The Foreign Agricultural Service, under a delegation of authority from the Secretary of Agriculture, administers the Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing Regulation codified at 7 CFR 6.20-6.37 that provides for the issuance of licenses to import certain dairy articles under tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) as set forth in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. These dairy articles may only be entered into the United States at the low-tier tariff by or for the account of a person or firm to whom such licenses have been issued and only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the regulation.

Licenses are issued on a calendar year basis, and each license authorizes the license holder to import a specified quantity and type of dairy article from a specified country of origin. The Import Policies and Programs Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, issues these licenses and, in conjunction with the U.S. Customs Service, monitors their use.

The regulation at 7 CFR 6.34(a) states: “Whenever a historical license (Appendix 1) is not issued to an applicant pursuant to the provisions of § 6.23, is permanently surrendered, or is revoked by the Licensing Authority, the amount of such license will be transferred to Appendix 2.” Section 6.34(b) provides that the cumulative annual transfers will be published in the Federal Register . Accordingly, this document sets forth the revised Appendices for the 2003 tariff-rate quota year.

Since 1935, upon enactment of the Tobacco Inspection Act, the USDA has provided mandatory inspection services at designated tobacco auction markets. In 2002, based on results of referenda conducted among producers eligible for price support, regulations were amended to provide mandatory inspection at places other than designated tobacco auction markets. The USDA has always sought the input of the industry in implementing legislative authority concerning marketing due to the large geographic areas involved and the different procedure in individual types of tobacco such as size and weight of packages used to display the product, the number of designated markets, the number of sets of buyers present, the number of sales days, and other matters that directly impact on the operation of the auction markets and, therefore, the Federal presence necessary to provide the level of service desired by producers and industry.

In 1974, at the request of the industry, the USDA established the Flue-Cured Tobacco Advisory Committee (FCTAC) to provide a mechanism for consultation with flue-cured producers, warehouse representatives, and buying interests on the problems peculiar to that type of tobacco with particular emphasis on the grower designation program. The composition of the committee was specified in regulations although it was not necessary and is not customary. The FCTAC recommended that the regulations referencing its composition and representation be removed. Removal of these regulations will not alter the FCTAC's purpose nor direction for an orderly marketing of tobacco but will allow the USDA more flexibility in making structural changes in its composition as a result of new marketing changes. Historically, almost all flue-cured tobacco was sold at auction. In recent years, most flue-cured tobacco has been sold under contract.

The USDA published in the Federal Register on October 1, 2002 (67 FR 61467), an interim final rule amending the regulations for the FCTAC by removing the sections which specify composition of the committee. In that action, paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e), of § 29.9403, were removed. The USDA requested comments on the interim final rule and the comment period expired on October 31, 2002. No comments were received.

This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866, and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive effect. The rule will not exempt any State of local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.

In conformance with the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), full consideration has been given to the potential economic impact upon small business. All tobacco warehouses and producers fall within the confines of “small business” which are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $3,500,000. There are approximately 190 tobacco warehouses and approximately 450,000 tobacco producers and most warehouses and producers may be classified as small entities. The AMS has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will not substantially affect the normal movement of the commodity into the marketplace. Compliance with this final rule will not impose substantial direct economic cost, recordkeeping, or personnel workload changes on small entities, and will not alter the market share of competitive positions of small entities relative to the large entities and will in no way affect normal competition in the marketplace. This rule merely removes section of the regulations that specify composition of the FCTAC.

AMS administers a voluntary grading program for shell eggs under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq. ). Any interested person, commercial firm, or government agency that applies for service must comply with the terms and conditions of the regulations and must pay for the services rendered. AMS graders monitor processing operations and verify the grade and size of eggs packed into packages bearing the USDA grademark.

Current regulations allow for the use of several different grademarks to identify consumer-pack USDA graded shell eggs or products prepared from them. The regulations also include the eligibility requirements for eggs to be identified with an official grademark. One requirement is that only eggs produced under the continuous supervision of a grader may be identified as U.S. Consumer Grade AA or A.

A “Produced From” grademark was added to the regulations, effective April 20, 1998 (63 FR 13329, March 19, 1998). As currently written, the regulations state that “the “Produced From” grademark “may be used to identify products for which there are no official U.S. grade standards ( e.g. , pasteurized shell eggs), provided that these products are approved by the Agency and are prepared from U.S. Consumer Grade AA or A shell eggs under the continuous supervision of a grader.”

The intent of the regulations was to ensure that the eggs used to produce the products were U.S. Consumer Grade AA or A. However, the regulations could also be interpreted to mean that the products produced from the U.S. Consumer Grade AA or A shell eggs must be produced under continuous supervision. However, this was not the Department's intent nor is it a requirement.

The Agency determined that the reference to both U.S. Consumer AA and A and to continuous supervision was redundant and confusing. Therefore, to clarify the regulatory language, the reference to continuous supervision is removed.

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register January 9, 2003 (68 FR 1169). The comment period ended March 10.

Two comments were received, each from a group of students taking the same course in an accelerated university business curriculum. Both groups discussed research they conducted among vendors, consumers, and local agricultural interests about shell egg grading. Both groups supported the proposed amendment.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), the AMS has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities and has determined that its provisions would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration defines small entities that produce and process chicken eggs as those whose annual receipts are less than $9,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201). Approximately 625,000 egg laying hens are needed to produce enough eggs to gross $9,000,000.

Currently, the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq. ) authorizes a voluntary grading program for shell eggs. Shell egg processors that apply for service must pay for the services rendered. These user fees are proportional to the volume of shell eggs graded, so that costs are shared by all users. Plants in which these grading services are performed are called official plants. Shell egg processors who do not use USDA's grading service may not use the USDA grade shield. There are about 625 shell egg processors registered with the Department that have 3,000 or more laying hens. Of these, 175 are official plants that use USDA's grading service and would be subject to this proposed rule. Of these 175 official plants, 57 meet the small business definition.

This rule will benefit large and small processors in the industry. It is intended to clarify a regulatory provision which has caused some confusion and involves no additional costs.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), OMB has approved the information collection and recordkeeping requirements included in this rule, and there are no new requirements. The assigned OMB control number is 0581-0128.

AMS discovered that an error exists in § 985.153 of the codified regulations. A final rule published in the Federal Register on Thursday, May 11, 2000 (65 FR 30341), was intended to revise provisions in § 985.153(c)(1) governing issuance of additional allotment base to new spearmint oil producers in the Far West and to leave the provisions in § 985.153(c)(2) on additional allotment base for existing producers unchanged. However, the editing instructions specified in the final rule resulted in the provisions for existing producers being removed from the codified regulations.

The codified provisions in paragraph (c) of § 985.153 do not include additional allotment base procedures for existing producers. This correction document adds such provisions. The provisions added are the same as those that were in paragraph (c)(2) prior to the issuance of the final rule in May 2000.

You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:

(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page ( http://dms.dot.gov/search );

(2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfm; or

(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.

You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.

Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

On April 5, 2000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) was signed into law as Public Law 106-181. Among other provisions, the law revised the statutory definition of the term “public aircraft.” This technical amendment revises the definition of “public aircraft” in title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations to conform to the statutory definition in Public Law 106-181.

The distinction between civil and public aircraft is that public aircraft are excepted from many FAA regulations. The changes enacted in AIR-21 did not substantively change the definition of public aircraft. Rather, Congress sought to clarify an overly complex statutory definition: “[t]he purpose and intent of Congress in adding section 702 to H.R. 1000 [AIR-21] is solely to replace old convoluted language (laden with multiple negatives) with positive language that states existing law in terms that are readily understood by both the nation's aviation community and the general public. Nothing in section 702 should be interpreted as a change in current public policy relating to public aircraft.” (H.R. Rep. No. 106-167, pt. 1, at 91 (1999)). This technical amendment involves no exercise of agency discretion, as the statutory definition is already the controlling legal authority.

Prior to the enactment of AIR-21, Congress revised the definition of “public aircraft” in the Independent Safety Board Act Amendments of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-411, enacted on October 25, 1994). Public Law 103-411 substantively changed the definition of public aircraft, and further, it gave the Administrator of the FAA the authority to grant exemptions to government entities whose operations lost public aircraft status as a result of Public Law 103-411 (Pub. L. 103-411, section 3(b)).

In 1995, the FAA issued a final rule amending the definition of public aircraft in 14 CFR 1.1 (60 FR 5074, January 25, 1995). The FAA also requested comments from the public on this action. The FAA received 14 comments on the rule, with the majority expressing concern over exemptions rather than the definition of “public aircraft.”

