Section 212(d)(4)(C) of the Act provides authority for the Attorney General acting jointly with the Secretary of State (see Department of State regulation published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register ) to waive nonimmigrant visa requirements for aliens who are proceeding in immediate and continuous transit through the United States and are using a carrier which has entered into a contract with the Service authorized under section 233(c) of the Act, in this case an Immediate and Continuous Transit Agreement on Form I-426, also known as a TWOV Agreement.

This rule amends § 212.1(f)(3) (section 212.1(f)(3) will be redesignated and revised as § 212.1(f)(2) effective April 6, 2001) by adding Colombia to the list of countries whose citizens are ineligible for TWOV privileges.

Colombia is being added to § 212.1(f)(3) (section 212.1(f)(3) will be redesignated and revised as § 212.1(f)(2) effective April 6, 2001) making the waiver of the passport and visa requirement unavailable to an alien who is a citizen of that country (e.g., ineligible for TWOV privileges) because a steadily increasing number of Colombian citizens and nationals have exhibited a significant probability to abuse the TWOV privilege.

During the period between October 1, 2000, and February 28, 2001, approximately 600 Colombian citizens who boarded their respective flights as TWOV passengers, purportedly in transit through Miami International Airport to a third country, refused to depart the United States within the timeframes established by the TWOV program. Consequently, and at a cost to the United States Government, these aliens were placed into administrative proceedings to determine whether they could remain in the United States. Indeed, the number of Colombian citizens who used TWOV privileges to come to the United States and then refused to depart timely increased from 22 in October 2000, to 56 in November, 110 in December, 161 in January 2001, and 248 in February. This represents a large increase over the 29 such incidents that occurred in fiscal year 2000 (a rate of less than three instances a month). This trend represents an escalating trend and an abuse of the TWOV privilege.

The implementation of this rule as an interim rule, with a 60-day provision for post-promulgation public comments, is based on the “good cause” exceptions found at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3). The effective date of this rule on April 2, 2001 is necessary to prevent an anticipated sharp increase in the abuse of the TWOV privilege by citizens of Colombia in the near future. Further, there is a reasonable concern that publication of this rule with an effective date 30 or 60 days after publication could lead to the counter-productive result of a surge of individuals attempting to make fraudulent use of the TWOV privilege. Since prior notice and public comments with respect to this interim rule are impractical and contrary to public interest, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 to make this rule effective on April 2, 2001.

The Acting Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), 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. This rule governs whether a citizen of a particular country may transit the United States under the TWOV program. These aliens are not considered small entities as that term is defined under 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

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 1-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.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in cost or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

This rule is not considered by the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review process under section 6(a)(3)(A).

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the 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, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

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

The Consumer Leasing Act (CLA), 15 U.S.C. 1667-1667e, was enacted into law in 1976 as an amendment to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. The CLA requires lessors to provide lessees with uniform cost and other disclosures about consumer lease transactions. The act generally applies to consumer leases of personal property in which the contractual obligation does not exceed $25,000 and has a term of more than four months. An automobile lease is the most common type of consumer lease covered by the act. The Board's Regulation M (12 CFR part 213) implements the act.

The CLA and Regulation M require disclosures to be provided in writing, presuming that lessors provide paper documents. Under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act) (15 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.), however, electronic documents and signatures have the same validity as paper documents and handwritten signatures.

Over the past few years, the Board has published several interim rules and proposals regarding the electronic delivery of disclosures. In 1996, after a comprehensive review of Regulation E (Electronic Fund Transfers), the Board proposed to amend the regulation to permit financial institutions to provide disclosures by sending them electronically. (61 FR 19696, May 2, 1996) Based on comments received on the 1996 proposal, on March 25, 1998, the Board published an interim rule permitting the electronic delivery of disclosures under Regulation E (63 FR 14528) and similar proposals under Regulation M (63 FR 14538), and other financial services and fair lending regulations administered by the Board. The 1998 interim rule and proposed rules were similar to the 1996 proposed rule under Regulation E.

