopters will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: electrical, electronic, or combination of electrical electronic (electrical/electronic) systems that perform critical control functions or display critical information, such as electronic flight instruments, required for continued safe flight and landing of the helicopter during operation in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC); and Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) that will be performing engine control functions that are critical to the continued safe flight and landing of the helicopter during Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations.

Sikorsky Model S-92 helicopters, at the time of application, were identified as incorporating one and possibly more electrical/electronic systems, such as electronic flight instruments and FADEC. After the design is finalized, Sikorsky will provide the FAA with a preliminary hazard analysis that will identify any other critical functions required for safe flight and landing that are performed by the electrical/electronic systems.

Recent advances in technology have given rise to the application in aircraft designs of advanced electrical/electronic systems that perform critical control functions or provide critical displays. These advanced systems respond to the transient effects of induced electrical current and voltage caused by a HIRF incident on the external surface of the helicopter. These induced transient currents and voltages can degrade the performance of the electrical/electronic systems by damaging the components or by upsetting the systems' functions.

Furthermore, the electromagnetic environment has undergone a transformation not envisioned by the current application of § 29.1309(a). Higher energy levels radiate from operational transmitters currently used for radar, radio, and television. Also, the number of transmitters has increased significantly.

Existing aircraft certification requirements are inappropriate in view of these technological advances. In addition, the FAA has received reports of some significant safety incidents and accidents involving military aircraft equipped with advanced electrical/electronic systems when they were exposed to electromagnetic radiation.

The combined effects of the technological advances in helicopter design and the changing environment have resulted in an increased level of vulnerability of the electrical/electronic systems required for the continued safe flight and landing of the helicopters. Effective measures to protect these helicopters against the adverse effects of exposure to HIRF will be provided by the design and installation of these systems. The following primary factors contributed to the current conditions: (1) Increased use of sensitive electronics that perform critical functions; (2) reduced electromagnetic shielding afforded helicopter systems by advanced technology airframe materials; (3) adverse service experience of military aircraft using these technologies; and (4) an increase in the number and power of radio frequency emitters and the expected increase in the future.

The FAA recognizes the need for aircraft certification standards to keep pace with the developments in technology and environment and, in 1986, initiated a high priority program to (1) determine and define electromagnetic energy levels; (2) develop and describe guidance material for design, test, and analysis; and (3) prescribe and promulgate regulatory standards.

The FAA participated with industry and airworthiness authorities of other countries to develop internationally recognized standards for certification.

The FAA and airworthiness authorities of other countries have identified two levels of the HIRF environment that a helicopter could be exposed to, one environment for VFR operations and a different environment for IFR operations. While the HIRF rulemaking requirements are being finalized, the FAA is adopting a special condition for the certification of aircraft that employ electrical/electronic systems that perform critical control functions or provide critical displays. The accepted maximum energy levels that civilian helicopter system installations must withstand for safe operation are based on surveys and analysis of existing radio frequency emitters. This special condition will require the helicopters' electrical/electronic systems and associated wiring to be protected from these energy levels. These external threat levels are believed to represent the exposure for a helicopter operating under VFR or IFR.

Compliance with HIRF requirements will be demonstrated by tests, analysis, models' similarity with existing systems, or a combination of these methods. Service experience alone will not be acceptable since such experience in normal flight operations may not include an exposure to HIRF. Reliance on a system with similar design features for redundancy as a means of protection against the effects of external HIRF is generally insufficient because all elements of a redundant system are likely to be concurrently exposed to the radiated fields.

This special condition will require the aircraft-installed systems that perform critical control functions or provide critical displays to meet certain standards based on either a defined HIRF environment or a fixed value using laboratory tests. Control system failures and malfunctions can more directly and abruptly contribute to a catastrophic event than display system failures and malfunctions. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to require more rigorous HIRF verification methods for critical control systems than for critical display systems.

The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational capabilities of the installed electrical/electronic systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is exposed to the defined HIRF test environment. The FAA has determined that the test environment defined in Table 1 is acceptable for critical control functions in helicopters. The test environment defined in Table 2 is acceptable for critical display systems in helicopters.

The applicant may also demonstrate, using a laboratory test, that the electrical/electronic systems that perform critical control functions or provide critical displays can withstand peak electromagnetic field strength in a frequency range of 10 kHz to 18 GHz. If a laboratory test is used to show compliance with the defined HIRF environment, no credit will be given for signal attenuation due to installation. A level of 100 volts per meter (v/m) is appropriate for critical display systems. A level of 200 v/m is appropriate for critical control functions. Laboratory test levels are defined according to RTCA/DO-160D Section 20 Category W (100 v/m and 150 mA) and Category Y (200 v/m and 300 mA). As stated in DO-160D Section 20, the test levels are defined as the peak of the root means squared (rms) envelope. As a minimum, the modulations required for RTCA/DO-160D Section 20 Categories W and Y will be used. Other modulations should be selected as the signal most likely to disrupt the operation of the system under test, based on its design characteristics. For example, flight control systems may be susceptible to 3 Hz square wave modulation while the video signals for electronic display systems may be susceptible to 400 Hz sinusoidal modulation. If the worst-case modulation is unknown or cannot be determined, default modulations may be used. Suggested default values are a 1 kHz sine wave with 80 percent depth of modulation in the frequency range from 10 kHz to 400 MHz and 1 kHz square wave with greater than 90 percent depth of modulation from 400 MHz to 18 GHz. For frequencies where the unmodulated signal would cause deviations from normal operation, several different modulating signals with various waveforms and frequencies should be applied.

Applicants must perform a preliminary hazard analysis to identify electrical/electronic systems that perform critical functions. The term “critical” means those functions whose failure would contribute to or cause an unsafe condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the helicopters. The systems identified by the hazard analysis as performing critical functions are required to have HIRF protection. A system may perform both critical and non-critical functions. Primary electronic flight display systems and their associated components perform critical functions such as attitude, altitude, and airspeed indications. HIRF requirements would apply only to the systems that perform critical functions, including control and display.

Acceptable system performance would be attained by demonstrating that the critical function components of the system under consideration continue to perform their intended function during and after exposure to required electromagnetic fields. Deviations from system specifications may be acceptable but must be independently assessed by the FAA on a case-by-case basis.

As previously discussed, this special condition is applicable to Sikorsky Model S-92 helicopters. Should Sikorsky apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special condition would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

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

The substance of this special condition has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the helicopters, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting this special condition upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the approval design and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary since the substance of this special condition has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making this special condition effective upon issuance.

Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or special condition number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered. The special condition may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this special condition must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Rules Docket No. SW007.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

On September 1, 1998, Eurocopter submitted an application for Type Validation of Model EC-155 Transport Category helicopters through the Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority of France, and the FAA Brussels Aircraft Certification Office (ACO). Model EC-155 helicopters are a derivative of Model AS365N3 helicopters that achieved FAA Type Certification on November 8, 1998. The main design differences between Model EC-155 and Model AS365N3 helicopters include the following: a gross weight increase from 4250 kg to 4800 kg; enlarged fuselage structure; a new 5-blade speriflex main rotor and composite fenestron blades; and a new avionics instrumentation package that includes a 3-axis digital Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS) and electronic displays.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Eurocopter must show that Model EC-155 helicopters meet the applicable provisions of the regulations as listed below:

—14 CFR 21.29.

