The NRC requires licensees to file written reports within 30 days after learning of any occupational exposure to radiation or radioactive materials that exceeds the constraints or limits set out in §§ 20.2202 and 20.2203. These records contain personal information that is protected from public disclosure by the Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR part 9.

Currently, each report is required to be prepared so that personal information such as an individual's name, social security number, and date of birth is contained in a separate and detachable part of the report. However, the regulations do not require that the report be marked in any way to indicate the information should be protected as privacy information. The intent of the separate report was to keep the sensitive personal information out of the publically accessible environment. Documents received by the NRC are placed directly into the Agency-Wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) unless they are marked as sensitive or controlled. In order for the Agency's document control personnel to properly process this section of the report as a non-public document, licensees will be required to clearly label this section with the following notation: “Privacy Act Information: Not for Public Disclosure.” This labeling will ensure that personal information filed with exposure event reports will not be accessible by the public through the NRC's document control system, ADAMS.

Because this amendment involves only a minor amendment to existing regulations and it is not expected to be controversial, the NRC is using the direct final rule process for this rule. The amendments to the rule will become effective on June 9, 2003. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule by April 24, 2003, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published elsewhere in this Federal Register . Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule.

Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this direct final rule is classified as compatibility “C.” Category C means the provisions affect a program element, the essential objectives of which should be adopted by the State to avoid conflicts, duplications, or gaps in the national program. The manner in which the essential objectives are addressed need not be the same as NRC, provided the essential objectives are met. This amendment is not expected to impact existing Agreement States regulations. The content of the event report is not being changed by this rule and each State has its own method for protecting privacy information.

The Presidential Memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled, “Plain Language in Government Writing” directed that the Government's writing be in plain language. The NRC requests comments on this direct final rule specifically with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent to the address listed under the heading ADDRESSES above.

The National Technology Transfer Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC is adding a labeling requirement to protect privacy information. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that establishes generally applicable requirements.

The NRC has determined that this direct final rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)(iii). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.

This direct final rule does not contain new or amended information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0014.

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number.

A regulatory analysis has not been prepared for this regulation. The rule imposes an insignificant regulatory burden on licensees by requiring that privacy information contained in event reports be labeled. The information is already required to be in a separate, detachable section of the event report. The labeling will ensure that personal information filed with exposure event reports will not be inadvertently released to the public through ADAMS. Many licensees already label the privacy information.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is necessary to reflect the nuclear non-proliferation policies of the Executive branch and U.S. Government obligations under nuclear agreements for cooperation. This rule will only affect licensees when filing Radiation Exposure Reports for occupationally overexposed individuals. Affected licensees will be required to label the portion of the report containing personal information to indicate that such information should not be made available to the public. This final rule has a minimal impact on licensee filing procedures and imposes no additional economic burden on affected licensees.

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule as defined in 10 CFR Chapter I does not apply to reporting requirements such as those reporting requirements contained in this final rule. Since this final rule does not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in the backfit rule, a backfit analysis is not required.

In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB.

On February 19, 2003, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued AD 2003-04-21, amendment 39-13070 (68 FR 9509, February 28, 2003), which applies to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 440) series airplanes. That AD requires replacement of the overwing emergency exit placards, door weight placards, and no baggage placards with new placards. That AD was prompted by the issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign civil airworthiness authority. The actions required by that AD are intended to prevent the inability of a passenger to open and dispose of the overwing emergency exit door during an emergency evacuation due to incorrect placards.

In the preamble of AD 2003-04-21 under the heading “Explanation of Change to Applicability,” it states, “[The FAA has] revised the applicability of the final rule to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models.” We revised the applicability of the final rule to include the parenthetical “(Regional Jet Series 440).” However, we inadvertently omitted Regional Jet Series “100,” which is specified on the type certificate data sheet. In addition, both of these airplane models were identified by serial numbers in the applicability. Therefore, the correct applicability of this AD is “Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes.”

We have determined that a correction to AD 2003-04-21 is necessary. We have clarified the applicability of this AD by identifying the affected model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet.

This document corrects the error and correctly adds the AD as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13).

The AD is reprinted in its entirety for the convenience of affected operators. The effective date of the AD remains April 4, 2003.

Since this action only corrects the applicability of AD 2003-04-21 to identify affected model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, the FAA has determined that notice and public procedures are unnecessary.

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2002-06-16, amendment 39-12594, applicable to certain Boeing Model 767-300 airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2002 (67 FR 15468). That AD requires removing each sidewall-mounted reading light in the attendant crew rest compartment, installing cover plates in place of the existing reading lights, removing each reading light switch, and installing a new reading light in place of the existing light switch.

As published, that AD specifies that the referenced STC number is STC00973WI-D in the Subject Heading (Airworthiness Directives) and Supplementary Information section of the preamble of the AD, as well as in the regulatory text of the Applicability section of the AD. The FAA finds that correction of a typographical error in that STC number is necessary. Where the existing AD specifies the STC number as STC00973WI-D, this AD replaces that incorrect STC number with the correct STC number, ST00973WI-D.

Since no other part of the regulatory information has been changed, the final rule is not being republished in the Federal Register .

The effective date of this AD remains April 17, 2002.

Nonregulatory text:

On page 15468 in the first column under the subject heading, “Airworthiness Directives,” reference to “STC00973WI-D” is corrected to “ST00973WI-D” and reads as follows:

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that is applicable to certain Hartzell Propeller Inc. model HC-C2Y(K,R)-1BF/F8477-4 propellers with TKS (Aircraft De-icing) Ltd. anti-ice boots that were installed by SOCATA-Groupe AEROSPATIALE, the aircraft manufacturer, using TKS Ltd. Procedure P232, Specification for the Attachment of Propeller Overshoes was published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2002 (67 FR 70185). That action proposed to require removal of the anti-ice boots, inspection and rework of the anti-ice boot area of the propeller blades, and installation of new anti-ice boots in accordance with Hartzell Propeller Inc. Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) HC-ASB-61-251, dated April 10, 2001.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on 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 750 Hartzell Propeller Inc. model HC-C2Y(K,R)-1BF/F8477-4 propellers with TKS (Aircraft De-icing) Ltd. anti-ice boots installed by SOCATA-Groupe AEROSPATIALE, the aircraft manufacturer, using TKS Ltd. Procedure P232, Specification for the Attachment of Propeller Overshoes. The FAA estimates that 230 propellers installed on airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this AD. The FAA also estimates that it would take approximately 10 work hours per propeller to accomplish the actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $900 per propeller. Based on these figures, the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators is estimated to be $345,000.

This final rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this final rule.

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 the 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 by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

On August 29, 2002, the FAA issued AD 97-09-02R1, Amendment 39-12876 (67 FR 57146, September 9, 2002), applicable to CFMI CFM56-5C series turbofan engines, to reduce the LCF retirement lives of certain HPTR front shafts, HPTR front air seals, HPTR disks, booster spools, and LPTR stage 3 disks. Since AD 97-09-02R1 was issued, the manufacturer conducted an extensive life management program for the LPTR stage 3 disks and HPTR disks listed in the AD. The results indicated higher LCF retirement lives for those LPTR stage 3 disks and HPTR disks than the lives published in AD 97-09-02R1. Those LCF retirement lives are now the same as originally calculated and are in accordance with the current airworthiness limitations section of Chapter 05 of the CFM56-5C Engine Shop Manual, CFMI-TP.SM.8. Therefore, this AD revision removes LPT stage 3 disks, part numbers (P/Ns) 337-001-602-0 and 337-001-605-0, and HPTR disks, P/N 1498M43P04, from the parts listed with lower LCF retirement lives. The LCF retirement lives of the HPTR front air seals P/N 1523M34P02 and P/N 1523M34P03, and HPT front shafts P/N 1498M40P03, 1498M40P05, and 1498M40P06, and booster spools P/N 337-005-210-0, remain unchanged.

Although these affected engine models are not used on any airplanes that are registered in the United States, the possibility exists these engine models could be used on airplanes that are registered in the United States in the future. This AD requires the LCF retirement lives of HPTR front air seals P/N 1523M34P02 and P/N 1523M34P03, and HPT front shafts P/N 1498M40P03, 1498M40P05, and 1498M40P06, and booster spools P/N 337-005-210-0 to remain as they were published in AD 97-09-02R1.

Since there are currently no domestic operators of CFM56-5C series turbofan engines, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, a situation exists that allows the immediate adoption of this regulation.

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 should 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.

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 action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 95-ANE-64-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

This final rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this final rule.

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 the 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 by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

This amendment to 14 CFR 71 modifies the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth at Greenfield, IA. An examination of controlled airspace for Greenfield, IA revealed discrepancies in the Greenfield Municipal Airport, IA airport reference point used in the legal description for this airspace area. This amendment incorporates the revised Greenfield Municipal Airport, IA airport reference point and brings the legal description of the Greenfield, IA Class E airspace area into compliance with the FAA Order 7400.2E, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. This area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9K, dated August 30, 2002, and effective September 16, 2002, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register , and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2003-14596/Airspace Docket No. 03-ACE-19.” The postcard will be date/time 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 noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Federal Register document 03-5927 published on Wednesday, March 12, 2003, (68 FR 11738) established a Class E surface area and modified the Class E4 and Class E5 airspace areas at Jefferson City, MO. The Class E5 airspace area extension designed to protect aircraft on instrument approaches from the southeast was incorrectly identified as extending to the southwest of the airport.

Background

On October 1, 1997, the Commission adopted Rule 17Ad-17 which requires transfer agents to conduct searches in an effort to locate lost securityholders. 1 Rule 17Ad-17(b)(1)(i) contains an error. In the document published in the Federal Register , the clause “contains the names of at least 50% of the United States geographic area,” was added to the rule language containing the definition of “information data base service.” That language was not approved by the Commission and did not appear in the adopting release. This correction restores the language of paragraph (b)(1)(i) to that adopted by the Commission.

As published, the final regulation contains an error which needs to be corrected.

On December 26, 2002, OWCP published a final rule governing its administration of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended (EEOICPA), 42 U.S.C. 7384 et seq. , and requested OMB approval under the PRA of a revision of a currently approved collection for the EEOICPA. The new information collection requirements that needed OMB approval are in §§ 30.112 and 30.213 of the final rule.

On March 17, 2003, OMB approved the requested revision to a currently approved collection for the EEOICPA. This particular collection now consists of the following forms/reporting requirements: EE-1, Claim for Benefits Under Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act; EE-2, Claim for Survivor Benefits Under Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act; EE-3, Employment History for Claim Under Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act; EE-4, Employment History Affidavit for Claim Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act; EE-7, Medical Requirements Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act; EE/EN-8, letter to claimant requesting information for lung cancer claim; EE/EN-9, letter to claimant requesting information for skin cancer claim; EE/EN-20, Acceptance of Payment Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act; EE-915, Claim for Medical Reimbursement Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act; 20 CFR 30.112, supplemental employment evidence required when an alleged employment history cannot be verified; and 20 CFR 30.214, supplemental medical evidence required when an injury, illness or disability is allegedly sustained as a consequence of a covered occupational illness.