The 1998 proposals and interim rule allowed depository institutions, creditors, lessors, and others to provide disclosures electronically if the consumer agreed, with few other requirements. For ease of reference, this background section uses the terms “institutions” and “consumers.”

Industry commenters generally supported the Board's 1998 proposals and interim rule, but many of them sought specific revisions and additional guidance on how to comply with the disclosure requirements in certain transactions and circumstances. In particular, they expressed concern that the rule did not specify a uniform method for establishing that an “agreement” was reached for sending disclosures electronically. Consumer advocates, on the other hand, generally opposed the 1998 proposals and the interim rule. They believed that consumer protections in the proposals were inadequate, especially in connection with transactions that are typically consummated in person (such as automobile loans and leases, home-secured loans, and door-to-door credit sales).

In response to comments received on the 1998 proposals, the Board published revised regulatory proposals in September 1999 under Regulations B, E, M, Z, and DD, (64 FR 49688, 49699, 49713, 49722 and 49740, respectively, September 14, 1999) (collectively, the “1999 proposals”), and an interim rule under Regulation DD (64 FR 49846). The interim rule under Regulation DD allowed depository institutions to deliver disclosures on periodic statements electronically if the consumer agrees.

Generally, the 1999 proposals required institutions to use a standardized form containing specific information about the electronic delivery of disclosures so that consumers could make informed decisions about whether to receive disclosures electronically. If the consumer affirmatively consented, most disclosures could be provided electronically. To address concerns about potential abuses, the 1999 proposals generally would have required disclosures to be given in paper form when consumers transacted business in person. The proposals contained rules for disclosures that are made available to consumers at an institution's Internet web site (governing, for example, how long disclosures must remain posted at a web site).

The Board received letters representing 115 commenters expressing views on the revised proposals. Industry commenters generally supported the Board's approach of establishing federal rules for a uniform method of obtaining consumers' consumer to the receipt of electronic disclosures instead of deferring to state law. Still, many sought specific additional guidance and in some cases wanted more flexibility. They were concerned about the length of time the proposals would have required electronic disclosures to remain available to a consumer at an institution's Internet web site or upon request. In addition, they believed the proposed rule requiring paper disclosures for mortgage loans closed in person was not sufficiently flexible. Consumer advocates believed the 1999 proposals addressed many of their concerns about the 1998 proposals. Nevertheless, they urged the Board to incorporate greater protections for consumers, such as restricting the delivery of electronic disclosures to only those consumers who initiate transactions electronically.

The Board also obtained views through four focus groups with individual consumers, conducted in the Washington-Baltimore metropolitan area. Participants reviewed and commented on the format and content of the proposed sample consent forms, as well as on alternative revised forms.

On June 30, 2000, the President signed the E-Sign Act, which was enacted to encourage the continued expansion of electronic commerce. The E-Sign Act generally provides that electronic documents and signatures have the same validity as paper documents and handwritten signatures. The act contains special rules for the use of electronic disclosures in consumer transactions. Consumer disclosures may be provided in electronic form only if the consumer affirmatively consents after receiving certain information specified in the statute.

The Board and other government agencies are permitted to interpret the E-Sign Act's consumer consent requirements within prescribed limits, but may not impose additional requirements for consumer consent. In addition, agencies generally may not re-impose a requirement for using paper disclosures in particular transactions, such as those conducted in person.

The consumer consent provisions in the E-Sign Act became effective October 1, 2000, and did not require implementing regulations. Thus, financial institutions are currently permitted to use electronic disclosures under Regulations B, E, M, Z and DD if the consumer affirmatively consents in the manner required by the E-Sign Act.

The Board is adopting an interim final rule to establish uniform standards for the electronic delivery of disclosures required under Regulation M. Consistent with the requirements of the E-Sign Act, lessors must obtain lessee's affirmative consent to provide disclosures electronically.

The interim rules also establish uniform requirements for the timing and delivery of electronic disclosures. Disclosures may be sent by e-mail to an electronic address designated by the lessee, or they may be made available at another location, such as an Internet web site. If the disclosures are not sent by e-mail, lessees must receive a notice alerting them to the availability of the disclosures. Disclosures posted on a web site must be available for at least 90 days, to allow lessees adequate time to access and retain the information. With regard to the timing of electronic disclosures, lessees are required to access the disclosures before becoming obligated on a lease. Under the interim rule, lessors must make a good faith attempt to redeliver electronic disclosures that are returned undelivered, using the address information available in their files. Similar rules are being adopted under Regulations B, E, Z, and DD.

