On August 9, 2002, FNS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (67 FR 51779) proposing to amend 7 CFR § 245.6a(c) to require school food authorities to report verification activity and results to their respective State agencies in support of State agency and FNS oversight activities. Specifically, the document proposed amending § 245.6a(c) to require school food authorities to report certain verification information to the State agency by March 1 annually. The information would be reported on a form designated by FNS. The information requested on the form would address, but not be limited to, the characteristics of the verification sample and the results of verification activity. The preamble to the proposal provided the following examples of information to be collected: the number of children approved for free and reduced price meal benefits based on direct certification, income applications, and categorically eligible applications; the method of verification sample selection; the number of applications selected for verification; the number of students on selected applications; the number of students approved for free meal benefits and reduced price meal benefits whose eligibility for benefits were reduced or terminated as the result of verification activities; of those terminated, the number of non-respondents; and the number of students reinstated for free or reduced price meal benefits, as of February 15th of each year.

In addition, the document proposed that § 245.6a(c) would require school food authorities to retain copies of the information reported to the State agency and all supporting documents. The proposed rule also restated the existing requirements that verified applications and information submitted by households must be readily retrievable by schools and that school food authorities must retain all documents submitted by households to confirm eligibility, reproductions of those documents, or annotations made by the determining official that indicate which documents were submitted by households and the dates of submission. The existing requirement that relevant correspondence between the households selected for verification and the school or school food authority must be retained was also restated.

FNS also proposed to add a new § 245.11(i) to require each State agency to collect the annual verification data from each school food authority in accordance with guidance provided by FNS. To facilitate the reporting of these data, FNS would provide a data collection instrument in electronic format. In addition, the proposed rule required that each State agency analyze these data, determine if there are potential problems, and formulate corrective actions and technical assistance activities to support the objective of certifying only those children eligible for free or reduced price meals. The availability and review of this information at the State level is designed to assist State agencies in targeting more rigorous oversight and technical assistance activities on school food authorities when their verification activities result in a high termination rate. A high termination rate may be due to a number of applications either being changed from free or reduced price status to paid status because of documentation provided by households or because of households' failure to respond to the verification request.

The proposed rule would also require that the State agency report to FNS, not later than April 15th of each year, the results of each school food authority's verification activities, submitted in accordance with § 245.6a(c), and any ameliorative actions the State agency has taken or intends to take in those school food authorities with high numbers of applications changed due to verification activities. FNS intends to provide for the electronic submission of these data.

Additionally, the proposed rule included in 7 CFR Part 245 a definition of the term “FNS” which means “the Food and Nutrition Service of the Department of Agriculture”. This definition was inadvertently not included in this Part in earlier editions and FNS proposed to add the definition at 7 CFR 245.2(b-2) for the sake of clarity and completeness.

FNS has taken several actions to address the issues associated with over-certification. On January 21, 2000, FNS published a notice in the Federal Register (65 FR 3409) soliciting States and school food authorities to participate in pilot projects to test alternate application, approval and verification procedures for free and reduced price eligibility determinations. Twenty-one school food authorities operated pilot projects. These pilot sites conducted alternative certification or verification processes for three consecutive school years, beginning in School Year 2000-2001. Preliminary data has shown the alternative methods have, to varying degrees, deterred and detected misreporting of eligibility information. FNS is currently conducting an in-depth analysis of the administrative data presented, to date, from the pilot sites. While the information derived from the pilots is not nationally representative, pilot activities have provided FNS with insight on the efficacy of the existing application and verification processes and on alternatives to those processes. This final rule is intended to complement pilot activities by collecting information on verification activity nationwide.

During the 60 day comment period, 99 comment letters were received: 81 from State and local agencies administering the school programs; 12 from advocacy groups; 5 from the general public, and 1 from the food industry. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C 3507), the public was invited to send comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB received 12 comments on the information collection aspects of the proposed rule.

In general, the commenters were supportive of ensuring that free and reduced price meal benefits only go to eligible children and gave a number of suggestions outside the scope of the proposed rule to address this problem. Some examples of suggested ideas are: hold households accountable for the information submitted on their application; eliminate publication of income eligibility guidelines; have other programs/agencies take more responsibility in regards to free and reduced price benefit determinations; consider/research reasons why households are not responding to verification requests ( e.g. , moved, limited English proficiency, undocumented immigrants, migrants, lack of understanding of the concept of verification); use the additional costs that the proposal would incur to provide universal free school meals to all children; and specify that the verification notification needs to be provided in a language that the families of participating children can understand. Additional studies of the issue of over-certification were also suggested.

A few commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule did not address the inadequacies of the verification process (such as non-respondents and language barriers). Several commenters recommended that FNS delay any changes to the verification requirements until completion of the pilot projects and the analysis of the results. As previously stated, the purpose of this regulation is to establish a method to obtain data about verification results as another step in the overall goal of improved program integrity. The requirements for the reporting of verification activities contained in this rule will complement the pilot activities. The data collection is a tool for FNS to better analyze current verification procedures and results. The information, when reviewed and analyzed, may lead to other proposals in the future to further refine the entire certification and verification process. The ideas that were suggested will also be kept in mind for future rulemaking.

Over fifty commenters discussed the burden that the proposed requirements would place on school food authorities and State agencies. The general consensus is that the proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements are too burdensome and the estimated annual reporting and recordkeeping burden hours under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 are too low. We have reviewed the burden hours and have adjusted the estimate to account for the fact that there will be differences in the amount of time required to complete the report based on the size of the school food authority. Small school food authorities, which constitute the majority of participating school food authorities, may only have a small number of verified applications to summarize, while larger school food authorities will have numerous verified applications to summarize. However, larger districts may also have automated information systems that will provide some or all of the information to complete the report, thereby reducing their overall burden hours. We have taken these different circumstances into consideration and have adjusted the burden hours as follows: School food authorities average burden hours have been increased from 16,342 to 32,684, an average of 2 hours per school food authority. State agency average burden hours are increased per response from 8 to 24 hours. This results in an increase of annual burden hours from 432 to 1,296 for State agencies. We submitted the revised burden to OMB for approval.

A few commenters questioned the need for requiring additional data collection by school food authorities beyond the current requirements. Specifically, commenters stated that most school food authorities do not currently track data regarding the number of students whose benefits were terminated and who were then reinstated (due to submission of required documentation or a change in household circumstances) for free or reduced price meals by February 15. The Department is concerned about the students that are terminated as a result of verification activities. Data regarding the number of students that reapply and are re-certified for free or reduced price meals would be beneficial in analyzing the over-certification issue. Commenters expressed concern that this data element would be labor intensive since it is not currently being collected. The Department is mindful of the commenters' concerns about this burden and recognizes that this requirement would result in additional administrative burden at a time when school food authorities are faced with serious fiscal and staff constraints. In order to balance the need for this data with the additional economic burden on school food authorities, the Department is modifying the implementation date for this data element, as well as attempting to secure additional funds to enable school food authorities to enhance their data collection and reporting systems. Therefore, reporting and collecting this data will be required for the School Year 2005-2006 contingent upon new funding to support this purpose. However, the implementation date for other data collection and reporting remains as proposed. The Department encourages school food authorities and State agencies to collect and report any or all verification data elements to their respective State agency before the required dates regardless of the availability of additional budgetary assistance.

One of the requirements for agencies when promulgating regulations is an assessment required by Public Law 104-4 the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, of the impact of the proposed changes on State, local and tribal governments and the private sector. The threshold for this assessment is $100 million in any one year. One commenter took issue with FNS' assessment that the proposed rule contained no Federal mandates of $100 million. The commenter stated that there is no estimate of the overall time required to complete the entire verification, reporting, review and analysis at the State agency as “Each State agency must analyze these data, determine if there are potential problems, and formulate corrective action * * *”. The commenter indicated that the assumption was inaccurate and the procedures will create a significant burden on State agencies administering these programs.

Upon further review, FNS continues to believe that this rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. However, as discussed earlier, FNS has modified the burden hours from the proposed rule on the data collection and reporting requirements in order to address burden concerns. It is important to note that the determination of burden hours is based only on the compilation of data and the completion of the report. The analysis of the reported data and the corrective action and technical assistance activities are not part of the data collection and reporting burden as State agencies are obligated to ensure that school food authorities administer the program in accordance with program regulations. Therefore, program oversight, corrective action, and technical assistance resulting from the data reported are part of the overall administrative responsibility of State agencies.

Over 20 commenters discussed the need for additional guidance on the procedures for the State agency's responsibilities outlined in the proposal. Many stated that the proposal language was vague and that definitions of “corrective action”, “rigorous oversight activity”, and “ameliorative actions” are needed. Commenters also indicated that there is a need to be more specific as to what the State agency is expected to do when reviewing questionable reports.

The Department envisions that State agencies will note trends and notify school food authorities of these trends as well as provide training and technical assistance to school food authorities as needed. Also, in response to these concerns, FNS is developing guidance materials supporting the State agency's role in this effort, including an outline of possible review techniques and suggested technical assistance, which will be provided prior to the implementation date of this rule.

Some commenters discussed the deadlines for school food authorities to submit accumulated data to the State agency and for States agencies to submit consolidated data to FNS. Most suggested that the deadlines are too short and should be extended in order for the data to be collected, compiled and analyzed. A particular concern to commenters was the short turn around for collecting and reporting the information on students that are reinstated after termination due to verification.

We recognize the commenters' concerns regarding the reporting deadlines and to alleviate some of the burden, we have modified, as discussed earlier in this preamble, the implementation date of the data element regarding reinstated students. Because the remaining data elements that were discussed in the proposed rule are based on data that is already collected, the Department is not changing the reporting deadlines of March 1st for each school food authority to submit data to their respective State agency, as well as the April 15th date for State agencies to submit the aggregated data to FNS.

Three commenters requested a delay in the implementation of the rule. FNS does not feel that a delay in implementation for collection and reporting of existing data is warranted due to the urgency in finding a solution to the issue of over-certification. However, it is important to note that the first report on the majority of data elements will not be due from the school food authorities to the State agencies until March 1, 2005 and the first reports from the State agencies to FNS are not due until April 15, 2005.

Over 20 commenters requested an extension to the comment period for the proposed rule. Again, due to the urgency of the over-certification issue, FNS believes that the 60-day comment period for the proposed rule was sufficient.

Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule may have adverse effects on eligible children. Specific comments on this issue are: (1) Verification has been shown to discourage participation by needy children, and (2) some efforts by State agencies to assure that only eligible children are certified may inadvertently impede program participation by some needy children. While FNS recognizes and shares the concerns about discouraging participation of eligible children, FNS does not believe that this rule will have any adverse results. The rule does not change existing certification and verification requirements, and should not change the way that school food authorities interact with families applying for benefits. The rule merely requires analysis and reporting of information, by school food authorities and State agencies, related to existing certification and verification requirements.

Two commenters suggested that the preamble overstated the strength of available data and that the preamble should have included a more careful discussion of the limitations of verification data. These comments specifically stated that FNS should not, especially in the context of a call for better analysis, present misleading data and questionable analysis without any discussion of its meaning and soundness of the methodology employed. The commenters also felt that the actions described in the preamble were an example of the type of cursory use of data that could lead State agencies to take harmful or ineffective steps in response to the verification data. Further, they recommended that the preamble to the proposed rule should have clearly addressed the limitations of verification data and, thus, the conclusions that may be drawn from analyses of these data. In response to these concerns, it is the intent of this rule to simply provide information in order to provide a broader understanding of the over-certification problem. This rule is intended to provide information about the verification problem by collecting data nationally. At this point in time, FNS does not have enough information to discuss any conclusions that may result from collection and analysis of this data.

A few commenters discussed the background information provided in the preamble to the proposal. In particular, they noted that the preamble stated that when State agencies conducted comprehensive on-site evaluations of school food authorities the resulting findings indicate that school food authorities have been determining free and reduced price eligibility correctly. Commenters agree with this conclusion and stated that this indicates that the problem does not lie with administrative procedures and measures taken by school food authorities and State agencies, but likely with household reporting. Other commenters said that requiring school food authorities and State agencies to annually collect, review and report a massive amount of data to confirm what is already known, is counter-productive—a waste of scarce and valuable resources.