The control number assigned to this information collection by OMB is 1215-0197. The approval for this information collection will expire on July 31, 2004.

This document contains final amendments to the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301) relating to civil actions for damages caused by unlawful collection actions of officers or employees of the IRS. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 (TBOR2), Public Law 104-168 (110 Stat. 1465), amended section 7433 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code) by increasing the maximum amount of damages a taxpayer may be awarded for unlawful collection actions from $100,000 to $1,000,000. TBOR2 also eliminated the jurisdictional requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted before a court may award damages; TBOR2 authorized the court, however, to reduce damages if it determined that the plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies. These TBOR2 provisions were effective for actions of IRS officers or employees after July 30, 1996. The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 1998), Public Law 105-206 (112 Stat. 685), although retaining the pre-existing authorization for an award of damages in the case of reckless or intentional disregard of the Code or regulations, amended section 7433(a) by providing that taxpayers may file actions for damages caused by the negligent disregard of the Code or regulations. RRA 1998 also added subsection (e) to section 7433. This amendment provides that an action for damages could be brought for the IRS's willful violation of section 362 (relating to the automatic stay) or section 524 (relating to the effect of discharge) of the Bankruptcy Code. Actions for damages caused by the violation of section 362 or 524 of the Bankruptcy Code are limited to willful violations. The maximum amount of damages that may be awarded for negligent disregard under section 7433(a) is $100,000. The maximum amount of damages that may be awarded for reckless or intentional disregard under subsection (a) or for willful violations of section 362 or 524 of the Bankruptcy Code under subsection (e) is $1,000,000. RRA 1998 also reinstated the requirement under section 7433 that the plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies before a court may award damages. These RRA 1998 provisions apply to actions of IRS officers or employees after July 22, 1998.

RRA 1998 also added section 7426(h), which authorizes persons who bring wrongful levy actions under section 7426 to sue for damages caused by the reckless or intentional, or negligent, disregard of any provision of the Code, plus costs of the action. Consistent with section 7433, damages awarded under section 7426(h) are limited to $1,000,000 for reckless or intentional disregard and $100,000 for negligent disregard. In addition, a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies before a court may award damages under section 7426(h). The provisions of section 7433 relating to mitigation and the period for bringing an action also apply to actions brought under section 7426(h). IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking reflecting these changes in the Federal Register on March 5, 2002. (67 FR 9929). No written comments on the proposed regulations were received. No public hearing was held.

RRA 1998 added subsection (h) to section 7426. Subsection (h) authorizes persons to sue the United States in Federal district court for damages due to a wrongful levy caused by the reckless or intentional, or negligent, disregard of a provision of the Code. Plaintiffs may recover the lesser of actual direct economic damages and costs of the action or $1,000,000 ($100,000 in the case of negligence). The amendment also provided that the rules of section 7433(d) relating to exhaustion of administrative remedies, mitigation of damages, and the period for bringing an action shall apply. The regulations thus adopt rules like those promulgated under section 7433. Plaintiffs must mitigate damages and no damages may be awarded unless the court determines that the plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies available within the IRS, e.g., by filing an administrative claim for damages. The regulations provide that any action for damages under this section must be brought within two years after the date the action accrues. This two-year limitations period is independent of the nine-month period following the wrongful levy during which the third party may make a claim for wrongfully levied property.

Section 7430 provides that reasonable administrative costs may be awarded to the prevailing party in an administrative proceeding brought by or against the United States in connection with the determination, collection, or refund of any tax, interest, or penalty under Title 26 of the United States Code. Prior to the amendments in RRA 1998, taxpayers generally were not entitled to recover costs for administrative proceedings in connection with collection matters. Accordingly, the current regulations exclude such collection matters, including proceedings under sections 7432 and 7433, from the definition of administrative proceedings. To reflect the RRA 1998 amendments, the regulations expand the definition of an administrative proceeding to include any administrative action for damages under section 7433(e) and any procedure or action brought before the IRS seeking relief with respect to a violation by the IRS of section 362 or 524 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The regulations provide that the prevailing party is a party who establishes that, in connection with the collection of his or her federal tax, the IRS has willfully violated a provision of section 362 or 524 of the Bankruptcy Code. The only administrative costs that may be awarded are those incurred after the date of the bankruptcy petition that gave rise to the section 362 stay or section 524 discharge injunction.

A claim with the IRS for administrative costs must be filed within 90 days after the date the IRS mails its decision on the taxpayer's administrative claim for damages under § 301.7433-2(e) or claim for relief from a violation of section 362 or 524 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 3102 of RRA 1998 amended section 7433(a) of the Code by providing that a taxpayer may sue the United States in a district court of the United States for damages caused by the negligent disregard of the Code or regulations in connection with the collection of the taxpayer's tax liability. Section 801 of TBOR2 amended section 7433(b) by increasing the maximum amount of damages that a taxpayer may recover for damages caused by the reckless or intentional disregard of the Code or regulations from $100,000 to $1,000,000. Section 3102 of RRA 1998 caps the amount of damages that a taxpayer may recover for negligent disregard at $100,000. The regulations under § 301.7433-1 reflect these changes.

RRA 1998 also amended section 7433 by adding subsection (e). Subsection (e) gives taxpayers the right to petition the bankruptcy court to recover damages if, in connection with the collection of a Federal tax, any officer or employee of the IRS willfully violates section 362 or 524 of the Bankruptcy Code or any regulation promulgated thereunder. Damages in connection with a claim under section 7433(e) for willful violations of section 362 or 524 are recoverable under section 7433(b) and are subject to the limitations imposed by section 7433(d). Under section 7433(b), if the IRS is found liable, the plaintiff may recover an amount equal to the lesser of $1,000,000 or the actual, direct economic damages sustained by the plaintiff as a proximate result of the IRS's willful action plus costs of the action. A plaintiff may not recover damages for the mere negligent violation of section 362 or 524 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362 relates to the automatic stay, which arises by operation of law when a debtor files a bankruptcy petition. The stay prohibits certain collection actions against the debtor, the debtor's property, and the property of the bankruptcy estate. Prior to enactment of section 7433(e), individuals injured by the IRS's willful violation of the automatic stay could only sue to recover actual damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, under Bankruptcy Code section 362(h). Section 7433(e) provides an alternative cause of action to recover damages, but still permits an individual to recover damages under section 362(h) of the Bankruptcy Code, in lieu of an action under section 7433(e). However, section 7433(e) explicitly provides that administrative and litigation costs incurred in pressing a claim under section 362(h) of the Bankruptcy Code may only be paid pursuant to, and subject to the conditions described in, section 7430 of the Code. Section 7430 authorizes the payment of administrative and litigation costs only if a taxpayer exhausts administrative remedies. The regulations provide that in order to qualify for an award of administrative and litigation costs in an action under section 362(h) of the Bankruptcy Code, a taxpayer must (as in the case of damages actions under section 7433(e)) file an administrative claim with the IRS relating to the violation of the automatic stay.

Section 524 sets forth the effect of a discharge under the Bankruptcy Code. A discharge operates as an injunction against the commencement or continuation of any action to collect a discharged debt as a personal liability of the debtor. Prior to enactment of section 7433(e), a debtor who believed the IRS had willfully violated the discharge injunction could request the Bankruptcy Court under Bankruptcy Code section 105 to hold the IRS in contempt and seek to recover damages under that Bankruptcy Code provision. Section 7433(e) now provides the exclusive remedy for the IRS's willful violation of the discharge injunction.

The regulations set forth procedures relating to these claim and damage allowance provisions. Damages recoverable under section 7433(e) for a violation of the automatic stay or the discharge injunction are limited to (1) the actual, direct economic damages sustained by the taxpayer (and the taxpayer has a duty to mitigate those damages), plus (2) costs of the action. The maximum damage award is $1,000,000. No petition for damages under section 7433(e) may be filed in a bankruptcy court unless the taxpayer first exhausts administrative remedies within the IRS.

Similar to rules previously adopted with respect to other wrongful collection actions, the regulations define direct, economic damages as actual, pecuniary damages sustained by the taxpayer as a result of the willful violation of section 362 or 524 of the Bankruptcy Code. Injuries such as inconvenience, loss of reputation, and emotional distress, are not compensable except to the extent they result in actual pecuniary loss.

The regulations define costs of the action that are recoverable as damages under section 7433(e) as: (1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) fees of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case; (3) fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; (4) fees for exemplification and copies of paper necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) docket fees; and (6) compensation of court appointed experts and interpreters. Costs of the action do not include any costs other than those enumerated in this paragraph.

Reasonable administrative and litigation costs, including attorneys fees, are not recoverable as direct economic damages. These costs are recoverable, if at all, under section 7430. The taxpayer generally will be entitled to reasonable administrative and litigation costs under section 7430 if the taxpayer (1) files an administrative claim with the IRS, (2) establishes that the IRS willfully violated either the automatic stay under Bankruptcy Code section 362 or the discharge injunction under section 524, (3) substantially prevails with respect to the amount of damages or the most significant issue in controversy, and (4) meets the requirements of sections 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) regarding net worth.

A petition for damages under section 7433 may not be filed in a bankruptcy court unless the taxpayer first files an administrative claim for damages with the IRS. The claim must be made in writing to the Chief, Local Insolvency Unit, for the judicial district in which the taxpayer filed the underlying bankruptcy case giving rise to the alleged violation. The claim must include: (1) The claimant taxpayer's name, taxpayer identification number, current address, current home and work telephone numbers and any convenient times to be contacted; (2) the court and case number of the bankruptcy case in which the violation occurred; (3) a description, in reasonable detail, of the violation (with copies of any available substantiating documentation or correspondence with the IRS); (4) a description of the injuries incurred by the taxpayer filing the claim (with copies of any available substantiating documentation or evidence); (5) the dollar amount of the claim, including any damages that have not yet been incurred but which are reasonably foreseeable (along with any available substantiating documentation or evidence); and (6) the signature of the taxpayer or any duly authorized representative.

The regulations provide that, after an administrative claim for damages has been filed, a petition for damages under section 7433 may not be filed in a bankruptcy court until the earlier of (1) the time a decision is rendered on the claim or (2) six months from the date the administrative claim is filed. Because a taxpayer must petition the bankruptcy court for damages within two years after the cause of action accrues, the regulations contain an exception for claims filed in the last six months before the two-year limitation period expires. In those circumstances, taxpayers may file petitions for damages at any time after they file their administrative claims and before the period of limitations expires. A cause of action accrues under this section when the taxpayer has had a reasonable opportunity to discover all essential elements of a possible cause of action.