The interim rules include most of the revisions that were part of the 1999 proposals and were not affected by the E-Sign Act. The Board is adopting these rules with some minor changes discussed below. The rules are adopted as interim rules, to allow commenters to present new information or views not previously considered in the context of the 1998 and 1999 proposals. Since the Board's 1999 proposals were issued, more institutions have gained experience in offering financial services electronically. The Board believes that additional comments, beyond those previously considered in connection with the Board's earlier proposals, might inform the Board whether any developments in technology or industry practices have occurred that warrant further changes in the rules. The comment period ends on June 1, 2001. The Board expects to adopt final rules on a permanent basis prior to October 1, 2001.

Under section 104(b) of the E-Sign Act, the Board and other government agencies are permitted to interpret the act, within prescribed limits. The Board may issue rules that interpret how the E-Sign Act's consumer consent requirements apply for purposes of the laws administered by the Board. Also, the Board may, by regulation, exempt a particular category of disclosures from the E-Sign Act's consumer consent requirements if it will eliminate a substantial burden on electronic commerce without creating material risk for consumers.

The Board requests comment on whether the Board should exercise its authority under the E-Sign Act in future rulemakings to interpret the consumer consent provisions, or other provisions of the act, as they affect the Board's consumer protection regulations. Comment is requested on whether the statutory provisions relating to consumer consent are sufficient, or whether additional guidance is needed. For example, is interpretative guidance needed concerning the statutory requirement that lessees confirm their consent electronically in a manner that reasonably demonstrates they can access information in the form to be used by the lessor? Is clarification needed on the effect of lessees withdrawing their consent, or on requesting paper copies of electronic disclosures? Lessors must also inform lessees of changes in hardware and software requirements if the change creates a material risk that the lessee will not be able to access or retain the disclosure. The Board solicits comment on whether regulatory standards are needed for determining a “material risk” for purposes of Regulation M and other financial services and fair lending laws administered by the Board, and if so what standards should apply.

Under section 104(d) of the E-Sign Act, the Board is authorized to exempt specific disclosures from the consumer consent requirements of section 101(c) of the E-Sign Act, if the exemption is necessary to eliminate a substantial burden on electronic commerce and will not increase the material risk of harm to consumers. The Board requests comment on whether it should consider exercising this exemption authority.

The E-Sign Act eliminated legal impediments to the use of electronic records and signatures. The Board requests comment on whether other legislative or regulatory changes are needed to adapt current requirements to online banking and lending and facilitate electronic delivery of consumer financial services.

The comments may assist the Board in future efforts to update the regulations. The comments may also be used in connection with a study required under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. That act requires the federal bank supervisory agencies to conduct a study of banking regulations that affect the electronic delivery of financial services and to submit to the Congress a report recommending any legislative changes that are needed to facilitate online banking and lending.

Pursuant to its authority under section 187 of the CLA, the Board amends Regulation M to establish uniform standards for the use of electronic communication to provide disclosures required by this regulation. Electronic disclosures can effectively reduce compliance costs without adversely affecting consumer protections. Leasing disclosures are typically provided in the lease contract, but disclosures can be provided in a separate statement or in the lease contract or other document evidencing the lease. Leases are not typically be consummated on-line, but consumers are able to shop and apply for leases on-line. The purpose of the Regulation M disclosures is to ensure that consumers have meaningful information about lease terms and to promote comparison shopping. The use of electronic communication may allow lessors to provide Regulation M disclosures to consumers earlier in the leasing process. To the extent that a lessor may make electronic disclosures available at its Internet web site instead of providing the disclosures directly to the lessee, the Board finds that such an exception is warranted, acting pursuant to its authority under section 105(a) of TILA. Below is a section-by-section analysis of the rules for providing disclosures by electronic communication, including references to changes in the official staff commentary.