—14 CFR part 29, Amendment 29-1 through Amendment 29-40 with the following exceptions:

—Excluding Amendment 29-38.

—Excluding 14 CFR 29.952, introduced at Amendment 29-35.

—Excluding 14 CFR 29.562, introduced at Amendment 29-29.

—Excluding 14 CFR 29.631, introduced at Amendment 29-40.

—Section 29.561(a), (b), and (d) at Amendment 29-1.

—Section 29.561(c) at Amendment 29-29.

—Section 29.571 at Amendment 29-20.

—Section 29.785 at Amendment 29-24.

—Section's 29.963, 29.973, and 29.975 at Amendment 29-26.

—Section 29.1305(a)(4)(i) at Amendment 29-16.

—14 CFR part 36, Appendix H through the latest amendment in effect at the time that the noise tests are conducted.

—Any Special conditions, Exemptions, and Equivalent Safety Findings deemed necessary.

In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions and equivalent safety findings that are not relevant to this special condition.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these helicopters because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, Eurocopter Model EC-155 helicopters must comply with the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

Special conditions, as appropriate, are issued in accordance with § 11.49, as required by §§ 11.28 and 11.29(b), and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.17(a)(2).

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

Eurocopter Model EC-155 helicopters will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: electrical, electronic, or a combination of electrical electronic (electrical/electronic) systems that will perform critical control functions or display critical information, such as electronic flight instruments that display critical information required for the continued safe flight and landing of the helicopter during operation in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC); and Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) that will perform engine control functions that are critical to the continued safe flight and landing of the helicopter during Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations.

Eurocopter Model EC-155 helicopters, at the time of application, were identified as incorporating one and possibly more electrical/electronic systems, such as electronic flight instruments and FADEC. After the design is finalized, Eurocopter will provide the FAA with a preliminary hazard analysis that will identify any other critical functions required for safe flight and landing that are performed by the electrical/electronic systems.

Recent advances in technology have given rise to the application in aircraft designs of advanced electrical/electronic systems that perform critical control functions or provide critical displays. These advanced systems respond to the transient effects of induced electrical current and voltage caused by HIRF incident on the external surface of the helicopter. These induced transient currents and voltages can degrade the performance of the electrical/electronic systems by damaging the components or by upsetting the systems' functions.

Furthermore, the electromagnetic environment has undergone a transformation not envisioned by the current application of § 29.1309(a). Higher energy levels radiate from operational transmitters currently used for radar, radio, and television. Also, the number of transmitters has increased significantly.

Existing aircraft certification requirements are inappropriate in view of these technological advances. In addition, the FAA has received reports of some significant safety incidents and accidents involving military aircraft equipped with advanced electrical/electronic systems when they were exposed to electromagnetic radiation.

The combined effects of the technological advances in helicopter design and the changing environment have resulted in an increased level of vulnerability of the electrical/electronic systems required for the continued safe flight and landing of the helicopter. Effective measures to protect these helicopters against the adverse effects of exposure to HIRF will be provided by the design and installation of these systems. The following primary factors contributed to the current conditions: (1) Increased use of sensitive electronics that perform critical functions; (2) reduced electromagnetic shielding afforded helicopter systems by advanced technology airframe materials; (3) adverse service experience of military aircraft using these technologies; and (4) an increase in the number and power of radio frequency emitters and the expected increase in the future.

The FAA recognizes the need for aircraft certification standards to keep pace with the developments in technology and environment and, in 1986, initiated a high priority program to: (1) Determine and define electromagnetic energy levels; (2) develop and describe guidance material for design, test, and analysis; and (3) prescribe and promulgate regulatory standards.

The FAA participated with industry and airworthiness authorities of other countries to develop internationally recognized standards for certification.

The FAA and airworthiness authorities of other countries have identified two levels of the HIRF environment that a helicopter could be exposed to, one environment for VFR operations and a different environment for IFR operations. While the HIRF rulemaking requirements are being finalized, the FAA is adopting a special condition for the certification of aircraft that employ electrical/electronic systems that perform critical control functions or provide critical displays. The accepted maximum energy levels that civilian helicopter system installations must withstand for safe operation are based on surveys and analysis of existing radio frequency emitters. This special condition will require the helicopters' electrical/electronic systems and associated wiring to be protected from these energy levels. These external threat levels are believed to represent the exposure for a helicopter operating under VFR or IFR.

Compliance with HIRF requirements will be demonstrated by tests, analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or a combination of these methods. Service experience alone will not be acceptable since such experience in normal flight operations may not include an exposure to HIRF. Reliance on a system with similar design features for redundancy, as a means of protection against the effects of external HIRF, is generally insufficient because all elements of a redundant system are likely to be concurrently exposed to the radiated fields.

This special condition will require the aircraft-installed systems that perform critical control functions or provide critical displays to meet certain standards based on either a defined HIRF environment or a fixed value using laboratory tests. Control system failures and malfunctions can more directly and abruptly contribute to a catastrophic event than display system failures and malfunctions. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to require more rigorous HIRF verification methods for critical control systems than for critical display systems.

The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational capabilities of the installed electrical/electronic systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is exposed to the defined HIRF test environment. The FAA has determined that the test environment defined in Table 1 is acceptable for critical control functions in helicopters. The test environment defined in Table 2 is acceptable for critical display systems in helicopters.

The applicant may also demonstrate by a laboratory test that the electrical/electronic systems that perform critical control functions or provide critical displays can withstand a peak electromagnetic field strength in a frequency range of 10 kHz to 18 GHz. If a laboratory test is used to show compliance with the defined HIRF environment, no credit will be given for signal attenuation due to installation. A level of 100 volts per meter (v/m) is appropriate for critical display systems. A level of 200 v/m is appropriate for critical control functions. Laboratory test levels are defined according to RTCA/DO-160D Section 20 Category W (100 v/m and 150 mA) and Category Y (200 v/m and 300 mA). As stated in DO-160D Section 20, the test levels are defined as the peak of the root means squared (rms) envelope. As a minimum, the modulations required for RTCA/DO-160D Section 20 Categories W and Y will be used. Other modulations should be selected as the signal most likely to disrupt the operation of the system under test, based on its design characteristics. For example, flight control systems may be susceptible to 3 Hz square wave modulation while the video signals for electronic display systems may be susceptible to 400 Hz sinusoidal modulation. If the worst-case modulation is unknown or cannot be determined, default modulations may be used. Suggested default values are a 1 kHz sine wave with 80 percent depth of modulation in the frequency range from 10 kHz to 400 MHz and 1 kHz square wave with greater than 90 percent depth of modulation from 400 MHz to 18 GHz. For frequencies where the unmodulated signal would cause deviations from normal operation, several different modulating signals with various waveforms and frequencies should be applied.