It has been determined that this final regulation is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

The principal author of these regulations is Kevin B. Connelly, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), Collection, Bankruptcy & Summonses Division, CC:PA:CBS, IRS. However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its State program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Kansas regulatory program on January 21, 1981. You can find background information on the Kansas regulatory program and program amendments, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval, in the January 21, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 5892). You can also find later actions concerning the Kansas regulatory program and program amendments at 30 CFR 916.10, 916.12, 916.15, and 916.16.

The AMLR program was established by Title IV of the Act (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ) in response to concerns over extensive environmental damage caused by past coal mining activities. The program is funded by a reclamation fee collected on each ton of coal that is produced. The money collected is used to finance the reclamation of abandoned coal mines and for other authorized activities. Section 405 of the Act allows States and Indian Tribes to assume exclusive responsibility for reclamation activity within the State or on Indian lands if they develop and submit to the Secretary of the Interior for approval, a program (often referred to as a plan) for the reclamation of abandoned coal mines. On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior approved the Kansas AMLR plan on February 1, 1982. You can find background information on the Kansas AMLR plan, including the Secretary's findings and the disposition of comments in the February 1, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 4513). You can find later actions concerning the Kansas AMLR plan and amendments to the plan at 30 CFR 916.20 and 916.25.

By electronic mail (e-mail) dated July 24, 2002 (Administrative Record No. KS-623), Kansas sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ). Kansas sent the amendment in response to an August 23, 2000, letter that we sent to Kansas in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c), concerning valid existing rights (Administrative Record No. KS-618). Kansas also included changes made at its own initiative. Kansas proposed to revise its regulatory program by updating its adoption by reference of applicable portions of 30 CFR part 700 to End from the July 1, 1995, version to the July 1, 2001, version. Kansas also revised its regulation concerning permit reviews. Kansas revised its AMLR plan by adding a new regulation concerning abandoned mine land (AML) agency procedures for reclamation projects receiving less than 50 percent government funding.

We announced receipt of the amendment in the September 23, 2002, Federal Register (67 FR 59484). In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. We did not hold a public hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public comment period ended on October 23, 2002. We received comments from one Federal agency and one State agency.

During our review of the amendment, we identified concerns about editorial errors. We notified Kansas of these concerns by letter dated October 31, 2002, and by e-mail dated November 6, 2002 (Administrative Record Nos. KS-623.05 and KS-623.06, respectively).

During a telephone conference on January 15, 2003, Kansas notified us that it had made the editorial changes required by our letter dated October 31, 2002, and e-mail dated November 6, 2002 (Administrative Record No. KS-623.07).

After further review of the amendment, we realized that we had not announced receipt of Kansas' proposed regulation at K.A.R. 47-16-12 in the proposed rule published on September 23, 2002. This proposed regulation concerns AML agency procedures for reclamation projects receiving less than 50 percent government funding. Therefore, we reopened the comment period in the January 16, 2003, Federal Register (68 FR 2265). The public comment period ended on January 31, 2003. We did not receive any comments.

Following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15, 732.17, 884.14, and 884.15. We are approving the amendment as described below. Any revisions that we do not specifically discuss below concern nonsubstantive wording or editorial changes.

Kansas updated its adoptions by reference of applicable sections of 30 CFR part 700 to End from those in effect as of July 1, 1995, to those in effect as of July 1, 2001. Kansas also revised terms and cross-references to the Federal regulations, as necessary. The Kansas regulations that were updated, along with the applicable sections of the Federal regulations, are shown in the table below.

We find that Kansas' revised regulations are no less effective than the counterpart Federal regulations, and we are approving the adoptions by reference.

2. New Adoptions by Reference.

a. Alternate Enforcement.

At K.A.R. 47-5-17(a), Kansas adopted by reference 30 CFR 847.2(a), (b), and (d); 847.11; and 847.16, as in effect on July 1, 2001. At K.A.R. 47-5-17(b), Kansas replaced Federal terms and cross-references with State terms and cross-references, as needed.

We find that Kansas' new regulation at K.A.R. 47-5-17 is no less effective than the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 847.2, 847.11, and 847.16, concerning alternative enforcement. Therefore, we are approving this adoption by reference.

b. Post-Permit Issuance Requirements.

At K.A.R. 47-6-11(a), Kansas adopted by reference 30 CFR 774.11 and 774.12, as in effect on July 1, 2001. At K.A.R. 47-6-11(b), Kansas replaced Federal terms and cross-references with State terms and cross-references, as needed.

We find that Kansas' new regulation at K.A.R. 47-6-11 is no less effective than the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 774.11 and 774.12, concerning post-permit issuance requirements and post-permit issuance information requirements, respectively. Therefore, we are approving this adoption by reference.

Kansas proposed to designate the existing paragraph as paragraph (a) and to add new paragraphs (b) through (f) to read as follows:

We find that Kansas' new regulations at K.A.R. 47-6-1(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are substantively the same as the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 774.10(a)(2), (a)(3), (b), (c), and (d), respectively. Therefore, we are approving them.

Kansas added K.A.R. 47-16-12 to its regulations to provide procedures for certain eligible abandoned mine land reclamation projects approved under Title IV of SMCRA. These projects must receive government funding that is less than 50 percent of the project cost, and any coal removal associated with the project must be incidental to it. As shown below, the procedures include specific consultations and concurrences with the Title V regulatory authority for each project, documentation of the consultations and concurrences, special requirements for each project, and a contractor limitation on coal extraction.

We find that K.A.R. 47-16-12 contains substantively the same requirements as the counterpart Federal regulation at 30 CFR 874.17. Therefore, we are approving it.

K.A.R. 47-2-75(a) adopts by reference the definitions at 30 CFR 700.5, with exceptions. The exceptions include entire definitions, portions of definitions, and the meaning of terms in specific cases. At paragraph (a)(4), Kansas revised its previously approved exception for the definition of “anthracite” by adding the address of the Federal Register Library in Washington, DC.

We find that Kansas' addition of the address is consistent with the Federal definition language, and we are approving it.

In paragraph (c)(2), Kansas proposed to update the address of the administrative appeals section of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

We find that this revision will not make Kansas' regulations at K.A.R. 47-4-14a(c) less effective than the Federal regulations at 43 CFR 4.1104 through 4.1116, concerning general rules relating to procedure and practice.

Kansas updated State citation references and cross-references to the Federal citations in the following sections of its regulations: K.A.R. 47-6-2, permit revision; K.A.R. 47-16-9, contractor responsibility; and K.A.R. 47-16-10, exclusion of certain noncoal reclamation sites.

Because these changes are minor, we find that they will not make Kansas' regulations less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations.

We asked for public comments on the amendment, but did not receive any.

On August 5, 2002, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Kansas program (Administrative Record No. KS-623.1). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service responded on August 15, 2002, that it had reviewed the amendment and had no comments to offer (Administrative Record No. KS-623.02).

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ). None of the changes that Kansas proposed to make in this amendment revised air or water quality standards. Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment.

On August 5, 2002, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the amendment from EPA (Administrative Record No. KS-623.01). EPA did not respond to our request.

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic properties. On August 5, 2002, we requested comments on Kansas' amendment (Administrative Record No. KS-623.01). The SHPO responded on August 28, 2002, that it did not foresee any negative effects from the proposed amendment (Administrative Record No. KS-623.03).

Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment Kansas sent us on July 24, 2002, and as revised on January 15, 2003.

We approve the regulations proposed by Kansas with the provision that they be fully promulgated in identical form to the rules submitted to and reviewed by OSM and the public.

To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 916, which codify decisions concerning the Kansas program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. Section 405(d) of SMCRA requires that the State have a program that is in compliance with the procedures, guidelines, and requirements established under the Act. Making this final rule effective immediately will expedite that process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.

In this rule, the State is proposing valid existing rights standards that are similar to the standards in the Federal definition at 30 CFR 761.5. Therefore, this rule has the same takings implications as the Federal valid existing rights rule. The takings implications assessment for the Federal valid existing rights rule appears in Part XXIX.E of the preamble to that rule. See 64 FR 70766, 70822-27, December 17, 1999. The provisions in the rule based on other counterpart Federal regulations do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations.

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

The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met. These standards are also not applicable to the actual language of State and Tribal abandoned mine land reclamation plans and plan amendments because each plan is drafted and promulgated by a specific State or Tribe, not by OSM. Decisions on proposed abandoned mine land reclamation plans and plan amendments submitted by a State or Tribe are based solely on a determination of whether the submittal meets the requirements of Title IV of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231-1243) and 30 CFR part 884 of the Federal regulations.

This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. Section 405(d) of SMCRA requires State abandoned mine reclamation programs to be in compliance with the procedures, guidelines, and requirements established under SMCRA.

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. This determination is based on the fact that the Kansas program does not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Kansas program has no effect on Federally recognized Indian tribes.

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

This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). Also agency decisions on proposed State and Tribal abandoned mine land reclamation plans and plan amendments are categorically excluded from compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332) by the Manual of the Department of the Interior (516 DM 6, appendix 8, paragraph 8.4B(29)).

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

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

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

This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate.

Regulatory Information

On July 1, 2002 we published an interim rule with requests for comments entitled “Security Zone, Liquefied Natural Gas Tankers, Cook Inlet, AK” in the Federal Register (67 FR 44057). We received no comments. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.

In its July 2002 interim rule, the Coast Guard established 1000-yard security zones around LNG tankers to safeguard the tankers, Nikiski marine terminals, the community of Nikiski, and the maritime community from sabotage or subversive acts and incidents of a similar nature. Paragraph 33 CFR 165.1709(b)(1)(ii) of that interim rule was not made effective because the Office of Management and Budget had not yet approved the collection of information called for by that paragraph. On September 4, 2002, OMB approved the collection of information. We are therefore adopting the interim rule as final and making paragraph 33 CFR 165.1709(b)(1)(ii) effective.

You can find more detailed background information in the preamble of the interim rule (67 FR 44057) under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION .

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12886, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This finding is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone, that vessels may still transit through the waters of Cook Inlet and dock at other Nikiski marine terminals.

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

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

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the vicinity of the Phillips Petroleum LNG Pier during the time this zone is activated; and the owners or operators of fishing vessels operating their nets in the vicinity of the Phillips Petroleum LNG Pier during the months of July through August.