In response to these commenters, we reiterate that the purpose of this rule is to better understand these issues in order to determine our course of action to correct problems with certification as well as the verification process. The purpose of this rule is to gather and assess the results of verification as a means to compare the initial certification decisions and the disposition of verified applications when households are asked to provide information confirming their current eligibility.

Some commenters discussed the statement made in the preamble that there is a 27% over certification of students eligible for free meals based on a comparison of NSLP data and Current Population Survey (CPS) data. These commenters mentioned that CPS data might not be the best source of data to compare with NSLP data.

The CPS, a joint project between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of the Census, is a well established, technically sound survey that is used for, among other things, official U.S. unemployment and poverty estimates. In conjunction with FNS program data, the CPS is one of the best sources of information to use in understanding the problem of certification inaccuracy. One of the strengths of CPS is that it includes the non-institutionalized population of the United States and is designed to include undocumented persons and migrants in the sample. We know that these groups are hard to capture with surveys. However, the CPS does not rely solely on the sample's ability to fully record these groups—the CPS data are adjusted to reflect the Census' best estimate of the size of the undocumented population. FNS believes that the use of CPS data is a critical tool available in understanding the magnitude of the over-certification problem.

The Agency will continue to make use of CPS and other data sources in assessing certification accuracy.

Two commenters wanted to replace “State agency” with “FNS” as the recipient of school food authorities' report verification information. However, since State agencies are responsible for ensuring school food authority compliance with program requirements, including accurate and timely reporting, it is more appropriate to require that school food authorities report data to the State agencies, not to FNS. State agencies (1) need to receive data to focus their efforts; (2) are in the best position to ensure accurate reporting; and (3) are responsible for all aspects of program operations within their States. The final rule will continue to require that school food authorities report verification information to their respective State agencies.

Another comment questioned why “high termination rates” should trigger more rigorous oversight activities on the part of the State agency. This comment went on to state that this part of the proposal seems to be completely at odds with the statement in the preamble that “School food authorities generally have been determining free and reduced price eligibility in accordance with the regulatory requirements * * *”.

If the State agency sees that the school food authority has submitted data that has a high termination rate, then the State agency will need to work with that school food authority to see if it has taken appropriate actions to ensure accuracy of the application process. State agencies are expected to develop technical assistance activities in conjunction with school food authorities to assure that they are utilizing direct certification to its fullest, providing appropriate translations (if needed), and/or providing appropriate follow-up to households that do not respond to verification requests, if needed. School food authorities should use the data collected to determine what improvements are needed in their certification and verification procedures ( i.e. single versus multi-child applications, additional assistance for parents, use of other/additional verification procedures). School food authorities also should notify State agencies of what technical assistance is needed and in what form (training, materials, etc.) in order to improve the verification process. FNS will provide training, technical assistance, additional translations and the like, for school food authorities and State agencies to assist them in analyzing how their procedures could be improved and in developing/supplying technical assistance and training. This provision is adopted as proposed in this final regulation, as FNS will be providing guidance and resources to assist school food authorities and State agencies in addressing the issue of high termination rates.

Numerous commenters discussed concerns with the proposed regulatory requirement in § 245.11(i) that “Each State agency must analyze these data, determine if there are potential problems, and formulate corrective actions and technical assistance activities that will support the objective of certifying only those children eligible for free or reduced price meals.” Some of the concerns with this requirement are that it penalizes the school food authority for a high termination rate and creates an incentive to reduce the number of terminations. Commenters were also concerned that this focus could reduce the ability of State agencies to provide technical assistance in other significant areas like improved nutrition and menu planning. Commenters went on to say that there should be more emphasis on the number of children determined eligible who are not participating in the NSLP and SBP and that a high level of application information changed due to verification requests is not necessarily a negative reflection upon the school food authorities. Corrective action should not be required solely on the number of applications changed due to verification efforts.

Again, we emphasize that the regulation is designed to have State agencies collect and analyze information on the results of school food authorities verification activities in order to improve oversight, corrective action, and technical support with the objective of certifying only those children who are eligible for free and reduced price meals. A high rate of terminations resulting from verification activities is one indicator that there could be an underlying problem with the school food authorities certification actions. It may show, for example, areas where the school food authority needs technical assistance on certain application procedures. However, it is important that school food authorities and State agencies continue to do as much as possible to ensure that eligible children are not inadvertently hindered from receiving their appropriate level of benefits due to the procedures of the school food authority or State agency. The corrective action and technical assistance required by this rulemaking is not directed toward the verification termination rate per se, but rather toward other issues, such as ensuring that school food authorities are utilizing direct certification to its fullest, providing appropriate translations if there is a large foreign population, and/or providing appropriate follow-up to households when there is no response to a verification request.

The proposed regulation indicated that State agencies would collect the data on verification activities already completed by school food authorities in accordance with existing regulation at 7 CFR 245.6a(c). State agencies would then consolidate that information in a format designated by FNS. FNS is designing the format to minimize the burden on State agencies while still providing FNS with the data needed to formulate any additional measures to improve the certification and verification processes. We will be working with our cooperators prior to issuing the final format in order to obtain their input regarding the best manner to summarize the information from the school food authority level.

In order to help reduce the burden on State agencies, and to allow FNS to obtain the data in a timely and accurate form, State agencies must submit a consolidated electronic file to FNS that transmits the required verification information for all the school food authorities under its administration. The proposed rule required school food authorities to report certain verification information to the State agency on a form designated by FNS. FNS will also develop a prototype form, which specifies the data elements that must be collected from each school food authority and reported to FNS. FNS will not provide a mandatory form for school food authorities to report to their State agencies. State agencies may adopt this prototype form, or may develop their own paper or electronic reporting forms to collect this data from school food authorities, as long as all required data elements are collected from each school food authority. FNS will issue guidance for State agencies on the requirements and procedures for collecting school food authority data and transmitting it to FNS.

On January 11, 2001, the Department issued an interim regulation (66 FR 2195) to implement a provision of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, Public Law 106-224. An amendment to 7 CFR 245.2 in that regulation redesignated paragraph (a-3) “Documentation” as paragraph (a-4) and added a new paragraph (a-3) “Disclosure” in its place. The Department inadvertently neglected to amend sections 245.5 and 245.6 to remove the obsolete citation and add the new citation in its place. This rule corrects that error.

This proposed rule has been determined to be significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

A regulatory impact analysis of the rule identified that these provisions will place a small additional burden on school food authorities and State agency staff and budgets. However, the new effort required will be an extension of existing reporting, record keeping, analysis, and ameliorative action, therefore the budget cost of this rule will be minimal. The analysis also indicated that reporting activities for both school food authorities and State agencies would improve understanding of certification problems. As a result of data extraction activities, school food authorities may more closely understand and utilize the data from the completed verification activities. School food authorities will be more equipped to respond to problems that they identify themselves through the reporting activity. In addition, State agencies will be more equipped to provide technical assistance to the school food authorities. The analysis indicated that the data would help FNS to evaluate the efficacy of the existing application and verification processes and alternatives to those processes. Additional nationally representative data on the efficacy of these processes are necessary to guide FNS policy concerning over-certification.

This final rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Pursuant to that review, Eric M. Bost, Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, has certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. By requiring the reporting of verification information, this rule would result in critical information being gathered and enable State agencies and FNS to take measures that would increase the level of accountability of the NSLP. FNS does not anticipate any adverse fiscal impact resulting from implementation of this rulemaking. Although there may be some burdens associated with this rule, the burdens would not be significant and would be outweighed by the benefits to programs reporting the information to the State agency and FNS.

Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) Title II of UMRA establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, FNS generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires FNS to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. This rule is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

The National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.555 and 10.556. These programs are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials (7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V, and final rule related notice at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983).

Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories called for under section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has considered the impact of this rule on State and local governments and has determined that this rule does not have Federalism implications. This rule does not impose substantial or direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, under Section 6(b) of the Executive Order, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is intended to have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict with its provisions or which would impede its full implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect unless that is specified in the Effective Date section of the preamble. Before any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule or the application of its provisions, all administrative procedures that apply must be followed. The only administrative appeal procedures relevant to this rule are the hearings that schools must provide for decisions relating to eligibility for free and reduced price meals (7 CFR 245.7 for the NSLP and SBP, in schools).

Under USDA Regulation 4300-4, Civil Rights Impact Analysis, FNS has reviewed this final rule to identify and address any major civil rights impacts the final rule might have on minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. After a careful review of the rule's intent and provisions, FNS has determined that this final rule will not in any way limit or reduce participants ability to participate in the Child Nutrition Programs on the basis of an individual's or group's race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. FNS found no factors that would negatively and disproportionately affect any group of individuals.

The information collection burden for the general reporting requirements in place prior to this rule are approved under OMB Number 0584-0026. This rule contains burdens that were included in the burden estimate in the proposed rule, Determining Eligibility for Free and Reduced Price Meals in Schools—Verification Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, published on August 9, 2002 at 67 FR 51779. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the information reporting and recordkeeping requirements included in the proposed rule outlined the changes in the information collection burden. OMB accepted public comments on FNS' estimated reporting and recordkeeping burden. Commenters indicated that the proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements are too burdensome and the proposed estimated annual reporting and recordkeeping burden hours under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 are too low. We have reviewed the burden hours and have adjusted the estimate to account for the fact that there will be a significant disparity in the amount of time required to report the data elements based on the size of the school food authority. We have taken these different circumstances into consideration and have adjusted the burden hours as follows: School food authorities average burden hours have been increased from 16,342 to 32,684, an average of 2 hours per school food authority. State agency average burden hours are increased per response from 8 to 24. This results in an increase of the total annual burden hours from 432 to 1296 for State agencies. FNS is requesting approval of the data collection instruments from OMB in the near future. Implementation of the data collection elements of the rule is contingent upon OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

In compliance with GPEA, 44 U.S.C. 3504, the Food and Nutrition Service is committed to implementing electronic reporting and recordkeeping processes whenever it is feasible to help minimize information collection burdens on the public. The required data elements will be specified by FNS. State agencies may develop paper or electronic reporting forms to collect this data from school food authorities, as long as all required data elements are collected from each school food authority.

AMS published an interim final rule that changed peanut quality and handling standards for domestic and imported peanuts marketed in the United States. The interim final rule was issued under section 1308 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171; 7 U.S.C. 7958).

As published, the Minimum Quality Standards table (table) following paragraph (a) in § 996.31 contained several errors. The heading “Unshelled peanuts and damaged kernels and defects” should have read “ Unshelled peanuts and damaged kernels and minor defects”. Under that heading for No. 2 Virginia peanuts, the number 2.50 should have been 3.00. Also, in the type and grade category column of the table, the percentage of split kernels (not less than 90 percent splits) was not included for Spanish and Valencia peanuts. This notation should have been included to be consistent with the Runner and Virginia peanut variety listings for lots of “splits”. This correction document makes these changes.

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691-1691f, makes it unlawful for a creditor to discriminate against an applicant in any aspect of a credit transaction on the basis of the applicant's national origin, marital status, religion, sex, color, race, age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract), receipt of public assistance benefits, or the good faith exercise of a right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 et. seq. ). The ECOA is implemented by the Board's Regulation B.

On March 5, 2003, the Board published a final rule amending Regulation B (68 FR 13144) after a comprehensive review of the regulation. Appendix B contains model application forms, including joint Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae “Uniform Residential Loan Application” (Form 65/1003) for use in certain residential mortgage transactions. At the time the final rule was issued, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were in the process of revising Form 65/1003. This technical amendment to Regulation B replaces the prior version of Form 65/1003 with the new form that Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae have adopted. Creditors should continue to use the current model form until January 1, 2004.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 2000-20-09, amendment 39-11920 (65 FR 59703, October 6, 2000), which is applicable to certain Boeing Model 757 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2003 (68 FR 36499). The action proposed to continue to require modification of the nacelle strut and wing structure. The action also proposed to reduce a certain compliance time in the existing AD.