Section 213.3(a)(5) is added to provide a cross reference to rules governing the electronic delivery of disclosures in § 213.6.

As adopted, the definition of the term “electronic communication” remains substantially unchanged from the 1999 proposals. Section 213.6(a) limits the term to a message transmitted electronically that can be displayed on equipment as visual text; an example is a message displayed on a personal computer monitor screen. Thus, audio-and voice-response telephone systems are not included. Because the rule permits the use of electronic communication to satisfy the statutory requirement for written disclosures that must be clear and conspicuous, the Board believes visual text is an essential element of the definition.

Some commenters asked for clarification that the definition was not intended to preclude the use of devices other than personal computers, which also can display visual text. The equipment on which the text message is received is not limited to a personal computer, provided the visual display used to deliver the disclosures meets the “clear and conspicuous” format requirement, discussed below.

Effective October 1, 2000, the E-Sign Act permits lessors to provide disclosures using electronic communication, if the lessor complies with consumer consent requirements in section 101(c). Under section 101(c) of the E-Sign Act, lessors must provide specific information about the electronic delivery of disclosures before obtaining the lessee's affirmative consent to receive electronic disclosures. The consent requirements in the E-Sign Act are similar but not identical to the Board's 1999 proposal. Accordingly, § 213.6(b) sets forth the general rule that lessors subject to Regulation M may provide disclosures electronically if the lessor complies with section 101(c) of the E-Sign Act.

The E-Sign Act authorizes the use of electronic disclosures. It does not affect any requirement imposed under the CLA other than a requirement that disclosures be in paper form, and it does not affect the content or timing of disclosures. Electronic disclosures are subject to the regulation's format, timing, and retainability rules and the clear and conspicuous standard. Comment 6(b)-1 contains this guidance.

Electronic disclosures must be clear and conspicuous as is the case for all written disclosures under the CLA and Regulation M. See § 213.3(a). A lessor must provide electronic disclosures using a clear and conspicuous format. Also in accordance with the E-Sign Act: (1) The lessor must disclose the requirements for accessing and retaining disclosures in that format; (2) the lessee must demonstrate the ability to access the information electronically and affirmatively consent to electronic delivery; and (3) the lessor must provide the disclosures in accordance with the specified requirements. Comment 6(b)-2 contains this guidance.

Commenters asked about the use of navigational tools with electronic disclosures. For example, some believed that such tools might be helpful in directing consumers to related information that explains the terminology used in the disclosures. Many Internet web sites use navigational tools that are conspicuous through the use of bold text, larger fonts, different colors, underlining, or other methods of highlighting. Such tools are not per se prohibited so long as they are not used in a manner that would violate the clear and conspicuous standard.

Disclosures delivered electronically must comply with existing timing requirements under the CLA and Regulation M. See § 213.3(a)(3). Disclosures generally must be provided before the lessee becomes obligated. For example, if a lessor permits the lessee to lease a vehicle on-line, the lessee must be required to access the disclosures required under § 213.4 before becoming obligated. A link to the disclosures satisfies the timing rule if the lessee cannot bypass the disclosures before becoming obligated. Or the disclosures in this example must automatically appear on the screen, even if multiple screens are required to view the entire disclosure. Comment 6(b)-3 contains this guidance.

The CLA and Regulation M require that disclosures be given to lessees. It is not sufficient for lessors to provide a bypassable navigational tool that merely gives lessees the option of receiving disclosures. Such an approach reduces the likelihood that lessees will notice and receive the disclosures. The final rule ensures that lessees see cost disclosures provided electronically so that they have the opportunity to read them when shopping for a lease or before becoming obligated for a lease.

Commenters on the various proposals requested guidance regarding an institution's duty in cases where the institution cannot provide timely disclosures because automated equipment controlled by the institution malfunctions or otherwise fails to operate properly. To the extent applicable in connection with a lease transaction, if a lessor controls the equipment and disclosures are required at that time, a lessor might not be liable for failing to provide timely disclosures if the defense in section 130(c) of TILA is available.