These security zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Marine traffic will still be able to transit through Cook Inlet during the zones' activation. Additionally, vessels with cargo to load or unload from other Nikiski marine terminals in the vicinity of the zone will not be precluded from mooring at or getting underway from the terminals. The owners of fishing vessels that typically fish in the vicinity of the LNG pier during the summer months will not be prohibited from operating if they notify and provide information to the Coast Guard Marine Safety Detachment in Kenai before fishing in the security zone. The Coast Guard will collect information from them that is essential to keeping the pier secure from sabotage or subversive activities.

The Captain of the Port, Western Alaska requires information on fishing vessel owners and operators, and their vessels and crew, desiring to fish in the security zone around the Phillips Petroleum LNG Pier. This information is required to ensure port and vessel safety and security, to ensure uninterrupted fishing industry openings, to control vessel traffic, develop contingency plans, and enforce regulations. This collection of information is controlled by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control no. 1625-0043 (Formerly 2115-0540).

Recently, security zones were established for LNG tankers in Cook Inlet, AK through an interim rule published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2002 (67 FR 44057). A copy is available in the docket [COTP Western Alaska 02-001] under ADDRESSES or electronically through a Web site at http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/.

It became effective on July 6, 2002, with the exception of one paragraph, 33 CFR 165.1709(b)(1)(ii), which contains collection of information requirements. This rule modified an existing collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we submitted a copy of the interim rule (which we have adopted as the final rule without change) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection of information. On September 4, 2002, after reviewing the rule and the overall collection of information burden under OMB Control Number 1625-0043 (Formerly 2115-0540), OMB approved the collection of information required under this rule. The section number is 33 CFR 165.1709, and the corresponding approval number from OMB is OMB Control Number 1625-0043, which expires on September 30, 2005.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This rule fits paragraph 34(g) as it establishes a security zone. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES .

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM and delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is needed to continue to protect the public, ports and waterways of the United States. The Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners and place Coast Guard vessels in the vicinity of these zones to advise mariners of the restriction.

For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners to advise mariners of the restriction. The Coast Guard will publish a NPRM proposing a permanent rule for security zones in these same locations and requesting public comment.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, killed thousands of people and heightened the need for development of various security measures throughout the seaports of the United States, particularly those vessels and facilities which are frequented by foreign nationals and are of interest to national security. Following these attacks by well-trained and clandestine terrorists, national security and intelligence officials have warned that future terrorists attacks are likely. The Captain of the Port of Tampa has determined that these security zones are necessary to protect the public, ports, and waterways of the United States from potential subversive acts.

These security zones are similar to the existing temporary security zones established for vessels, waterfront facilities and bridges that will soon expire. The following seven existing temporary final rules were published in the Federal Register :

Security Zone for Crystal River, FL (66 FR 62940, December 4, 2001). This temporary rule created a fixed security zone around the Florida Power Crystal River nuclear power plant located at the end of the Florida Power Corporation Channel and the Demory Gap Channel, Crystal River, Florida.

Security Zone for Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Tampa, FL (66 FR 65838, December 21, 2001). This temporary rule created temporary fixed security zones 100 feet around all bridge supports and rocky outcroppings at the base of the supports for the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa Bay.

Security Zone Tampa, FL (67 FR 8196, February 22, 2002). This temporary rule created security zones 100 yards around moored vessels carrying or transferring Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Anhydrous Ammonia (NH3) and/or grade “A” and “B” flammable liquid cargo.

Security Zone Cruise Ships Tampa, FL (67 FR 10618, March 8, 2002). This temporary rule created security zones 100 yards around cruise ships moored in the Port of Tampa.

Security Zone St. Petersburg Harbor, FL (67 FR 36098, May 23, 2002). This temporary rule established fixed security zones 100 feet around seawalls, moorings, and vessels at Coast Guard and waterfront facilities and moorings in St. Petersburg Harbor, FL.

Security Zone, Port of Tampa, Tampa, FL (67 FR 40861; June 14, 2002). This temporary zone created a security zone 50 yards from the shore or seawall and encompassing all piers around facilities in the following locations: Port Sutton, East Bay, Hooker's Point, Sparkman Channel, Ybor Channel and portions of Garrison Channel. Also, Port Sutton Channel is closed.

Security Zones Tampa Bay and Crystal River, FL (67 FR 42483, June 24, 2002). This temporary rule established 10 security zones in Tampa Bay, Tampa, Florida, and Crystal River, Florida until October 31, 2002.

On October 30, 2002, the Captain of the Port issued a temporary final rule [COTP TAMPA-02-131] continuing security zones in these areas until 11:59 p.m. February 28, 2003. And on January 10, 2003, the COTP published a notice of proposed rulemaking for permanent security zones in these and other areas (68 FR 7093). The comment period on that proposed rule is open until April 14, 2003.

This temporary rule establishes security zones in areas covered by past temporary rules to ensure consistent security of facilities, vessels, and infrastructure throughout the Tampa Captain of the Port Zone. There are changes, however, from previous security zones:

The coordinates of the security zone for Crystal River, FL have been changed because the original coordinates did not accurately match the intended security zone.

The scope of the security zone around the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Tampa, FL, has been reduced to allow for fishing in portions of the zone. The zone extends from pier 88 to 135 and out 100 feet from bridge supports or rocky outcroppings at the base of the bridge.

The security zones for moored vessels carrying or transferring Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Anhydrous Ammonia (NH3) and/or grade “A” and “B” flammable liquid cargo requires any vessel transiting within 200 yards of moored vessels carrying or transferring Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Anhydrous Ammonia (NH3) and/or grade “A” and “B” cargo must proceed through the area at the minimum speed necessary to maintain safe navigation. These security zones exclude entry within 100 yards of tank vessels carrying the specified cargoes moored in Port Tampa.

The security zones around moored cruise ships in Tampa, FL have been expanded to include moored cruise ships in Port Manatee and Port Saint Petersburg. Additionally, the Coast Guard intends to change this security zone by adding that any vessel transiting within 200 yards of a moored cruise ship must proceed through the area at the minimum speed necessary to maintain safe navigation. These security zones exclude entry within 100 yards of moored cruise ships in Port Tampa, located in Ybor Channel, Ybor Turning Basin, and East Bay, ships in Port Manatee, or Saint Petersburg Harbor (Bayboro Harbor).

The security zone in St. Petersburg Harbor, FL has been extended from 100 feet from seawalls, moorings, and moored vessels to 50 yards to be the same as other security zones in the bay protecting similar infrastructure. The security zone has also been expanded on its northern boundary to the west to include Port of Saint Petersburg Cruise Ship Terminal. The coordinates of the security zone for St. Petersburg Harbor, FL have also been corrected because the original coordinates did not accurately match the intended security zone. This zone covers north and south Coast Guard moorings and facilities and Saint Peterburg Cruise Ship Terminals.

The 50 yard zones around piers and facilities in Port Tampa, Port Sutton, East Bay, Hooker's Point, Hillsborough Bay Cut “C”, Sparkman Channel, Ybor Turning Basin, and Ybor Channel have been extended to include northern reaches of Ybor Channel and Cruise Terminals 3 and 6. The coordinates of the security zone have also been changed because the original coordinates did not accurately match the intended security zone.

The security zone around moving cruise ships, Tampa, FL, has been expanded to 200 yards, allowing vessels to transit the outer 100 yards of the zone but requiring transiting vessels to proceed at minimum speed to maintain safe navigation. This change matches safety zone requirements for moored cruise ships. These zones will be in place from the “T” Sea Buoy to berth on an inbound transit and from berth to the “T” Sea Buoy on outbound transits.

A new security zone has been created restricting entrance to the immediate area surrounding the LPG facility and the pier at Rattlesnake, Tampa, FL. The security zone commences at position 27°53.32′ N, 082°32.05′ W and extends north to 27°53.36′ N, 082°32.05′ W encompassing all waters east and south of this line in Rattlesnake, Tampa, Florida.

A new security zone has been created restricting entrance to the channel servicing the petroleum facilities and piers at Old Port Tampa, FL. The security zone is bounded by the following points: 27°51.62′ N, 082°33.14′ W east to 27°51.71′ N, 082°32.5′ W north to 27°51.76′ N, 082°32.5′ W west to 27°51.73′ N, 082°33.16′ W and south to 27°51.62′ N, 082°33.14′ W closing off the Old Port Tampa channel.

A new security zone has been created restricting access to the Big Bend Power Facility. The security zone extends 50 yards from the shore or seawall and from all piers around facilities. The security zone is bounded by the following points: 27°47.85′ N, 082°25.02′ W then east and south along the shore and pile to 27°47.63′ N, 082°24.70′ W then north along the shore to 27°48.17′ N, 082°24.70′ W then north and west along a straight line to 27°48.12′ N, 082°24.88′ W, then south along the shore and pile to 27°47.85′ N, 082°25.02′ W closing off the entrance to the Big Bend Power Facility.

A new security zone has been created restricting access to the Power Facility at Weedon Island. The security zone extends 50 yards from the shore or seawall and from all piers around facilities. The security zone is bounded by the following points: 27°51.52′ N, 082°35.82′ W then north and east along the shore to 27°51.54′ N, 082°35.78′ W then north to 27°51.68′ N, 082°35.78′ W then north to 27°51.75′ N, 082°35.78′ W closing off entrance to the canal then north to 27°51.89′ N, 082°35.82′ W then east along the shore to 27°51.89′ N, 082°36.10′ W then east to 27°51.89′ N, 082°36.14′ W closing off entrance to the canal.

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

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary because there is ample room for vessels to navigate around the security zones and the Captain of the Port may allow vessels to enter the zones, on a case-by-case basis with the express permission of the Captain of the Port of Tampa or their designated representative.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the majority of the zones are limited in size and leave ample room for vessels to navigate around the zones. The zones will not significantly impact commuter and passenger vessel traffic patterns, and vessels may be allowed to enter the zones, on a case-by-case basis, with the express permission of the Captain of the Port of Tampa or their designated representative.

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would effect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance in understanding this rule. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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

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

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

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

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

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

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. We invite your comments on how this rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the Order.

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

We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

The Office changed the address for trademark-related correspondence in December of 1996. See Communications with the Patent and Trademark Office, 61 FR 56439 (Nov. 1, 1996), 1192 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 95 (Nov. 26, 1996) (final rule). With this change, trademark-related correspondence with the Office was routed through a USPS facility in Virginia, and most other correspondence with the Office was routed through a USPS facility in the District of Columbia. The Office is currently in the process of moving its principal office from Arlington, Virginia to Alexandria, Virginia. Since a USPS facility in Virginia is more conveniently located to the site of the Office's future principal office in Alexandria, Virginia, the Office is changing its correspondence addresses (other than for trademark-related correspondence) so that all correspondence with the Office will now be routed through a USPS facility in Virginia. In addition, selection of a USPS facility in Virginia as the new correspondence address is appropriate because the Office maintains and will continue to maintain its principal office in Northern Virginia.