Applicants must perform a preliminary hazard analysis to identify electrical/electronic systems that perform critical functions. The term “critical” means those functions whose failure would contribute to or cause an unsafe condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the helicopters. The systems identified by the hazard analysis as performing critical functions are required to have HIRF protection. A system may perform both critical and non-critical functions. Primary electronic flight display systems and their associated components perform critical functions such as attitude, altitude, and airspeed indications. HIRF requirements would apply only to the systems that perform critical functions, including control and display.

Acceptable system performance would be attained by demonstrating that the critical function components of the system under consideration continue to perform their intended function during and after exposure to required electromagnetic fields. Deviations from system specifications may be acceptable but must be independently assessed by the FAA on a case-by-case basis.

As previously discussed, this special condition is applicable to Eurocopter Model EC-155 helicopters. Should Eurocopter apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special condition would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model series of helicopters. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the helicopter.

The substance of this special condition has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the helicopter, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting this special condition upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Aerospatiale Model ATR72 series airplanes was published as a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on August 23, 2000 (65 FR 51260). That action proposed to require a revision to the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate inspections to detect fatigue cracking in certain structure, inspection intervals, and life limits for certain components.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received in response to the supplemental NPRM.

After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

The FAA estimates that 39 Aerospatiale Model ATR72 series airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,340, or $60 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 98-11-21, amendment 39-10546 (63 FR 29546, July 6, 1998), which is applicable to certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -301 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on August 23, 2000 (65 FR 51256). The action proposed to continue to require a one-time inspection for wear and breakage of wire segments of the individual lighting units of the ceiling and sidewall lights, and replacement of any damaged wiring. The action also proposed to continue to require installation of teflon spiral wrap on the wiring of the ceiling and sidewall lights. Additionally, the action proposed to add a requirement for a one-time inspection to determine if teflon spiral wrap is installed on the wiring of the lavatory lighting system, and installation, if necessary.

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

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

There are approximately 73 airplanes of U.S. registry that will be affected by this AD.

The actions that are currently required by AD 98-11-21 take approximately 30 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts cost approximately $250 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $149,650, or $2,050 per airplane.

The new inspection that is required by this AD will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the new requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $8,760, or $120 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A330 and A340 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on September 27, 2000 (65 FR 58013). That action proposed to require modification of the rib 1/wing center spar attachment.

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

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

The following information describes the anticipated cost impact on U.S. operators for the required modification.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished the modification of this AD, and that no operator would accomplish these actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. However, the FAA has been advised that the 5 airplanes currently on the U.S. Register have been modified in accordance with the requirements of this AD. Therefore, until additional affected airplanes (unmodified) are added to the U.S. Register, this AD imposes no additional cost on U.S. operators.

The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Saab Model SAAB 2000 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2000 (65 FR 58494). That action proposed to require an inspection to ensure correct installation of certain self-seal couplings in each nacelle, and corrective action, if necessary. That action also proposed to require installation of a new clamp to the self-seal couplings.

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

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

The FAA estimates that 3 Model SAAB 2000 series airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will be provided by the vendor at no charge to operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $180, or $60 per airplane.

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

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

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

The FAA has received numerous reports of fatigue cracking of the vertical chords of the aft torque bulkhead of the outboard nacelle struts on certain Boeing Model 747-100, 747-200, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes powered by Pratt & Whitney JT9D-3 or JT9D-7 series engines. The cracks have been found adjacent to the lower spar fitting. Such cracking of the vertical chords adjacent to the lower spar fitting could result in separation of the diagonal brace load path. Continued operation with a separated diagonal brace load path, if not corrected, increases loads on the upper link, midspar fitting, and dual side links, which could result in separation of the strut and engine from the airplane.

The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2201, dated September 28, 2000, which describes procedures for repetitive detailed visual, ultrasonic, and surface eddy current inspections to detect cracking of the vertical chords of the aft torque bulkhead of the outboard nacelle struts. The service bulletin also describes procedures for a modification that involves installation of doublers on the vertical chords, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

The service bulletin provides for deferment of the initial inspections if Boeing Service Letter 747-SL-54-055, dated April 24, 1998, has been accomplished. That service letter recommends accomplishment of detailed visual and high frequency eddy current inspections of the chords of the aft torque bulkhead during modification of the nacelle strut. The FAA finds that, if the inspections recommended in Boeing Service Letter 747-SL-54-055 were accomplished during the modification of the nacelle strut and wing in accordance with AD 95-10-16, amendment 39-9233 (60 FR 27008, May 22, 1995), the initial inspections required by this AD may be deferred until 3,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of Boeing Service Letter 747-SL-54-055.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, this AD is being issued to detect and correct cracking of the vertical chords adjacent to the lower spar fitting, which could result in separation of the diagonal brace load path. This AD requires accomplishment of the inspections specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.

This is considered to be interim action. The FAA is currently considering requiring the modification specified in the service bulletin, which will constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD action. However, the planned compliance time for the installation of the modification is sufficiently long so that notice and opportunity for prior public comment will be practicable.

Operators should note that, although the service bulletin specifies that the manufacturer may be contacted for disposition of certain repair conditions, this AD requires the repair of those conditions to be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the FAA, or in accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorized by the FAA to make such findings.

Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES . All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Submit comments using the following format:

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

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

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-353-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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.

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

The FAA has received a report from an operator of one instance of fire in the passenger compartment on a Model DC-9-82 (MD-82) airplane while the airplane was parked at the gate. Findings from the investigation indicate the source of the fire was due to arcing of the Luminator fluorescent lamp holder. Test findings indicate that the possibility of arcing exists when a combination of Page ballasts and Luminator fluorescent lamp holders is installed on these airplanes. Such arcing is attributed to the output of the Page ballast when fluorescent lamps are installed improperly in worn or deteriorated Luminator fluorescent lamp holders. The subject components on affected Model DC-9-83 (MD-83) series airplanes and MD-88 airplanes are identical to those installed on the affected Model DC-9-82 (MD-82) series airplanes. Therefore, all of these models may be subject to the same unsafe condition.

The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-33A115, dated August 10, 2000, which describes procedures for deactivating the left and right lower sidewall lights located outboard of the Passenger Service Unit panel.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, this AD is being issued to prevent arcing and heat damage of the fluorescent lamp holders by deactivating the left and right lower sidewall lights located in the passenger compartment. This AD requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the alert service bulletin described previously.

This is considered to be interim action until final action is identified, at which time the FAA may consider further rulemaking.

Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire.

Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES . All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Submit comments using the following format:

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

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

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-356-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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.

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-120 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2000 (65 FR 52367). That action proposed to require installation of an additional drain at the fuselage aft section.