Under the CLA and Regulation M, disclosures required to be in writing also must be in a form the consumer can retain. (See § 213.3(a).) Electronic disclosures are subject to this requirements. Comment 6(b)-4 contains guidance on this requirement.

Lessees may communicate electronically with lessors through a variety of means and from various locations. Depending on the location (at home, at work, in a public place such as a library), a lessee may not have the ability at a given time to preserve CLA disclosures presented on-screen. To ensure that lessees have an adequate opportunity to access and retain the disclosures, the lessor also must send them to the lessee's designated e-mail address or make them available at another location, for example, on the lessor's Internet web site, where the information may be retrieved at a later date.

To the extent applicable in connection with a lease transaction, if a lessor controls the equipment providing the electronic disclosures (for example, a computer terminal located in the lessor's place of business) the lessor must ensure that the lessee has the opportunity to retain the required information. Comment 6(b)-5 contains guidance on this requirement.

Under the E-Sign Act, consumers must affirmatively consent before they receive electronic disclosures “relating to a transaction” if the disclosures are required by law or regulation to be in writing. Section 213.6(c) is added to provide that disclosures required in advertisements are not deemed to be related to a transaction for purposes of the E-Sign Act's consumer consent provision.

Consistent with the 1999 proposals, the interim rule provides that lessors may deliver electronic disclosures by sending them to a lessee's e-mail address. Alternatively, the rule provides that lessors may make the disclosures available at another location such as an Internet web site. If the lessor makes a disclosure available at such a location, the lessor effectively delivers the disclosure by sending a notice alerting the lessee when the disclosure can be accessed and preserving the disclosure at the location for at least 90 days. The time period for keeping disclosures available at a location such as a lessor's Internet web site under the interim rule differs from the 1999 proposals, based on commenters' concerns as discussed below.

For purposes of § 213.6(d), a lessee's electronic address is an e-mail address that is not limited to receiving communications transmitted solely by the lessor. This guidance is contained in comment 6(d)(1)-1.

As proposed, under § 226.36(d)(2)(ii) of the interim rule, disclosures provided at an Internet web site must remain available for at least 90 days. The requirement seeks to ensure that lessees have adequate time to access and retain a disclosure under a variety of circumstances, such as when a lessee may not be able for an extended period of time to access the information due to computer malfunctions, travel, or illness. Comment 6(d)(2)-1 is added to provide that during this period, the actual disclosures must be available to the lessee, but the lessor has discretion to determine whether they should be available at the same location for the entire period.

Some commenters on the various proposals believed the 90-day time period is reasonable and feasible. About an equal number of commenters believed it was too burdensome and costly; some of these commenters suggested periods that ranged from 30 to 60 days.

The 1999 proposals provided that after the 90-day time period, disclosures would be available upon consumers' request, generally for 24 months, in the same format as initially provided to the consumer. The 24-month period is consistent with a lessor's duty to retain records that evidence compliance. Consumer advocates supported the proposed retention period; some recommended that disclosures should be available upon request for the length of the contractual relationship with the consumer.

Industry commenters strongly opposed the 24-month period. Many believed that keeping copies of electronic disclosures actually provided to consumers for that period of time would be costly and burdensome. Moreover, industry commenters believed that once a consumer has accessed the disclosures, the consumer rather than the lessor should have the duty to retain them for future reference. They also noted that under existing record retention requirements applicable to paper disclosures, a lessor need only demonstrate compliance with the rules, but need not retain copies of the actual disclosure provided to consumers.

The requirement for lessors to provide duplicate disclosures upon request for 24 months has not been adopted. A lessor's duty to retain evidence of compliance for 24 months remains unchanged.

Section 213.6(d)(3) is added to make clear that the requirements of paragraphs (i) and (ii) of § 213.6(d)(2) do not apply to disclosures in lease advertisements (§ 213.7).

Industry commenters on the 1998 proposal asked for clarification that sending the electronic disclosures complies with the regulation, and the institutions are not required to confirm that the consumer actually received them. Consumer advocates asked that institutions be required to verify the delivery of disclosures by return receipt, in the case of e-mail. In the 1999 proposals, the Board solicited comment on the need for and the feasibility of such a requirement.

