Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 148/Friday, August 1, 2003/Proposed Rules

27o12'04.584" N, 80o15'41.437" W;

thence to 27o11'49.005" N,

80o15'44.796" W; thence to

27o11'47.881" N, 80o15'38.271" W;

thence to 27o11'46.82" N,

80o15'37.9647" W; thence to

27o11'43.49" N, 80o15'40.74" W; thence

to 27o11'40.44" N, 80o15'44.64" W;

thence to 27o11'41.40" N, 80o15'47.70"

W; thence to 27o11'42.51" N,

80o15'49.36" W; thence to 27o11'47.99"

N, 80o15'44.78" W; thence to the point

of beginning. All coordinates reference

Datum NAD:83.

Dated: July 22, 2003.

H.E. Johnson, Jr.,

RearAdmiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Seventh Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 03-19647 Filed 7-31-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 111

Destination Delivery Unit Rate Bound

Printed Matter Mailer Requirements for

Entry

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

SUMMARY: The Postal Service TM

proposes a revision to the Domestic Mail

Manual (DMM) that would change the

preparation requirements for bulk

Bound Printed Matter (BPM) by

requiring mailers to prepare destination

delivery unit (DDU) rate BPM items by

5-digit scheme (optional) and 5-digit

sorts. Currently, there is no requirement

for mailers to unload and present bulk

BPM mail by 5-digit sorts, as is the

requirement for Parcel SelectM

mailings prepared for the DDU rate.

DMM E752.5.2 inadvertently omitted

this requirement from the final ruling.

All costing documentation and

assumptions for this particular category

of mail were based on the requirement

that mailers would unload the drop

shipment and, in multiple ZIP Code

delivery units, separate the BPM items

by 5-digit bundles. Specifically,

separation by 5-digit ZIP Code or

optional 5-digit scheme would be

required for bedloaded packages, sacks,

pallets, and pallet boxes containing a

mixture of 5-digit ZIP Code packages

destined for a specific delivery unit.

DATES: Submit comments on or before

September 2, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written

comments to the Manager, Mailing

Standards, U.S. Postal Service, 1735 N.

Lynn St., Room 3025, Arlington, VA

22209-6038. Copies of all written

comments will be available for

inspection and photocopying between 9

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, at the Postal Service

Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant

Plaza, SW., 11th Floor North,

Washington, DC. Comments may also be

submitted via fax to 202-268-5293,

ATTN: Daniel Leonard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan

Leonard at 202-268-4656.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Current

Postal Service standards for preparation

of DDU rate mail for Package Services

Destination Entry, prepared by 5-digit or

5-digit schemes, require parcels to be

separated by 5-digit for DDU entry,

upon request. The requirement for

vehicle unloading of Parcel Select DDU

drop shipments is in DMM E751.4.10c.

This requirement was inadvertently

missing from the requirements for DDU

rate BPM mailings when they were

published in Postal Bulletin 22039a (12-

21-00, page 12). Both Parcel Select and

BPM are subclasses of Package Services

mail. The processing and handling costs

and the need for separation by 5-digit

ZIP Codes is the same for both at the

delivery unit. If the mail is not

separated by the driver into 5-digit

containers provided by Postal Service

employees, then the Postal Service will

be forced to absorb the directly

attributable costs associated with

processing and handling this category of

Package Services mail, which will raise

costs in the future.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111

Postal Service.

PART 111-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 39 CFR

part 111 continues to read as follows:

Authority: U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101,

401,403,404,414, 3001-3011, 3201-3219,

3403-3406, 3621, 3626, 5001.

2. Revise the following section of the

DMM as set forth below:

Domestic Mail Manual (DMM)

E Eligibility

E700 Package Services

E750 Destination Entry

E752 Bound Printed Matter

6.0 Deposit

6.9 Vehicle Unloading

Uploading of destination entry

mailings is subject to these conditions:

[Revise the last sentence of item c to

read as follows:]

* * * The driver may be required to

place bedloaded packages, pieces, sacks,

and the contents of mixed 5-digit pallets

in containers provided by the delivery

unit in order to maintain separation by

5-digit ZIP Codes or to place

containerized mail so as to maintain the

separation of 5-digit ZIP Codes.

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 03-19553 Filed 7-31-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-7528-6]

Idaho: Proposed Authorization of State

Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Idaho has applied to EPA for

final authorization of certain changes to

its hazardous waste program under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). EPA has reviewed Idaho's

application, has preliminarily

determined that these changes satisfy all

requirements needed to qualify for final

authorization, and is proposing to

authorize the state's changes.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by

September 15, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Jeff Hunt, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Region 10, Office of

Waste and Chemicals (WCM-122), 1200

Sixth Ave, Seattle, Washington 98101.