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

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

On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs). Because we have now included this material in part 39, only the office authorized to approve AMOCs is identified in each individual AD. However, for clarity and consistency in this final rule, we have retained the language of the NPRM regarding that material.

We have reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $60 per work hour to $65 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.

There are approximately 317 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 278 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. Since this AD will merely reduce the compliance time for certain actions required by AD 2000-20-09 (Service Bulletin 757-54-0036), it will add no additional costs, and will require no additional work to be performed by affected operators. The current costs associated with AD 2000-20-09 are reiterated in their entirety (as follows) for the convenience of affected operators:

It will take approximately 800 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required modification of the nacelle strut and wing structure described in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0034, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will be provided at no cost by the airplane manufacturer. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this required modification on U.S. operators is estimated to be $14,456,000, or $52,000 per airplane.

It will take approximately 26 work hours per airplane to accomplish the actions described in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0027, Revision 1, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will be provided at no cost by the airplane manufacturer. Based on these figures, the cost impact of these required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $469,820, or $1,690 per airplane.

It will take approximately 90 work hours per airplane to accomplish the actions described in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0036, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will be provided at no cost by the airplane manufacturer. Based on these figures, the cost impact of these required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,626,300, or $5,850 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2003 (68 FR 36504). That action proposed to require electrical conductivity testing to verify the correct heat treatment of the two half fittings holding the ejection jack for the ram air turbine (RAT).

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

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

Since issuing the proposal, we have reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $60 per work hour to $65 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.

The FAA estimates that 48 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,120, or $65 per airplane.

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

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

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

The FAA has received a report on a Gulfstream Model G-V series airplane of loss of aileron control authority on final approach during landing. Investigation revealed that the outboard balance weight of the left aileron had detached and was wedged between the aileron and the rear beam of the wing. Further investigation revealed that the attachment hardware (all nine fastener assemblies) for the balance weight was missing. Supporting data show that all the attachment hardware was not properly installed during assembly. Separation of the balance weights of the aileron could result in jamming of the pilot's aileron control system, subsequent loss of aileron control, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

We have reviewed and approved Gulfstream GV Customer Bulletin 104, dated June 9, 2003 (hereafter referred to as “the service bulletin”), which describes procedures for a one-time inspection of the balance weight installation of the left and right ailerons for correctly installed attachment components, and corrective action if necessary. The corrective action includes ensuring proper engagement of the self-locking nut by verifying that one to three threads of the screw/bolt are protruding, replacing any missing fasteners, and re-torqueing any loose fasteners. Accomplishment of the actions specified above is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. Although the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin describe procedures for recording and reporting compliance with the service bulletin, this AD does not require those actions.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, this AD requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.

The service bulletin refers only to an “inspection” of the balance weight installation of the left and right ailerons for correctly installed attachment components. We have determined that the procedures in the service bulletin should be described as a “general visual inspection.” Note 1 has been included in this AD to define this type of inspection.

On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs). Because we have now included this material in part 39, only the office authorized to approve AMOCs is identified in each individual AD.

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

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

Submit comments using the following format:

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

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

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2003-NM-190-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A319-131 and -132; A320-231, -232, and -233; and A321-131 and -231 series airplanes was published as a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on November 21, 2002 (67 FR 70192). That supplemental NPRM proposed to require installing new anti-swivel plates and weights on the engine fan cowl door latches and a new hold-open device.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. One commenter requests two changes and due consideration has been given to the comments received.

The commenter asks that the proposed AD be changed to delete the requirement to install new anti-swivel plates and weights on the engine fan cowl door latches. The commenter states that the additional weight on the latch handles has not been found to be useful in preventing undetected unlatched cowls because airline mechanics typically re-latch the latch handle to the hook after opening the engine fan cowl door to avoid being hit on the head. If re-latched, the weight on the handle acts as a counterweight, and the handle swings into the flush position, which causes the handle to appear as stowed and locked.

The commenter also states that the new anti-swivel plates create a clearance problem with the drain lines and are only marginally more effective than the older-style anti-swivel plates. The commenter has found that the new anti-swivel plates are easily bent if the airline mechanic pulls the engine fan cowl door open using the latch handle. Once the plates are bent, they tend to hit and damage engine hardware, including wire harnesses, fire detectors, and drain lines, creating the potential for engine anomalies and in-flight engine shutdowns. Furthermore, the commenter states that the new anti-swivel plates cannot be installed on earlier model engines because the drain tube configuration is different. Prior to the installation of the new anti-swivel plates, the engines will have to be modified to include the new drain tube configuration, at significant cost to the operator.

The FAA does not concur with the request to delete the requirement to install new anti-swivel plates and weights on the engine fan cowl door latches. We have determined that, if the latches are not properly engaged, the new anti-swivel plates and weights both ensure that the latches will hang down farther than they did with the previous latch design, thus providing greater visibility of non-engaged latches. In addition, even if a mechanic re-latches the latch handle to the hook and the latch swings into the flush position during closing, the hold open device that is also required by this AD will provide a clear indication that the engine fan cowl doors are not closed and latched. Furthermore, the new anti-swivel plates prevent the hook from rising above the keeper ensuring that the hook and latch hang down if not properly engaged. Finally, Airbus has not received any reports of new anti-swivel plates that have been bent in production or in-service. We do agree that the new anti-swivel plates may create a clearance problem at the number 3 latch location on some older airplanes. We have coordinated with Airbus and the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile, the airworthiness authority for France, and they are aware of the potential clearance problem. Operators may request approval of an alternative method of compliance if any interference is discovered during accomplishment of this AD. We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

The same commenter asks that International Aero Engines Service Bulletin V2500-NAC-71-0227 not be included in this final rule. That service bulletin recommends the latch handles of the engine fan cowl doors be painted red. The commenter states that the paint is susceptible to screwdriver scratches and chips during opening of the engine fan cowl doors and is often covered with oil and grease. Furthermore, the commenter states that painting the latches would not increase the level of safety. The commenter also requests that definition be provided as to what percentage of the latch handles should be painted red to provide a minimum level of compliance.

We concur with the commenter. The proposed AD does not require operators to do the actions of International Aero Engines Service Bulletin V2500-NAC-71-0227. The proposed AD requires accomplishment of the actions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1028, dated March 23, 2001, which refers to International Aero Engines Service Bulletin V2500-NAC-71-0256, dated June 23, 1999, as an additional source of service information for accomplishment of the actions. Service Bulletin V2500-NAC-71-0256 recommends accomplishment of International Aero Engines Service Bulletin V2500-NAC-71-0227 as a concurrent service bulletin. It was not our intent to require accomplishment of Service Bulletin V2500-NAC-71-0227. Therefore, it is up to the operator to determine whether or not to incorporate Service Bulletin V2500-NAC-71-0227. A new Note 2 has been included in this final rule to clarify that accomplishment of Service Bulletin V2500-NAC-71-0227 is not required; and all subsequent notes have been renumbered accordingly.

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

On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. However, for clarity and consistency in this final rule, we have retained the language of the NPRM regarding that material.

We have reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $60 per work hour to $65 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.

The FAA estimates that 154 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

For certain airplanes, it will take approximately 5 work hours per airplane to accomplish the modification ( i.e., installation of new anti-swivel plates and weights), at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $1,400 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the modification required by this AD is estimated to be $1,725 per airplane.

For all airplanes, it will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the installation of the hold-open device, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $100 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $45,430, or $295 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 2001-08-28, amendment 39-12205 (66 FR 21077, April 27, 2001), which is applicable to certain Boeing Model 767 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2003 (68 FR 9951). The action proposed to continue to require revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document (767 Airworthiness Limitations Instructions (ALI)). The revision incorporates into the ALI certain inspections and compliance times to detect fatigue cracking of principal structural elements (PSE). The action also proposed to expand the applicability in the existing AD, and incorporate a new revision into the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the MPD Document.

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

One commenter has no issues with the proposed AD and is in the process of incorporating the actions into its Model 767 maintenance program.

One commenter notes that the requirements of AD 2001-08-28 are restated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the proposed AD, and the new requirements are stated in paragraphs (c) and (d) of the proposed AD. The commenter states that, since the intent of the proposed AD is for operators to incorporate the new requirements, paragraphs (c) and (d) should be clarified to specify that accomplishment of those paragraphs terminates the requirements specified in paragraphs (a) and (b). We agree with the commenter; however, paragraph (b) merely specifies that no alternative inspections or inspection intervals shall be approved unless an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) is approved, it does not contain any requirements. Therefore, paragraph (c) of this final rule has been changed for clarification to include the statement that accomplishment of paragraph (c) terminates the requirements in paragraph (a) of this AD.

Another commenter asks that paragraph (c) of the proposed AD be changed to clarify that Appendix B is part of Boeing Document D622T001, not D622T001-9. The commenter states that the current wording incorrectly specifies that Appendix B is part of Boeing Document D622T001-9. We agree with the commenter and have changed paragraph (c) of this final rule for clarification.

One commenter states that there has been no change to any airworthiness limitation inspection in the June 2000 revision of the MPD, so that revision is still a valid AMOC for the new requirements specified in the proposed AD. Therefore, the commenter suggests that paragraph (e)(3) of the proposed AD; which specifies that the procedures in Subsection B of Boeing Document D622T001-9, Revision June 2000, are not approved as AMOCs with paragraph (d) of this AD; be deleted.

We agree with the commenter. We have reviewed Revisions June 2000, February 2001, and October 2002, and find the only change to Subsection B, Section 9, is the language describing the requirement to reduce inspection intervals to match those in Section 8, once the inspection threshold is reached. All revisions contain the same inspections and are acceptable to use for accomplishment of the actions required. Therefore, we have deleted paragraph (e)(3) of this final rule, as well as the reference to paragraph (e)(3) that was specified in paragraph (e)(2) of the proposed AD.

One commenter, the manufacturer, asks that the Model 767-400 series be removed from the applicability specified in the proposed AD. The commenter states that the Model 767-400 is not an “official” type-certificated minor model, and the type certificate data sheet (TCDS) lists only the Model 767-400ER series. We agree with the commenter; as the TCDS specifies only the Model 767-400ER series, we have removed all references to the Model 767-400 series from this final rule accordingly.

One commenter states that the compliance time in the existing AD was three years from June 1, 2001, as specified in paragraph (a) of the proposed AD, whereas the compliance time in the new requirements, as specified in paragraph (c) of the proposed AD, is within 18 months after the effective date of the AD. The commenter asks that the compliance time for paragraphs (a) and (c) of the proposed AD be changed to allow one of two options. Option 1—The compliance time should be three years from the release date of the AD. Option 2—The compliance time should be three years from the release date of the AD for airplanes having line numbers 670 through 895 inclusive, and 18 months from the release date of the AD for airplanes having line numbers 1 through 669 inclusive. The commenter states that this will give operators more flexibility, while retaining the intent of the existing AD.

We do not agree with the commenter. The commenter provides no technical justification for changing the compliance time as requested. A compliance time of 18 months, rather than 3 years, for incorporating the latest revision of Subsection B, Section 9, of Boeing MPD Document D622T001-9 will ensure the continued safety of aging airplanes. In developing an appropriate compliance time for the actions required by this AD, the FAA considered not only the safety issues, but the manufacturer's recommendations, parts availability, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required actions within an interval paralleling normal scheduled maintenance for the majority of affected operators. In light of all of these factors, the FAA considers 18 months an appropriate compliance time wherein safety will not be adversely affected. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter asks that Revisions June 2000, February 2001, and October 2002 to Subsection B, Section 9, of Boeing Document D622T001-9 of the MPD be removed from paragraph (a) of the proposed AD. The commenter states that the existing AD only referenced Revision June 1997, and did not include the other revision levels specified in paragraph (a) of the proposed AD. The commenter adds that the other revisions may be approved as AMOCs for the existing AD.

We do not agree with the commenter. The revisions that have been added to paragraph (a) of this AD are alternate revisions that have been previously approved as AMOCs for the requirements in paragraph (a) of this AD, and are acceptable to use for accomplishment of the actions required. In addition, AMOCs have been granted for inspections of individual repairs and alterations that interfered with the inspections specified in Section 9 of Boeing MPD Document D622T001-9. The intent of paragraph (e)(2) of this final rule is to allow operators to continue to use those AMOCs for the accomplishment of the inspections in this final rule. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAAs airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and AMOCs. However, for clarity and consistency in this final rule, we have retained the language of the NPRM regarding that material.