The National Association of State Aviation Officials and a county law enforcement agency commented that new requirements on “compensation” and “commercial purpose” would severely impair law enforcement agencies' ability to cooperate and respond to disasters properly. These comments are no longer applicable because of the statutory revision in 2000.

The Professional Aviation Maintenance Association supported the rule without further comment. All other commenters were air carriers that supported the rule but opposed allowing an excessive number of exemptions under the then-new statutory authority.

This technical amendment changes the definition of “public aircraft” to adopt the statutory definition in Public Law 106-181 and as codified in 49 U.S.C. 40102. The amended definition also contains the qualifications for public aircraft status from Public Law 106-181 and as codified in 49 U.S.C. 40125. This technical amendment also restores to 14 CFR part 11 the language of Public Law 103-411 concerning statutory exemptions for government entities whose aircraft lost public aircraft status as a result of that revision. This language was omitted in the revision of part 11 in 2000.

The FAA has not conducted notice and comment procedures for this rule. Notice and comment are not required when it would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” See 5 U.S.C. 553(b). This technical amendment will make the regulations consistent with the statute and will have no substantive legal effect. Therefore, the FAA finds that notice and comment are unnecessary. This amendment will take effect immediately, as it is not a substantive amendment that requires a 30-day period between publication in the Federal Register and the effective date. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

This regulation imposes no additional burden or requirement on the regulated industry, any person, or organization. Therefore, we have determined the action is not a significant rule under Executive Order 12866 or under Department of Transportation Regulatory Policy and Procedures. Also, because this regulation is editorial in nature, the FAA expects minimal impact and finds that a full regulatory evaluation is not required since the regulation will simply conform to the statute. In addition, the FAA certifies that the rule 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 proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that is applicable to GE CF6-6 series turbofan engines was published in the Federal Register on January 8, 2003 (68 FR 1016). That action proposed to require a reduction of the cyclic life limit for certain HPTR rear shafts, and to require removing certain HPTR rear shafts from service before exceeding the new, lower cyclic life limit. In addition, that action proposed to require removing from service certain HPTR rear shafts that currently exceed, or will exceed, the new, lower cyclic life limit according to the compliance schedule described in that proposal.

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 55 GE CF6-6 series turbofan engines of the affected design in the domestic fleet that would be affected by this AD. There are no foreign registered engines. There are no labor or parts costs associated with the implementation of this AD. Based on these figures, the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators is estimated to be $41,690 per engine, which is the cost of new rear shafts.

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 January 27, 2003, the FAA proposed (68 FR 3837) to establish a Class C airspace area and revoke the existing Class D airspace area at XNA. The FAA proposed this action due to an increase in aircraft operations at XNA and a study indicating an increased potential for a midair collision in the XNA terminal area. With the current Class D airspace area, aircraft operating in the Northwest Arkansas terminal area may fly as close as 4.4 nautical miles from XNA without communicating with ATC. These aircraft are frequently operating at altitudes that may conflict with aircraft arriving or departing XNA. Establishing a Class C airspace area will reduce the potential for midair collisions and increase the level of safety in the Northwest Arkansas terminal area by requiring aircraft to establish and maintain 2-way radio communication with ATC when operating in the proposed Class C airspace area, and to operate with an altitude encoding transponder when in and above the proposed area. The study also identified the need for improved communications in the XNA terminal area. In response to that need, the FAA has taken action to install a remote transmitter and receiver (RTR) that will enable pilots to contact ATC prior to entering terminal airspace.

In response to the notice of proposed rulemaking, the FAA received one comment. The Aircraft Owner's and Pilots Association did not oppose the proposed establishment of a Class C airspace area provided an RTR is installed to improve the ability of pilots to communicate with ATC prior to entering the Class C airspace area. The FAA agrees that an RTR is needed and as stated above, has taken action to acquire and install an RTR that is scheduled to be operational on or before the effective date of this airspace action (barring any reduction of funding).

This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) establishes a Class C airspace area and revokes the existing Class D airspace area at XNA. The FAA is taking this action due to an increase in aircraft operations and an increased potential for a midair collision in the Northwest Arkansas terminal area. Establishing this Class C airspace area will require pilots to maintain two-way radio communications with ATC when operating in the Class C airspace area and to operate with an altitude encoding transponder while in or above the Class C airspace. Additionally, this Class C airspace area will promote the safe and efficient use of airspace, and reduce the risk of a midair collision in the Northwest Arkansas terminal area.

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

The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. Class C airspace designations are published in paragraph 4000 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 C airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the order.

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effect of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this proposed rule is not “a significant regulatory action” as defined in the Executive Order and the Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, will not constitute a barrier to international trade, and does not contain any Federal intergovernmental or private sector mandate. These analyses, available in the docket, are summarized below.

The final rule will revoke the Class D airspace area currently surrounding the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport and will establish a Class C airspace area there. The FAA will incur costs of approximately $500 in order to send a “Letter To Airmen” to pilots within a 50-mile radius of the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport informing them of the airspace change. The FAA will not incur any other costs for air traffic control staffing, training, or equipment. Changes to sectional charts will occur during the chart cycle and will cause no additional costs beyond the normal update of the charts. Any public meeting and safety seminar will not result in costs to the aviation community because they will occur regardless of whether or not this rule becomes final. Aircraft owners and operators will incur minimal equipment costs to operate in the Class C airspace area. Most of the air traffic comes from a mix of air taxi and commuter aircraft. These aircraft should already have the necessary equipment to transition Class C airspace area.

The FAA contends that establishing the Class C airspace area surrounding the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport will increase the level of safety for the operations that occur at the airport. Therefore, the FAA has determined the final rule to be cost-beneficial.

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 that principal, the Act requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rational 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 that 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 that the head of the agency may so certify and an RFA is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

Most commercial and most general aviation (GA) operators who presently use the Northwest Arkansas Airport should be currently equipped to use the Class C airspace area. Though it is currently surrounded by Class D airspace, most of its air traffic comes from air taxi and commuter aircraft. These aircraft already have the necessary equipment to transition Class C airspace area. Those GA operators who currently transit the Northwest Arkansas terminal area without Mode C transponders can circumnavigate the Northwest Arkansas Class C airspace area at negligible cost, without significantly deviating from their regular flight paths. Accordingly, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Federal Aviation Administration has determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule is a domestic airspace rulemaking and will not constitute a barrier to international trade, including the export of U.S. goods and services to foreign countries or the import of foreign goods and services into the United States.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as Public Law 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more (when adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Section 204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers (or their designees) of State, local, and tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate.” A “significant intergovernmental mandate” under the Act is any provision in a Federal agency regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section 204(a), provides that, before establishing any regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the agency shall have developed a plan, which, among other things, must provide for notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a meaningful and timely opportunity for those small governments to provide input in the development of regulatory proposals.

This final rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental or private sector mandates. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on March 5, 2003 (68 FR 10367). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on July 10, 2003. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective that date.

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on March 12, 2003 (68 FR 11736). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on July 10, 2003. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on March 31, 2003 (68 FR 15349). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on July 10, 2003. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on March 31, 2003 (68 FR 15343). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on July 10, 2003. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on March 21, 2003 (68 FR 13811). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on July 10, 2003. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on March 31, 2003 (68 FR 15345). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on July 10, 2003. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on February 28, 2003 (68 FR 9527). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on July 10, 2003. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on February 27, 2003 (68 FR 8999). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a not-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on July 10, 2003. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on March 25, 2003 (68 FR 14314). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on July 10, 2003. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on March 31, 2003 (68 FR 15346). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on July 10, 2003. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on February 27, 2003 (68 FR 8998). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on July 10, 2003. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

On January 23, 2003, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice proposing to amend R-2303A and R-2303B (68 FR 3198). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received regarding this rulemaking. Except for editorial changes, this amendment is the same as that proposed in the notice. These rulemaking actions “are necessary in the interest of national defense,” as required under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(3)(A).

Based on the U.S. Army's request, this action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 (part 73) to change the designated time of use for R-2303A and R-2303B. Specifically, this action modifies the designated time of use from “Monday-Friday, 0700-1600 local time; other times by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance,” to “Monday-Friday, 0700-1700 local time; other times by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance.” Increased training requirements at Fort Huachuca have resulted in a need for restricted airspace usage up to 1700 hours, Monday through Friday. This action will not change the current boundaries or activities conducted in the airspace area.

Section 73.48 of part 73 of the Federal Aviation Regulations was republished in FAA Order 7400.8K, dated September 26, 2002.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

On January 28, 2003, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) entitled “Anchorage Regulation; Bolivar Roads, Galveston, TX”, in the Federal Register (68 FR 4130). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.