You can view and copy Idaho's

application during normal business

hours at the following addresses: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 10, Office of Waste and

Chemicals, 1200 Sixth Ave, Seattle,

Washington, contact: Jeff Hunt, phone

number: (206) 553-0256; or Idaho

Department of Environmental Quality,

1410 N. Hilton, Boise, Idaho, contact:

John Brueck, phone number (208) 373-

0458.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff

Hunt, U.S. Environmental Protection

45192

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 45192 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 148/Friday, August 1, 2003/Proposed Rules

Agency Region 10, Office of Waste and

Chemicals (WCM-122), 1200 Sixth Ave,

Seattle, Washington 98101, phone

number: (206) 553-0256.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why Are Revisions to State

Programs Necessary?

States which have received final

authorization from EPA under RCRA

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must

maintain a hazardous waste program

that is equivalent to, consistent with,

and no less stringent than the federal

program. As the federal program

changes, states must change their

programs and ask EPA to authorize the

changes. Changes to state programs may

be necessary when federal or state

statutory or regulatory authority is

modified or when certain other changes

occur. Most commonly, states must

change their programs because of

changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,

260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

B. What Preliminary Decisions Have

We Made in This Rule?

EPA has preliminarily determined

that Idaho's application to revise its

authorized program meets all of the

statutory and regulatory requirements

established by RCRA. Therefore, we are

proposing to grant Idaho final

authorization to operate its hazardous

waste program with the changes

described in the authorization

application. Idaho will have

responsibility for permitting Treatment,

Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)

within its borders (except in Indian

country) and for carrying out the aspects

of the RCRA program described in its

revised program application, subject to

the limitations of the Hazardous and

Solid Waste Amendments of 1984

(HSWA). New federal requirements and

prohibitions imposed by federal

regulations that EPA promulgates under

the authority of HSWA take effect in

authorized states before the states are

authorized for the requirements. Thus,

EPA will implement those requirements

and prohibitions in Idaho, including

issuing permits, until the State is

granted authorization to do so.

C. What Will Be the Effect if Idaho Is

Authorized for These Changes?

If Idaho is authorized for these

changes, a facility in Idaho subject to

RCRA will have to comply with the

authorized State requirements in lieu of

the corresponding federal requirements

in order to comply with RCRA.

Additionally, such persons will have to

comply with any applicable federallyissued requirements, such as, for

example, HSWA regulations issued by

EPA for which the State has not

received authorization, and RCRA

requirements that are not supplanted by

authorized State-issued requirements.

Idaho continues to have enforcement

responsibilities under its state

hazardous waste management program

for violations of such program, but EPA

retains its authority under RCRA

sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003,

which include, among others, the

authority to:

* Conduct inspections; require

monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;

* Enforce RCRA requirements;

suspend or revoke permits; and

* Take enforcement actions regardless

of whether the State has taken its own

actions.

The action to approve these revisions

would not impose additional

requirements on the regulated

community because the regulations for

which Idaho will be authorized are

already effective under State law and

are not changed by the act of

authorization.

D. What Happens If EPA Receives

Comments That Oppose This Action?

If EPA receives comments that oppose

this authorization, we will address those

comments in a later final rule. You may

not have another opportunity to

comment. If you want to comment on

this authorization, you must do so at

this time.

E. What Has Idaho Previously Been

Authorized for?

Idaho initially received final

authorization on March 26, 1990,

effective April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015) to

implement the RCRA hazardous waste

management program. EPA granted

authorization for changes to their

program on April 6, 1992, effective June

5, 1992 (57 FR 11580), June 11, 1992,

effective August 10, 1992 (57 FR 24757),

April 12, 1995, effective June 11, 1995

(60 FR 18549), October 21, 1998,

effective January 19, 1999 (63 FR

56086), and July 1, 2001, effective July

1, 2001 (67 FR 44069).

F. What Changes Are We Proposing?

On June 6, 2003, Idaho submitted a

complete program revision application,

seeking authorization for all delegable

federal hazardous waste regulations

codified as of July 1, 2001, as

incorporated by reference in IDAPA

58.01.05.(002)-(016) and 58.01.05.997,

except specific portions of the post

closure rule noted in the paragraphs

below 1. We have preliminarily

'Sections of the Federal hazardous waste

program are not delegable to the states. These

determined that Idaho's hazardous

waste program revision satisfies all of

the requirements necessary to qualify

for final authorization, and EPA is

proposing to authorize the state's

changes.