General Mailing Addresses: The Office's three separate general mailing addresses are now as follows: (1) For correspondence processed by the organizations reporting to the Commissioner for Patents: Commissioner for Patents, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450; (2) For correspondence processed by the organizations reporting to the Commissioner for Trademarks or the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board: Commissioner for Trademarks, 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3513; and (3) For other correspondence (including patent and trademark documents sent to the Assignment Division for recordation and requests for certified or uncertified copies of patent or trademark documents): Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.

The above addresses are the Office's three general mailing addresses. The Office has separate mailing addresses for certain correspondence: e.g. , (1) Certain court-related correspondence ( e.g. , a summons and complaint) being delivered to the Office via the USPS must be addressed: General Counsel, United States Patent and Trademark Office, PO Box 15667, Arlington, Virginia 22215 (§ 104.2); (2) correspondence directed to the counsel for the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) Director relating to disciplinary proceedings pending before an Administrative Law Judge or the Director must be addressed: Office of the Solicitor, PO Box 16116, Arlington, Virginia 22215; (3) payments of maintenance fees in patents being delivered to the Office via the USPS should be addressed: United States Patent and Trademark Office, PO Box 371611, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15250-1611; and (4) a deposit account replenishment being delivered to the Office via the USPS should be addressed: Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, PO Box 70541, Chicago, Illinois 60673. Persons filing correspondence with the Office should check the rules of practice, the Official Gazette, or the Office's Internet Web site ( http://www.uspto.gov ) to determine the appropriate mailing address for such correspondence.

The Office appreciates that it will take some period of time before all persons filing correspondence with the Office become accustomed to these address changes. The Office plans to arrange for continued delivery of correspondence addressed to the Office's former Washington, DC 20231 address as a courtesy for a limited period of time. The Office, however, has been experiencing delays and other problems with correspondence routed through the USPS facility at Brentwood. See Processing of, and Requirements for, the Filing of Duplicate Applications and Papers in Patent Applications in view of USPS Mail Delays, 1254 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 92 (Jan. 15, 2002). Any correspondence addressed to the Office's former Washington, DC 20231 address that is delivered to the Office will still be subject to the delays and other problems associated with correspondence that is routed through the USPS facility at Brentwood.

In November of 2001, the Office also established a Post Office Box in Arlington, Virginia (PO Box 2327, Arlington, Virginia 22202) for use on an emergency basis, and indicated that it would continue to accept patent-related correspondence at this Arlington, Virginia Post Office Box and treat such correspondence as if it were addressed as set forth in 37 CFR 1.1 for purposes of 37 CFR 1.8 and 1.10 until further notice. See Termination of the Suspension of the “Express Mail” Service of United States Postal Service for mail addressed to ZIP Codes 202xx through 205xx, 1254 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 33 (Jan. 1, 2002). The Office is hereby providing notice that persons submitting correspondence to the Office should no longer use this Arlington, Virginia Post Office Box for any correspondence (including sequence listings in electronic format) after May 1, 2003.

In addition, the Office is changing the various special Box designations to corresponding Mail Stop designations ( e.g. , “Box 4” will now be “Mail Stop 4”). Since the address for certain correspondence includes a Post Office Box number, the continued use of special Box designations in the address might have resulted in confusion between the Post Office Box number and the special Box designation (especially when the special Box designation is a box number).

Finally, the titles “Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks,” “Assistant Commissioner for Patents,” and “Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks” were changed to “Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office,” “Commissioner for Patents,” and “Commissioner for Trademarks,” respectively, in § 4713 of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA). See Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-575 through 1501A-577 (1999).

This final rule also revises the rules of practice (with the exception of 37 CFR part 10) to reflect the current titles of Office officials as provided for in the AIPA.

Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:

Part 1: Part 1 is amended to: (1) Change each reference to “Commissioner” to read “Director”; and (2) change each reference to “Commissioner's” to read “Director's”.

Section 1.1 is amended to: (1) Change the address for general correspondence to: Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, PO. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 (with Mail Stop designations as appropriate); (2) change the address for patent-related correspondence to: Commissioner for Patents, PO. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450; and (3) add paragraph headings.

Section 1.1(a) is also amended to: (1) Place the mailing address for all Office of Public Records correspondence concerning both patents and trademarks (documents to be recorded by Assignment Services Division and requests for certified or uncertified copies of patent or trademark documents) in a new § 1.1(a)(4); and (2) eliminate the reference to the coupon orders as coupon practice was abolished in November of 2000 ( see Changes to Implement Eighteen-Month Publication of Patent Applications, 65 FR 57023, 57030 (Sept. 20, 2000), 1239 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 63, 69 (Oct. 10, 2000) (final rule)).

Section 1.1(a) is also amended to provide that all correspondence in an application involved in an appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) during the period from when an appeal docketing notice is issued until a decision has been rendered by the Board as well as any request for rehearing of a decision by the Board should be mailed to: Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, United States Patent and Trademark Office, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450. An appeal docketing notice is issued by the Board to notify the applicant that an appeal is ready for docketing at the Board. See Revised Docketing Procedures for Appeals Arriving at the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, 1260 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 18 (July 2, 2002). Section 1.1(a) is also amended to provide that notices of appeal, appeal briefs, reply briefs, requests for oral hearing, as well as all other correspondence in an application involved in an appeal to the Board not otherwise provided for should be addressed as set out in § 1.1(a)(1)(i) ( i.e. , Commissioner for Patents, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450). Section 1.1(a) is also amended to include the provisions formerly located in § 1.1(e) concerning patent interference correspondence, namely that except as an administrative patent judge or the Board may otherwise direct, all correspondence relating to patent interferences, or relating to patent applications or patents involved in an interference, should be mailed to: Mail Stop INTERFERENCE, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, United States Patent and Trademark Office, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.

Sections 1.1(f) and 1.1(i) are redesignated as §§ 1.1(e) and 1.19(f), respectively. As discussed above, the provisions of § 1.1(e) are now located in § 1.1(a)(1)(iii). Section 1.1(g) was formerly reserved and § 1.1(h) is now deleted. Section 1.1(h) provided that an applicant should use “Box ITU” as part of the address when an applicant or the applicant's representative submits a statement of use under § 2.88, or a request for extension of time to file a statement of use under § 2.89. With this change, a statement of use and a request for an extension of time to file a statement of use will be considered properly filed if addressed to the general address for trademark documents in compliance with § 1.1(a)(2)(i): Commissioner for Trademarks, 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3513. The Office is eliminating Box ITU because the Office's experience has been that the use of that box is not helpful in sorting mail.

Section 1.6(b) is removed and reserved. The USPS no longer maintains a “pouch” for correspondence addressed to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the USPS does not segregate correspondence addressed to the United States Patent and Trademark Office on the basis of the date of its receipt by the USPS.

Section 1.9 is amended to add a paragraph (j) to define Director as used in 37 CFR chapter I, except for 37 CFR part 10, as meaning the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 37 CFR part 10 currently defines “Director” as meaning the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline. The Office plans to propose changes to part 10 in a separate rule making, and also plans to change the use of “Director” in part 10 for consistency with the remaining provisions of 37 CFR chapter I as part of that rule making (at which time the phrase “except for part 10” will be deleted from § 1.9(j)).

Section 1.15 is removed and reserved as its provisions have been supplanted by the provisions of part 102.

Section 1.25 is amended by adding a paragraph (c), which specifies how a deposit account holder may submit a payment to the Office to replenish the deposit account. A payment to replenish a deposit account may be submitted by making the payment by electronic funds transfer through the Federal Reserve Fedwire System. Deposit account holders who want to use the Federal Reserve Fedwire System must provide the following information to their bank or financial institution: (1) Name of the Bank, which is Treas NYC (Treasury New York City); (2) Bank Routing Code, which is 021030004; (3) United States Patent and Trademark Office account number with the Department of the Treasury, which is 13100001; and (4) the deposit account holder's company name and deposit account number. The deposit account holder should inform his or her bank or financial institution to use due care to ensure that all pertinent account numbers are listed on the transaction because the failure to include the proper deposit account number will delay the processing of the replenishment. A second method of making a payment to replenish a deposit account is by credit card or electronic funds transfer over the Office's Internet Web site ( www.uspto.gov ). Specifically, from the Office's Web site homepage ( www.uspto.gov ), click on the “Online Business” tab, and then click the “Revenue Accounting & Management” tab, and then click the “Maintain USPTO Deposit Accounts” tab. A third method of making a payment to replenish a deposit account is by mailing the payment with the USPS to: Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, PO Box 70541, Chicago, Illinois 60673. Finally, a fourth method of making a payment to replenish a deposit account is by mailing the payment with a private delivery service or hand-carrying the payment to: Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Deposit Accounts, One Crystal Park, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 307, Arlington, Virginia 22202.

Further information on deposit account replenishment may be obtained from the Office's Internet Web site ( http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/comp/fin/electron.htm ), or by contacting the Deposit Account Division at 703-305-4631.

Section 1.51(a) is amended to change “Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks” to “Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office” for consistency with the change in nomenclature.

Sections 1.53(d)(9), 1.417, and 1.434(a) are amended to change their special Box designations to corresponding Mail Stop designations.

Section 1.302(c) is amended to provide that notices of appeal directed to the Director shall be mailed to or served by hand on the General Counsel as provided in § 104.2.

Section 1.434(d)(2) is amended to correct a grammatical error.

Section 1.480(b) is amended to change its special Box designation to a corresponding Mail Stop designation. Section 1.480(b) is also amended to add a reference to PCT Rule 53 (which provides for Demands under the PCT).

Section 1.627(a) is amended to change the reference to § 1.1(e) to a reference to § 1.1(a)(1)(iii) for consistency with the changes to § 1.1.

Section 1.676(d) is amended to change the address to the correspondence address set out in § 1.1(a)(1)(iii).

Section 1.740(a)(13) is amended to change “Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks” to “Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office” for consistency with the change in nomenclature.

Part 2: Part 2 is amended to change each reference to “Commissioner” to read “Director”.

Section 2.123(f)(2) is amended to change “address the package, and forward the same to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks' to “promptly forward the package to the address set out in § 1.1(a)(2)(i)”.

Section 2.145(b)(3) is amended to provide that notices of appeal directed to the Director shall be mailed to or served by hand on the General Counsel as provided in § 104.2.

Part 3: Part 3 is amended to change each reference to “Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks” or “Commissioner” to read “Director”.

Section 3.27 is amended to change the address to: Mail Stop Assignment Recordation Services, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.