At its February 2002 meeting, the Houston/Galveston Navigation Safety Advisory Committee (HOGANSAC) recommended establishment of a third anchorage area in the Galveston Bay area. HOGANSAC, a Congressionally-chartered Federal advisory committee, is responsible for advising, consulting with, and making recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation on matters relating to the transit of vessels to and from the ports of Galveston, Houston and Texas City and the safety of maritime navigation in the Galveston Bay area. Participants at the February 2002 HOGANSAC meeting noted that a third anchorage in the Bolivar Roads area was necessary to address port security and navigation safety concerns. After extensive discussion, including the observations of and comments from members of the public in attendance, HOGANSAC recommended that the Coast Guard establish a third anchorage area in Bolivar Roads.

Based on the recommendation of HOGANSAC the Coast Guard proposed a third anchorage area, anchorage area (C), in Bolivar Roads. This new anchorage area, located inside the Galveston Bay Entrance Jetties, will provide a sheltered location for vessels to anchor during heavy weather or reduced visibility conditions. The existing anchorages, anchorage area (A) and anchorage area (B), are generally full during these same periods and there is no alternative sheltered anchorage in Bolivar Roads. The location of anchorage area (C), abuts the western edge of anchorage area (B), is in a naturally deep portion of Bolivar Roads, and is outside any heavily traveled section of the waterway.

This third anchorage area is also necessary because port security-related initiatives adopted by various terminals and facilities in the Galveston Bay area have restricted pier side operations critical to the efficient flow of maritime commerce. For example, bunkering, provisions deliveries, and personnel transfer operations are restricted or prohibited by numerous facilities in the ports of Galveston, Houston and Texas City. The nature of those activities requires that they be accomplished in calm water conditions and relatively close to shore. As a result, vessel operators and ship owners rely upon the existing anchorage areas (anchorage areas (A) and (B)) in Galveston Bay to conduct these operations. Increasingly, anchorage space in those areas is in high demand. A third designated anchorage area would relieve congestion and provide anchorage space to accommodate the ever-increasing volumes of traffic in the Galveston Bay area.

We received no comments on the proposed rule. Therefore, we have made no substantial changes to the provisions of the proposed rule.

Minor changes were made to the Regulatory Evaluation and authority sections due to the Coast Guard's transfer from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security on March 1, 2003.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory and 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.

The anchorage area will not unnecessarily restrict traffic as it is located outside the established navigable channel. Vessels will be able to maneuver in, around and through the anchorage. Operators who choose to maneuver their vessels around the limits of the anchorage area will not be significantly impacted because the total route deviation to cross from one side of the anchorage to the other following the perimeter of the anchorage is only 1.4 nautical miles.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations 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. The rule may potentially affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to fish or anchor in, or transit through the anchorage area (C) in Bolivar Roads.

The number of small entities impacted and the extent of the impact, if any, is expected to be minimal. The anchorage is located in an area of Bolivar Roads that is not a popular or productive fishing location. Further, the location is in an area not routinely transited by vessels heading to, or returning from, known fishing grounds. Finally, the anchorage is located in an area that is not currently used by small entities, including small vessels, for anchoring due to the depth of water naturally present in the area.

If you are a small business entity and are significantly affected by this regulation please contact Lieutenant (LT) Karrie Trebbe, Project Manager for Eighth Coast Guard District Commander, telephone (504) 589-6271.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking processes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1 paragraph (34)(f), of the instruction, from further environmental documentation because this rule is not expected to result in any significant environmental impact as described in NEPA. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available where indicated under ADDRESSES.

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD07-03-069], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this temporary rule in view of them.

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 a NRPM. Publishing a NPRM and delaying the rule's effective date is contrary to national security and public safety, because immediate action is necessary to protect the public, ports, and waters of the United States.

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 terrorist attacks of September 2001 killed thousands of people and heightened the need for development of various security measures throughout the seaports of the United States. The President declared national emergencies following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and has continued them, specifically: the continuing national emergency with respect to terrorist attacks, at 67 FR 58317 (Sep. 13, 2002); and continuing national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism, at 67 FR 59447 (Sep. 20, 2002). The President found pursuant to law, including the Magnuson Act (50 U.S.C. 191 et seq. ), that the security of the United States is and continues to be endangered since the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, and that such disturbances continue to endanger the Security of the United States, at Executive Order 13,273, 67 FR 56215 (Aug. 21, 2002). Following the attacks of well-trained and clandestine terrorists, national security and intelligence officials warned that future terrorist attacks are likely.

The Captain of the Port (COTP) of Miami has determined that there is an increased risk that subversive activity could be launched by vessels or persons in close proximity to Port Everglades because of the numerous high-capacity passenger vessels, vessels carrying hazardous cargo, critical infrastructure facilities including propane and petroleum processing facilities, and U.S. military vessels that utilize the port. Implementation of a port-wide slow speed regulated navigation area will greatly aid law enforcement officers in managing vessel traffic as any vessels not complying with the slow speed zone will quickly draw attention giving law enforcement more time to assess the situation and take appropriate action in protecting vessels within the port and port facilities. Prior to the creation of this temporary final rule, vessels were able to enter the harbor from sea at a high rate of speed and maintain a high rate of speed into the harbor until coming within close proximity of high capacity passenger vessels, vessels carrying hazardous cargo, critical infrastructure facilities and U.S. military vessels that are often moored within an existing security zone. Law enforcement officers did not have sufficient time to react to vessels that failed to slow their speed prior to reaching the limits of the existing security zone. This regulated navigation area is necessary to protect the public, port, law enforcement officials, and waterways of the United States from potential subversive acts.

Nothing in this rule relieves vessels or operators from complying with all state and local laws in the regulated area, including manatee slow speed zones.

The Coast Guard intends to evaluate the need for making this temporary rule a permanent rule. We will consider comments solicited by this temporary rule and evaluate the effectiveness of this temporary rule in making that determination. The Coast Guard also anticipates publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to solicit additional comments. The notice and comment rulemaking process may be lengthy so this temporary rule is designed to be in effect until a final determination is made on whether a permanent rule is needed.

The rule requires all vessels within the regulated navigation area to proceed at slow speed. Slow speed is defined as the speed at which a vessel proceeds when it is fully off plane, completely settled into the water and not creating excessive wake. This rule will minimize the potential national security hazards that could result from a vessel being permitted to transit through the harbor, in the vicinity of high capacity passenger vessels, vessels carrying hazardous cargo, critical infrastructure facilities and U.S. military vessels, at a high rate of speed and will facilitate law enforcement control of vessel movement.

The regulated navigation area is in the vicinity of Port Everglades Harbor, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and includes all waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and Port Everglades Harbor, from shore to shore, south of the 17th Street Bridge (at a line connecting 26°06.04′N, 080°07.17′W and 26°06.04′N, 080°07.05′W), north of the intersection of the Dania Cut Off Canal and the Intracoastal Waterway (latitude 26° 04.72′N) and west of a north-south line connecting red day board # 6 and green day board #7 at the entrance to Port Everglades Harbor (longitude 080°06.30′W).

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast Guard expects 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. The regulated navigation area is narrowly tailored to protect the public, ports, and waterways of the United States, and watercraft are still permitted to transit through the regulated navigation area but must proceed at slow speed.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact upon 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. The regulated navigation area is narrowly tailored to protect the public, ports, and waterways of the United States, and vessels are still permitted to transit through the regulated navigation area but must proceed at slow speed.

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 will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact LTJG Jennifer Sadowski at (305) 535-8701 for assistance in understanding and participating in this rulemaking.

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that this rule 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 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.

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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

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

Regulatory Information

On March 19, 2003, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; Mission Creek Waterway, China Basin, San Francisco Bay, California in the Federal Register (68 FR 13244). The effective date for the safety zone for the first phase of this project was published as commencing on April 15, 2003, and lasting for 6 weeks. Due to a project delay, the safety zone for the first phase of this project will now commence on May 1, 2003, lasting for an 8-week period. The second phase of this project remains as previously published, commencing April 1, 2004, lasting for a 5-month period. Both periods will be enforced 24 hours a day. We received one letter commenting on the rule which will be discussed further in the section of Discussion of Comments and Changes. No public hearing was requested, and none was held. 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 . Details regarding this project were not finalized in time to allow for this rule to be published a full 30 days prior to making this rule effective. The rulemaking process began in March 2003 which allowed enough time to publish an NPRM and allow for a public comment period. Accordingly, since timely rehabilitation to the bridge (as discussed in the Background and Purpose section) is crucial to the safety of this bridge, the channel closures must begin on May 1, 2003, less than 30 days after the publication of this rule.