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

There are approximately 884 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. We estimate that 393 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The actions that are currently required by AD 2001-08-28 take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions is estimated to be $60 per airplane.

The new actions that are required by this AD action will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the new requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $23,580, or $60 per airplane.

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

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

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

Section 1631(e)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (the Act) requires the Commissioner of Social Security to verify all relevant information provided regarding the eligibility of SSI applicants and recipients. Section 213 of the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, Public Law 106-169, amended section 1631(e)(1)(B) of the Act to grant the Commissioner new authority with respect to verifying financial accounts. Under section 213, the Commissioner may require each SSI applicant or recipient to provide us with permission to obtain any financial record (as defined in section 1101(2) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act) held by any financial institution (as defined in section 1101(1) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act) with respect to the applicant or recipient. This law also allows the Commissioner to require such permission from deemors ( i.e. individuals whose income and resources we consider as being available to the applicant or recipient).

This law requires us to tell you, or any other person whose income and resources we consider as being available to you, how we will use the permission and how long the permission lasts. It also allows us to request the information from financial institutions without furnishing a copy of the permission to the financial institution. We may request the information from financial institutions at any time we think it is needed to determine your eligibility or payment amount. Requests under this provision are considered to meet the requirements of the Right to Financial Privacy Act regarding identification and description of the financial record to be disclosed.

This law also allows us to deny your SSI eligibility or suspend your SSI eligibility if you, or any person whose income and resources we consider as being available to you, refuses to provide or cancels the permission.

The Commissioner is exercising her authority under section 213 of the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 by promulgating new rules to make giving permission to contact financial institutions a condition of SSI eligibility. Therefore, we are amending our regulations by adding a new section § 416.207 to explain that in order to receive SSI benefits, you must give us permission to contact any financial institution, and request any financial records that financial institution may have for you. The section further explains that the permission to contact financial institutions is required from anyone whose income and resources we consider as being available to you, unless there is good cause why the permission cannot be obtained. This section also explains that the permission to contact financial institutions lasts until one of the following terminating events occur:

(1) You cancel the permission in writing and provide the writing to us.

(2) The deemor cancels their permission in writing and provides the writing to us.

(3) The basis on which we consider a deemor's income and resources available to you ends, e.g. when spouses separate or divorce or a child attains age 18.

(4) Your application for SSI is denied, and the denial is final. A denial is final when made, unless you appeal the denial timely as described in §§ 416.1400 through 416.1499.

(5) You are no longer eligible for SSI as described in §§ 416.1331 through 416.1335.

This section explains that we will ask financial institutions for this information when we think that it is necessary to determine SSI eligibility and payment amount. This section defines a financial institution as any bank, savings bank, credit card issuer, industrial loan company, trust company, savings association, building and loan, homestead association, credit union, consumer finance institution, or any other financial institution as defined in section 1101(1) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act. The section also defines a financial record as an original of, a copy of, or information known to have been derived from any record held by the financial institution pertaining to your relationship with the financial institution.

In addition, we are revising current § 416.200 to add the new section § 416.207 as a reference, to redesignate current § 416.1321 as § 416.1320, and to add a new section § 416.1321, “Suspension for not giving us permission to contact financial institutions,” to Subpart M as a reason for suspending SSI benefits.

On May 2, 2002, we published proposed rules in the Federal Register at 67 FR 22021 and provided a 60-day period for interested parties to comment. We received comments from ten organizations and four individuals. Because some of the comments received were quite detailed, we have condensed, summarized or paraphrased them in the discussion below. We address all of the significant issues raised by the commenters that are within the scope of the proposed rules. We have made revisions to the proposed rules to address some of the concerns of the commenters.

Comment: Ten organizations submitted comments regarding the fact that deemors ( i.e. individuals whose income and resources we consider as being available to the applicant or recipient) are required to provide us with permission to obtain any financial record held by any financial institution with respect to the deemor as a condition of the applicant's or recipient's eligibility. Specifically, these organizations stated that we should provide a good cause exception for applicants and recipients who act in good faith to obtain the permission from the deemor, but are unable to do so through no fault of their own. In addition, six organizations stated that we should provide a good cause exception from this third party requirement for applicants and recipients who are victims of domestic violence. These organizations believe that it is improper to deny or suspend benefits because of the actions of a third party.

Response: After careful consideration, we have decided to include a limited good cause exception. We believe a good cause exception is warranted because it is consistent with our current policy. Good cause might exist in cases where the applicant or recipient cannot obtain permission from a deemor to access their financial records because the deemor is harassing, abusing, or endangering the life of the applicant or recipient. Good cause may also exist in cases where the applicant or recipient acts in good faith to obtain the permission from certain deemors, but is unable to do so through no fault of their own. We have revised §§ 416.207 (g) and 416.1321(a), and added § 416.207(h) to include the good cause exception. These provisions are consistent with our current policy regarding a third party's failure to cooperate.

In § 416.207(h)(3) we explain that good cause does not apply if certain deemors ( i.e. someone whose income and resources we consider as available to you) refuse to give us permission to access their financial records. It is our long-standing policy to deny an applicant benefits or suspend a recipient's benefits if the applicant or recipient's prospective or appointed representative payee, who is also the legal guardian or parent with custody of a minor child, or if an alien's sponsor or sponsor's living-with spouse, fails to provide requested information. In these situations, the legal guardian or custodial parent stands in the shoes of a legally incompetent individual. The sponsor of an alien likewise has taken on a special obligation with respect to the alien by signing an affidavit of support. It is these special legal statuses that distinguish these deemors from others.

Refusal on the part of a parent or legal guardian to comply with an authorization request from us is the same as the applicant or recipient themselves refusing to comply. In the sponsor's situation, a refusal to comply would be inconsistent with their obligation under the affidavit to support the recipient and could undermine the intent of the affidavit of limiting the expenditure of public funds. Thus, the good cause exception is not designed to address such situations, but instead is intended primarily for the situation of a married recipient whose uncooperative spouse lives in the same household but does not stand in the shoes of the recipient nor does the spouse have a delineated obligation of support. However, if a deemor as outlined in § 416.207(h)(3) refuses to provide us access to his or her financial records, we would not find good cause for such a refusal.

Comment: Two organizations submitted comments recommending that we revise our language when we refer to “anyone whose income and resources we consider as being available to you.” The organizations believe that it would be useful to insert language, which states that deeming situations are the only circumstances when third party permission will be required.

Response: While we did not adopt this suggestion, we made a clarification to show that the individuals in question are deemors. We believe the language used is appropriate and is consistent with the language in section 213 of the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999. In the background section we state that “individuals whose income and resources we consider as being available to the applicant or recipient” are deemors and the words “ i.e. deemors,” were inserted in § 416.207(a).

Comment: Two organizations stated that we should include a provision that states that the permission we obtain to access the financial records of third parties ( i.e. deemors) will terminate when deeming is no longer required.

Response: We are adopting this suggestion. The regulation states that “you must also provide us with permission from anyone whose income and resources we consider as being available to you, i.e. , deemors ( see §§ 416.1160, 416.1202, 416.1203, and 416.1204).” We have revised § 416.207(f) and added § 416.207(f)(3) to clarify that the permission we obtain to access the financial records of deemors will terminate when deeming is no longer required and to clarify that when a terminating event occurs, the permission to contact financial institutions is not invalidated for past periods. We have also made slight editorial changes to the language in §§ 416.207(a) and (g) for purposes of grammatical consistency.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed these final regulations in accordance with Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13258.

We certify that these final regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they affect only individuals. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required.

These final rules contain reporting requirements at § 416.207 and § 416.1321. We solicited comments on these requirements on May 2, 2002 in proposed rules published in the Federal Register at 67 FR 22021 and provided a 60-day period for interested parties to comment. Based on comments received, we have made revisions to the proposed rules to address some of the concerns of the commenters ( see Public Comments section). However, these revisions did not alter the reporting requirements imposed on the public in the final rule.

The public reporting burden is accounted for in the Information Collection Requests for the various forms that the public uses to submit the information to SSA. Consequently, a 1-hour placeholder burden is being assigned to the specific reporting requirement(s) contained in these rules. The forms used to collect this information will not change as a result of this rule.

An Information Collection Request has been submitted to OMB. We will publish a notice in the Federal Register upon OMB approval of the information collection requirement(s).

Background

On March 20, 2003, ATF published in the Federal Register an interim final rule (68 FR 13768) implementing the Safe Explosives Act (SEA) (Title XI, Subtitle C of Public Law 107-296). The SEA, among other things, requires that all persons receiving explosives on and after May 24, 2003, obtain a Federal license or permit, and creates a new type of permit, the “limited permit.” Except as otherwise provided, the interim rule became effective upon the date of publication in the Federal Register .

In the preamble of the interim rule, ATF stated that on and after May 24, 2003, all common or contract carriers taking possession of explosive materials for delivery to a Federal explosive licensee or permittee (including a limited permittee) must complete an ATF Form 5400.8 (Explosives Delivery Record) prior to taking possession of the explosive materials. Specifically, ATF required common or contract carriers to document and certify certain identifying information. ATF also required distributors to verify the identity of the driver and to provide information regarding the distributee. This form is required only when delivery occurs by common or contract carrier and is not dependent on whether the carrier is hired by the distributor or distributee. Regulations that implement these requirements are contained in 27 CFR 555.103(b)(3) and 555.105(b)(6)(iii) and (iv). The form is not required when employees of distributors or distributees make delivery.

The primary purpose of ATF Form 5400.8 is to require verification of the identity of employees of common or contract carriers taking possession of explosive materials. 68 FR at 13771. Under ATF's longstanding position since 1970, employees of common or contract carriers have been subject to prohibitions under 18 U.S.C. 842(i) proscribing the transportation, shipment, receipt, or possession of explosives by persons convicted of or under indictment for felony offenses, fugitives, substance abusers, and mental defectives. The SEA, among other things, expanded these categories of prohibited persons to include aliens (with limited exceptions), dishonorable dischargees, and renunciants. However, there is no authority in the SEA for ATF to conduct background checks on employees of common or contract carriers to ensure that such persons are not, for example, convicted felons, fugitives, or aliens. ATF believes that, absent background checks, ATF should collect information to properly document and verify identities of commercial drivers to reduce the potential for diversion to criminal or terrorist use.

On May 5, 2003, shortly after publication of ATF's interim rule, the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of Homeland Security promulgated three interim final rules generally exempting persons engaged in the commercial transportation of explosives from the application of 18 U.S.C. 842(i) while they are engaged in such transportation by motor carrier, water, and air. See 68 FR 23832 (Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT), 23844 (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, DOT), 23852 (Transportation Security Administration (TSA), DHS) (to be codified at 49 CFR). On June 9, 2003, DOT and TSA also published a notice that extended this exemption to persons engaged in the commercial transportation of explosives via rail (68 FR 34470).

Additionally, on February 3, 2003, TSA, then an agency of DOT, promulgated regulations effectively allowing aliens to transport, ship, receive, and possess explosives incident to and in connection with the commercial transport of explosives by motor carrier or rail into the United States from Canada. This rule generally exempted such persons from the general prohibitions of 18 U.S.C. 842(i)(5). See 68 FR 6083 (February 6, 2003) (to be codified at 49 CFR Part 1572).

As a consequence, upon publication of the DOT and TSA rules, certain employees of motor, water, air, and rail carriers are no longer subject to 18 U.S.C. 842(i) while they are engaged in the commercial transportation of explosives. Rather, these employees are subject to DOT and TSA security threat assessment standards. To evaluate relevant security threat assessments, DOT and TSA now collect specific information to ensure that employees of common or contract carriers transporting explosives do not pose a security threat. Thus, ATF finds that there is a significantly diminished need to collect similar information via the ATF Form 5400.8 to ensure that explosives are not placed in the hands of prohibited persons for possible diversion to criminal or terrorist use.