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

One commenter requests that the compliance time be relaxed beyond the 400 flight hours specified in the proposed AD. The commenter indicates that a 400-flight-hour compliance time would impose a burden on operators. In addition, the commenter points out that the referenced service bulletin was issued five years ago. The commenter states that if the actions described in the service bulletin are urgent enough to drive a compliance time of 400 flight hours, then it should not take five years to determine that the operator has that amount of time to take corrective action. The commenter suggests that the compliance time be revised to align with the time recommended in the referenced service bulletin, which states “at operator's discretion.”

The FAA concurs partially. The FAA does not agree that definition of the compliance time should be left to the discretion of operators. However, the FAA agrees that a 400-flight-hour compliance time is too restrictive. The FAA finds that extending the compliance time to 1,200 flight hours should coincide with an operator's “3A” check and will not adversely affect safety. Paragraph (a) of the final rule has been revised accordingly.

The same commenter expresses concern that because the original drain line has a bend, and since the new drain line is located in an unlit area, it is difficult to visually inspect for blockage. The commenter suggests passing an object through the drain line to check for obstructions.

The FAA does not concur. Accomplishment of the inspection should be able to be accomplished by shining a flashlight through the new drain, which has a straight port. The inspection should not require passing an object through the drain line, which could damage the drain line. No change to the final rule is necessary.

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

The FAA estimates that 200 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 10 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $34 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $126,800, or $634 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 97-10-11, amendment 39-10023 (62 FR 25837, May 12, 1997), which is applicable to all Boeing Model 777 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2000 (65 FR 31837). The action proposed to terminate the repetitive testing of the engine fire shutoff switch (EFSS) required by AD 97-10-11.

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

One commenter concurs with the proposed rule and indicates that it has almost completed the terminating action on its entire fleet.

One commenter, an operator, requests that an exemption be added to the proposed rule for airplanes recently delivered, if the operator can prove by inventory records that it has at no time purchased or borrowed the EFSS with the part numbers specified in this proposed rule. The commenter states that the proposal does not affect operators with recently delivered airplanes that were not affected by AD 97-10-11. Additionally, the commenter notes that at no time did it have the old EFSS in its system nor did it replace an EFSS on any of its in-service airplanes. The commenter concludes that this proposed rule should not be applicable to it.

The FAA is unable to grant an exemption in light of the fact that paragraph (d) of this final rule prohibits future installation of the defective EFSS [engine fire control module having part number (P/N) 233W6201-1, or engine fire switches having P/N S231W263-1 or -2]. Therefore, this requirement affects any airplanes delivered after this final rule is issued. However, the FAA recognizes from the commenter's interpretation of paragraph (c) of the final rule that this paragraph requires further clarification. The FAA's intent is to require removal and replacement of the engine fire control module only if it contains a defective EFSS. Therefore, paragraph (c) of this final rule has been revised to add an option to verify that the improved engine fire control module is installed, which would constitute terminating action for the repetitive testing requirements in paragraph (b) of the final rule.

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

There are approximately 196 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 48 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The actions that are currently required by AD 97-10-11, and retained in this AD, take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on the U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,880, or $60 per airplane, per testing cycle.

The new actions that are required by this AD action take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $4,054 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the new requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $197,472, or $4,114 per airplane.

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

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

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

In a notice published in the Federal Register of June 11, 1999 (64 FR 31593), FDA announced that a food additive petition (FAP 9B4668) had been filed by Angus Chemical Co., c/o Phillip A. Johns, 10900 Silent Wood Pl., North Potomac, MD 20878-4829. The petition proposed to amend the food additive regulations in § 176.300 Slimicides (21 CFR 176.300) to provide for the safe use of 4-(diiodomethylsulfonyl) toluene as a slimicide in the manufacture of food-contact paper and paperboard.

FDA has evaluated data in the petition and other relevant material. Based on this information, the agency concludes that: (1) The proposed use of the additive as a slimicide in the manufacture of food-contact paper and paperboard is safe, (2) the additive will achieve its intended technical effect, and therefore, (3) the regulations in § 176.300 should be amended as set forth below.

In accordance with § 171.1(h) (21 CFR 171.1(h)), the petition and the documents that FDA considered and relied upon in reaching its decision to approve the petition are available for inspection at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition by appointment with the information contact person listed above. As provided in § 171.1(h), the agency will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for public disclosure before making the documents available for inspection.

The agency has carefully considered the potential environmental effects of this rule as announced in the notice of filing for the petition. No new information or comments have been received that would affect the agency's previous determination that there is no significant impact on the human environment and that an environmental impact statement is not required.

This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may at any time file with the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written objections by December 28, 2000. Each objection shall be separately numbered, and each numbered objection shall specify with particularity the provisions of the regulation to which objection is made and the grounds for the objection. Each numbered objection on which a hearing is requested shall specifically so state. Failure to request a hearing for any particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. Each numbered objection for which a hearing is requested shall include a detailed description and analysis of the specific factual information intended to be presented in support of the objection in the event that a hearing is held. Failure to include such a description and analysis for any particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing on the objection. Three copies of all documents are to be submitted and are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Any objections received in response to the regulation may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Alpharma, Inc., One Executive Dr., P.O. Box 1399, Fort Lee, NJ 07024, filed NADA 141-136 that provides for use of approved BIO-COX® (30 or 60 grams per pound (g/lb) of salinomycin activity) and BMD® (10, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, or 75 g/lb bacitracin methylene disalicylate) Type A medicated articles to make combination drug Type C medicated feeds for use in broiler, roaster, and replacement (breeder and layer) chickens. The combination Type C medicated feeds containing 40 to 60 g/ton salinomycin and 4 to 50 g/ton bacitracin methylene disalicylate are used for prevention of coccidiosis caused by Eimeria tenella , E . necatrix , E . acervulina , E . maxima , E . brunetti , and E . mivati , and for increased rate of weight gain and improved feed efficiency in roaster and replacement (breeder and layer) chickens. The combination Type C medicated feeds containing 40 to 60 g/ton salinomycin and 50 g/ton bacitracin methylene disalicylate are used for the prevention of coccidiosis caused by E . tenella , E . necatrix , E . acervulina , E . maxima , E . brunetti , and E . mivati , and as an aid in the prevention of necrotic enteritis caused or complicated by Clostridium spp. or other organisms susceptible to bacitracin in broiler, roaster, and replacement (breeder and layer) chickens. The combination Type C medicated feeds containing 40 to 60 g/ton salinomycin and 100 to 200 g/ton bacitracin methylene disalicylate are used for the prevention of coccidiosis caused by E . tenella , E . necatrix , E . acervulina , E . maxima , E . brunetti , and E . mivati , and as an aid in the control of necrotic enteritis caused or complicated by Clostridium spp. or other organisms susceptible to bacitracin in broiler, roaster, and replacement (breeder and layer) chickens. The NADA is approved as of September 20, 2000, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 558.550 to reflect the approval. The basis for approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary.

In addition, the regulations are amended in 21 CFR part 556 to add the previously established ADI's for total residues of bacitracin and salinomycin, and editorially, to reflect current format.