The San Francisco Department of Public Works requested a waterway closure on Mission Creek for the purpose of performing significant work to the Fourth Street Bridge. The Fourth Street Bridge was erected across the Mission Creek Waterway at the China Basin in 1917, and was determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places in 1985 as part of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Historic Bridge Inventory. Caltrans, Division of Structures, evaluated the Fourth Street Bridge and recommended that the bridge be brought up to current seismic safety standards. In view of extensive corrosion to the steel components and concrete approaches of the bridge, Caltrans has also placed traffic load limitations over this bridge. Three primary objectives are to be met in rehabilitating the Fourth Street Bridge: (i) Seismically retrofit the structure while not significantly altering the historical appearance of the bridge; (ii) Repair the damage to the concrete approaches and several steel and concrete members of the movable span, and (iii) Reinitiate light rail service across the bridge.

The first phase of this project will entail the removal of the lift span, which will take approximately 8 weeks, scheduled to begin May 1, 2003. During this period, the channel will be closed at the Fourth Street Bridge to boating traffic. The second phase of this project will entail the construction of the north and south approaches, the new counterweight and its enclosing pit; but for the most part, boating traffic will not be affected during this phase. The last phase of this project will entail the replacement of the lift span and aligning the bridge to accept the light rail track system, which will take approximately five months, scheduled to begin April 1, 2004. During this period, the channel will be closed at the Fourth Street Bridge to boating traffic.

The Fourth Street Bridge Project is funded by Federal Highway Administration and State of California. The state funding restricts the construction to a start date before August 2003 and completion by September 2005. Any delays or deferrals in construction will impact the secured funding for the project.

There are two major environmental issues that restricts the construction in the channel, namely the annual pacific hearing-spawning season that runs from December 1st to March 31st and noise constraint in the water for steelhead from December 1st to June 1st. Any demolition, pile driving and excavation in the water during those time periods will be monitored and restricted for possible impact on the fish.

The Fourth Street Bridge Project is part of the larger Third Street Light Rail Project and many public presentations on the project's components, channel closure schedules, impacts to surrounding uses and project duration have been made by the City and Port of San Francisco. The Third Street Light Rail Advisory Group was created as a forum to keep the public informed on the progress being made on the Third Street Light rail project. Also, this project has been presented at several Mission Bay Citizen Advisory Committee meetings. At these meetings, the public was notified of the project components, impacts and the need to temporarily close the waterway. Specific to the Fourth Street Bridge project, an Environmental Assessment, required by the Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans, (under the National Environmental Protection Act) was conducted by the City of San Francisco. A public hearing regarding the Environmental Assessment was held on January 17, 2002 at San Francisco Arts College, Timken Lecture Hall, 1111 8th Street in San Francisco California, and was well attended.

In January 2003, the City of San Francisco advised the Coast Guard Captain of the Port that two channel closures would be necessary in order to accomplish the Fourth Street Bridge project. The Coast Guard met with various City and Port officials to ensure that there would be minimal impacts on involved and potentially involved entities.

This temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of Mission Creek surrounding the construction site of the Fourth Street Bridge will be enforced during the course of an 8-week period, starting May 1, 2003 and again for a 5-month period, starting April 1, 2004.

We received one letter commenting on this rule. The Mission Creek Harbor Association, an organization of boaters that have both permanent and temporary moorings at Mission Creek Harbor, are in favor of the first closure as it is relatively short in duration and all affected boaters have been provided alternate moorings outside of the affected closure area by the city. The association is concerned about the second closure that will commence on April 1, 2004 and last for 5 months. This closure is much longer than the first closure and will last the full duration of the boating season in 2004. The Mission Creek Harbor Association and city officials have resolved their issue for the first closure and they are currently working on resolving this issue for the closure in 2004. The Mission Creek Harbor Association is pleased with this form of resolution and understands that no changes will be made to this rule as a result of their comments.

A discussed before, a minor change to the effective date for the safety zone has changed since the NPRM was published on March 19, 2003, entitled “Safety Zone; Mission Creek Waterway, China Basin, San Francisco Bay, CA” in the Federal Register (68 FR 13244). The first phase of this project was published as commencing on April 15, 2003, and lasting for 6 weeks. Due to a project delay, the safety zone for the first phase of this project will now commence on May 1, 2003, lasting for an 8-week period. The second phase of this project remains as previously published, commencing April 1, 2004, lasting for a 5-month period.

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

Although this safety zone does restrict boating traffic past the fourth street bridge, the effect of this regulation will not be significant as this waterway is very small with limited boating traffic.

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. For the same reasons set forth in the above Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on any substantial number of entities, regardless of their size.

This safety zone will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Although the channel closure will restrict water access to a small number of boats, including houseboats who have moorings in Mission Creek Harbor, the channel closure will not impact land access to these houseboats during the bridge closures. The City of San Francisco, Department of Public Works and the Port of San Francisco have been in close consultation with the Mission Creek Harbor Association to assist boat owners affected by this project. As a result, the Mission Creek Harbor Association has a lease agreement with the Port of San Francisco for both houseboats and pleasure boats to moor outside of the affected closure area for the duration of the first channel closure that commences on May 1, 2003. Similar resolutions are being discussed for the second closure that is scheduled to commence on April 1, 2004.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or government 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 contains no collection of information requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because we are establishing a safety zone.

A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has established an Office of Regulation Policy and Management (ORPM) to provide centralized management and coordination of the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) rulemaking process. The office is led by an Assistant to the Secretary for Regulation Policy and Management (ASRPM), who is responsible for improving existing VA regulations and establishing procedures to ensure future regulations can be more easily read, understood, and applied. The delegation of authority contained in this final rule will permit the ASRPM to manage and coordinate the VA's rulemaking process.

The ASRPM is performing two major functions for the Department. First, he is leading the VA's Regulation Rewrite Project. The Regulation Rewrite Project (the Project) is a comprehensive effort to improve the clarity and consistency of existing VA regulations. Currently, the Project is reviewing, reorganizing, and redrafting over 275 regulations in 38 CFR Part 3. These Compensation and Pension regulations are among the most difficult VA regulations for readers to understand and apply. Approximately 15 VA employees, temporarily detailed to the Project from the Office of General Counsel; Veterans Benefits Administration, Compensation and Pension Service; and Board of Veterans Appeals, are working in rotating teams seeking to complete this assignment over a 2-year period. The Secretary created the Project to respond to the Secretary's VA Claims Processing Task Force (Task Force) recommendation that Compensation and Pension regulations needed to be rewritten and reorganized in order to improve the VA's claims process. The Task Force found that “the problems identified 20 years ago remain today, and the promise to correct them is unfulfilled.” The Task Force further recommended that the task of reorganizing and simplifying VA regulations “should be an immediate priority.” Consequently, the Secretary is delegating responsibility to the ASRPM to manage the Department's revision and reorganization of VA regulations.

Second, the ASRPM is responsible for devising and implementing new procedures to centralize control and improve Secretarial oversight, management, drafting efficiency, policy resolution, impact analysis, and coordination of diverse VA regulations. In the past, VA rulemaking procedures have varied among the Department's three major administrations, the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration, and among the Department's staff offices. The Secretary approved the creation of ORPM to serve as the centralized rulemaking policy and management structure in the Office of the Secretary. In this document, the Secretary is delegating authority to the ASRPM to manage and coordinate the Department's rulemaking activities.

As an Assistant to the Secretary, the ASRPM will help the Secretary integrate and resolve significant policy issues affecting VA regulations early in the drafting process. The ASRPM will serve as the Executive Secretary to the Secretary's Regulatory Policy Council (the Council), which will ensure that the Department's rulemaking proposals support the Secretary's priorities for assisting America's veterans. The Council will consist of the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary for Health, the Under Secretary for Benefits, the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, and other senior officials who will serve as advisory members on an ad hoc basis when necessary to address specific issues.

The Secretary also is designating the ASRPM as the Department's Regulatory Policy Officer in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Section 6(a) of the Executive Order requires Federal agencies to designate a Regulatory Policy Officer who shall report to the agency head. The Regulatory Policy Officer is to be involved in each stage of the regulatory process to foster the development of effective, innovative, and least burdensome regulations and to further the principles set forth in the Executive Order. With the establishment of ORPM, the ASRPM is assuming those responsibilities from the General Counsel.

This document also makes minor technical amendments to 38 CFR 2.7, which is a delegation of authority that concerns the provision of relief on account of administrative error.

This document is being published as a final rule pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, which excepts matters pertaining to internal agency management and personnel from its notice, comment, and delayed effective date requirements.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before developing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any given year. This final rule will have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments.

This document contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

The Secretary hereby certifies that this regulatory amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This amendment would not directly affect any small entities. Only individuals could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this amendment is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603-604.

There are no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers for this rule.