In addition, while not explicitly stated in the interim rule, ATF also collects certain information on ATF Form 5400.8 to enable tracing of explosives deliveries by a distributor to a common or contract carrier. For example, if a distributee reports a shipment of explosives as lost or stolen, ATF can request the ATF Form 5400.8 from the distributor in order to properly identify the trucking company and the name of the specific employee who initially picked up the explosives. ATF believes that this information, documenting the movement of explosives from the distributor to the carrier, assists in reducing possible diversion of explosives to criminal or terrorist use.

Since 1971, ATF has imposed certain identification requirements upon common or contract carrier employees. For example, ATF has required documentation of the name, resident address, and identifying information of common or contract carrier employees. ATF also has required information related to the employee's driver's license number and identification document. ATF has provided the employees the option, however, to omit the latter information if the driver was “known” to the distributor. In the interim rule, ATF strengthened these requirements to ensure that the driver's identity in each case was properly and adequately documented and verified. ATF believes that this additional information further assists in documenting explosives movement and reduces possible criminal or terrorist diversion.

Based on preliminary comments on the initial interim rule, ATF has concluded that some of the information required on the ATF Form 5400.8 is not needed to trace delivery of explosives to a common or contract carrier. In light of this conclusion, as well as the recent DOT/TSA interim rules, ATF finds that there is no longer a significant reason to collect all of the information required by the ATF Form 5400.8. ATF will continue to require that distributors verify the identity of persons accepting possession of explosive materials for common or contract carriers, and record the name of the common or contract carrier and the full name of the driver. However, ATF will no longer require that this information be recorded on the ATF Form 5400.8. Instead, ATF will allow distributors to record the information in their permanent records. Because all pertinent information will be recorded in a distributor's permanent records, ATF does not believe that the elimination of this form will result in diversion of explosive materials to criminal or terrorist use.

Distributors will be required to verify the identity of the person accepting possession for the common or contract carrier by examining such person's valid, unexpired driver's license issued by any State, Canada, or Mexico. Distributors must record the name of the common or contract carrier and the full name of the driver in the distributor's permanent records that are required by 27 CFR 555.121. Current regulations governing required records also mandate the recording of, among other things, the date of disposition. See, e.g. , 27 CFR 555.124(c)(1).

In the event of an ATF investigation of lost or stolen explosives, ATF has the statutory right to examine the permanent records of Federal explosives licensees and permittees without a warrant under 18 U.S.C. 843(f). Requiring distributors to record the full name of the driver and the name of the common or contract carrier in their permanent records will enable ATF to conduct a trace of explosive materials quickly and efficiently. Therefore, eliminating the Form 5400.8 will decrease the burden on distributors and common and contract carriers, yet the additional information required by that form still will be collected.

This interim final rule removes the procedures set forth in 27 CFR 555.103(b)(3) and 555.105(b)(6)(iii) and (iv), which require transactions among licensees, user permittees, and limited permittees, on and after May 24, 2003, involving delivery of explosive materials by a common or contract carrier, to utilize the ATF Form 5400.8, Explosives Delivery Record. Specifically, this interim final rule removes the procedures related to the use of Form 5400.8, thereby removing any requirement to use the form in any and all explosives transactions on and after May 24, 2003. This interim final rule requires that distributors of explosive materials verify the identity of the person accepting possession for the common or contract carrier by examining such person's valid unexpired driver's license issued by any State, Canada, or Mexico. In addition, distributors must record in the permanent records they are required to keep pursuant to 27 CFR 555.121 the name of the common or contract carrier and the full name of the driver. This rule also provides related clarification to § 555.103(b)(2)(ii).

This rule does not revise provisions related to the required use of ATF Form 5400.8 as described in 27 CFR 555.103(a)(1)(iv) (addressing use of the form in transactions among licensees and permittees prior to May 24, 2003) and in 27 CFR 555.105(a)(6) (addressing use of the form in distributions to nonlicensees and nonpermittees prior to May 24, 2003). The reasons for this are as follows:

(1) As ATF has explained in its internet postings, immediately after January 24, 2003, ATF suspended until further notice mandatory use of the revised ATF Form 5400.8, Explosives Delivery Record. ATF's internet posting required that, until May 24, 2003, the old form (in use since 1998) continue to be used in transactions as described on the form. See http://www.atf.gov/forms/pdfs/f54008old.pdf (ATF F 5400.8 (7-98)).

(2) On and after May 24, 2003, the new ATF Form 5400.8 was required to be used in transactions as described herein. See http://www.atf.gov/forms/pdfs/f54008may2003.pdf (ATF Form 5400.8, Revised May 2003).

(3) Upon the publication date of this rule, the form is not required in any transaction whatsoever.

Licensees and permittees who have completed ATF Forms 5400.8 prior to the effective date of this interim final rule should continue to maintain them as part of their permanent records in accordance with section 555.121.

The Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Therefore, a Regulatory Assessment is not required. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, the Attorney General has determined that this regulation does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

Because this rule eliminates the use of a particular form while maintaining the requirement that most of the information covered by the form be collected and retained elsewhere, its only effect is to lessen a small administrative burden. Therefore, the Attorney General has found it to be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to provide notice and seek prior public comment regarding this rule. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)-(c). Furthermore, because this rule merely constitutes relief from a restriction on certain transactions, it is not subject to the delayed-effective-date provision of the APA. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. The Attorney General has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although it removes a requirement that a government form be prepared and submitted, most of this information still must be recorded in the distributor's permanent records.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 804). This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. A copy of this interim rule, however, has been provided to the Small Business Administration for its review.

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

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting requirements inherent in a final/interim rule. The collections of information in this regulation have been approved by OMB under control numbers 1140-0079 and 1140-0075. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. The collections of information in this regulation are in 27 CFR 555.103 and 555.105. This rule decreases existing recordkeeping requirements for distributors of explosive materials and common and contract carriers by abolishing the use of ATF Form 5400.8, by limiting the information that distributors are required to record to the name of the common or contract carrier and the full name of the driver, and by allowing distributors to record such information in their permanent records rather than on a separate ATF form.

ATF is requesting comments on the interim regulations from all interested persons. ATF is also specifically requesting comments on the clarity of this interim rule and how it could be made easier to understand.

Comments received on or before the closing date will be carefully considered. Comments received after that date will be given the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closing date.

ATF will not recognize any material in comments as confidential. Comments may be disclosed to the public. Any material that the commenter considers to be confidential or inappropriate for disclosure to the public should not be included in the comment. The name of the person submitting a comment is not exempt from disclosure.

You may submit written comments by facsimile transmission to (202) 927-0506. Facsimile comments must:

• Be legible;

• Include your mailing address;

• Reference this document number;

• Be 8 1/2 ″ x 11″ in size;

• Contain a legible written signature; and

• Be not more than five pages long.

ATF will not acknowledge receipt of facsimile transmissions. ATF will treat facsimile transmissions as originals.

Any interested person who desires an opportunity to comment orally at a public hearing should submit his or her request, in writing, to the Director within the 30-day comment period. The Director, however, reserves the right to determine, in light of all circumstances, whether a public hearing is necessary.

Copies of this interim rule and the comments received will be available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at: ATF Reference Library, Room 6480, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226, telephone (202) 927-7890.

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

The author of this document is James P. Ficaretta; Firearms, Explosives and Arson; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Regulatory Information

On July 29, 2003, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Mississippi River, Iowa and Illinois in the Federal Register (68 FR 44506). We received no comment letters on the proposed rule. 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 . Hundreds of foot race participants will cross the bridge during the effective period of this rule. As a matter of public safety, it is essential that the bridge remain in the closed to navigation position during the effective period.

The Department of the Army Rock Island Arsenal requested a temporary change to the operation of the Rock Island Railroad & Highway Drawbridge across the Upper Mississippi River, Mile 482.9 at Rock Island, Illinois to allow the drawbridge to remain in the closed to navigation position for a four hour period while a foot race is run across the drawbridge. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft that will be minimally impacted by the limited closure period of four hours. Presently, the draw opens on signal for passage of river traffic. The Rock Island Arsenal requested the drawbridge be permitted to remain closed-to-navigation from 7:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. on Sunday, September 28, 2003.

The Coast Guard received no comment letters. No changes will be made to this final rule.

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

The Coast Guard expects that this temporary change to operation of the Rock Island Railroad & Highway Drawbridge to have minimal economic impact on commercial traffic operating on the Upper Mississippi River. This temporary change has been written in such a manner as to allow for minimal interruption of the drawbridge's regular operation.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will be in effect for only 4 hours early on a Sunday morning, and the Coast Guard expects the impact of this action to be minimal.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 common on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-800-REG-FAIR (1-800-734-3247).

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 affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not 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 would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. Paragraph 32(e) excludes the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges from the environmental documentation requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Since this regulation would alter the normal operating conditions of the drawbridge, it falls within this exclusion. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

On July 18, 2003 (68 FR 42657), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed to redesignate the Liberty Borough area of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the Liberty Borough area) from nonattainment to attainment for the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 microns (PM 10 ) and also proposed approval of a maintenance plan for the Liberty Borough area as a SIP Revision. The formal SIP revision along with the redesignation request was submitted by PADEP on behalf of the ACHD on October 28, 2002. Other specific requirements of this action pertaining to the redesignation of the Liberty Borough area to attainment for the PM 10 NAAQS and approval of the maintenance plan as a SIP revision, and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

EPA is redesignating the Liberty Borough area of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania from nonattainment to attainment for the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 microns (PM 10 ) and is also approving a maintenance plan for the Liberty Borough area as a SIP Revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.

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 (Public Law 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 . This rule 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 November 10, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule which redesignates the Liberty Borough area to attainment for PM 10 and approves a maintenance plan for the Liberty Borough area 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).)

EPA has established an official docket for this action. The official docket consists of the petition submitted by SPSA/Onyx, the results of a risk assessment which evaluates the potential impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. The official docket for this action is kept in a paper format, and is maintained at the address in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.

On June 18, 2003, we proposed to grant a petition submitted by SPSA/Onyx to exclude (or delist) from the definition of hazardous waste on a one-time basis, a combustion ash previously generated at the SPSA Power Plant in Portsmouth, Virginia, which is currently located at the SPSA Regional Landfill in Suffolk, Virginia. Today we are finalizing the decision to grant a conditional exclusion as described in the June 18, 2003, proposed rule.

A delisting petition is a formal request from a generator asking EPA to exclude a specific waste from the lists of hazardous waste contained in the RCRA regulations, because the generator believes that its waste should not be considered hazardous.

In order for a petition to succeed, a petitioner must first show that a waste generated at its facility does not meet any of the criteria for which the waste was listed. The criteria which we use to list wastes are found in 40 CFR 261.11. An explanation of how these criteria apply to a particular waste is contained in the background document for that listed waste.

In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate that the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics defined in subpart C of 40 CFR part 261 ( i.e. , ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity), and must present sufficient information for us to determine whether any other factors (including additional constituents) warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.

A generator remains obligated under RCRA to confirm that its waste remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics defined in subpart C of 40 CFR part 261, even if EPA has delisted its waste.

Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, a generator may petition EPA to remove its waste from hazardous waste regulation by excluding it from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR part 261, subpart D. Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through 266, 268 and 273 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a “generator-specific” basis from the hazardous waste lists.

A petitioner must provide sufficient information to allow EPA to determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of the criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In addition, the Administrator must determine that the waste is not hazardous for any other reason.

SPSA is the regional solid waste management agency for southeastern Virginia, where it operates a resource recovery facility consisting of a Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Plant and a Power Plant, and a disposal facility consisting of a Regional Landfill.

Onyx Environmental Services is a company that provides a wide range of environmental services to other companies. These services include hazardous and non-hazardous waste management.

On April 7, 2003, SPSA/Onyx petitioned EPA to exclude on a one-time basis a combustion ash generated at SPSA's waste-to-energy facility in Portsmouth, Virginia. The ash which is the subject of this petition is currently located at SPSA's Regional Landfill in Suffolk, Virginia. The total volume of the subject combustion ash at the Regional Landfill was determined by SPSA/Onyx to be 1410 cubic yards.