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

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(2) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

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

The final regulations that are subject of these corrections are under section 2702 of the Internal Revenue Code.

As published, final regulations (TD 8899) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

On July 31, 2000, George W. Bush, the Governor of Texas submitted the Texas 30 TAC Chapter 101, General Air Quality Rules, General Rules, as a revision to the existing Texas SIP. Texas specifically submitted revisions to sections 101.01 concerning Definitions; 101.06 concerning Upset Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; 101.07 concerning Maintenance, Startup and Shutdown Reporting, Recordkeeping and Operational Requirements; and 101.11 concerning Demonstrations.

In this document, we are approving these revisions to the Texas SIP. For more information on the SIP revision and our evaluation, please refer to our Technical Support Document (TSD) dated October 2000.

You can find our policies on excess emissions during SSM in the following documents: (1) Memoranda from Kathleen Bennett, formerly Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation dated September 28, 1982, and February 15, 1983 (the Bennett Memo—old policy), and (2) Memorandum from Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, dated September 20, 1999 (the Herman Memo—new policy). The Herman Memo supplements the Bennett Memo. Our TSD dated October 2000, contains both of these documents.

No, there is not a significant difference between EPA's old policy and the new policy on excess emission. The new policy on excess emission during SSM episodes supplements and reaffirms the old policy. As in the old policy, we reiterate that, under the Act, all excess emissions during SSM episodes are violations of applicable emission limitations. However, we believe it would be inequitable to penalize a source for occurrences beyond the company's control. A source has the burden of proving that the excess emissions were due to circumstances entirely beyond the control of the operator or the owner.

For a review of the Herman Memo and Bennett Memo, please refer to our TSD dated October, 2000.

The new policy discusses our intent to generally treat excess emissions of lead and sulfur dioxide differently from those of other pollutants. See pages 1 and 2 of the attachment to the Herman Memo. The new policy specifies a list of objective criteria that a source with excess emissions should meet in order for the source to avoid potential enforcement action. See pages 3, and 4 of the attachment to the Herman Memo. The new policy also contains suggestions for creating source category specific rules concerning excess emission during startup and shutdown that will comply with the Act. See pages 5 and 6 of Attachment to the Herman Memo.

We approved the current SIP rule, for Texas, on excess emissions during SSM episodes in the Federal Register (37 FR 10895) dated May 31, 1972. Since that time, Texas has adopted revisions to its rule on excess emissions, but those revisions have never been approved in the SIP. Section 101.06 of the approved SIP rule says that, a source must report its “major” upset condition with excessive emissions to the local air pollution control agency or the Executive Director. However, the approved SIP rule did not specify what constituted a “major” upset condition.

The revisions to Chapter 101, General Air Quality Rules, General Rules will have the following advantages by: (1) Streamlining paper work and resources, (2) assisting enforcement in focusing on major and more frequent upsets, (3) making reporting criteria more consistent among various media (air and hazardous waste programs), and (4) adopting the burden of proof criteria similar to those listed in the Herman Memo of September 20, 1999.

Reportable Quantity (RQ) is a threshold limit below which a source does not have to report its excess emission to the TNRCC. In this rule when a source exceeds an emission limitation by so many pounds of an individual air contaminant or so many pounds of mixtures of air contaminants, the source will have to report its excess emissions to the TNRCC. We have adopted and used the RQ concept in the 40 CFR parts 355 and 370 (63 FR 31267, dated June 8, 1998), Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA), and in the Table 302.4 of 40 CFR Chapter 1 (July 1, 1997 Edition), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), in the past. Therefore, use of RQ as a gauge or baseline default value for reporting emissions or discharges is not a new regulatory idea.

If excess emission during an SSM episode is less than RQ, the source does not have to report that particular excess emission to the TNRCC. The source that experiences an excess emission less than RQ will still have to maintain information about such excess emissions and make the information available to the State and EPA during inspections or upon request.

All sources that experience an excess emission equal to or greater than RQ, during an SSM episode, need to report their excess emissions. This rule does not exempt a small source from reporting its excess emission during an SSM episode, if the excess emission equals or exceeds the RQ limit.

Yes, minor sources have to report their excess emission during an SSM episode. Synthetic minor sources have to report their excess emission during SSM episodes, too. Reporting excess emissions has to do with the amount of RQ, and has nothing to do with the size (minor, synthetic minor, or major) of a facility or the source category/type of facility.

Section 110 of the Act requires States to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that State air quality meets the NAAQS that EPA has established. Under section 109 of the Act, EPA established the NAAQS to protect public health. The NAAQS address six criteria pollutants. These criteria pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

Each State must submit these regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the federally enforceable SIP. Each State has a SIP designed to protect air quality. These SIPs can be extensive, containing State regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.

When a State wants to incorporate its regulations into the federally enforceable SIP, the State must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with State and Federal requirements. This process includes a public notice, a public hearing, a public comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rule making body.

Once a State adopts a rule, regulation, or control strategy, the State may submit the adopted provisions to us and request that we include these provisions in the federally enforceable SIP. We must then decide on an appropriate Federal action, provide public notice on this action, and seek additional public comment regarding this action. If we receive adverse comments, we must address them prior to a final action.

Under section 110 of the Act, when we approve all State regulations and supporting information, those State regulations and supporting information become a part of the federally approved SIP. You can find records of these SIP actions in the Code of Federal Regulations at Title 40, part 52, entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.” The actual State regulations that we approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that we have approved a given State regulation with a specific effective date.

A State may enforce State regulations before and after we incorporate those regulations into a federally approved SIP. After we incorporate those regulations into a federally approved SIP, both EPA and the public may also take enforcement action against violators of these regulations.

These rule revisions will affect the entire State of Texas and is not specific to a certain area or part of the State. If you are in Texas, you need to refer to these rules to find out if and how these rules will affect you.

The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on January 29, 2001 without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by December 28, 2000. If EPA receives adverse comments, 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. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Regional Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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. The proposed rule does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed 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. The 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 proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

See the information provided in the direct final rule located in the final rules section of the September 18, 2000 Federal Register (65 FR 56251), and in the proposed rule located in the proposed rule section of the September 18, 2000 Federal Register (65 FR 56278).

EPA received an adverse comment concerning SDCAPCD Rule 67.11—Wood Products Coating Operations and the addition of 40 CFR 52.220(c)(255)(i)(F)(1). Prior to the close of the comment period, SDCAPCD requested that we withdraw our direct final approval action on the rule. Consequently, we are removing only the portion of the direct final rule published at 65 FR 56251 concerning SDCAPCD Rule 67.11. Today's action does not affect our other direct final rulemaking action approving Bay Area Air Quality Management District Rule 8-11—Metal container, Metal Closure, and Metal Coil Coating.

To conclude, 40 CFR 52.220(c)(255)(i)(F)(1) published at 65 FR 56251 is removed as of November 28, 2000.