Part 4: Section 4.3(c) is amended to change the address for complaints concerning invention promoters to: Mail Stop 24, Commissioner for Patents, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.

Section 4.6 is amended to change the address for complaints concerning registered patent attorneys or agents to: Mail Stop OED, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.

Part 5: Part 5 is amended to change each reference to “Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks” or “Commissioner” to read “Commissioner for Patents”. Section 4732(a)(10)(B) of the AIPA amended 35 U.S.C. chapter 17 to change “Commissioner” to “Commissioner of Patents” ( sic ) rather than “Director”. See 113 Stat. at 1501A-582. Therefore, the Office is amending part 5 to change each reference to “Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks” or “Commissioner” to read “Commissioner for Patents” (rather than “Director”) for consistency with section 4732(a)(10)(B) of the AIPA.

Section 5.1(a) is amended to change the address to: Commissioner for Patents (Attention Licensing and Review), PO Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.

Part 102: Sections 102.1(b), 102.4(a), 102.10(b), 102.23(a), 102.24(a), and 102.29(b) are amended to change the address to: United States Patent and Trademark Office, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 (with headings as appropriate). Sections 102.1(b), 102.23(a), and 102.24(a) are also amended to indicate that correspondence being delivered by hand should be delivered to Two Crystal Park, 2121 Crystal Drive, Suite 905, Arlington, Virginia.

Part 104: Section 104.1 is amended to define “Director” as meaning the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for consistency with § 1.9(j).

Part 150: Part 150 is amended to change each reference to “Commissioner” to read “Director'.

Section 150.1 is amended to define “Director” as meaning the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for consistency with § 1.9(j).

Section 150.6 is amended to change the address to: Mail Stop 4, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.

Administrative Procedure Act: Since this final rule is directed to changing the address for filing certain correspondence with the Office and changes in the titles of Office officials for consistency with the titles as provided in the AIPA, this final rule merely involves rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Accordingly, this final rule may be adopted without prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c), or thirty-day advance publication under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

Regulatory Flexibility Act: As prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 (or any other law), a regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) is not required. See 5 U.S.C. 603.

Executive Order 13132: This rule making does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).

Executive Order 12866: This rule making has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).

Paperwork Reduction Act: This rule making does not create any information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

EPA established an official public docket for the direct final rule and its companion proposed rule under Docket ID No. SFUND-2002-0007. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in the direct final rule, the comments received by the Agency in response to the proposed rule, and other information related to the proposed and direct final rules. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public make an appointment by calling (202) 566-0276. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/page.

EPA published a direct final rule on January 24, 2003, clarifying the interim standard for all appropriate inquiry established in the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act for bona fide prospective purchasers, contiguous property owners, and those parties wishing to establish an innocent landowner defense under CERCLA. The direct final rule stated that such property owners or prospective purchasers could use the current version of ASTM standard E1527 ( i.e. , E1527-00) for conducting all appropriate inquiry as provided in CERCLA section 101(35)(B) for properties purchased on or after May 31, 1997. In addition, the direct final rule stated that ASTM's previous standard, E1527-97, could be used for conducting all appropriate inquiry. ASTM's E1527-97 standard, entitled “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessment: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process,” is the interim standard included by Congress in the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act.

The companion proposed rule, also published on January 24, 2003, invited comment on the direct final rule and stated that if adverse comment was received by February 24, 2003, the direct final rule would not become effective and a notice would be published in the Federal Register to withdraw the direct final rule before the March 25, 2003, effective date. EPA subsequently received adverse comment on the direct final rule. EPA plans to address those comments in a subsequent action. Today's action withdraws the direct final rule “Clarification to Interim Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiry Under CERCLA and Notice of Future Rulemaking Action.”

On October 17, 2002, the Commission released an Order on Reconsideration in CS Docket No. 00-2, pertaining to the Commission's network non-duplication, syndicated exclusivity and sports blackout rules as applied to satellite retransmission of broadcast signals. A summary of the Order on Reconsideration was published in the Federal Register at 67 FR 68944, November 14, 2002. The Order on Reconsideration made revisions to conform the satellite rules to the cable rules and amended a rule to permit sports rights holders with a discernable season to submit blackout notifications for an entire season, but also to establish a date certain by when those notifications must be received by satellite carriers. Sections 76.122(c)(2) and 76.127(c) of the rules contained new or modified information collection requirements that required OMB approval before they could become effective. The Commission received OMB approval for the information collection requirements on March 10, 2003. See OMB No. 3060-0960, 67 FR 5291, February 3, 2003. Accordingly, §§ 76.122(c)(2) and 76.127(c) of the rules will become effective on March 25, 2003. This document constitutes publication of the effective date of those sections.

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 96-511, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Questions concerning the OMB control numbers and expiration dates should be directed to Les Smith, Federal Communications Commission, (202) 418-0217.

In rule FR Doc. 02-28894 published on November 14, 2002 (67 FR 68944), make the following corrections. On page 68951 in the second column, in the amendment to § 76.127, revise paragraph (c) as follows:

Under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180), an offeror of a hazardous material must prepare a signed shipping paper containing the quantity and a basic shipping description of the material being offered for transportation ( i.e. , proper shipping name, hazard class, UN or NA identification number, and packing group); certain emergency response information; and a 24-hour emergency response telephone number. (49 CFR part 172, Subparts C and G). Additional information may be required depending on the specific hazardous material being shipped. (49 CFR 172.203).

When hazardous material is transported by air, a copy of the shipping paper must accompany the shipment during transportation, and the aircraft operator must provide the pilot-in-command of the aircraft written information relative to the hazardous materials on board the aircraft. (49 CFR 175.33 and 175.35). For each hazardous materials shipment, the information in the notification of pilot-in-command (NOPC) must include:

(1) Proper shipping name, hazard class, and identification number;

(2) technical and chemical group name, if applicable;

(3) any additional shipping description requirements applicable to specific types or shipments of hazardous materials or to materials shipped under International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) requirements;

(4) total number of packages;

(5) net quantity or gross weight, as appropriate, for each package;

(6) the location of each package on the aircraft;

(7) for Class 7 (radioactive) materials, the number of packages, overpacks or freight containers, their transport index, and their location on the aircraft; and

(8) an indication, if applicable, that a hazardous material is being transported under terms of an exemption.

This information must be readily available to the pilot-in-command during flight. In essence, the NOPC provides the same information to emergency response personnel as a shipping paper for transportation by public highway. In addition, emergency response information applicable to the specific hazardous materials being transported by aircraft must be available for use at all times the materials are present on the aircraft, and must be maintained on board in the same manner as the NOPC. ( See Subpart G of part 172 for requirements relating to emergency response information.) In an emergency situation, the flight crew may be able to transmit information concerning the hazardous materials aboard the aircraft to air traffic control, or emergency responders may be able to retrieve the information from the aircraft after it lands. However, retrieval of the information from the flight crew may not be practical during an in-flight emergency because the flight crew may be attending to more pressing tasks. Also, in many emergencies the aircraft is damaged or destroyed, making retrieval of this information from the aircraft difficult or impossible.

On February 13, 2002, RSPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the HMR to assure that information on the hazardous materials carried aboard the aircraft is available to emergency responders through sources other than the flight crew (67 FR 6669). The NPRM proposed to amend the HMR to require an aircraft operator to: Place a telephone number on the notification of pilot-in-command that can be contacted during an in-flight emergency to obtain information about any hazardous materials aboard the aircraft; retain a copy of the notification of pilot-in-command at the aircraft operator's principal place of business for one year; retain and make readily accessible a copy of the notification of pilot-in-command, or the information contained in it, at the airport of departure until the flight leg is completed; and make readily accessible a copy of the notification of pilot-in-command, or the information contained in it, at the planned airport of arrival until the flight leg is completed.

The amendments adopted in this final rule respond to a recommendation of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and are consistent with recent changes to the ICAO Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Technical Instructions). The NTSB recommends that RSPA:

This recommendation is contained in NTSB's August 12, 1998, letter to RSPA, which has been placed in the public docket.

The ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel also considered additional steps that could be taken to improve the availability of information in the event of an aircraft incident. As a result, the Panel revised the ICAO Technical Instructions to: (1) Require the NOPC to be readily accessible at the airports of departure and arrival; and (2) allow an aircraft operator to provide a phone number where a copy of the NOPC could be obtained. In an emergency, the pilot would relay the phone number instead of the specific hazardous materials aboard the aircraft to an air traffic controller ( see ICAO Technical Instructions 7;4.3). For informational purposes, we placed in the Docket an excerpt from the reports of the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel reflecting discussions on this topic and relevant changes for inclusion in the 2001-2002 and 2003-2004 editions of the ICAO Technical Instructions.

On August 15, 2000, we issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting comments and suggestions on ways to implement the NTSB recommendation and the need for this or other changes to the HMR (65 FR 49777). The ANPRM solicited comments on past incidents; practices and procedures currently in use and their costs; information needed by emergency responders; and the benefit, feasibility, and funding of a centralized reporting system (CRS).

Two commenters supported our proposal to place a telephone number on the NOPC that can be contacted during an in-flight emergency to obtain information about any hazardous materials aboard the aircraft. Emery Forwarding stated that it is reasonable to provide such a telephone number on the NOPC, and aircraft operators should have a single point of control that could be contacted for hazmat information. Emery went on to say the telephone number would take little space on the NOPC and the primary cost would be in the modification of internal computer systems. The International Pilots Association (IPA) stated that, in an emergency, the telephone number relieves the crew from having to “read off a lot of information at a time when they probably have more urgent matters to attend to”. The commenter pointed out that providing a telephone number instead of detailed information about the hazardous materials is consistent with ICAO Technical Instructions 7;4.3. At the same time, IPA questioned who would be staffing this telephone number. IPA stated that the point of contact at United Parcel Services (UPS) is the Dispatcher. IPA opposed the Dispatcher as the contact point and suggested the telephone number should be another department in order to allow the dispatcher to work with the crew to resolve the immediate situation.

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) commented that the requirement for a telephone number on the NOPC that could be contacted during an in-flight emergency to obtain information about any hazardous materials aboard the aircraft would have limited safety benefits. Due to the nature of most in-flight emergencies, the flight crew may have insufficient time to transmit any information from the NOPC. Even if the crew had time to transmit information from the NOPC to Air Traffic Control (ATC), the presence of two telephone numbers (emergency response and hazmat information) could be potentially confusing. ALPA conceded that the addition of the phone number is a slight improvement over the present system, but the situation addressed by the telephone number would be better addressed by a more robust hazardous materials tracking system.