The ash was produced by the routine combustion of a batch of municipal and commercial solid waste which was processed in SPSA's RDF plant and burned in SPSA's Power Plant in Portsmouth, Virginia. Due to a shipping error, a small amount of this waste consisted of materials containing the spent non-halogenated solvent, methyl ethyl ketone (EPA Hazardous Waste Number F005). See the June 18, 2003, Federal Register , (68 FR 36528) for more details.

In the June 18, 2003 Federal Register , we described how a portion of the combustion ash had been used as daily cover in the Regional Landfill before SPSA was notified that the ash was subject to regulation as a hazardous waste. Furthermore, we stated that the area of the Landfill where the combustion ash was used as cover was cordoned off and that operations were suspended in this area. While this statement was true at the time that the petition was submitted, we have since been informed by SPSA that the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has allowed operations to resume in this portion of the Landfill. However, the area in which the subject combustion ash is located has been marked in case removal of the ash is required. The resumption of operations does not impact the results of EPA's evaluation of the risks associated with management of this waste.

In order to support the petition, SPSA/Onyx submitted detailed information related to the shipments of materials received for destruction at SPSA's Power Plant and detailed analytical results from representative samples of the ash obtained by SPSA/Onyx on October 15, 2002, and January 28, 2003.

SPSA/Onyx petitioned EPA to exclude or delist on a one-time basis, the 1410 cubic yards of combustion ash currently located at the SPSA Regional Landfill because SPSA/Onyx believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for which it was listed as a hazardous waste, nor does it exhibit any characteristic of a hazardous waste. SPSA/Onyx also believes that the waste does not contain other constituents in concentrations that would cause it to be hazardous.

Review of this petition included consideration of the original listing criteria, as well as factors (including additional constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed, as required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 to RCRA. See, section 3001 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(a)(1) and (2).

On June 18, 2003, we proposed to conditionally exclude SPSA/Onyx's combustion ash from the list of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31, and requested public comment on the proposed rule. For reasons stated in both the proposed rule and this document, we believe that SPSA/Onyx's combustion ash should be excluded from hazardous waste regulation.

This exclusion applies only to the estimated 1410 cubic yards of ash currently located at the SPSA Regional Landfill as described in SPSA/Onyx's petition. No ash other than the ash described in this petition could be managed as nonhazardous waste under this exclusion.

SPSA/Onyx state in their petition that the waste, if delisted, will remain at the SPSA Regional Landfill. However, as a matter of policy, EPA does not specify a specific location for disposal of a delisted waste, only that it be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill. In order to adequately track wastes that have been delisted, in the event that a decision is made to dispose of all or part of the ash off-site, we will require that SPSA/Onyx provide a one-time notification to any State regulatory agency to which or through which the delisted waste will be transported for disposal at least sixty (60) calendar days prior to commencing these activities.

This rule is effective September 11, 2003. HSWA amended section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become effective in less than six months when the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the case here because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes. For these same reasons, this rule can and will become effective immediately (that is, upon publication in the Federal Register ) under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

Because EPA is issuing today's exclusion under the Federal RCRA delisting program, only States subject to Federal RCRA delisting provisions would be directly affected. This would exclude two categories of States: States having a dual system that includes Federal RCRA requirements and their own requirements, and States which have received EPA's authorization to make their own delisting decisions. We describe these two situations below.

We allow states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's under section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a Federally-issued exclusion from taking effect in the State, or that prohibits a Federally-issued exclusion from taking effect in the State until the State approves the exclusion through a separate State administrative action. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal and State programs) may regulate a petitioner's waste, we urge petitioners to contact the applicable State regulatory authorities or agencies to establish the status of their waste under that State's program.

We have also authorized some States to administer a delisting program in place of the Federal program; that is, to make State delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not necessarily apply within those authorized States. If SPSA/Onyx transports the petitioned waste to, or manages the waste in, any State with delisting authorization, SPSA/Onyx must obtain delisting approval from that State before it can manage the waste as nonhazardous in that State.

We received public comments on the June 18, 2003, proposed exclusion from one individual in Portsmouth, Virginia.

Comment: The solvent rags were incorrectly classified as a spent solvent waste (F005), and, therefore, are not hazardous waste. In order to be a F005 listed waste, the spent solvent would have to contain any concentration of the solvents specified in the F005 listing, and contain at least 10 percent by volume of any of the solvents listed in F001, F002, F003, or F004. A solvent consisting of 100 percent methyl ethyl ketone would not be considered an F005 listed waste.

Response: The commenter incorrectly reads the spent solvent listings. On May 19, 1980, EPA promulgated the first phase of the hazardous waste regulations including the spent solvent listings (Hazardous waste nos. F001-F005) ( See 40 CFR 261.31). These listings applied only to spent solvents resulting from the use of individual solvents that were technical grade or in pure form, and the still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents. EPA soon recognized that limiting the universe of the spent solvent listings to wastes resulting from the use of only single ingredient solvents created a regulatory loophole by allowing wastes resulting from the use of mixtures containing one or more of the listed solvents to remain unregulated. In the final rule published in the Federal Register on December 31, 1985 (50 FR 53315), EPA amended these listings to include spent solvents resulting from the use of solvent mixtures or blends which contained, before use, 10 percent or more total listed solvent by volume in addition to spent solvents resulting from the use of listed single ingredient solvents. Therefore, the current listings for spent solvents (such as the F005 listing) apply to the following three (3) categories: spent solvents resulting from the use of individual (single ingredient) listed solvents that are technical grade or in pure form, spent solvents resulting from the use of solvent mixtures or blends which contain, before use, 10 percent or more total listed solvent by volume, and still bottoms from the recovery of any of these spent solvents.

Comment: The commenter noted that although lead and chromium were present in detectable concentrations in the total constituent analysis, they were not present above the reporting limit when the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) analysis was performed on this waste. The commenter theorized that the presence of iron in the combustion ash was masking the TCLP analysis for lead and chromium, and requested that EPA require that the ash be analyzed for total iron concentration.

Response: After careful consideration, we have decided not to ask SPSA/Onyx to collect additional samples for iron analysis. There are a number of factors that affect the leaching potential of inorganic constituents. Among them are the pH, redox conditions, liquid-to-solid ratio, and solubility. While the addition of iron in the form of fines, filings, or dust, may temporarily retard the leaching of lead, it does not provide long-term treatment. Therefore, EPA determined that this practice constitutes “impermissible dilution” when done for the purpose of achieving a treatment standard for lead under the land disposal restrictions regulations. ( See 40 CFR 268.3(d)).

However, this is not the case at SPSA's waste-to-energy facility where SPSA aggressively removes ferrous (and aluminum) metals from the waste stream. Large pieces of metal are manually removed from the waste stream both at SPSA's transfer stations and on the tipping floor of the RDF Plant. Then, a system of magnets removes the small ferrous metal items from the waste stream prior to it being sent to the power plant for combustion, thereby significantly reducing levels of iron in the combustion ash. SPSA performs TCLP metals analysis on the ash generated by its waste-to-energy facility on a quarterly basis.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a rule of general applicability and therefore is not a “regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Because this action is a rule of particular applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), or to sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because the rule will affect only one facility, it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in section 203 of UMRA, or communities of Indian tribal governments, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). For the same reason, this rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. 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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability.

Section 9004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6991c, authorizes EPA to approve state underground storage tank programs to operate in lieu of the Federal UST program. EPA may approve a state program if the Agency finds pursuant to RCRA section 9004(b), 42 U.S.C. 6991c(b), that the state's program is “no less stringent” than the Federal program in all seven elements set forth at RCRA section 9004(a) (1) through (7), 42 U.S.C. 6991c(a)(1) through (7), meets the notification requirements of RCRA section 9004(a)(8), 42 U.S.C. 6991c(a)(8), and also provides for adequate enforcement of compliance with UST standards in accordance with RCRA section 9004(a), 42 U.S.C. 6991c(a).

On November 25, 2002, Pennsylvania submitted to EPA a complete program application, in accordance with 40 CFR part 281, seeking authorization of its UST program. On January 3, 2003, EPA published a proposed rule announcing its tentative determination to approve Pennsylvania's UST program. EPA announced that the proposed rule was subject to a thirty-day public comment period. The public comment period ended on February 13, 2003. Further, EPA stated that if it received adverse comments on its intent to authorize Pennsylvania's UST program, it would subsequently publish a final determination responding to such comments and announce its final decision as to whether or not to authorize Pennsylvania's program. EPA received adverse written comments during the public comment period. Today's action responds to those adverse public comments EPA received and announces EPA's final determination to approve Pennsylvania's UST program.

Two parties submitted written comments regarding EPA's tentative approval of Pennsylvania's UST program during the 30-day public comment period. One party requested that EPA conduct a public hearing, but later withdrew that request. A third party submitted comments and requested a public hearing after the close of the comment period. EPA had already taken steps to cancel the tentatively scheduled public hearing and, as a result, no public hearing was held on EPA's tentative determination to approve Pennsylvania's UST Program. All three sets of comments EPA received questioned EPA's tentative decision to approve the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's UST program asserting that Pennsylvania does not provide for adequate public participation.

Collectively, the three parties submitting comments asserted that Pennsylvania's UST program has deficiencies in three areas: (1) Public notification of releases from USTs, (2) public participation in UST cleanup activities, and (3) public involvement in UST enforcement cases initiated by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). EPA's responses to each of these comments are set forth below. EPA has determined that none of the concerns raised warrants disapproval of Pennsylvania's UST program.

All three parties asserted that Pennsylvania's UST Program does not meet the federal requirements for state program approval at 40 CFR 281.35(f) regarding public notification of UST releases. This regulation provides as follows: “ In accordance with § 280.67, the state must notify the affected public of all confirmed releases requiring a plan for soil and ground water remediation, and upon request provide or make available information to inform the interested public of the nature of the release and the corrective measures planned or taken.”

The referenced regulation at 40 CFR 280.67(a) states the following: “For each confirmed release that requires a corrective action plan, the implementing agency must provide notice to the public by means designed to reach those members of the public directly affected by the release and the planned corrective action. This notice may include, but is not limited to, public notice in local newspapers, block advertisements, public service announcements, publication in a state register, letters to individual households, or personal contacts by field staff.”

One of the parties noted as follows: “The Commonwealth acknowledges in the General Counsel and Attorney General Verification and Legal Statement included with the application that EPA does not believe notifying the municipality satisfies the objective of §§ 281.35(f) and 280.67 to 'notify the affected public'.” Two of the commenters expressed their concern about Pennsylvania using the State Program Approval Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with EPA to address an inadequate public notification process for UST releases, which they perceive as a “flaw” or “deficiency” in Pennsylvania's UST Program.

During the review of Pennsylvania's UST Program, EPA did discuss public notification procedures for UST releases with PADEP. In its assessment, EPA recognized that, in accordance with § 245.305(e) of Pennsylvania's UST regulations, owners and operators are required to inform the Commonwealth and affected municipalities of confirmed releases. EPA believes this is a suitable first step toward public notification, because once local and state governments are informed, they can subsequently take steps to notify the affected public. During its review, EPA asked PADEP to clarify how such notification to the state would result in notification of the public directly affected by UST releases. EPA recognized that, pursuant to § 245.305(g) of Pennsylvania's rules, PADEP may “implement reasonable procedures to provide the public with appropriate information.” For the purpose of state program approval, PADEP has the legal authority to notify the affected public of UST releases. However, EPA recognized that this authority provided PADEP with a certain discretion of the type contemplated when EPA published its original UST regulations at § 280.67 on September 23, 1988 ( see 53 FR 37180-37181). Specifically, EPA noted in the preamble to its regulations that “* * * mandating public participation for all CAPs ( Corrective Action Plans ) could divert implementing agency resources from other cleanup activities such as oversight of ongoing cleanup operations.” The preamble went on to say: “EPA agrees with the party who urged that implementing agencies strike a balance between the involvement of the public and the sometimes competing need to protect human health and the environment through quick and effective responses to an UST release. To acknowledge these sometimes conflicting objectives, the final rule for public participation establishes a flexible approach that ensures public access to available information on UST cleanups, although the public need not be involved, as a matter of routine, in all CAPs.”