Consumer advocates believe that e-mail systems are not yet sufficiently reliable, and that safeguards are necessary to ensure that consumers actually receive disclosures. Industry commenters stated that a return receipt requirement would be costly and burdensome, and would require lessors to monitor return receipts in every case to determine that an individual consumer received the disclosures.

Section 101(c) of the E-Sign Act requires that consumers consent electronically, or confirm their consents electronically, in a manner that reasonably demonstrates that the consumer can access the information that the lessor will be providing. This requirement seeks to verify at the outset that the consumer is actually capable of receiving the information in the electronic format being used by the lessor. After the consumer consents, the E-Sign Act also requires lessors to notify consumers of changes that materially affect consumer's ability to access electronic disclosures.

The interim rule does not impose a verification requirement because the cost and burden associated with verifying delivery of all disclosures would not be warranted. When electronic disclosures are returned undelivered, however, § 213.6(e) imposes a duty to attempt redelivery (either electronically or to a postal address) based on address information in the lessor's own files. Unlike paper disclosures delivered by the postal service, there generally is no commonly-accepted mechanism for reporting a change in e-mail or for forwarding e-mail. Where a lessor actually knows that the delivery of an electronic disclosure did not take place, the lessor should take reasonable steps to effectuate delivery in some way. For example, if an e-mail message to the lessee (containing an alert notice or other disclosure) is returned as undeliverable, the redelivery requirement is satisfied if the lessor sends the disclosure to a different e-mail address or postal address that the lessor has on file for the lessee. Sending the disclosures a second time to the same electronic address would not be sufficient if the lessor has a different address for the lessee on file. Comment 6(e)-1 provides this guidance.

This redelivery requirement is limited to situations where the electronic communication cannot be delivered and does not apply to situations where the disclosure is delivered but, for example, cannot be read by the lessee due to technical problems with the lessee's software. A lessor's duty to redeliver a disclosure under § 213.6(e) does not affect the timeliness of the disclosure. Lessors comply with the timing requirements of the regulation when a disclosure is sent in a timely manner, even though the disclosure is returned undelivered and the lessor is required under § 213.6(e) to take reasonable steps to attempt redelivery.

Under § 213.7(b)(1), a lease advertisement cannot refer to a component of the total amount due prior to or at consummation or by delivery (except for the periodic payment amount) more prominently than the total amount due. In addition, with the exception of the notice required by § 213.4(s), the rate cannot be more prominent than any other § 213.4 disclosure stated in the advertisement. Comment 7(b)(1)-3 contains guidance on how this rule applies in an electronic advertisement.

Under § 213.7(b)(2), a lessor that advertises a percentage rate must include a statement about the limitations of the rate in close proximity to the rate without any other intervening language or symbols. Comment 7(b)(2)-1 is revised to provide guidance on how this rules applies in an electronic advertisement.

Stating certain credit terms in an advertisement for a lease triggers the disclosure of additional terms. Section 213.7(c) permits lessors using a multiple-page advertisement to state the additional disclosures in a table or schedule as long as the triggering lease terms appearing anywhere else in the advertisement refer to the page where the table or schedule is printed. The Board proposed to extend the multiple-page advertisement provisions to electronic advertisements and provided that lessors complied with § 213.7(c) if the table or schedule with the additional information is set forth clearly and conspicuously and the triggering lease terms appearing anywhere else in the advertisement clearly refer to the page or location where the table or schedule begins. Comment 7(c)-2 is revised to reflect this guidance.

The interim rule does not impose document integrity standards. Consumer advocates and others expressed concerns that electronic documents can be altered more easily than paper documents. They say that consumers' ability to enforce rights under the consumer protection laws could be impaired, in some cases, if the authenticity of disclosures they retain cannot be demonstrated.

Institutions are generally required to retain evidence of compliance with the Board's consumer regulations. Accordingly, the Board requested comment on the feasibility of requiring institutions to have systems in place capable of detecting whether or not information has been altered, or to use independent certification authorities to verify disclosure documents.