We are revising the methyl bromide phaseout regulation as a direct final rule without prior proposal because we view these revisions, directly mandated by the statutory language established by Congress, as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to update the methyl bromide phaseout schedule if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on January 29, 2001 without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by December 28, 2000. If EPA receives adverse 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. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on these revisions to part 82 subpart A should do so at this time. EPA reiterates that the phasedown and phaseout levels and dates are statutorily required, and that it therefore has no discretion to alter the schedule.

Recognizing the expressed intent of Congress in recent changes to the CAA to include certain types of exemptions, the preamble to today's direct final rule also notifies the public of our intent to propose future rulemakings concerning quarantine and preshipment exemptions, as well as the post-phaseout critical and emergency use exemptions.

The current regulatory requirements of the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program that limit production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances were promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) in the Federal Register on December 20, 1994 (59 FR 65478), May 10, 1995 (60 FR 24970), August 4, 1998 (63 FR 41625), and October 5, 1998 (63 FR 53290). The regulatory program was originally published in the Federal Register on August 12, 1988 (53 FR 30566), in response to the 1987 signing, by the U.S. and other countries, of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol). 1

The requirements contained in the final rules published in the Federal Register on December 20, 1994 and May 10, 1995 establish an Allowance Program. The Allowance Program and its history are described in the notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on November 10, 1994 (59 FR 56276). The control and the phaseout of the production and consumption of class I ozone-depleting substances as required under the Protocol and the CAA are accomplished through the Allowance Program.

In developing the Allowance Program, we collected information on the amounts of ozone-depleting substances produced, imported, exported, transformed and destroyed within the U.S. for specific baseline years for specific chemicals. This information was used to establish the U.S. production and consumption ceilings for these chemicals. The data were also used to assign company-specific production and import rights to companies that were in most cases producing or importing during the specific year of data collection. These production or import rights are called “allowances.” Due to the complete phaseout of many of the ozone-depleting chemicals, the quantities of allowances granted to companies for those chemicals were gradually reduced and eventually eliminated. Production allowances and consumption allowances continue to exist for only one specific class I controlled ozone-depleting substance—methyl bromide. All other production or consumption of class I controlled substances is prohibited under the Protocol and the CAA, but for a few narrow exemptions.

In the context of the regulatory program, the use of the term consumption may be misleading. Consumption does not mean the “use” of a controlled substance, but rather is defined as the formula: production + imports—exports, of controlled substances (Article 1 of the Protocol and Section 601 of the CAA). Class I controlled substances that were produced or imported through the expenditure of allowances prior to their phaseout date can continue to be used by industry and the public after that specific chemical's phaseout under these regulations, unless otherwise precluded under separate regulations.

The specific names and chemical formulas for the class I controlled ozone-depleting substances are in Appendix A and Appendix F in Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 82. The specific names and chemical formulas for the class II controlled ozone-depleting substances are in Appendix B and Appendix F in Subpart A.

Although the regulations phased out the production and consumption of class I, Group II substances (halons) on January 1, 1994, and all other class I controlled substances (except methyl bromide) on January 1, 1996, a very limited number of exemptions exist, consistent with U.S. obligations under the Protocol. The regulations allow for the manufacture of phased-out class I controlled substances, provided the substances are either transformed, or destroyed (40 CFR 82.4(b)). They also allow limited manufacture if the substances are (1) exported to countries operating under Article 5 of the Protocol or (2) produced for essential uses as authorized by the Protocol and the regulations. Limited exceptions to the ban on the import of phased-out class I controlled substances also exist if the substances are: (1) previously used, (2) imported for essential uses as authorized by the Protocol and the regulations, (3) imported for destruction or transformation only, or (4) a transhipment or a heel (a small amount of controlled substance remaining in a container after discharge) (40 CFR 82.4(d), 82.13(g)(2)).

Methyl bromide is an odorless and colorless gas used in the U.S. and throughout the world as a fumigant. Methyl bromide, which is toxic to living things, is used in many different situations to control a variety of pests, such as: insects, weeds, pathogens, and nematodes. Additional characteristics and details about the uses of methyl bromide, as well as information on the basis for listing methyl bromide as a class I substance, can be found in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1993 (58 FR 15014) and the final rule published in the Federal Register on December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018). Updated information on methyl bromide can be found at the following sites of the World Wide Web: www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/ and www.teap.org or by contacting the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-1996.

The Parties to the Protocol established a freeze in the level of methyl bromide production and consumption for industrialized countries at the 1992 Meeting in Copenhagen. The Parties agreed that each industrialized country's level of methyl bromide production and consumption in 1991 should be the baseline for establishing the freeze. EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register on December 10, 1993, listing methyl bromide as a class I, Group VI controlled substance, freezing U.S. production and consumption at this 1991 level, and, in § 82.7 of the rule, setting forth the percentage of baseline allowances for methyl bromide granted to companies in each control period (each calendar year) until the year 2001 (58 FR 65018). Consistent with the CAA requirements for newly listed class I ozone-depleting substances, this rule established a 2001 phaseout for methyl bromide. In the rule published in the Federal Register on December 30, 1993 (58 FR 69235), we established baseline methyl bromide production and consumption allowances for specific companies in § 82.5 and § 82.6.

At their 1997 meeting, the Parties agreed to establish the phaseout schedule for methyl bromide in industrialized countries. The U.S. Congress followed by amending the CAA (in Oct. 1998) to direct EPA to promulgate regulations reflecting the Protocol phaseout date of 2005, with interim phasedown steps in 1999, 2001, and 2003. EPA promulgated a regulation that was published in the Federal Register on June 1, 1999 (64 FR 29240), instituting the initial interim reduction of 25 percent in the production and import  2 of methyl bromide for the 1999 and 2000 control periods. Currently, we grant 75 percent of the 1991 baseline methyl bromide allowances for each control period until 2001.

We expect to publish a proposed rule adding exemptions for production and import of quantities of methyl bromide that are used for quarantine and preshipment in late 2000. That proposal may also include a proposed ban on trade of methyl bromide with non-Parties to the Protocol, as decided by the Parties in 1997.

As stated in Section I of this preamble, the U.S. was one of the original signatories to the Protocol. The U.S. ratified the Protocol on April 21, 1988. Today's amendment is designed to complete implementation of article 2H of the Protocol. Paragraphs 3 through 5 establish the remaining phaseout schedule for methyl bromide:

In response to ratification of the Protocol, Congress enacted, and President Bush signed into law, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA or the Act) that included Title VI on Stratospheric Ozone Protection. As mentioned in section III of this preamble, Congress amended Title VI of the CAA with Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law No. 105-277; October 21, 1998), directing EPA to reflect in its regulations the Protocol's most recent phasedown schedule for methyl bromide, and providing authority to create certain types of exemptions.

Today's amendments are designed to ensure that the U.S. meets its obligations under the Protocol and the CAA. Section 764(a) of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law No. 105-277; October 21, 1998) requires EPA to bring the schedule for the phaseout of methyl bromide into accordance with the Protocol. Specifically, the amendments direct EPA to:

EPA derives its authority for today's action from Section 604(h) of the Act.