During EPA's evaluation of the Commonwealth's UST program, PADEP described to EPA that it intended to exercise its discretion to notify the public about UST releases by posting relevant information on the internet. Although the internet was not in existence at the time EPA published its regulations in 1988, today, EPA believes the internet is a powerful and effective mechanism for providing the public with information. EPA believes that providing public access to information about UST releases on the internet is a means designed to reach those members of the public directly affected by the release and the planned corrective action. The internet has revolutionized how the public can gain access to all kinds of information. The internet can be accessed from home, at work, at school, and at local libraries. Information on the internet can be updated more easily, timely and cost-effectively than printed publications. One party who provided comments on EPA's proposed state program approval decision stated that he: “* * * supports the use of the internet to educate and inform the public about DEP's regulatory programs and the status of confirmed releases and planned cleanups* * *” PADEP and EPA have dedicated significant resources to provide the public with timely and comprehensive information about their numerous programs through the internet. Recognizing the need for PADEP to balance its responsibilities to clean up expeditiously UST releases and inform the public, EPA and PADEP used the MOA to specify and clarify how PADEP will exercise its discretion in striking this balance and to acknowledge formally PADEP's commitment to internet notification of UST releases. EPA does not believe that use of the MOA to describe Pennsylvania's approach to public notification is intended to “fix” a flaw or deficiency in Pennsylvania's UST program, but rather the MOA is an appropriate means to define how PADEP will exercise its responsibilities, within its discretion and authorities, to notify the public of UST releases under an EPA-authorized UST program.

To establish specific provisions in the MOA to define appropriate public notification, EPA and PADEP relied on provisions of 40 CFR 280.67(a). Therefore, the MOA provides the following commitments: “In addition to placing notices of confirmed releases requiring corrective action on its internet site, DEP agrees to use additional mechanisms to notify the affected public of those releases, which may have the potential to cause a more immediate or serious risk to public health and the environment. Furthermore, DEP agrees to use additional methods of public notification and outreach as a particular situation may warrant. Pursuant to 40 CFR 280.67 (Public Participation), such notices may include, but are not limited to, public notice in local newspapers, block advertisements, public service announcements, publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, letters to individual households, and/or personal contacts by field staff.” Having drawn the provisions for the MOA directly from EPA's regulations, EPA is satisfied that PADEP's authorities and procedures for public notification of UST releases, as prescribed in the MOA, meet the requirements for state program approval found at 40 CFR 281.35(f).

On a separate but related point, one commenter referenced RCRA section 9004(a) stating that RCRA enumerates “* * *criteria that a State Program must meet in order to receive delegation of authority.” EPA points out that, beyond the federal regulations discussed extensively above, section 9004 of RCRA does not include any independent requirements for States to include public notification in their UST Programs in order to be approved by EPA.

The commenter who supported using the internet to inform the public did note, however, that, the internet “* * * is no substitute for direct notice by DEP to the affected public.” EPA points out, however that neither RCRA nor its implementing regulations requires “direct notice to the affected public.” These regulations state that notice to the public must be designed “* * * to reach those members of the public directly affected by the release and the planned corrective action” but not necessarily by a direct (or personal) notice as was suggested by the commenter.

One commenter expressed a concern over a failed attempt to access PADEP's information about a particular fuel distribution facility via the internet and questioned the effectiveness of PADEP's internet notification process. EPA is aware that PADEP had experienced some technical difficulties with its Web site and Internet access while efforts were underway to upgrade its system. Such temporary difficulties with gaining access to electronic data systems during maintenance activities are not uncommon. In May and August 2003, EPA Region III accessed PADEP's Web site and determined site accessibility, as well as the scope and content of site information about UST releases, to be complete and acceptable for public notification purposes.

The final comment regarding inadequate public notification of UST releases asserted that federal regulations require “the affected public be notified of all confirmed releases.” EPA disagrees, since EPA's state program approval regulations do not require state programs to have provisions to notify the public of all confirmed releases, only those requiring a plan for soil and ground water remediation. See 40 CFR 281.35(f) which states that “In accordance with § 280.67, the state must notify the affected public of all confirmed releases requiring a plan for soil and ground water remediation * * *” (emphasis added).

Summary: With respect to public comments alleging deficiencies in Pennsylvania's program regarding public notification of UST releases, EPA has determined that Pennsylvania's UST program, as described in its State Program Approval Application, provides for adequate notification procedures to inform the public about confirmed UST releases requiring a plan for remediation. PADEP's reliance on the internet to post information on UST releases has been determined by EPA to be an acceptable means of informing the public.

The second set of concerns voiced by all three commenters related to the public's inability to be informed about, and to participate in, corrective measure activities. With regard to concerns about “public notification” of planned corrective measure activities, EPA refers to its previous discussion which addresses this issue. The MOA commits PADEP to maintain on its internet site the status of all corrective measures planned or taken, and PADEP agrees to make information available to the public, upon request, about the nature of identified releases and corrective measures planned or taken.

With regard to public participation in the corrective action process, EPA notes that its regulations focus on public notification, yet rely on state administrative procedures to provide the public the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process associated with cleaning up UST releases. The preamble to EPA's September 23, 1988 UST regulations (53 FR 37233) states, “EPA does not intend to prescribe the nature and extent of the public involvement procedures to be followed by the state. Rather, EPA's intention is that a forum be provided that is in keeping with the state's administrative procedures for the interested public to express its views on the proposed corrective actions for serious (emphasis added) UST releases.” The preamble goes on to say that this objective is intended to be met by ensuring states provide for open access to information on UST releases and planned corrective actions. Pennsylvania's UST program meets this obligation by providing for the public availability of this information. The MOA is PADEP's assurance that such information will be available via the internet for notification purposes, and more detailed information on site activities will be made available upon public request. PADEP has also agreed in the MOA to expand its method of public notification and involvement activities, as particular situations may warrant, specifically in those instances where releases may have the potential to cause an immediate or “serious risk” to public health and the environment. EPA believes there is adequate opportunity for the public to be notified of UST releases and to participate in UST cleanup activities.

Summary: EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's UST authorities and PADEP's commitment in the MOA to provide for public notification of UST releases and public access to related information. Based on EPA's State Program Approval regulations and relevant preamble language which rely on a state's own administrative procedures for the interested public to express its views on proposed corrective actions, EPA has determined that Pennsylvania's UST program meets EPA's state program approval requirements for public notification and public involvement regarding UST releases and their cleanups.

The third area on which EPA received comments related to public participation in Pennsylvania's enforcement process. One commenter questioned whether the Commonwealth's program meets the state program approval requirements of 40 CFR 281.42 (“Requirements for public participation”), which provides that “Any state administering a program must provide for public participation in the state enforcement process by providing any one of the following three options : (emphasis added) (a) Authority that allows intervention analogous to Federal Rule 24(a)(2), and assurance by the appropriate state enforcement agency that it will not oppose intervention under the state analogue to Rule 24(a)(2) on the ground that the applicant's interest is adequately represented by the State. (b) * * * (c) * * *” The Commonwealth chose the option set forth in 40 CFR 281.42(a) to support its State Program Approval Application. The party submitting the comments stated that “* * * it is not clear how the affected public is supposed to receive notice when such actions are taken so they may decide whether to exercise their right to intervene” and suggested that the Commonwealth * * * should be required to publish notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin whenever a formal enforcement action is commenced and when it is resolved.”

In its application for program approval, the Commonwealth provided an explanation of how its authorities meet the requirements of 40 CFR 281.42(a), but it did not discuss any procedures it may have for public notice of enforcement actions. Such notice is not required for state program approval, as such notice is not a component of Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the lack of a provision in Pennsylvania's regulations to provide for public notice of enforcement actions and the absence of a related discussion in Pennsylvania's UST State Program Approval Application are not valid reasons for EPA to disapprove Pennsylvania's UST Program.

Summary: Since PADEP is not required to provide for, or explain in its State Program Approval Application, how the public is notified about enforcement actions initiated by the state, EPA has determined that this is no basis for disapproving Pennsylvania's UST program.

Conclusion: Based on the above responses to all of the adverse comments received, EPA sees no basis for disapproving Pennsylvania's UST program pursuant to 40 CFR part 281 and is hereby proceeding with a final determination to approve Pennsylvania's UST program.

This rule will only approve State underground storage tank requirements pursuant to RCRA Section 9004 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by State law ( see Supplementary Information, section A. Background). Therefore, this rule complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning Review —The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from its review under Executive Order 12866. 2. Paperwork Reduction Act —This rule will not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 3. Regulatory Flexibility Act —After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act —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. 5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism —Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule because it will not have federalism implications ( i.e. , 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). 6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments —Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule because it will not have tribal implications ( i.e. , substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes). 7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health & Safety Risks —This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant and it is not based on health or safety risks. 8. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use —This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. 9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act —EPA approves State programs as long as they meet criteria required by RCRA, so it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, in its review of a State program, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that meets the requirements of RCRA. Thus, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advance Act does not apply to this rule. 10. Congressional Review Act —EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other information required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ) to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action will be effective September 11, 2003.

The Office of the Managing Director wishes to make the following correction in our recently released Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2003, Report and Order (68 FR 48445 (August 13, 2003). The corrections are as follows:

1. On page 48466, in the third column of § 1.1152, the fee amounts in the first four entries, in the second column of the table, immediately following the 220 MHz Nationwide heading is corrected to read $10.00 instead of $5.00.

This is a summary of the Order in CC Docket Nos. 95-185 and 96-98, and WT Docket No. 97-207, FCC 03-215, adopted on August 27, 2003, and released on September 3, 2003. The complete text of this Order is available on the Commission's website in the Electronic Comment Filing System and for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. A copy of the Order may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

1. On February 2, 2000, Sprint PCS filed a letter and legal memorandum requesting that the Commission confirm and clarify Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers' entitlement to reciprocal compensation for all the additional costs of switching or delivering to mobile customers “local traffic originated on other networks.” On April 27, 2001, in the context of seeking comment on a unified intercarrier compensation scheme, the Commission issued the Unified Intercarrier Compensation Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 66 FR 28410, (May 23, 2001), which, among other things, reviewed and sought comment on the application of its current orders and rules regarding asymmetric reciprocal compensation to Local Exchange Carrier (LEC)-CMRS interconnection.

2. On May 9, 2001, WTB and WCB responded to the Sprint PCS Letter, relying on clarifications of the reciprocal compensation rules in the NPRM. The Joint Letter stated that, based on the language of section 252(d)(2)(A) of the Communications Act, CMRS carriers are entitled to the opportunity to demonstrate that their termination costs exceed those of ILECs, that the “equivalent facility” language of § 51.701(c) and (d) of the Commission's rules does not require that wireless network components be reviewed on the basis of their relationship to wireline network components or bar a CMRS carrier from receiving compensation for the additional costs that it incurs in terminating traffic on its network if those costs exceed the ILEC's costs, and that if a CMRS carrier can demonstrate that the costs associated with spectrum, cell sites, backhaul links, base station controllers and mobile switching centers vary, to some degree, with the level of traffic that is carried on the wireless network, a CMRS carrier can submit a cost study to justify its claim to asymmetric reciprocal compensation that includes additional traffic sensitive costs associated with those network elements. The Joint Letter also stated that a CMRS carrier is entitled to the tandem interconnection rate under § 51.711(a)(3) of the Commission's rules if it can satisfy a comparable geographic area test, and need not also satisfy a functional equivalency test.

3. On June 8, 2001, SBC submitted an application for review of the Joint Letter contending that the Joint Letter could be read as establishing a broader definition of additional costs for CMRS networks than the Commission previously established for LEC networks and that the Joint Letter improperly read the functional equivalency test out of the rules for purposes of deciding whether a new entrant should be compensated at the tandem interconnection rate.

4. We reaffirm that, under the current rules, a CMRS carrier can seek a compensation rate that includes the traffic-sensitive costs associated with its network elements. We conclude that the Joint Letter correctly addressed the questions raised in the Sprint PCS request.

