Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 41877

may be disclosed publicly by EPA

without prior notice.

IX. Public Docket

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket control

number [OPP–300526]. A public version

of this record, which does not include

any information claimed as CBI, is

available for inspection from 8:30 a.m.

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The public

record is located in Room 1132 of the

Public Information and Records

Integrity Branch, Information Resources

and Services Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA 22202.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption.

The official record for this

rulemaking, as well as the public

version, as described above, is kept in

paper form. Accordingly, in the event

there are objections and hearing request,

EPA will transfer any copies of

objections and hearing requests received

electronically into printed, paper form

as they are received and will place the

paper copies in the official rulemaking

record. The official rulemaking record is

the paper record maintained at the

Virginia address in Addresses at the

beginning of this document.

X. Regulatory Assessment

Requirements

This final rule establishes an

exemption from the tolerance

requirement under FFDCA section

408(d) in response to a petition

submitted to the Agency. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted these types of actions from

review under Executive Order 12866,

entitled Regulatory Planning and

Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).

This final rule does not contain any

information collections subject to OMB

approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq., or impose any enforceable duty or

contain any unfunded mandate as

described under Title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

(Pub. L. 104–4). Nor does it require any

prior consultation as specified by

Executive Order 12875, entitled

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership (58 FR 58093, October 28,

1993), or special considerations as

required by Executive Order 12898,

entitled Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,

1994), or require OMB review in

accordance with Executive Order 13045,

entitled Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).

In addition, since tolerances and

exemptions that are established on the

basis of a petition under FFDCA section

408(d), such as the exemption in this

final rule, do not require the issuance of

a proposed rule, the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.

Nevertheless, the Agency previously

assessed whether establishing

tolerances, exemptions from tolerances,

raising tolerance levels or expanding

exemptions might adversely impact

small entities and concluded, as a

generic matter, that there is no adverse

economic impact. The factual basis for

the Agency’s generic certification for

tolerance actions published on May 4,

1981 (46 FR 24950), and was provided

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration.

XI. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the

Agency has submitted 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 General

Accounting Office prior to publication

of this rule in today’s Federal Register.

This is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by

5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: July 30, 1997.

Daniel M. Barolo,

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is

amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.C.C. 346a and 371

2. Section 180.1181 is added to read

as follows:

§ 180.1181 Bacillus cereus strain BP01;

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance.

An exemption from the requirement

of a tolerance is established for residues

of the microbial plant regulator Bacillus

cereus strain BP01 in or on cottonseed.

[FR Doc. 97–20561 Filed 8-1-97 ; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

45 CFR Part 74

Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Department of Health and

Human Services, (HHS).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule will remove

appendixes I and J, which contain the

text of Office Management and Budget

(OMB) Circulars A–128 and A–133,

from 45 CFR part 74. It will also update

several items to conform them to the

Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of

1994 and correct a confusing statement

which resulted from two typographical

errors in that portion of OMB Circular

A–110 upon which this statement is

based.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

September 3, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Gale, Director, Office of Grants

Management, 202–690–6377; for the

hearing impaired only: TDD 202–690–

6415.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the President’s Regulatory Reform

Initiative, we have identified

appendixes I and J of 45 CFR part 74 as

unnecessary. These appendixes are

being removed because they simply

repeat the texts of Circulars A–133 (an

out-of-date version of the Circular) and

A–128 respectively. In addition, various

references to appendixes I and J are also

being removed.

Copies of Circulars A–128 and A–133

are widely available electronically; they

may also be obtained from OMB and

from the HHS Office of Grants

Management.

We are also making the following

non-substantive changes and

corrections:

1. We are updating the definition of

‘‘small awards’’ in section 74.2 and

changing ‘‘small purchase’’ threshold to

‘‘simplified acquisition’’ threshold

everywhere that it appears. These

actions are to conform these terms to the

Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of

1994 (FASA) (108 Stat. 3243).
41878 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

2. We are correcting a confusing

statement in 45 CFR 74.44(e) which

resulted from two typographical errors

in the equivalent paragraph OMB

Circular A–110 upon which this

statement is based. We are

accomplishing this correction by

removing the work ‘‘and,’’ which had

erroneously been included between the

term ‘‘pre-award review’’ and the term

‘‘procurement documents,’’ and adding

an ‘‘s’’ to the work ‘‘request’’ in the term

‘‘request for proposals.’’

3. We are correcting an erroneous

amendment to 45 CFR part 74’s

implementation of the Copeland ‘‘AntiKickback’’ Act (18 U.S.C. and 40 U.S.C.

276c) which was published in the final

amendments of March 22, 1996 (61 FR

117147). (45 CFR part 74, appendix A)

Regulatory Impact Analyses

Executive Order 12866

This final rule was submitted to OMB.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Secretary, in accordance with the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

605(b)), has reviewed this final rule

before publication and, by approving it,

certifies that it will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule does not include

information collection requirements

requiring approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch.

35).