In this program revision application,

Idaho is seeking partial authorization of

the Post Closure Rule promulgated on

October 22, 1998 (63 FR 56710). Idaho

is not seeking authorization for 40 CFR

270.1(c)(7), Enforceable documents for

post-closure care, 40 CFR 265.121 Postclosure requirements for facilities that

obtain enforceable documents in lieu of

post-closure permits, 40 CFR 265.110(c),

and 40 CFR 265.118(c)(4). These

provisions are described in the rule

preamble at 63 FR 56712 section a. Postclosure care under alternatives to

permits. Idaho is seeking authorization

for 40 CFR 264.90(f), 264.110(c),

264.140(d), 265.90(f), 265.110(d), and

265.140(d), as described in the rule

preamble at 63 FR 56713, b.

Remediation requirements for landbased units with releases to the

environment. Idaho is also seeking

authorization of 40 CFR 270.28, as

described in the rule preamble at 63 FR

56713, c. Post-closure permit

information submission requirements.

Idaho is seeking authorization for 40

CFR 264.90(e), 264.90(f), 264.110(c),

264.112(b)(8), 264.112(c)(2)(iv),

264.118(b)(4), 264.118(d)(2)(iv),

264.140(d), 265.90(f), 265.110(d),

265.112(b)(8), 265.118(c)(5), 265.140(d),

270.1(c) introduction, and 270.28,

except where those sections reference

the use of enforceable documents. Idaho

does not seek authorization for language

in those sections which states as

follows: "* * * or in an enforceable

document (as defined in 270.1(c)(7)."

G. Who Handles Permits After the

Authorization Takes Effect?

Idaho will issue permits for all the

provisions for which it is authorized

and will administer the permits it

issues. All permits issued by EPA prior

to EPA authorizing Idaho for these

revisions will continue in force until the

effective date of the State's issuance or

denial of a State RCRA permit, or until

the permit otherwise expires or is

revoked. However, EPA will administer

any RCRA hazardous waste permits or

portions of permits which EPA issued

prior to the effective date of this

authorization and until such time as

Idaho's is effective and EPA's has

expired. EPA will not issue any more

sections are 40 CFR part 262, subparts, E, F, & H;

40 CFR 268.5; 40 CFR 268.42(b); 40 CFR 268.44(a)-

(g); and 40 CFR 268.6. Authority for implementing

the provisions contained in these sections remains

with EPA.

45193

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 45193 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 148/Friday, August 1, 2003/Proposed Rules

new permits or new portions of permits

for provisions for which Idaho is

authorized after the effective date of this

authorization. EPA will continue to

implement and issue permits for HSWA

requirements for which Idaho is not yet

authorized.

H. What Is Codification and Is EPA

Codifying Idaho's Hazardous Waste

Program as Authorized in This Rule?

Codification is the process of placing

the State's statutes and regulations that

comprise the State's authorized

hazardous waste program into the Code

of Federal Regulations. We do this by

referencing the authorized State rules in

40 CFR part 272. Through three

codification actions dated December 6,

1990 (55 FR 50327), June 11, 1992 (57

FR 24757), and June 25, 1999 (64 FR

34180) the EPA codified at 40 CFR part

272, subpart N all authorization actions

for the State of Idaho RCRA program,

except the most recent authorization

revision published on July 1, 2001.

We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR

part 272, subpart N for this

authorization of Idaho's program

changes until a later date.

I. How Would Authorizing Idaho for

These Revisions Affect Indian Country

(18 U.S.C. 1151) in Idaho?

Idaho is not authorized to carry out its

hazardous waste program in Indian

country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.

Indian country includes:

1. All lands within the exterior

boundaries of Indian reservations

within or abutting the State of Idaho;

2. Any land held in trust by the U.S.

for an Indian tribe; and

3. Any other land, whether on or off

an Indian reservation that qualifies as

Indian country. Therefore, this action

has no effect on Indian country. EPA

retains the authority to implement and

administer the RCRA program in Indian

country.

J. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

1. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4,1993), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is "significant," and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines "significant

regulatory action" as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more, or adversely affect in

a material way, the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local or tribal

governments or communities; (2) create

a serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency; (3)

materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs, or the rights and obligations

of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or

the principles set forth in the Executive

Order. It has been determined that this

proposed Rule is not a "significant

regulatory action" under the terms of

Executive Order 12866 and is therefore

not subject to OMB review.

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501, et seq., is intended to

minimize the reporting and

recordkeeping burden on the regulated

community, as well as to minimize the

cost of Federal information collection

and dissemination. In general, the Act

requires that information requests and

record-keeping requirements affecting

ten or more non-Federal respondents be

approved by OPM. Since the proposed

Rule does not establish or modify any

information or recordkeeping

requirements for the regulated

community, it is not subject to the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act.

3. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

as amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

(SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.,

generally requires federal agencies to

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

of any rule subject to notice and

comment rulemaking requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute unless the agency

certifies that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small

governmental jurisdictions. For

purposes of assessing the impacts of

today's rule on small entities, small

entity is defined as: (1) A small

business, as codified in the Small

Business Size Regulations at 13 CFR

part 121; (2) a small governmental

jurisdiction that is a government of a

city, county, town, school district or

special district with a population of less

than 50,000; and (3) a small

organization that is any not-for-profit

enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field. EPA has

determined that this action will not

have a significant impact on small

entities because the proposed Rule will

only have the effect of authorizing preexisting requirements under State law.

After considering the economic impacts

of today's proposed rule, I certify that

this action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. We continue

to be interested in the potential impacts

of the proposed rule on small entities

and welcome comments on issues

related to such impacts.

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L.

104-4) establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with "Federal mandates" that may

result in expenditures to State, local and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

to the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any year. Before promulgating

an EPA rule for which a written

statement is needed, section 205 of the

UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why the alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

This proposed rule contains no

Federal mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for

State, local or tribal governments or the

private sector. The proposed rule

authorizes pre-existing requirements

45194

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 45194 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 148/Friday, August 1, 2003/Proposed Rules

under State law and imposes no new

enforceable duty on any State, local or

tribal governments or the private sector.

Similarly, EPA has also determined that

this proposed rule contains no

regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

government entities. Thus, the

requirements of section 203 of the

UMRA do not apply to this rule.

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

"Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications." "Policies that have

federalism implications" is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have "substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among

various levels of government."

This proposed rule does not have

federalism implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among various levels of

government, as specified in Executive

Order 13132. This proposed rule only

authorizes existing State rules as part of

the State RCRA hazardous waste

program.

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled

"Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure "meaningful and timely input by

tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications." This proposed rule does

not have tribal implications, as specified

in Executive Order 13175. The rule

proposes to authorize existing state

rules and does not establish any

regulatory policy with tribal

implications. Thus, Executive Order

13175 does not apply to this proposed

rule. EPA specifically solicits additional

comment on this proposed rule from

tribal officials.

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 applies to any

rule that: (1) Is determined to be

"economically significant" as defined

under Executive Order 12866, and (2)

concerns an environmental health or

safety risk that EPA has reason to

believe may have a disproportionate

effect on children. If the regulatory

action meets both criteria, the Agency

must evaluate the environmental health

or safety effects of the planned rule on

children, and explain why the planned

regulation is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably

feasible alternatives considered by the

Agency.

This proposed rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 because it is not

economically significant as defined in

Executive Order 12866 and because the

Agency does not have reason to believe

the environmental health or safety risks

addressed by this proposed action

present a disproportionate risk to

children.

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13211, "Actions Concerning

Regulations that Significantly Affect

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is

not a "significant regulatory action" as

defined under Executive Order 12866.

9. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 ("NTAA"), Public Law 104-

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business

practices) that are developed or adopted

by voluntary consensus bodies. The

NTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,

through the OMB, explanations when

the Agency decides not to use available

and applicable voluntary consensus

standards. This proposed rulemaking

does not involve "technical standards"

as defined by the NTAA. Therefore, EPA

is not considering the use of any

voluntary consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Hazardous materials transportation,

Hazardous waste, Indians-lands,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority: This proposed action is issued

under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006

and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act

as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

Dated: July 9, 2003.

Ronald Kreizenbeck,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

[FR Doc. 03-18738 Filed 7-31-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR

SEVERELY DISABLED

41 CFR Parts 51-3 and 51-4

Miscellaneous Amendments to

Committee Regulations

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From

People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing

to change the dates by which the annual

certifications by participating nonprofit

agencies are due to the central nonprofit

agencies and the Committee.

DATES: Submit comments on or before

September 2, 2003.

ADDRESS: Committee for Purchase From

People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800,

1421 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G.

John Heyer (703) 603-0665. Copies of

this notice will be made available on

request in computer diskette format.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Committee is proposing to revise 41

CFR 51-3.2(m) and 51-4.3(a) to change

the dates on which the Annual

Certifications (Committee Form 403 or

404) submitted at the end of each

Federal fiscal year by nonprofit agencies

participating in the Committee's

program are due to the central nonprofit

agencies and the Committee. The

purpose of this change is to ensure that

the data is received in a more timely

manner than is currently the case. The

Committee is proposing to change the

date the certification forms are due to

the central nonprofit agencies from

November 15 of each year to November

1, and the date the forms are due to the

Committee from December 15 to

December 1.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that this proposed revision of

the Committee regulations will not have

a significant economic impact on a

45195

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 45195 2003