5. The Joint Letter correctly reflected the Commission's interpretation of section 252(d)(2)(A) of the Act in the Local Competition Order, 61 FR 47284, (September 6, 1996), in stating that, based on the language of section 252(d)(2)(A), carriers are entitled to recover all of their additional forward-looking costs of terminating traffic to the extent they demonstrate such costs. Further, § 51.711(b) of our rules expressly permits connecting carriers, including CMRS carriers, an opportunity to prove that their additional costs justify a higher rate than the rate charged by the incumbent LEC. Such additional costs must be established through a cost study using a forward-looking economic cost model.

6. The Joint Letter also correctly explained that the determination of the additional costs of terminating traffic over a wireless network element does not involve an inquiry into whether the wireless network element is “equivalent” to a recoverable wireline element. The term “equivalent facility” in §§ 51.701(c) and 51.701(d) of our rules was not intended to preclude the recovery by CMRS carriers of the “additional costs” of wireless components that might be regarded as functionally equivalent to wireline elements whose costs are non-recoverable, such as a wireline LEC's local loop. Rather, the term was used to ensure that the costs of non-LEC facilities would be included in transport and termination rates even if such facilities did not precisely track the network facilities architecture of a LEC. Thus, while equivalence does, in part, define what facilities are involved in the function of “termination,” it is simply not relevant to determining which of those terminating facilities imposes costs that can be recovered through reciprocal compensation charges.

7. We also conclude that our interpretation here does not apply a different standard of additional cost to CMRS carriers than the standard applicable to LECs. The “additional cost” standard applicable to both is whether an element is traffic-sensitive. In asserting that the Commission applied a different standard of recoverable costs in the Local Competition Order when it found that loop costs were not recoverable, SBC misconstrues the Commission's reasoning. The Commission excluded loop costs because it found that “[t]he costs of local loops and line ports associated with local switches do not vary in proportion to the number of calls terminated over these facilities' and concluded that “such non-traffic sensitive costs should not be considered “additional costs” when a LEC terminates a call that originated on the network of a competing carrier.” Because loop costs were excluded from “additional costs” on the basis of a finding of non-traffic sensitivity, we are not creating a different standard for CMRS carriers by permitting them to recover all costs that are traffic-sensitive.

8. We also find that the Joint Letter's interpretation of the tandem interconnection rate rule is correct. Section 51.711(a)(3) of our rules governs when the tandem interconnection rate is applicable, and requires only a comparable geographic area test to be met for a carrier to receive the tandem interconnection rate. SBC argues that § 51.711(a)(3) of our rules must be interpreted to require both a functional equivalence test and a comparable geographic area test based on discussion in the Local Competition Order addressing this issue. As the Joint Letter correctly noted, however, the Commission has previously addressed the import of this language in the NPRM, and stated that “although there has been some confusion stemming from additional language in the text of the Local Competition Order regarding functional equivalency, § 51.711(a)(3) is clear in requiring only a geographic area test.” We reaffirm this interpretation.

9. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and 47 CFR 1.115(c), the Application for Review filed by SBC Communications Inc. on June 8, 2001, is denied.

Effective October 1, 2003, each agency is required to have unique document numbers on contracts, BPA calls, and other procurement instruments. Document numbers must be unique within the agency and between agencies. The General Services Administration (GSA) has established a register of agency numbering schemes to assure they do not conflict. On May 21, 2003, the Assistant Administrator for Procurement approved a new numbering scheme to be used by NASA to comply with the GSA requirement. This final rule implements that scheme.

This final rule does not constitute a significant revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501 and Public Law 98-577, and publication for public comment is not required. However, NASA will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected NFS Part 1804 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements which require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

NAPSR is a non-profit association of officials from state agencies that participate with RSPA/OPS in the Federal pipeline safety regulatory program. RSPA/OPS asked NAPSR to review the hazardous liquid pipeline safety standards in 49 CFR part 195 and recommend any changes needed to make the standards more explicit, understandable, and enforceable. NAPSR compiled the results of its review in a report titled “Part 195 Project.”

The report includes 30 different recommendations for changes to Part 195, of which RSPA/OPS has adopted or proposed to adopt 18 in earlier rulemaking actions. In the Federal Register of September 6, 2002, RSPA/OPS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in which RSPA/OPS proposed to adopt five more recommendations (67 FR 56970). The NPRM also described the earlier actions and explained why RSPA/OPS had declined to adopt seven recommendations.

This section of the preamble summarizes the written comments RSPA/OPS received in response to the NPRM. It also describes how RSPA/OPS treated those comments in developing this Final Rule. If a proposed section is not mentioned, no significant comments were received on that section and RSPA/OPS is adopting it as final.

RSPA/OPS invited the public to comment by November 5, 2002, on proposed changes to five sections in Part 195: § 195.222, Welders: Qualification of welders; § 195.252, Backfilling; § 195.310, Records; § 195.403, Training; and § 195.434, Signs. The only comments RSPA/OPS received were from the Florida Department of Transportation ( FDOT) and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC).

FDOT was concerned that part 195 could be construed to supersede its more stringent requirements on backfilling and abandonment. For example, FDOT said it does not allow abandonment of utility facilities, whereas § 195.402(c)(10) permits operators to abandon pipelines under appropriate procedures. FDOT recommended that RSPA/OPS state in Part 195 that the part does not supersede state requirements unless those requirements are less stringent.

RSPA/OPS has not added this statement to part 195 because it may not be in accord with the preemption provisions of Federal pipeline safety law (49 U.S.C. 60104(c)). Those provisions prohibit state agencies from establishing any safety standards for interstate pipeline facilities. And although state agencies that meet certain requirements may establish additional or more stringent safety standards for intrastate pipeline facilities, the state standards must be compatible with the federal safety standards. The preemption provisions do not allow state agencies to establish less stringent safety standards for intrastate pipeline facilities. To say that Part 195 does not supersede state requirements unless they are less stringent would incorrectly imply that states may have safety standards for interstate pipeline facilities or may have less stringent standards for intrastate pipeline facilities. In addition, such a statement would incorrectly imply that Part 195 does not supersede a state agency's more stringent intrastate standards that are incompatible with Part 195.

Having said this, RSPA/OPS does not want to leave the impression that it considers FDOT's more stringent requirements on backfilling and abandonment to be inoperative in view of the Federal preemption provisions. As RSPA/OPS construes those provisions, they apply only to generally applicable state safety standards. They do not apply to safety requirements that a state or local agency may attach to specific construction permits as a condition of exercising the permit. It is in this vein that RSPA/OPS believes FDOT applies its more stringent requirements.

WUTC generally supported the NPRM, but made specific comments on the backfilling standard proposed in § 195.252. RSPA/OPS proposed that backfilling must provide firm support under the pipe and prevent damage to the pipe and pipe coating from equipment and backfill material. As explained in the NPRM, RSPA/OPS did not propose to adopt NAPSR's recommendation that backfill material not contain objects that could damage the pipe or pipe coating. RSPA/OPS reasoned that such material may not always be available near construction sites, and under the proposed standard, material with such objects could only be used if damage is prevented by means such as a sufficient initial layer of material that is free of potentially damaging rocks. Nevertheless, WUTC was concerned that operators could still use large rocks that could later cause damage to the pipe. WUTC suggested that backfill material not contain either rocks larger than six inches or organic material, such as wood, that may decay and cause subsidence or erosion.

WUTC is correct that the proposed standard would not preclude operators from using backfill material that contains large rocks. However, to do so operators would have to take steps to insure that the rocks do not damage the pipeline. RSPA/OPS said in the NPRM that one means of protection is an initial layer of rock-free material. WUTC implied that this method may not be adequate in the presence of large rocks. If so, operators would have to use some other means of protection. For example, they could install a durable rock shield either by itself or in addition to a layer of rock-free material. Because reasonable means are available to protect against rock damage, RSPA/OPS does not think a restrictive standard like WUTC suggested is necessary for safety. The performance nature of proposed § 195.252 would also require operators to take protective action if backfill material contains enough organic material to cause damage through subsequent decay. Therefore, RSPA/OPS has adopted proposed § 195.252 as final.

The Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC) considered the NPRM and the associated evaluation of costs and benefits at a meeting in Washington, DC on March 25, 2003 (68 FR 11176; March 7, 2003). The committee is a statutorily mandated advisory committee that advises us on proposed safety standards and other policies for hazardous liquid pipelines. The committee has an authorized membership of 15 persons, five each representing government, industry, and the public. Each member is qualified to consider the technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and practicability of proposed pipeline safety standards. A transcript of the meeting as well as other material related to the committee's consideration of the NPRM are available in Docket No. RSPA-98-4470.

At the meeting, the THLPSSC voted on whether the proposed rules are technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable, and whether the evaluation of costs and benefits is satisfactory. The THLPSSC voted unanimously to approve the proposed rules and the evaluation.

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures. RSPA/OPS does not consider this rulemaking to be a significant regulatory action under Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; Oct. 4, 1993). Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not received a copy of this rulemaking to review. RSPA/OPS also does not consider this rulemaking to be significant under DOT regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034: February 26, 1979).

RSPA/OPS prepared a Regulatory Evaluation of the final rules and a copy is in the docket. The evaluation concludes there should be only minimal additional cost, if any, for operators to comply with the rules. No comments were received on the draft evaluation that accompanied the NPRM.

The final rules are consistent with customary practices in the hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipeline industry. Therefore, based on the facts available about the anticipated impacts of this rulemaking, I certify, pursuant to Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605), that this rulemaking will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The final rules have been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Because the rules will not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments and will not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

Title: Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline Recordkeeping and Accident Reporting Requirements. OMB Number: 2137-0047

Summary: Section 195.310(b)(10) adds minor information collection requirements to an already existing information collection requirement. Operators are required to record the temperature during testing and keep the records for as long as the pipeline concerned is in service. However, RSPA/OPS believes most operators already maintain records of temperature. Also, RSPA/OPS believes the burden of retaining temperature records is minimal. These records are largely computerized. Maintaining these records on a floppy disk or computer file represents very minimal costs. Because the additional paperwork burdens of this rule are likely to be minimal, RSPA/OPS believes that submitting an analysis of the burdens to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act is unnecessary.

Use: Records are kept to help RSPA/OPS determine compliance with pipeline safety requirements.

Respondents (including the number of): There are 200 hazardous liquid pipeline operators that could potentially be subject to this rule.

Annual Burden Estimate: 51,011 hours per year.

Frequency: Variable.

This rulemaking will not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It will not result in costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rulemaking proceeding.

RSPA/OPS has analyzed the final rule for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). Because the final rule parallels present requirements or practices, RSPA/OPS has determined that the rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. An environmental assessment document is available for review in the docket.

The final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). The rule does not establish any regulation that (1) has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government; (2) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments; or (3) preempts state law. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

The regulations governing the Maine mahogany quahog fishery appear at 50 CFR section 648.76. The annual quota for the harvest of mahogany quahogs within the Maine mahogany quahog zone for the 2003 fishing year was established at 100,000 Maine bu (35,150 hL). The quota may be revised annually by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) within the range of 17,000 to 100,000 Maine bu (5,975 and 35,150 hL, respectively). The Maine mahogany quahog zone is defined as the area bounded on the east by the U.S.-Canada maritime boundary, on the south by a straight line at 43°50′ N. lat., and on the north and west by the shoreline of Maine.

The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) monitors the commercial Maine mahogany quahog quota for each fishing year using dealer and other available information to determine when the quota is projected to have been harvested. NMFS is required to publish notification in the Federal Register informing commercial vessel permit holders that, effective upon a specific date, the Maine mahogany quahog quota has been harvested and no commercial quota is available for harvesting mahogany quahogs by vessels possessing a Maine mahogany quahog permit for the remainder of the year, from within the Maine mahogany quahog zone.

The Regional Administrator has determined, based upon dealer reports and other available information, that the 2003 Maine mahogany quahog quota has been harvested. Therefore, effective 0001 hrs local time, September 12, 2003, further landings of Maine mahogany quahogs harvested from within the Maine mahogany quahog zone by vessels possessing a Maine mahogany quahog Federal fisheries permit are prohibited through December 31, 2003. The 2004 fishing year for Maine mahogany quahog harvest will open on January 1, 2004.

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.