Justification for Waiver of Proposed

Rulemaking

As a matter of longstanding policy set

forth at 36 FR 2532 (Feb. 5, 1971), the

Department of Health and Human

Services normally follows the notice of

proposed rulemaking and public

comment (NPRM) procedures set forth

in the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, even when it is not

required by the APA to do so. The APA,

however, provides for an exception to

the NPRM procedures when an agency

finds that there is good cause for

dispensing with such procedures on the

grounds that they are impracticable,

unnecessary or contrary to the public

interest.

We find that the publication of this

regulation in proposed form would be

unnecessary and contrary to the public

interest for the following reasons:

• This final rule removes from 45

CFR part 74 appendixes I and J, both of

which are unnecessary since they

simply repeat the language of OMB

Circulars A–128 and A–133, which

Circulars are referenced in the body of

the regulation and otherwise readily

available to the public. We conclude

that public comment on this nonsubstantive change is unnecessary.

• Also, this regulation makes several

non-substantive amendments to update

the definition of the term ‘‘small

award,’’ and to change the term ‘‘small

purchase’’ threshold to ‘‘simplified

acquisition’’ threshold, which actions

are to conform these terms to those in

the Federal Acquisition Streamlining

Act of 1994 (FASA). Although we are

not specifically required by FASA to

make these changes, FASA, along with

previous acquisition acts, have generally

been used to provide definitions for

these terms. Since these changes merely

reflect those which are required by law

for contracts, we conclude that public

comment on them would serve no

useful purpose and is unnecessary.

• Further, this regulation corrects a

confusing statement in 45 CFR 74.44(e),

which resulted from two typographical

errors in the equivalent portion of OMB

Circular A–110 upon which it is based.

It is our view that public comment on

these minor, straightforward, nonsubstantive corrections is unnecessary

and is contrary to public interest, since

it would only delay making these

helpful corrections.

• Finally, this regulation would also

correct an erroneous amendment to 45

CFR part 74’s implementation of the

Copeland ‘‘Anti-Kickback’’ Act (18

U.S.C. 874 and 40 U.S.C. 276c), which

we had published in the March 22, 1996

final amendments to 45 CFR part 74. (61

FR 11747). Since this is a nonsubstantive correction which is required

for proper implementation of this

provision, we find that public comment

is unnecessary and is contrary to the

public interest, since it would delay

making this helpful correction.

List of Subjects in 45 CFR part 74

Accounting, Administrative practice

and procedures, Grants administration,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Number does not apply.)

Dated: February 25, 1997.

Donna E. Shalala,

Secretary.

Accordingly, title 45, part 74, of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 74—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE

REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARDS AND

SUBAWARDS TO INSTITUTIONS OF

HIGHER EDUCATION, HOSPITALS,

OTHER NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS,

AND COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS;

AND CERTAIN GRANTS AND

AGREEMENTS WITH STATES, LOCAL

GOVERNMENTS AND INDIAN TRIBAL

GOVERNMENTS

1. The authority citation for part 74 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; OMB Circular A–

110 (58 FR 62992, November 29, 1993).

2. The table of contents is amended by

removing appendixes I and J.

§ 74.2 [Amended]

3. In section 74.2 the definition of

‘‘Small awards’’ is amended by

removing the words ‘‘small purchase

threshold fixed at 41 U.S.C. 403(11)

(currently $25,000)’’ and adding, in

their place, the words ‘‘simplified

acquisition threshold fixed at 41 U.S.C.

403(11) (currently $100,000)’’.

§ 74.26 [Amended]

4. Section 74.26(a) is amended by

removing the words ‘‘(See appendix I to

this part.)’’.

5. Section 74.26(c) is amended by

removing the words ‘‘(See appendix J to

this part.)’’.

6. Section 74.44 is amended by

revision paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 74.44 Procurement procedures.

* * * * *

(e) Recipients shall, on request, make

available for HHS awarding agency preaward review, procurement documents

such as requests for proposals or

invitations for bids, independent cost

estimates, etc., when any of the

following conditions apply:

* * * * *

§§ 74.44, 74.46, 74.48, and appendix A

paragraph 8 [Amended]

7. Remove the words ‘‘small purchase

threshold’’ and add, in their place, the

words ‘‘simplified acquisition

threshold’’ in the following places:

a. Section 74.44(e)(3), (e)(4), and

(e)(5);

b. Section 74.46;

c. Section 74.48(a) and (d); and

d. Appendix A, paragraph 8.

Appendix A To Part 74 [Amended]

8. Paragraph 2 of appendix A is

amended by removing the amount

‘‘$100,000’’ and adding, in its place, the

amount ‘‘$2,000’’.

Appendix I To Part 74 [Removed]

9. Appendix I is removed.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 41879

Appendix J To Part 74 [Removed]

10. 10. Appendix J is removed.

[FR Doc. 97–20402 Filed 8–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150–04–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2 and 15

[ET Docket 95–19; FCC 97–240]

Equipment Authorization for Digital

Devices

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: By this Memorandum

Opinion and Order, the Commission

responds to three Petitions for

Reconsideration filed by the Information

Technology Industry Council (ITI),

Hewlett-Packard Company (HP), and

Intel Corporation (Intel) regarding the

Declaration of Conformity (DoC)

procedure for the authorization of

digital devices. This action is intended

to clarify and improve the DoC process.