This section addresses the following questions:

Illinois' rules for nonattainment New Source Review (NSR), 35 Ill. Adm. Code 203, are designed to ensure that the construction of a major new source of air pollution or a large increase of emissions at an existing source does not interfere with the attainment demonstration and does not delay timely achievement of the ambient air quality standards. There are four substantive requirements imposed upon owners or operators of major projects, as set forth in part 203. The first of these is the imposition of Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) or for certain existing sources, Best Available Control Technology (BACT) on emissions of the nonattainment pollutant from the major project. Appropriate limits are established on a case by case basis in the permitting process. The second requirement is that the emissions of the nonattainment pollutant from a major project must be accompanied by emission offsets from other sources in the nonattainment area. This assures that the total emissions of the nonattainment pollutant will remain within the levels accommodated by the State's attainment demonstration. The third requirement is compliance by other sources in the State which are under common ownership or control with the person proposing the project. The final requirement is an analysis of alternatives to the particular project, to determine whether the benefits of the project outweigh the environmental and social costs.

The amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 203 are intended to better track the language of sections 182(c)(6), (7), and (8) of the CAA, and to make other revisions consistent with this effort. These changes deal with how one determines whether a proposed change at a source is a major modification. Tracking the language of these sections more closely allows Illinois to better accommodate EPA guidance on interpretation of these provisions of the CAA. In particular, Illinois has amended part 203 so that it does not conflict with EPA's “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR),” 61 FR 38249 (July 23, 1996). One topic addressed by EPA in this 1996 proposed rulemaking was sections 182(c)(6), (7) and (8) of the CAA (61 FR 38298-38302).

When the EPA finalizes its NSR rulemaking establishing guidance on these sections of the CAA, Illinois' NSR rules will have to be reevaluated. The Illinois EPA has committed to undertaking such a review of Illinois' NSR rules upon final EPA NSR rulemaking (Illinois EPA comments filed to the Pollution Control Board, November 6, 1997).

The statutory basis for the changes to part 203 is sections 182(c)(6), (7) and (8) of the CAA. These provisions establish criteria for determining the applicability of nonattainment NSR for modifications in serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas.

The “ de minimis rule,” section 182(c)(6) of the CAA, specifies the basic approach for determining whether proposed modifications in serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas are subject to nonattainment NSR. In these areas, the determination whether a project at a source is a major modification must consider other projects at the source over the last five calendar years. If the sum of the particular projects' emissions of an ozone precursor, ( e.g. , volatile organic material), and increases and decreases in emissions from other “contemporaneous” projects is significant, i.e. , more than a “ de minimis ” threshold of 25 tons per year, the particular project is major and subject to the requirements of NSR. The State of Illinois has adopted this provision and is making no changes to it. (Refer to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 203.209(b)).

In addition, Illinois had adopted NSR rules that restricted the role of contemporaneous emission decreases at a source in certain circumstances. In particular, Illinois' NSR rules allowed applicability of NSR to be triggered for a discrete operation, unit or other pollutant emitting activity irrespective of decreases elsewhere at the source, if a proposed project would result in a significant increase in emissions at such operation or unit. For this purpose, other emission increases and decreases at the discrete operation or unit during the contemporaneous time period could be considered, but not decreases elsewhere at the source. As a result, projects with significant increases in emissions at individual units or operations could trigger nonattainment NSR even if the overall net change in emissions at a source was not significant. This was a consequence of Illinois' historic interpretation of the language of sections 182(c)(7) and (8) of the CAA.

The various amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code part 203, which EPA is approving, remove provisions that could trigger NSR applicability for individual units or operations in the manner explained above. The amendments also make related changes to the rules. These amendments allow Illinois to follow the proposed interpretation of section 182(c)(6), (7) and (8) of the CAA published by EPA in the Federal Register in July 1996. By making the language of 35 Ill. Adm. Code part 203 more consistent with the language of the CAA, Illinois can accommodate EPA's published interpretation. As stated above, the Illinois EPA has committed to reevaluate part 203 upon EPA finalization of its federal rules establishing guidance on these sections of the CAA.

Section 182(c)(7) and (8) of the CAA are the “Special Rule for Modifications of Sources Emitting Less Than 100 Tons” and the “Special Rule for Modifications of Sources Emitting 100 Tons or More.” These provisions contain additional applicability provisions for major modifications in serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas. In general, they provide that a discrete operation, unit, or other pollutant emitting activity at a source with a significant emission increase ( i.e. , more than a de minimis increase) shall be considered a major modification unless the owner or operator of the source elects to offset the emissions from other operations, units, or activities within the source at an internal offset ratio of 1.3 to 1. If a source elects to provide internal offsets, a proposed modification may be excused from some or all of the NSR requirements. Illinois' NSR rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 203.207 and 203.301 generally provided and continue to provide the relief offered by sections 182(c)(7) and (8) of the CAA. However, as explained above, provisions were also included in Illinois' NSR rules that allowed a major modification to be triggered by proposed increases in emissions at an individual emission unit.

The interpretation of section 182(c)(7) and (8) of the CAA published by EPA in 1996 recognizes that a source may not have enough emissions decreases to internally “net out” an entire proposed modification to 25 tons or less so that the modification is de minimis . However, where a proposed modification involves more than one discrete unit, the source may have sufficient creditable internal decreases that could be applied at a 1.3 to 1 offset ratio against the emissions increase at particular units. In such circumstances, sections 182(c)(7) and (8) of the CAA function to allow a source to use creditable internal decreases that are insufficient to avoid nonattainment NSR for an entire project to still avoid NSR requirements for certain units involved in a major modification. Illinois has made changes to its NSR rules so as to be able to follow this interpretation.

The first change made by Illinois was to revise 35 Ill. Adm. Code 203.207(d), the applicability criteria for major modifications in serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas. The amendment better follows the wording of section 182(c)(6) of the CAA. Accordingly, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 203.207(d) no longer provides that changes at a discrete operation or unit can be subject to NSR when the source as a whole would not experience a de minimis increase in emissions as a result of the proposed modification.

A related change was made to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 203.206(d), a provision in the applicability criteria for major sources dealing with reconstruction of a source. Illinois deleted this provision, which allowed reconstruction of a source to be treated as a major new source. This provision applied in Illinois when changes at an individual operation or unit could trigger nonattainment NSR independent of emission decreases elsewhere at the source. This provision is no longer considered relevant by Illinois under the amended NSR rules with source-wide netting of contemporaneous emissions increases and decreases available to determine whether a proposed project would be a major modification.

Illinois also made a related change to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 203.207(c)(1), in the applicability criteria for major modifications. Illinois deleted the specific exclusion for replacements since the term reconstruction was no longer available to govern this exclusion.

Illinois added 35 Ill. Adm. Code 203.207(e) and revised 35 Ill. Adm. Code 203.301(e) to better follow the language of section 182(c)(7) of the CAA, the “Special Rule for Modifications of Sources Emitting Less Than 100 Tons.” As allowed by this special rule for modifications at smaller sources, Illinois' NSR rules do not apply the requirements of nonattainment NSR to a discrete operation or unit involved in a major modification for which the source elects and is able to provide internal offsets at a ratio of 1.3 to 1. In addition, major modifications at these smaller major sources are only required to comply with Best Available Control Technology, rather than the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate.

Finally, Illinois added 35 Ill. Adm. Code 203.301(f), replacing previous 35 Ill. Adm. Code 203.301(e)(2), to better follow the language of section 182(c)(8) of the CAA, the “Special Rule for Modifications of Sources Emitting 100 Tons or More.” As allowed by this special rule, for modifications at larger major sources, Illinois' NSR rules do not apply the LAER requirement of nonattainment NSR to a discrete operation or unit involved in a major modification for which the source elects and is able to provide internal offsets at a ratio of 1.3 to 1.

The ERMS, which is codified in 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 205, is a program adopted by Illinois for the Northeastern Illinois ozone nonattainment area to reduce emissions of volatile organic material (VOM) from major stationary sources. Illinois' amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 203 may have an effect on the calculation of certain sources' baselines and allocations of allotment trading units (ATUs) under the ERMS. ERMS required subject sources to determine their baseline levels of volatile organic material emissions. Generally, sources receive annual allotments of ATUs equivalent to their baseline emissions less 12%. At the end of each calendar year, sources “turn in” ATUs in an amount not less that their volatile organic material emissions during the preceding ozone season. When a sources' emissions exceed its allotment of ATUs, the source must buy ATUs from other sources that have been able to reduce their emissions below their allotments.

Under the amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 203, a source that has a modification to a discrete unit would have the option to net out on a source-wide basis which would mean that the modification would not be subject to requirements of NSR. This would allow sources to potentially have a larger baseline under ERMS because they are now subject to less stringent requirements pursuant to nonattainment NSR.