In accordance with the Protocol's methyl bromide phaseout schedule, we are changing the percentage of baseline allowances for class I, Group VI substances granted in § 82.7. We are granting the following allowances to the companies listed in § 82.5 and § 82.6 for methyl bromide: 50 percent of baseline production and consumption allowances for 2001 and 2002; 30 percent of baseline production and consumption allowances for 2003 and 2004; and 0 percent of baseline production and consumption allowances beginning January 1, 2005.

Many sections of Part 82 of the current regulations contain the original methyl bromide phaseout date, January 1, 2001. To update the regulations, we are changing many instances of “January 1, 2001,” when referencing methyl bromide, to “January 1, 2005.” In addition, in adding Group VI controlled substances to 82.4(b), we are providing for the production of methyl bromide past the phaseout date using Article 5 allowances.

Because the CAA, by requiring consistency with the Montreal Protocol, does not allow these exemptions to be available until the complete phaseout in 2005, they cannot be utilized during the required interim phasedown period between now and December 31, 2004. Today, we are creating two reserved sections in the regulations, at § 82.4 (v) for critical use exemptions and at § 82.4 (w) for emergency use exemptions. Beyond reserving these sections, EPA is not amending Part 82 by adding the processes for these exemptions at this time. Because we are not adding the processes at this time, we are not requesting comment on these exemptions at this time. EPA intends to publish a proposal for a submittal process, timing, and the procedures by which the U.S. government would make determinations for both exemptions in a future notice and comment rulemaking. Any unsolicited comments addressing the critical and emergency use exemptions will be addressed in relation to that future proposal.

In recognition that substitutes may not be available by 2005 for certain important methyl bromide uses, the Protocol provides an exemption in Article 2H, paragraph 5 for critical uses.

While not specifying which uses might be “critical,” the Parties established criteria and some procedural steps for determining whether a specific use should be approved as critical at their Ninth Meeting (1997) in Decision IX/6. Apart from quantities used for quarantine or preshipment, and limited production for export to Article 5 countries, production and import of methyl bromide are only permitted past January 1, 2005 for those uses approved under Decisions IX/6 or IX/7.

In Decision IX/6, the Parties agreed as follows:

Paragraph (2) of Decision IX/6 requests the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) to evaluate the nominations according to the criteria in paragraphs 1(a)(ii) and 1(b). In essence, 1(a)(ii) and 1(b) direct TEAP to evaluate a proposed exemption according to:

(1) The availability of, as well as efforts to find, receive approval of, and market, alternatives for that particular use;

(2) Efforts to minimize use and emissions; and,

(3) The potential for meeting that need through banked or recycled methyl bromide.

Any critical use exemption must comply with the provisions of the CAA. Section 604(d)(6), added by Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law No. 105-277; October 21, 1998), states that:

Consistent with the Montreal Protocol and Congress's recent addition to the CAA, the critical use exemption cannot apply until the complete phaseout, in 2005. The Protocol, as explained in “a” and “b” of this section, specifies in Paragraph 5 of Article 2H that, “commencing on 1 January 2005 * * * [the phaseout] will apply save to the extent that the Parties decide to permit the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be critical uses.” The CAA, as described in “b” above, requires this schedule by providing the critical use exemption “to the extent consistent with the Montreal Protocol.” Thus, we are not delineating specifics related to this exemption in today's action. However, we intend to permit limited continued production for critical uses agreed to by the Parties to the Protocol for the period after January 2005.

We are reserving a section of the regulation for a future rulemaking to incorporate the critical use provisions from the Protocol and the CAA into our domestic allowance program. We plan to propose in a future rulemaking the creation of a new class of exemptions that may be referred to as “critical use allowances.” In that future rulemaking, we plan to propose details related to critical use exemption procedures and criteria, as well as request nominations for critical uses needed beyond 2005. The details of the critical use exemption have yet to be defined. We plan to hold stakeholder meetings in the near future to solicit ideas in developing a proposal for the implementation of a streamlined critical use exemption process in accordance with U.S. obligations under the Protocol and consistent with CAA requirements.

The economic and geographical issues that are unique to methyl bromide and its applications will be considered as we develop the details of the exemption program, including the submittal process, timing, and the procedures we will use in making determinations for this exemption. The process for obtaining a critical use exemption could resemble the process used for essential use exemptions for other Class I ozone-depleting substances like CFCs (Decision IV/25; 58 FR 6786, 29410, 53722). However, because of the economic and geographical issues unique to methyl bromide and its applications, it is possible that the critical use exemption process could also vary significantly from the essential use process.

As discussed above, the Parties also established the emergency use exemption for methyl bromide at their Ninth Meeting (Decision IX/7). Decision IX/7 allows the Parties to consume,

While this exemption is not explicitly included as a separate item in the most recent Congressional changes to the CAA [Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law No. 105-277)], we believe that Congress' grant of authority in 604(d)(6) to exempt critical uses is sufficiently broad to cover not only the full critical use process but also the abbreviated form of this process, that is, the emergency use exemption.

Because the emergency use exemption will not be available until the complete phaseout (2005), we are not delineating specifics related to this exemption in today's action. However, we intend to permit limited production for emergency uses beginning in 2005. To incorporate the Protocol's emergency use Decision into our domestic allowance program, we may create, through a future rulemaking, a new class of exemptions to be referred to as “emergency use allowances.” In a future rulemaking, we plan to propose criteria and processes for exempting and using methyl bromide for an emergency event after January 1, 2005.

The Parties believed that during the phasedown period, existing production facilities in industrialized countries should be able to supply developing countries (Parties operating under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Protocol), thereby decreasing incentives for construction of new plants in those countries. Thus, the Protocol allows industrialized countries to produce limited, additional methyl bromide explicitly for export to developing countries during the phasedown in the industrialized countries. Article 2H, paragraph 5, of the Protocol states that,

Domestically, the Protocol provisions that allow limited production for export to Article 5 countries are reflected in section 604 of the CAA. The current phaseout requirements for methyl bromide appear in section 604(h) of the CAA, as added by Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law No. 105-277). In adding section 604(h), Congress also added a provision to 604(e) that specifically addresses production of methyl bromide for export to developing countries. This provision, section 604(e)(3), states that:

As explained above, the CAA specifies that we provide the allowances for export to Article 5 countries in accordance with the Protocol. The Protocol allows industrialized countries to produce limited, additional methyl bromide explicitly for export to developing countries during and after the phasedown in the industrialized countries.

Article 2H, paragraph 5 of the Protocol states that from January 1, 2002 until January 1, 2005,

The Protocol goes on to specify in Article 2H, paragraph 5 ter. that:

Because we are not adding the Article 5 Allowances past 2001 at this time, we are not requesting comment on these allowances at this time. EPA intends to publish a proposal for these allowances in a future notice and comment rulemaking in 2001. Any unsolicited comments addressing Article 5 Allowances past 2001 will be addressed in relation to that future proposal.