Two commenters disagreed with the proposal. FedEx contended that it should be sufficient for the flight crew to inform ATC whether or not hazardous material is aboard the aircraft as it would allow the crew to continue with the more pressing tasks of the emergency. FedEx stated that ATC would contact the aircraft operator with the flight number and obtain the required hazardous materials information from a single contact of the operator. The Air Transport Association (ATA) also stated that the flight crew should be able to contact a single telephone contact known to flight crews and that many air carriers have already identified a single location to become responsible for this function, and airlines should be permitted to designate the location.

RSPA continues to believe that each airline that is transporting hazardous materials should maintain a phone number that is monitored at all times the aircraft is in flight by a person from whom the information in the NOPC can be obtained. In the NPRM, RSPA stated that one of the problems faced by emergency responders in an aviation emergency is that a flight crew may not have time or otherwise be able to provide information on the hazardous material aboard an aircraft. A phone number that is monitored by a person from whom the information in the NOPC can be obtained could be used in those incidents where a pilot does not have time to provide an air traffic controller the information on the NOPC. However, RSPA does agree with the commenter who requested that the telephone number be allowed to be placed in a centralized location on the aircraft and not the NOPC. Therefore, RSPA is adopting the proposal to require aircraft operators to monitor a telephone number while the aircraft is in flight by a person whom the information in the NOPC can be obtained, but is allowing the phone number to be placed on the NOPC or in a location on the aircraft that is known to the flight crew.

In the NPRM, we proposed to require aircraft operators to retain and make readily accessible a copy of the NOPC, or the information contained in it, at the airport of departure until the flight leg is completed and make readily accessible a copy of the NOPC, or the information contained in it, at the airport of arrival until the flight leg is complete. Most commenters supported retaining and making readily accessible “the information contained in the NOPC” at the airport of departure. They agreed that the hazardous material information must be readily available and in a format that is easily understood by emergency personnel.

While the commenters generally agreed with the proposal that the information contained in the NOPC must be retained and readily accessible at the airport of departure, several of them pointed out that in an emergency, the aircraft most likely will not land at the planned destination airport. The commenters stated that having copies of the NOPC at the planned airport of arrival would not be useful. ATA stated that in all likelihood, the flight will divert “to the nearest suitable airport”. The information would have to be obtained from the last departure airport.

The ATA stated that air carriers may have no choice but to automate in order to comply with the requirements in this rulemaking and that it is unrealistic to expect large-scale air carriers to duplicate the NOPC, file the copied form, and transmit it by fax. ATA stated that if carriers did utilize a fax system to manage this information, it is reasonable to assume that these requirements will add 10 minutes of additional work to each flight. ATA went on to say that if we estimate that one-third of the 19,000 daily flights carry hazardous materials, utilizing the $18 per hour labor rate yields a total cost of almost $7,000,000 per year.

ALPA questioned when the required hazardous materials information must be accessible at the destination airport. ALPA asked if the departure of a flight from Chicago to Tokyo would need to be delayed if station personnel in Tokyo had not yet received the required information. ALPA stated that with long transcontinental or international flights, the destination airport may not be staffed at the time of departure from the originating station. Requiring personnel to remain at an otherwise closed station for the purpose of accessing hazardous material information appears to create significant expense with very little, if any, safety benefit.

ALPA stated the best way to make improvements in the availability of the hazardous material information is through a tracking system based around an airline's dispatch or operations control center, not the airports of departure or arrival. ALPA pointed out that in the U.S. all airline flight operations must maintain a flight following system capable of tracking an airplane through its entire flight, including intermediate stops and diversions. The dispatcher and pilot-in-command share operational authority for the flight. ALPA stated that the dispatch or operations control center is the natural location for the hazardous material information. The dispatcher is required to monitor the flight and would most likely be the first person within the airline to be aware of a flight diversion due to an emergency. Dispatchers would work closely with corporate emergency response to an accident. ALPA pointed out that dispatchers are certificated, highly trained individuals, and often have access to a multitude of advanced communications equipment and contact information for a variety of emergency response situation.

NTSB stated the NPRM fails to ensure that the air carrier has the ability to quickly provide emergency responders with a consolidated list that not only identifies each hazardous material on board the aircraft but also the quantity and location of each hazardous materials package on the aircraft. Maintaining the NOPC at the departure and arrival points of an aircraft does not ensure that air carriers will provide the consolidated list in a timely manner. If an aircraft diverts, the aircraft operator would still have to transmit a copy of the NOPC or assemble a list and then transmit it. Neither is timely. If the air carrier has the consolidated list prior to the departure of each flight, the air carrier could easily transmit a consolidated list to emergency responders at the scene.

NTSB pointed out that for many carriers the NOPC is a multi-part form with the hazardous materials information on the individual shipping papers. In an emergency, when the onboard NOPC is not available or accessible, the carrier must retrieve a copy of the NOPC at the point of origin and collect the shipping papers for the individual hazardous material shipments. The carrier must then transmit copies of the individual shipping papers or consolidate the information into a list before transmitting to emergency responders. The NTSB stated that this unnecessarily delays the accurate transmission of the hazardous materials information. NTSB stated that the final rule under this docket should include an explicit requirement that an air carrier must have the capability to provide emergency responders with a consolidated list of hazardous materials on any of its aircraft and appropriate information about those materials.

Several commenters stated that the requirements in the NPRM are only manageable with an automated tracking system. FedEx agreed with the proposal to have the NOPC accessible at the airports of departure and arrival until the flight leg is completed, but only if RSPA requires aircraft operators to fully automate or computerize the required hazmat information. FedEx emphasized how burdensome the task would be if not automated. FedEx cited its Memphis hub with 160 flights departing within a matter of hours and stated that, without an automated system, the company would be required to fax paper copies to the destination airports so that the information would be available prior to the scheduled arrival time.

As we stated in the NPRM, emergencies involving hazardous materials transported by aircraft provide difficulties to emergency responders not usually encountered in other modes of transportation. The flight crew may not have time or otherwise be able to provide information during or immediately after the emergency. An aircraft involved in an accident may be damaged to such an extent the information cannot be retrieved from it. In such instances, emergency responders may not know what, if any, hazardous materials are aboard the aircraft. These difficulties cause us to shift our focus away from retrieving hazardous materials information aboard the aircraft or from air crew members. We continue to believe that these problems support a requirement for information to be accessible from a source other than the aircraft flight crew. We also agree with the comment to the ANPRM that stated that the additional risk posed during an emergency by properly prepared hazardous materials shipments may not be significant considering the standard fuel capacity of commercial aircraft. A system that utilizes the information contained in the NOPC can appropriately address these problems without the need for costly new computer or paper tracking systems.

Therefore, as proposed, we are amending the HMR to require an aircraft operator to: (1) Retain and make readily accessible a copy of the NOPC, or the information contained in it, at the airport of departure until the flight leg is completed; and (2) make readily accessible a copy of the NOPC, or the information contained in it, at the planned airport of arrival until the flight leg is completed. Nothing in the rule requires, however, that an aircraft operator has to fax every NOPC to its final destination before a flight takes-off or lands. The airport of arrival must only have the means available to retrieve the NOPC. With facsimile machines and email capabilities, companies can easily store the information at the airport of departure and then, when necessary, transmit it to the airport of arrival very quickly. Therefore, a flight would not have to be held on the ground to wait for a NOPC to be faxed to its airport of arrival. In addition, we are not mandating that airlines retain staff at both airports of arrival and destination while an aircraft is in flight. However, the airport of departure and arrival must be able to receive and transmit the information to appropriate government personnel in such a timely manner that emergency responders can make response mitigation decisions. It is our belief that the act of filing and maintaining this information in a manner that is readily available should impose a marginal cost on each flight since (1) the NOPC is already being created at the airport of departure; and (2) the airport of arrival only requires the information be readily available, which should permit the faxing of the information when requested by appropriate authorities, not after each flight.

In response to commenters who concluded that a computerized tracking system is the only opportunity to comply with this NPRM, we agree that a computer tracking system would enhance the transmission of the hazmat information on the NOPC and believe that it is an acceptable method for complying with the amendments. However, we disagree with the conclusion that it is the only method for compliance. We believe that the hazmat information contained on the NOPC can be managed without a computerized tracking system. Mandating all aircraft operators to install such a system would greatly disadvantage smaller air carriers. Air carriers who already have a computerized tracking system or are in the process of developing such a system, may use or modify their existing system to have the capability to transmit the hazmat information to other locations as required by this final rule.

We agree with the commenter that stated that an air carrier should have the capability to provide emergency responders with a consolidated list of hazardous materials aboard their aircraft, however, we did not propose such a requirement and, therefore, is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. We note that in order to provide emergency responders the required information without any undue delay it may be necessary for some carriers to use a consolidated list.

We are also revising the HMR to clarify that the NOPC must identify all hazardous materials carried on the plane, even those loaded at earlier departure points. These changes to the HMR will provide emergency responders with timely and consolidated information about the identity (including proper shipping name, hazard class, quantity, and number of packages), and location of all hazardous material on an airplane.

Most commenters objected to the proposal to retain a copy of the NOPC or an electronic image thereof for one year after completion of the flight. Two commenters (UPS and ATA) suggested that “the information contained in” the NOPC is important, not the form itself. The commenters stated an aircraft operator should be allowed to retain the “information contained in” the NOPC rather than the actual NOPC and went on to say that for emergency responders, the essential information consists of the hazardous materials shipping description for each material loaded on the aircraft, the amount of hazardous material in the shipment, and its location on the aircraft. These elements should be available away from the aircraft and presented to emergency responders. The commenters stated that the other information on the NOPC will not provide an emergency responder with information necessary to respond to an incident and could in fact easily distract from the emergency response. The ATA commented that if RSPA requires the retention and provision of copies of the NOPC itself, emergency responders will criticize the results as distracting. RSPA should not require an operator to retain and transmit superfluous information. The less complicated the information, the easier the retrieval in an emergency.

UPS stated that RSPA lacks justification for permitting an operator to make the information contained in an NOPC accessible at the airports of departure and arrival, but require the actual written NOPC for all other purposes specified in the proposed § 175.33(c). UPS went on to request that RSPA should specify what information contained in the NOPC must be retained.

FedEx stated that the information currently required is redundant, confusing and in some cases encumbers the very process it was intended to support and improve. Fed Ex urged RSPA to consider using a summary of the total hazardous materials by hazard class on board the aircraft in lieu of the current and proposed NOPC. British Airways stated that we should not require NOPCs to be stored at the principal place of business. The commenter went on to say that they retain their NOPCs at each of its stations and that no safety benefit would result from requiring that notification be transferred to a central repository.