This final rule is not anticipated to significantly effect the ERMS baselines that have already been set. Those baselines were set generally using the average of the two seasonal allotments periods with the highest VOM emissions during 1994, 1995, and 1996. The sources that set their baselines under this requirement did so prior to the approval of this rule change and were processed according to the rules that applied at that time. Any change requested by a source to its baseline would entail a significant revision to the source's CAAPP permit and can be evaluated on an individual basis.

EPA is approving a requested revision to Illinois SIP affecting the nonattainment NSR rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 203, submitted on August 31, 1998. The amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 203 are intended to better track the language of sections 182(c)(6), (7) and (8) of the CAA, and to make other revisions consistent with this effort. Tracking of these sections more closely allows Illinois to accommodate EPA guidance these provisions of the CAA.

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 14, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2).)

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” or “our” means EPA.

Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include agricultural sources that are major sources subject to title V but are not being permitted by any of the following 35 local air districts in the State of California: Amador County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), Antelope Valley APCD, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (AQMD), Butte County AQMD, Calaveras County APCD, Colusa County APCD, El Dorado County APCD, Feather River AQMD, Glenn County APCD, Great Basin Unified APCD, Imperial County APCD, Kern County APCD, Lake County AQMD, Lassen County APCD, Mariposa County APCD, Mendocino County APCD, Modoc County APCD, Mojave Desert AQMD, Monterey Bay Unified APCD, North Coast Unified AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD, Northern Sonoma County APCD, Placer County APCD, Sacramento Metro AQMD, San Diego County APCD, San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, San Luis Obispo County APCD, Santa Barbara County APCD, Shasta County APCD, Siskiyou County APCD, South Coast AQMD, Tehama County APCD, Tuolumne County APCD, Ventura County APCD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD.

We are publishing this direct final rule without prior proposal because we view this as noncontroversial and do not anticipate adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rule section of this Federal Register , we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal in the event that adverse comments are filed.

If we receive any significant adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this direct final rule. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0047. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include confidential business information 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 Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in this document. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

After signature, the final rule will be posted on the policy and guidance page for newly proposed or final rules of EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t5.html . For more information, call the TTN Help line at (919) 541-5384.

The contents of the preamble are listed in the following outline:

Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act) requires all State permitting authorities to develop operating permits programs that meet certain Federal criteria codified at 40 CFR part 70. Pursuant to title V, EPA promulgated final regulations at 40 CFR part 71 to establish EPA's program for issuing Federal operating permits to sources located in areas lacking an EPA-approved or adequately administered operating permits program. See 61 FR 34202 (July 1, 1996).

On November 30, 2001, we promulgated final full approval of 34 California districts' title V operating permits programs. See 66 FR 63503 (December 7, 2001). 1 Our final rulemaking was challenged by several environmental and community groups alleging that the full approval was unlawful based, in part, on an exemption in section 42310(e) of the California Health and Safety Code which precluded local districts from requiring title V permits for major agricultural sources. EPA entered into a settlement of this litigation which required, in part, that the Agency propose to partially withdraw approval of the 34 fully approved title V programs in California.

We partially withdrew approval of the title V programs for the 34 local air districts listed above and began administering the part 71 program for the State-exempt agricultural sources (herein also referred to as “agricultural sources”) located in the 34 local air districts on November 14, 2002. 2 See 67 FR 63551 (October 15, 2002). Consistent with the settlement agreement and our final rule for these 34 districts, State- exempt major agricultural sources subject to the part 71 program due to diesel engine emissions must submit their permit applications by May 14, 2003, while all other major stationary agricultural sources must submit part 71 applications to EPA no later than August 1, 2003. On January 21, 2003, EPA began implementation of the part 71 program for major stationary sources in the Antelope Valley APCD as a result of the expiration of the program's interim approval.

Part 71 requires that permit applicants submit permit fees with their applications in order for the application to be deemed complete. See § 71.5(a)(2). If a source fails to submit a timely and complete application, it may be subject to an enforcement action for operating without a permit. See § 71.7(b). Also, a source that fails to submit fees within 30 days of the due date is subject to a 50 percent penalty. See § 71.9(l)(2).

We are deferring the fee payment due date for State-exempt agricultural sources in California that are subject to the part 71 program because we believe the standard part 71 fee may significantly exceed the actual cost of administering a program for agricultural sources, and we do not have the information to complete a rulemaking to establish a different fee prior to the May 14, 2003, application deadline. The part 71 fee schedule in § 71.9(c) is designed to cover the cost of permitting more complex, industrial sources. We need additional time to evaluate the likely costs of permitting the State-exempt agricultural sources. Also, as we gain experience with the program, we will be in a better position to establish a cost-based fee. For these reasons, we are amending § 71.9(f) to extend the due date for permit fees for State-exempt agricultural sources until May 14, 2004. Unless we set a different fee amount through rulemaking before that extended date, the fee schedule in § 71.9(c)(1) would apply.

At this time the Agency has no experience with or data on the cost of permitting agricultural sources, but we expect that agricultural sources will have fewer applicable requirements and associated monitoring requirements, and they will require simpler permits than do most industrial sources. One key difference, for example, is that no State-exempt agricultural source has been issued a permit to construct emission sources associated with its agricultural operation, whereas most, if not all, nonagricultural major stationary sources of air pollution in the State have been issued preconstruction permits. Requirements and conditions in preconstruction permits are applicable requirements that must be folded into a title V permit. In addition, State implementation plan-approved stationary source prohibitory rule requirements are mostly directed at nonagricultural operations. Similarly, few, if any, State-exempt agricultural sources would be subject to maximum achievable control technology standards. For an example of the type and complexity of nonagricultural title V permits, please see certain district permits posted on the California Air Resources Board webpage at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/fcaa/tv/tvinfo/permits/permits.htm.

Based on this difference in the number of applicable requirements, we believe that at every stage of the permit process, permitting agricultural sources will on average be less complex and time consuming than permitting industrial sources. For agricultural sources, the technical review of the application will be less time consuming because it will be easier to determine if all the applicable requirements are referenced in the application. Similarly, it will be easier to determine whether the source is in compliance with all of its applicable requirements and whether a compliance schedule needs to be developed in the permit. Permits that have fewer applicable requirements will require less time to develop with respect to monitoring issues which typically involves a review of the monitoring proposed by the permit applicant for each applicable requirement and a justification in the permit's statement of basis for the monitoring required in the permit. There will be fewer recordkeeping and reporting requirements tied to applicable requirements to include in the permits. Finally, because there are fewer applicable requirements and reports required by the permit, these permits should be easier for EPA to implement and enforce compared to the typical industrial source permit.

EPA also expects to develop some general permits for some State-exempt agricultural sources which would be less resource intensive to develop and implement than permits that are issued on a case-by-case basis. Although EPA has not issued any general permits, we estimate that it takes on average 328 hours to develop and issue an individual permit and 80 hours to develop and issue a general permit that would apply to many sources. See Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, EPA Number 1587.05. One reason for the difference in the estimates is that general permits are only appropriate for less complex sources with few applicable requirements.

Once a general permit is developed, EPA would not make individual judgements relative to the permit terms for the sources covered by the permit. The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the general permit would not vary from source to source. Once the general permit has been issued after an opportunity for public participation and affected State review, EPA may grant or deny a source's request to be covered by a general permit without further public participation or affected State review. Thus, EPA would bear the cost of one public hearing at most on the permit, as opposed to the individual public hearings that can be requested for permits that are developed individually.

Once we have determined where it is appropriate to develop general permits, we will be in a position to add those costs to other data on the cost of implementing the program for agricultural sources.

In order to implement the later fee payment due date, we are also amending § 71.9(f) to remove the requirement that fees be paid at the time of the permit application in order for the applications from State-exempt agricultural sources to be considered complete.

Absent these amendments, State-exempt agricultural sources would have been required to pay fees that may substantially exceed the cost of administering the part 71 program or become subject to enforcement actions for operating without a title V permit and for failure to pay fees.

EPA believes this direct final rule is necessary because the standard part 71 fee that is based on costs of permitting industrial sources may substantially exceed the cost of permitting the simpler agricultural sources, and many of these sources must submit applications and fees by May 14, 2003. Even with a direct final rulemaking, this rule will not be effective by the date permit applications are due for certain agricultural sources. Thus, applications submitted on May 14, 2003, without a payment of fees will be temporarily incomplete while this rulemaking is conducted. Once this rulemaking is completed and effective, however, applications otherwise meeting the requirements of part 71 that are submitted without fees can be deemed complete without further action by the applicant.