Consumer advocates strongly supported document integrity requirements (including the use of certification authorities) that would apply to all-electronic disclosures. Signatures, notary seals, and verification procedures such as recordation are used to protect against alterations for transactions memorialized in paper form. Consumer advocates believe that comparable verification procedures are needed for electronic disclosures as well.

Industry commenters opposed mandatory document integrity standards for electronic disclosures. Because the technology in this area is still evolving, they believe that mandatory standards would be premature. Others believe that imposing document integrity standards or requiring the use of certification authorities would be costly to implement.

The Board recognizes the concerns about document integrity, but believes it is not practicable at this time to impose document integrity standards for consumer disclosures or mandate the use of independent certification authorities. Effective methods may be too costly. Other less costly methods may deter alterations in some cases, but would not necessarily ensure document integrity.

Moreover, the issue of document integrity affects electronic commerce generally and is not unique to the written disclosures required under the consumer protection laws administered by the Board. Section 104(b)(3) of the E-Sign Act authorizes federal or state regulatory agencies to specify performance standards to assure the accuracy, record integrity, and accessibility of records that are required to be retained, but prohibits the agencies from requiring the use of a particular type of software or hardware in order to comply with record retention requirements. Technology is likely to develop to protect electronic contracts and other legal documents. Thus, it seems premature for the Board to specify any particular standards or methods for consumer disclosure at this time.

Comment letters should refer to Docket No. R-1042, and, when possible, should use a standard typeface with a font size of 10 or 12. This will enable the Board to convert the text to machine-readable form through electronic scanning, and will facilitate automated retrieval of comments for review. Also, if accompanied by an original document in paper form, comments may be submitted on 3 1/2 inch computer diskettes in any IBM-compatible DOS-or Windows-based format.

The Board has reviewed these interim amendments to Regulation M, in accordance with section 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 604). Two of the three requirements of a final regulatory flexibility analysis under the Act are (1) a succinct statement of the need for and the objectives of the rule and (2) a summary of the issues raised by the public comments, the agency's assessment of those issues, and a statement of the changes made in the final rule in response to the comments. These two areas are discussed above.

The third requirement of the analysis is a description of significant alternatives to the rule that would minimize the rule's economic impact on small entities and reasons why the alternatives were rejected. This interim final rule is designed to provide lessors with an alternative method of providing disclosures; the rule will relieve compliance burden by giving lessors flexibility in providing disclosures required by the regulation. Overall, the costs of providing electronic disclosures are not expected to have significant impact on small entities. The expectation is that providing electronic disclosures may ultimately reduce the costs associated with providing disclosures.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and an organization is not required to respond to, this information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number is 7100-0202.

The collection of information that is revised by this rulemaking is found in 12 CFR Part 213.3, 213.4, 213.5, 213.7, 213.8 and in Appendix A. This information is mandatory (15 U.S.C. 1667 et seq. ) to evidence compliance with the requirements of the Regulation M and the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA). The respondents/recordkeepers are for-profit financial institutions, including small businesses. Institutions are required to retain records for twenty-four months. This regulation applies to all types of depository institutions, not just state member banks. However, under Paperwork Reduction Act regulations, the Federal Reserve accounts for the burden of the paperwork associated with the regulation only for state member banks. Other agencies account for the paperwork burden on their respective constituencies under this regulation.

The revisions provide that lessors may deliver disclosures electronically upon obtaining consumers' affirmative consent in accordance with the E-Sign Act. The revisions provide guidance to institutions on the timing and delivery of electronic disclosures, to ensure that consumers have adequate opportunity to access and retain the information. With respect to state member banks, it is estimated that there are 310 respondent/recordkeepers and an average frequency of 6,200 responses per respondent each year. The current annual burden is estimated to be 11,179 hours. No comments specifically addressing the burden estimate were received, therefore, the numbers remain unchanged. There is estimated to be no additional cost burden and no capital or start up cost associated with the interim final rule.

Because the records would be maintained at state member banks and the notices are not provided to the Federal Reserve, no issue of confidentiality under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Board has a continuing interest in the public's opinions of the Federal Reserve's collections of information. At any time, comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be sent to: Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (7100-0202), Washington, DC 20503.