The majority of commenters objected to the proposed one year retention period. Three commenters (UPS, ALPA and IPA) supported a 90-day retention period, two commenters (FedEx and ATA) a 30-day period, while another (Emery) favored a retention period in the 30-90 day range. ATA conceded that in the event of an incident the NOPC should be retained for 90 days. Two commenters (IPA and ALPA) who favor a 90-day period pointed out that this is consistent with the current requirements to retain shipping papers for 90 days in 49 CFR 175 as well as in the ICAO Technical Instructions. Other commenters (ATA, Emery) stated that requiring an aircraft operator to retain the NOPC for one year has no bearing on the ability of first responders to react to an accident.

Several commenters objected to the proposal to require retention of the NOPC at the operators' principal place of business. Three commenters (ATA, UPS and FedEx) commented that RSPA should allow the aircraft operator to designate the location. ALPA expressed concern over the requirement to retain a copy of the NOPC (not just the information contained in it) at the operator's principal place of business for one year and stated that the only apparent benefit of retaining a copy of the NOPC at the principal place of business appears to be for enforcement opportunities, and as such, has no place within the context of this rulemaking.

Several commenters (UPS, FedEx, ATA) objected to the proposal to require aircraft operators to make the NOPC available, upon request, to any representative of a Federal, State, or local government agency. The commenters stated RSPA should limit the scope of § 175.33 to a government representative who is either responding to a hazardous material incident or is conducting an investigation which involves a hazardous material, consistent with the requirements in § 172.600(c)(2). Without such limitation, an agency at any level of government could request sensitive information concerning an operator's business, customer base or transportation of hazardous materials. ATA stated that the proposal empowers such a variety of authorities to demand and receive NOPC information that unmanageable circumstances might arise. The ATA urged RSPA to restrict access of this information, in an emergency, to an incident commander or other duly empowered representative of an agency.

In 1994, Congress amended the Federal hazardous material transportation law (Federal hazmat law) to require that, after a hazardous material “is no longer in transportation,” each offeror and carrier of a hazardous material must retain the shipping paper “or an electronic image thereof for a period of one year to be accessible through their respective principal places of business.” 49 U.S.C. 5110(e), added by Pub. L. 103-311, Title I, § 115, 108 Stat. 1678 (Aug. 26, 1994). That section also provides that the offeror and carrier “shall, upon request, make the shipping paper available to a Federal, State, or local government agency at reasonable times and locations.” On July 12, 2002, RSPA issued a final rule under Docket HM-207B amending the HMR to conform with § 5110(e) (67 FR 46124). As stated in the NPRM, the NOPC provides the same information to emergency response personnel as the shipping paper for transportation by rail or public highway. RSPA believes, therefore, that it is consistent with the statutory intent of Congress to require aircraft operators to maintain a copy of the NOPC, or the information contained in it for a reasonable period of time. RSPA does agree, however, with those commenters indicating that 90 days is a sufficient period of time for the NOPC to be maintained; operators should be allowed the option of maintaining the information in the NOPC and not just a copy of the NOPC itself; and, the NOPC should be allowed to be stored at their stations ( i.e. , airport of departure). Therefore, RSPA is amending § 175.33 to require aircraft operators to maintain a copy of the NOPC, or the information contained in it, for 90 days at the airport of departure or principal place of business. The information required to be maintained is the information required on the NOPC as specified in § 175.33(a), including confirmation that no damage or leaking packages have been loaded on the aircraft. However, information on the NOPC that is pertaining to non-hazardous material is not required to be maintained. In addition, if the NOPC is also the shipping paper, as provided by § 175.35(b), a copy of the NOPC ( i.e. , the shipping paper), or an electronic image thereof, must be retained for 375 days.

Consistent with changes to the shipping paper retention requirements published under the response to appeals to Docket HM-207B (July 12, 2002; 67 FR 46123) and comments received to the NPRM issued under Docket HM-206C, RSPA is also modifying proposed § 175.33(c). Except when requests are from government representatives responding to an incident, RSPA is not requiring that the NOPC be provided “immediately” to an authorized official of a Federal, State, or local government agency. RSPA has revised § 175.33 to require that the information be provided “at reasonable times and locations.” Because of the appeals received in response to Docket HM-207B, RSPA also reevaluated the terminology of “immediately available” with regard to providing the NOPC, or the information contained therein, to government personnel responding to an incident. RSPA believes that government personnel, such as emergency response personnel, that are responding to an incident involving an aircraft must receive information regarding the hazardous materials aboard the aircraft in such a time and manner that will allow them to take appropriate emergency response actions. RSPA believes that, for the time being, the term “immediately available” best describes this need. The term is intended to indicate that the information must be provided to an emergency responder with no undue delay. Though a few minutes may elapse between the request and the information being transmitted, the NOPC information must be transmitted to the responder as quickly as possible. By providing this information in as quick, legible and consolidated fashion as possible emergency response personnel may be able to take adequate action to minimize loss of the content within the aircraft versus losing the aircraft and its contents in its entirety. RSPA may propose in a future rulemaking an alternative phrase for “immediately available” in order to define how quickly an aircraft operator must provide this information to government personnel responding to an aviation incident.

The revisions contained in this final rule are consistent with the changes recently adopted into the ICAO Technical Instructions, with one exception. Our amendments require an aircraft operator to provide a phone number for where a copy of the NOPC can be obtained. The ICAO Technical Instructions do not contain this requirement.

This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not subject to formal review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This final rule is not considered significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). A regulatory evaluation is available for review in the docket.

This final rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This final rule preempts State, local, and Indian tribe requirements, but does not adopt any regulation with substantial direct effects on: the States; the relationship between the national government and the States; or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

The Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127, contains an express preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)) preempting State, local, and Indian tribe requirements on certain subjects. These subjects are:

(1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous materials;

(2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and placarding of hazardous materials;

(3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents related to hazardous materials and requirements related to the number, contents, and placement of those documents;

(4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; or

(5) The design, manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, recondition, repair, or testing of a packaging or container represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material.

This final rule addresses subject item (3) above and preempts State, local, and Indian tribe requirements not meeting the “substantively the same” standard. Federal hazardous materials transportation law provides at § 5125(b)(2) that, if RSPA issues a regulation concerning any of the subjects, RSPA must determine and publish in the Federal Register the effective date of Federal preemption. The effective date may not be earlier than the 90th day following the date of issuance of the final rule and not later than two years after the date of issuance. The effective date of preemption is 90 days from publication of this final rule in the Federal Register .

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this final rule does not have tribal implications, and does not impose direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve this principle, the Act requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions. The Act covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) as described in the Act. However, if an agency determines a proposed or final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act provides the head of the agency may so certify, and an RFA is not required.

The Small Business Administration criterion specifies an air carrier is “small” if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this rule, small entities are part 121 and part 135 air carriers, approved to carry hazardous materials, with 1,500 or fewer employees. We identified 729 air carriers meeting this standard.

As mentioned in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this preamble, it is estimated that the cost to the airline industry of this final rule will be $450,000 per year. This estimate comes from an examination of the data in the U.S. Department of Transportation's Air Carrier Traffic Statistic Monthly. From that data we also were able to estimate that small business airlines undertake no more than 25% of all aircraft departures, and thus 25% of the total cost. The average small business is expected to incur a cost of no more than $150 per year. Therefore, I certify this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $100 million or more, in the aggregate, to any of the following: State, local, or Native American tribal governments, or the private sector.

This rule results in an increase in the annual paperwork burden and costs. We currently have an approved information collection under OMB No. 2137-0034, “Hazardous Materials Shipping Papers & Emergency Response Information”. These revisions regarding the maintenance of copies of notification of pilot-in-command were submitted under the NPRM to OMB for review and approval.

Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations required that RSPA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. The NPRM identified a new information collection requirement that RSPA submitted to OMB for approval. RSPA estimated that the new total information collection and recordkeeping burden for OMB No. 2137-034 would be as follows:

Total Annual Number of Respondents: 250,000.

Total Annual Responses: 260,000,000.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 6,523,611.

Total Annual Burden Cost: $6,925, 000.

RSPA specifically requested comments on the information collection and recordkeeping burdens associated with developing, implementing, and maintaining these requirements. We received three comments regarding this information collection. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to respond to an information collection unless it displays a valid OMB control number. OMB approved the revised information collection requirement on February 27, 2003.

This final rule will improve emergency response to hazardous materials incidents involving aircraft by ensuring information on the hazardous materials involved in an emergency is readily available. By improving emergency response to aircraft incidents, this should help lessen environmental damage associated with such incidents. We find there are no significant environmental impacts associated with this rule.

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document may be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

Regulations implementing the seasonal (April) GOM Rolling Closure Area II were published on May 5, 1999 (64 FR 24066), as part of the final rule implementing regulations in Framework Adjustment 27 of the NE Multispecies FMP. Since that time, no formal adjustments to this area have been approved by NMFS.

On May 23, 2002, the Court issued an Order in the case of Conservation Law Foundation, et al. v. Evans et al . (Case No. 001134 GK)(D.D.C. May 23, 2002) that the Settlement Agreement be implemented according to its terms to reduce overfishing, until the implementation of Amendment 13 to the FMP.

On August 1, 2002, NMFS published an interim final rule implementing the additional restrictions specified in the Settlement Agreement. These restrictions were intended to reduce overfishing and bycatch on species managed under the FMP, under the authority of section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The August 1, 2002, interim final rule contained an inadvertent error in the coordinates defining the GOM Rolling Closure Area II at § 648.81(g)(1)(ii). The final two coordinate points for the GOM Rolling Closure Area II were erroneously defined as GM6, at 42°30' N. lat. and 68°30' W. long.; and GM9, at 42°30' N. lat. and the intersection with the Massachusetts shoreline. The correct coordinate points are GM13, at 43°00' N. lat. and 68°30' W. long.; and GM10, at 43°00' N. lat. and the intersection with the New Hampshire shoreline.

The text of the Settlement Agreement, as well as the preamble to the August 1, 2002, interim final rule, stated that all measures that were in effect prior to May 1, 2002, and that were not amended by the August 1, 2002, interim final rule, would remain in effect. The Settlement Agreement identified several measures to be undertaken to reduce fishing mortality in the NE multispecies fishery, including additional inshore closure areas during the months of May and June. However, the Settlement Agreement did not specify any changes to the April closure area as defined in Framework Adjustment 27 to the FMP. Accordingly, the August 1, 2002, interim final rule only specified that changes were made to the GOM Rolling Closure Areas III and IV, for the months of May and June, respectively. The inadvertent error regarding the GOM Rolling Closure Area II occurred in the drafting of the section of the proposed rule to implement the changes to Areas III and IV. In the proposed rule, the subparagraph relating to Area II was included merely to provide the full context of the changes to Areas III and IV. In the process of including the Area II subparagraph, the incorrect coordinates were inadvertently specified.