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

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

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

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

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

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA has determined that this direct final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” because it simply defers, rather than imposes, one regulatory requirement and raises no novel legal or policy issues. Therefore, this action is not subject to OMB review.

This direct final rule does not impose any new information collection burden. The action merely defers the fee payment deadline for certain agricultural sources that are subject to the action. However, OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations, 40 CFR part 71, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0336 (EPA ICR No. 1713.04). Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by person to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

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

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as (1) a small business that meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small businesses found in 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, country, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is a not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities'' (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. The amendments in today's final rule would merely defer the deadline for paying permit fees for sources affected by the final rule, thereby giving them more flexibility and reducing the burden on these sources. We have therefore concluded that today's final rule will relieve regulatory burden for all small entities.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1532, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for any proposed or final rule with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.

Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply where they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, EPA must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of our regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA)for State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. Today's direct final rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments and merely defers the payment of permit fees for certain permit applicants. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. Thus, today's action is not subject to sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

In addition, EPA has determined that this direct final contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it imposes no new requirements and imposes no additional obligations beyond those of existing regulations. Therefore, today's direct final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

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

This direct final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Today's rule will not impose any new requirements but rather will defer payment of fees for certain permit applicants. Accordingly, it will not alter the overall relationship or distribution of powers between governments for part 71 operating permits programs. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this direct final rule.

Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.”

This direct final rule does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Today's action does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. As discussed above, today's action imposes no new requirements and merely defers fee payment for certain permit applicants. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that the EPA determines is (1) “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risk such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This direct final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not “economically significant” under Executive Order 12866, and it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health and safety risks.

This direct final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g. , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

The NTTAA does not apply to this direct final rule because it does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This direct final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective on June 27, 2003 unless significant adverse comments are received by June 12, 2003.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 14, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, ET Docket No. 02-16, FCC 03-39, adopted February 25, 2003, and released March 3, 2003. The full text of this Commission decision is available on the Commission's Internet site at www.fcc.gov. It is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Alternate formats are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 or TTY (202) 418-7365.

1. In the Report and Order, the Commission amended parts 2, 73, 74, 80, 90, and 97 of the Commission's rules to implement domestically various allocation decisions from ITU World Radiocommunication Conferences concerning the frequency bands below 28 MHz.

2. International Broadcast Frequencies. The Commission found that implementing allocation changes from World Administration Radiocommunication Conference (“WARC”) 1979 and WARC-92 concerning high frequency broadcast (“HFBC”) would significantly increase the amount of spectrum available for HFBC, and conform to international regulations. The Commission states that implementing these allocation changes would promote national interest around the world and increase the international communications provided by HFBC.

3. To provide more effective use of the WARC-79 HFBC bands, the Commission deleted the fixed service allocation from the WARC-79 bands to make these bands available exclusively to the broadcasting service. These bands are also added to the Commission's rules for international broadcast stations, which provide an additional 850 kilohertz of exclusive spectrum for international broadcasters. Federal government agencies are permitted to operate existing fixed stations in the bands 9775-9900 kHz, 11650-11700 kHz, and 11975-12050 kHz on a non-harmful interference basis to the international broadcast stations.

4. Until the transition of the WARC-92 HFBC bands to exclusive broadcasting service use becomes effective on April 1, 2007, the Commission allocated the 790 kilohertz of spectrum to the broadcasting service on a shared primary basis with existing fixed and mobile services. Consistent with changes being made to the allocation of the WARC-92 HFBC bands, the Commission ceased to issue licenses for new non-Federal government stations in the fixed and mobile services on April 1, 2001. The Commission added informational notes to part 80 (the maritime service rules) stating that radioprinter use of the bands 5900-5950 kHz and 7300-7350 kHz and Alaska private-fixed station use of the frequency 11601.5 kHz is on the condition that harmful interference is not caused to HFBC.

5. The Broadcasting Board of Governors (“BBG”) filed comment in reference to limiting WARC-92 HFBC bands to single-sideband (“SSB”) technology, which BBG believed would limit flexibility and increase costs. The Commission agreed with BBG that international broadcasters would not use SSB techniques because recent ITU studies demonstrated extremely limited availability of SSB receivers.

6. Finally, the Commission amended rules that would update the international broadcasting rules to reflect current practices and make them consistent with ITU Radio Regulations. The Commission revised the frequency tolerance of 0.0015 percent of the assigned frequency to the current ITU standard of 10 hertz in § 73.756(c). Given that there are few HFBC stations and many are non-profit, the Commission is grandfathering existing stations that do not meet this new standard. Also, the HFBC definitions in § 73.701 of the rules are revised to reflect international requirements as specified in the WRC-97 Final Acts. Currently, the band 25600-25670 kHz is used by radio astronomy service and not by HFBC stations. Therefore, the Commission deleted this band from the list of frequencies available to HFBC stations in part 73 of the rules. With the Commission's rules now agreeing with the ITU Table of Frequency Allocations, domestic radio astronomy observations are protected in this range. The Commission also clarified the manner in which the 7100-7300 kHz band is to be used by international broadcast stations by adding cross references to the rules, and replacing the target zone map in § 73.703 with the current ITU target zone map. Finally, the last sentence in § 73.766 is modified by changing the highest modulating frequency from 5 kilohertz to 4.5 kilohertz to reflect a long-standing international provision.

7. AM Expanded Band. The Commission found that the public interest would be served providing additional cleared spectrum in the band 1605-1705 kHz for the AM broadcast service to improve the technical integrity of the service and to remove conflicting regulations from the Commission's rules. Obsolete service rules and frequency references for parts 74 and 90 in this band are removed in order to prevent incompatible frequency authorizations. This decision followed the Commission's deletion of the land mobile allocation from the band 1605-1705 kHz in 1983, in which frequencies within this band were inadvertently left in parts 74 and 90 of the rules. Specifically, the Commission removed the frequencies 1606 kHz, 1622 kHz, and 1646 kHz from § 74.402(a)(1); the frequency 1630 kHz from § 90.20(c)(3); the frequencies 1614 kHz, 1628 kHz, 1652 kHz, 1676 kHz, and 1700 kHz from § 90.35 (b)(3); and the band 1605-1705 kHz from § 90.263. Consistent with removing frequencies 1606 kHz, 1622 kHz, and 1646 kHz from § 74.402(a)(1), the Commission also eliminated all reference to those frequencies from §§ 74.402(a) and 74.402(e)(1) and section 74.462(b). Also, mobile travelers' information stations (“TIS”) continue to be authorized throughout the AM Expanded Band as specified in part 90 and Federal government TIS stations operating on 1610 kHz have primary status.

8. With four Industrial/Business Pool and two non-Federal government radiolocation licensees operating in the AM Expanded Band, these licensees are permitted to continue operation on a non-interference basis to AM radio and TIS stations, until the end of their current license term with no provision for renewal. If an Industrial/Business Pool or radiolocation service operation is causing interference to either an AM radio or TIS station, they will have to immediately cease transmission. The Commission found that there is sufficient alternative spectrum to meet the needs of licensees affected by this change and the Commission's staff will work with those licensees to help them find suitable alternative channels if the licensee desires. Also, no application fee will be charged to licensees of affected stations that apply for a modification to obtain alternative channels before the end of their license term.

9. In order to protect the technical integrity of the AM Expanded Band, the Commission deleted from the U.S. Table the Federal government and non-Federal government secondary radiolocation allocation in the band 1605-1705 kHz. The Commission found that these radiolocation operations can be relocated to the band 1900-2000 kHz without significant impact to current operations. Consistent with this decision, the Commission removed the band 1605-1705 kHz from the Radiolocation Service Frequency Table in § 90.103 of the rules and deleted unneeded assignment limitations. The Commission had conversations with NTIA concerning the Federal government's radiolocation assignments in the sub-band 1615-1705 kHz. NTIA agreed to relocate all Federal government stations currently operating in the AM Expanded Band within one year of the adoption date of this Report and Order (February 25, 2004). In response to this, the Commission is allowing the Federal government radiolocation stations to continue to operate during this one-year transition period on the condition that harmful interference is not caused to AM or TIS stations.

10. Continued Use of Frequencies by Broadcast Auxiliary Remote Pickup Stations. The Commission is allowing broadcast auxiliary stations to continue using the band 26100-26175 kHz because use of this band by such stations is significant and their secondary status will ensure that their operation will not hinder public coast stations. A review of the Commission's licensing database showed that there were currently no public coast stations making use of the four maritime frequencies (26110 kHz, 26130 kHz, 26150 kHz, and 26170 kHz). Therefore, remote pickup stations will not impact maritime mobile operations and will allow for greater use of the radio spectrum.