DATES: Effective September 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Office of Engineering and Technology,

Anthony Serafini at (202) 418–2456 or

Neal McNeil (202) 418–2408.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s

Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET

Docket 95–19, FCC 97–240, adopted

July 3, 1997 and released July 18, 1997.

The full text of this decision is available

for inspection and copying during

regular business hours in the FCC

Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M

Street, NW., Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision also may

be purchased from the Commission’s

duplication contractor, International

Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 1231 20th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20036.

1. In the Report and Order, of this

proceeding, 61 FR 31044, June 19, 1996,

the Commission adopted rules to

streamline the equipment authorization

requirements for personal computers

and personal computer peripherals.

Specifically, the Commission

established the DoC procedure which

allows digital devices to be authorized

based on a manufacturer’s or supplier’s

declaration that the device complies

with the FCC requirements for

controlling radio frequency interference.

The DoC procedure requires laboratories

performing compliance testing to be

accredited under the National Voluntary

Laboratory Accreditation Program

(NVLAP) developed by the National

Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) or by the American Association

for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA). In

the Report and Order, the Commission

delegated to the Chief of the Office of

Engineering and Technology authority

to recognize additional accrediting

organizations and to make

determinations regarding the continued

acceptability of individual accrediting

organizations and accredited

laboratories. Further, in the interest of

fair trade the rules specify that

laboratories located outside of the

United States or its possessions will be

accredited only if there is a mutual

recognition agreement (MRA) between

that country and the United States that

permits similar accreditation of U.S.

facilities to perform testing for products

marketed in that country.

2. The Report and Order also adopted

rules to permit the marketing, without

further testing, of personal computers

assembled from separate components

that have themselves been authorized

under a DoC. The Commission found

that this approach would provide both

flexibility for manufacturers and system

integrators and adequate assurance that

such modular computers will comply

with the FCC technical standards.

Testing procedures were adopted for

CPU boards and power supplies.

However, due to the difficulties

associated with determining the

shielding effectiveness of enclosures,

the Commission did not adopt rules to

authorize enclosures. To ensure that

systems assembled from modular

components would comply with the

technical standards, the Commission

adopted a two step test procedure for

authorizing CPU boards. The CPU board

must first be tested installed in a typical

enclosure but with the enclosure’s cover

removed so that the internal circuitry is

exposed at the top and at least two

sides. Additional components,

including a power supply, peripheral

devices, and subassemblies, shall be

added, as needed, to result in a

complete personal computer system.

Under this test, radiated emissions from

the system under test may be no more

than 3 dB above the limits specified in

section 15.109 of this chapter. If the

initial test demonstrates that the system

is within 3 dB of the limits, a second

test is performed using the same

configuration but with the cover

installed on the enclosure. Under the

latter test conditions, the system under

test shall not exceed the radiated

emission limits specified in section

15.109 of this chapter. If, however, the

initial test demonstrates compliance

with the radiated emission standards in

section 15.109 of this chapter, the

second test is not required to be

performed. The system must also be

tested to comply with the AC power line

conducted limits specified in section

15.107 of this chapter in accordance

with the procedures specified in section

15.31 of this chapter.

3. On July 16, 1996, the Commission’s

Office of Engineering and Technology

(OET) issued a Public Notice taking

steps to encourage the use of the new

DoC procedure. The Public Notice

addressed concerns that use of the DoC

procedure would be hindered by the

ability of NVLAP and A2LA to timely

process the initial demand for

accreditation by adopting a provisional

transition period of one year for

obtaining such accreditation. The Public

Notice also addressed issues concerning

the recognition of accreditors located

outside of the United States. A

laboratory would be permitted to submit

documentation to OET’s Equipment

Authorization Division stating that it

has filed an application for accreditation

with an approved laboratory

accreditation body and provide

evidence that it meets all aspects of ISO/

IEC Guide 25. Such labs will be

provisionally accepted by the FCC for a

period of one year, until August 19,

1997, or until the application for

accreditation has been acted upon,

whichever is sooner. A laboratory that is

denied accreditation by an approved

accreditation body will lose its

provisional acceptance. However, any

DoCs that were issued will remain valid.

4. Petitions for Reconsideration were

filed on July 19, 1996, by the ITI, HP,

and Intel. ITI requests reconsideration of

the laboratory accreditation requirement

for manufacturers’ and foreign test

laboratories to use the new DoC

procedure. ITI feels that manufacturers’

laboratories should not be required to be

accredited before using the DoC process.

Additionally, ITI argues that the

accreditation requirement should not

apply to foreign trading partners in

countries that currently do not have

similar accreditation requirements. The

Commission believes that laboratory

accreditation is a vital component of the

DoC procedure and denies the ITI

Petition for Reconsideration. HP

requests reconsideration or clarification

of the rules regarding use of the DoC

procedure by laboratories outside the

United States. HP feels that the mutual

recognition agreement (MRA)

requirement unreasonably discriminates

against test labs located in foreign

countries. The Commission finds that

the rules do not adequately address the

requirements for foreign laboratories