In preparing the final rule that established the original 2001 phaseout date for methyl bromide (58 FR 69235), we conducted a Cost Effectiveness Analysis, dated September 30, 1993, under the title, “Part 2, The Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of the Proposed Phaseout of Methyl Bromide” (Docket A-92-13, Document Number IV-A-23). In preparing for the initial interim 25% reduction, we conducted an addendum to the 1993 analysis (Docket A-92-13, Document Number II-A-41). For today's interim and final reductions in methyl bromide production and import, we conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis as an update to the 1993 analysis, and in addition to the 1999 addendum. This RIA was not used as a basis for deciding on phasedown and phaseout percentages and dates. Rather, the dates are dictated by the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1998. The original (1993) annualized cost estimate for the 2001 phaseout, adjusted to 1998 dollars, is $159 million. The results of the updated analysis, which will be available in conjunction with our forthcoming proposed rule addressing quarantine and preshipment, are expected to indicate that extending the phaseout deadline will result in cost savings, when compared to the cost estimate for the 2001 phaseout.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, 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, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

Today's rule contains federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of the Title II of the UMRA) for the private sector. However, the rule implements mandates specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 604(h) of the CAA, as added by Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law No. 105-277), without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. In particular, this rule implements the directive in section 604(h) of the CAA to promulgate a methyl bromide phaseout schedule that is in accordance with the schedule under the Montreal Protocol. EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Because this rule extends the current phaseout, the rule reduces costs. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.

We determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments; therefore, we are not required to develop a plan with regard to small governments under section 203. Finally, because this rule does not contain a significant intergovernmental mandate, the Agency is not required to develop a process to obtain input from elected state, local, and tribal officials under section 204.

EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also determined that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:

(1) A small business that is identified by the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code in the Table below. The size standards described in this section apply to all Small Business Administration (SBA) programs unless otherwise specified. The size standards themselves are expressed either in number of employees or annual receipts in millions of dollars, unless otherwise specified. The number of employees or annual receipts indicates the maximum allowed for a concern and its affiliates to be considered small.

(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.

Today's direct final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities, as it regulates large, multinational corporations that either produce, import or export class I, group VI ozone-depleting substances.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant” regulatory action as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA that it considers this an “economically significant regulatory action” within the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record.

Executive Order 13045: “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.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it implements a Congressional directive to phase out production and import of methyl bromide in accordance with the schedule under the Protocol.

This action does not add any information collection requirements or increase burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the final rule promulgated on May 10, 1995, and assigned OMB control number 2060-0170 (EPA ICR No. 1432.17).

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

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” 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 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. This rule regulates large, multinational corporations that either produce, import or export class I, group VI ozone-depleting substances. It implements mandates specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 604(h) of the CAA, as added by Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law No. 105-277), without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

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 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 or matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.”

Today's rule implements requirements specifically set forth by Congress in section 604(h) of the CAA, as added by Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law No. 105-277), without the exercise of any discretion by EPA. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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 rule is a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective January 29, 2001.

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 Georgia's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Georgia Final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Georgia has responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of 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 the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Georgia, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

The effect of this decision is that a facility in Georgia 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. Georgia has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:

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

• Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits

• 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 Georgia 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.

Georgia initially received Final authorization on August 7, 1984, effective August 21, 1984 (49 FR 31417), to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to their program on July 7, 1986, effective September 18, 1986 (51 FR 24549), July 28, 1988, effective September 26, 1988 (53 FR 28383), July 24, 1990, effective September 24, 1990 (55 FR 30000), February 12, 1991, effective April 15, 1991 (56 FR 5656), May 11, 1992, effective July 10, 1992 (57 FR 20055), November 25, 1992, effective January 25, 1993 (57 FR 55466), February 26, 1993, effective April 27, 1993 (58 FR 11539), November 16, 1993, effective January 18, 1994 (58 FR 60388), April 26, 1994, effective June 27, 1994 (59 FR 21664), May 10, 1995, effective July 10, 1995 (60 FR 24790), August 30, 1995, effective October 30, 1995 (60 FR 45069), March 7, 1996, effective May 6, 1996 (61 FR 9108), September 18, 1998, effective November 17, 1998 (63 FR 49852), and October 14, 1999, effective December 13, 1999 (64 FR 55629).

On April 28, 2000, Georgia submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. Georgia's revision consists of provisions promulgated July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998, otherwise known as HSWA Cluster VIII. We now make an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Georgia's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Therefore, we grant Georgia Final authorization for the following program changes:

There are no State requirements in this program revision considered to be more stringent or broader in scope than the Federal requirements.

Georgia will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until they expire or are terminated. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table above after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Georgia is not yet authorized.

Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart L for this authorization of Georgia's program until a later date.

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action 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 action authorizes pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same reason, this action 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 action 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 authorizes State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks.

Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. 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 F.R. 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 F.R. 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. 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 document 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 in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action will be effective January 29, 2001.

In the Federal Register of August 29, 2000 (65 FR 52323), the Commission published a summary of its Order on Reconsideration of the Third Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order (Order on Reconsideration, Fifth Report and Order) in WT Docket No. 97-82. That document clarified and amended the Commission's competitive bidding rules in an ongoing effort to establish a uniform and streamlined set of general competitive bidding rules for all auctionable services and to reduce the burden on both the Commission and the public of conducting service-specific auction rule makings.

As published, the final regulations contain errors which may prove to be misleading and need to be clarified.

The reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and approved and implemented by NMFS, under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. Those regulations set the commercial quota for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico at 4.65 million lb (2.11 million kg) for the current fishing year, January 1 through December 31, 2000. The red snapper commercial fishing season is split into two time periods, the first commencing at noon on February 1 with two-thirds of the annual quota (3.10 million lb (1.41 million kg)) available, and the second commencing at noon on October 1 with the remainder of the annual quota available. During the commercial season, the red snapper commercial fishery opens at noon on the first of each month and closes at noon on the 10th of each month, until the applicable commercial quotas are reached.

Under 50 CFR 622.43(a), NMFS is required to close the commercial fishery for a species or species group when the quota for that species or species group is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect in the Federal Register . Based on current statistics, NMFS has determined that the annual commercial quota of 4.65 million lb (2.11 million kg) for red snapper will be reached when the fishery closes at noon on December 8, 2000. Accordingly, the commercial fishery in the EEZ in the Gulf of Mexico for red snapper will remain closed until noon, local time, on February 1, 2001. The operator of a vessel with a valid reef fish permit having red snapper aboard must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such red snapper prior to noon, local time, December 8, 2000.

During the closure, the bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.39(b) apply to all harvest or possession of red snapper in or from the EEZ in the Gulf of Mexico, and the sale or purchase of red snapper taken from the EEZ is prohibited. In addition, the bag and possession limits for red snapper apply on board a vessel for which a commercial permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued, without regard to where such red snapper were harvested. However, the bag and possession limits for red snapper apply only when the recreational quota for red snapper has not been reached and the bag and possession limits have not been reduced to zero. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to sale or purchase of red snapper that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to noon, local time, December 8, 2000, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.43(a) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.