11. Maritime Services. The band 285-325 kHz is allocated for use in the United States to the maritime radionavigation service on a primary basis, limited to radiobeacons. These operations were authorized by NTIA through footnote G121 of its Manual, but this footnote was not previously coordinated with the Commission. Since this spectrum is Federal government/non-Federal government shared spectrum and both entities benefit from the use of differential global positioning system (“DGPS”) systems, the Commission reclassified this footnote as a U.S. footnote.

12. The Commission adopted international footnote 5.131 domestically, authorizing NAVTEX systems to use the 4209.5 kHz frequency exclusively for the transmission by coast stations of meteorological and navigational warnings and urgent information to ships by means of narrow-band direct-printing techniques. Since there are no incumbent users operating in this frequency, the United States Coast Guard (“USCG”) can operate NAVTEX with unencumbered access as a means to improving maritime safety broadcast service to mariners. Also, at the request of NTIA, the Commission adopted international footnote 5.79A domestically so that the operating characteristics of established stations in the NAVTEX service can be coordinated by the Federal government with other administrations consistent with the procedures of the International Maritime Organization.

13. After the ITU reduced the guard band for the distress and calling frequency at 500 kHz from 20 kilohertz to 10 kilohertz, the Commission deleted the 500 kHz from its maritime rules as a distress and safety frequency, but kept this frequency available for Morse radiotelegraph functions. At WRC-03 Member States will consider whether non-Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (“GMDSS”) requirements should be maintained in the ITU Radio Regulations, and until such time the Commission renumbered international footnote 472 as 5.83 in the U.S. Table. Also, until WRC-03 makes a decision, the Commission renumbered international footnotes 472a and 474 as 5.82 and 5.84, respectively, in the U.S. Table to reflect ITU changes.

14. Although, WARC-79 implementation transitioned the bands 4000-4063 kHz and 8100-8195 kHz to the maritime mobile service, these bands are equally or primarily used by the fixed service. Also, the ITU removed the resolution that facilitated the change of these bands to the maritime mobile service and its radio regulations maintain the fixed and maritime mobile service allocations in these bands on a co-primary basis. Therefore, the Commission removed US236 and reinstated the direct U.S. Table fixed service allocation for these bands on a primary basis to match the ITU table.

15. Aeronautical Fixed Service. In response to WRC-95, the Commission removed the limitation in footnote 459 on use of the 160-190 kHz band to aeronautical fixed use and allows all eligible fixed services to access this band. This brings our domestic rules in line with the ITU Radio Regulations and opens the band for utilization by other potential users. It is noted that the limitation only affects Region 2 polar areas and that Power Line Carrier (“PLC”) uses will be coordinated with fixed use of the band; therefore, the Commission found that lifting the aeronautical limitation will not harm the nation's power network.

16. The Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) indicated that they do not intend to implement an aircraft safety service in the band 21870-21924 kHz. Also, the Commission found no apparent domestic support for adopting international footnote 5.155B, which limits most fixed use of the band to the provision of services related to aircraft flight safety. Therefore, the Commission did not implement footnote 5.155B domestically, but maintains the footnote in the International Table for informational purposes.

17. Amateur Service. Because ITU Resolution No. 640 and international footnote 5.120 have been removed from the ITU Radio Regulations, the Commission removed footnote 5.120 and § 97.401(b) from the Commission's rules. The Commission did not think this would have an impact on the amateur stations to communicate with foreign stations in disaster areas, making the provisions based on the former ITU Resolution No. 640 unnecessary.

18. Frequencies Available for Forest Products Licensees. The Commission revised footnote US298 to agree with terminology now used in part 90 of the Commission's rules and added the frequencies indicated in the footnote to the Industrial/Business Radio Pool Frequency Table in § 90.35, with an appropriate note describing the limited use that is permitted. This decision does not change any regulatory requirements, but merely makes the Commission's rules easier to understand.

19. Ministerial Conforming Actions. The Commission made many non-substantive changes to update and correct the U.S. Table with regards to frequency allocations below 28 MHz, while the Commission also changed U.S. footnotes to conform to previous decisions and to update material in certain rule parts. These changes were made to remove unnecessary material from the Commission's rules and to reflect WRC-2000 Final Acts with regard to the International Table of Frequency Allocations within the Rules.

20. The Commission removed international footnote 5.60 from the bands 70-90 kHz and 110-130 kHz because this footnote addressed a limitation on an allocation that was never made domestically. Further, the Commission removed the superfluous international footnote 5.80 from the band 415-435 kHz because it addressed limitations that did not apply to this band. The Commission also removed the secondary direct U.S. Table allocation for the space research service in the band 19990-19995 kHz because this allocation was contained in footnote G106, which was recently added to the band 19990-20010 kHz. The Commission updated footnote US82 by removing maritime channels that were reallocated for other purposes in 1991, thus indicating clearly the channels that are available for ship and coast station operations.

21. Further, the Commission added an informational note to § 90.35 stating that the use of frequencies 25120 kHz, 25140 kHz, 25160 kHz, 25180 kHz, and 25200 kHz were on a secondary basis to stations in the maritime mobile service (part 80). In footnote US281, the Commission changed the band “25.07-25.11 MHz” to “25070-25210 kHz” and updated “industrial radio service” and “Forest Products Radio Service” to “Industrial/Business Pool.” Limitation 9 in 47 CFR 90.35 states this fact about footnote US281 and was added to the frequencies 25120 kHz, 25140 kHz, 25160 kHz, 25180 kHz, and 25200 kHz.

22. Additionally, the Commission updated rule part cross reference in the U.S. Table. Specifically, the Commission deleted approximately 50 cross references to the International Fixed Public Radiocommunication Services (“IFPRS”) that no longer existed. Finally, the Commission updated 18 international country footnotes for informational purposes because they did not apply to Region 2.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 1 the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order (“ Notice ”), ET Docket No. 02-16. 2 The Commission sought written public comments on the proposals in the Notice, including the IRFA. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) in the Report and Order conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (“CWAAA”), Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).

By this action, the Commission reallocated 1640 kilohertz of spectrum from the fixed and mobile services to the broadcasting service. This action provides exclusive availability to broadcasting service in the HFBC bands. The Commission made consequential changes to various service rules that updated the rules for bands below 28000 kHz, so that they better comport with international regulations. Finally, this action clarifies the status of services in the AM Expanded Band (1605-1705 kHz).

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the action taken. 3 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 4 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 5 A small business concern is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”). 6 A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” 7 Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations. 8 Finally, “small governmental jurisdiction” generally means “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000.” 9

Fixed Service. It is noted that there are 162 fixed assignments authorized under section 90.266 for long distance communications, 10 Alaska private-fixed assignments, 11 and 5 aeronautical fixed station assignments  12 that operate in the bands that were reallocated pursuant this Report and Order. Using the small business size standard, the Commission believed that most of the section 90.266 licensees are telephone, gas, and power companies that are not small businesses. Because the Commission estimated that most of these fixed service licensees would not qualify as small entities under the SBA definition, it is estimated that fewer than 184 small entities will be impacted by the reallocation.

Maritime Service. The Commission noted that there are four public coast stations and four private coast stations licensees that operate in the bands being reallocated, and it is estimated that almost all of them qualify as small under the SBA size standard.

International Broadcast Stations. The transmissions of international broadcast stations are intended to be received directly by the general public in foreign countries. 13 There are 24 international broadcast licensees, and the Commission estimated that almost all of them qualify as small under the SBA size standards.

Private Land Mobile Radio Services. The Commission has not adopted a special small business size standard for private land mobile radio service licensees. 14 Therefore the size standards and census data small business breakouts are utilized. This means that such entities are considered small if they employ no more than 1,500 persons. There are 4 Industrial/Business Pool licensees and 2 radiolocation licensees in the AM Expanded Band, and the Commission believed that none of them qualify as small under the SBA size standards.

One significant alternative that the Commission considered was whether or not to allow the few high frequency broadcast (“HFBC”) stations, many of which are non-profit, a longer time to transition from outdated equipment. This transition relief will be necessary in instances in which equipment cannot maintain the stringent tolerance required by the amended rule. This Commission determined to grandfather existing international broadcast stations at their current frequency tolerance. 15 This will assist such non-profits, including small entities, by providing relief from the rule as revised. Also, with regard to small entities and others operating in the AM Expanded Band, Commission staff will work with affected licensees to help them find suitable alternative channels if the licensee desires. 16 No fee will be charged to licensees of affected stations that apply for modification for alternative channels before the end of their license term.

The Commission will send a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, along with this Report and Order, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

The FCC published a document in the Federal Register of March 6, 2003, (68 FR 10665) allotting six FM channels to various communities in Oklahoma and Texas. In FR Doc. 03-5338, the document number was listed incorrectly. This document changes the document number to DA 03-435.