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 requires the Board to use “plain language” in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Board invites comments on whether the interim rule is clearly stated and effectively organized, and how the Board might make the rule easier to understand.

The purpose of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. , is to promote the informed use of consumer credit by requiring disclosures about its terms and cost. The Board's Regulation Z (12 CFR part 226) implements the act. The act requires creditors to disclose the cost of credit as a dollar amount (the finance charge) and as an annual percentage rate (the APR). Uniformity in creditors' disclosures is intended to promote the informed use of credit and assist in shopping for credit. TILA requires additional disclosures for loans secured by consumers' homes and permits consumers to rescind certain transactions that involve their principal dwellings.

TILA and Regulation Z require a number of disclosures to be provided in writing, presuming that creditors provide paper documents. Under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (the E-Sign Act)(15 U.S.C. 7001 et seq. ), however, electronic documents and signatures have the same validity as paper documents and handwritten signatures.

Over the past few years, the Board has published several interim rules and proposals regarding the electronic delivery of disclosures. In 1996, after a comprehensive review of Regulation E (Electronic Fund Transfers), the Board proposed to amend the regulation to permit financial institutions to provide disclosures by sending them electronically (61 FR 19696, May 2, 1996). Based on comments received on the 1996 proposal, on March 25,1998, the Board published an interim rule permitting the electronic delivery of disclosures under Regulation E (63 FR 14528) and similar proposals under Regulation Z (63 FR 14548) and other financial services and fair lending regulations administered by the Board. The 1998 interim rule and proposed rules were similar to the 1996 proposed rule under Regulation E.

The 1998 proposals and interim rule allowed depository institutions, creditors, lessors, and others to provide disclosures electronically if the consumer agreed, with few other requirements. For ease of reference, this background section uses the terms “institutions” and “consumers.”

Industry commenters generally supported the Board's 1998 proposals and interim rule, but many of them sought specific revisions and additional guidance on how to comply with the disclosure requirements in certain transactions and circumstances. In particular, they expressed concern that the rule did not specify a uniform method for establishing that an “agreement” was reached for sending disclosures electronically. Consumer advocates, on the other hand, generally opposed the 1998 proposals and the interim rule. They believed that consumer protections in the proposals were inadequate, especially in connection with transactions that are typically consummated in person (such as automobile loans and leases, home-secured loans, and door-to-door credit sales).

In response to comments received on the 1998 proposals, the Board published revised regulatory proposals in September 1999 under Regulations B, E, M, Z, and DD (64 FR 49688, 49699, 49713, 49722 and 49740, respectively, September 14, 1999) (collectively, the “1999 proposals”), and an interim rule under Regulation DD (64 FR 49846). The interim rule under Regulation DD allowed depository institutions to deliver disclosures on periodic statements electronically if the consumer agrees.

Generally, the 1999 proposals required institutions to use a standardized form containing specific information about the electronic delivery of disclosures so that consumers could make informed decisions about whether to receive disclosures electronically. If the consumer affirmatively consented, most disclosures could be provided electronically. To address concerns about potential abuses, the 1999 proposals generally would have required disclosures to be given in paper form when consumers transacted business in person. The proposals contained rules for disclosures that are made available to consumers at an institution's Internet web site (governing, for example, how long disclosures must remain posted at a web site).

The Board received letters representing 115 commenters expressing views on the revised proposals. Industry commenters generally supported the Board's approach of establishing federal rules for a uniform method of obtaining consumers' consent to the receipt of electronic disclosures instead of deferring to state law. Still, many sought specific additional guidance and in some cases wanted more flexibility. They were concerned about the length of time the proposals would have required electronic disclosures to remain available to a consumer at an institution's Internet web site or upon request. In addition, they believed the proposed rule requiring paper disclosures for mortgage loans closed in person was not sufficiently flexible. In addition, they believed the proposed rule requiring paper disclosures for mortgage loans closed in person was not sufficiently flexible. Consumer advocates believed the 1999 proposals addressed many of their concerns about the 1998 proposals. Nevertheless, they urged the Board to incorporate greater protections for consumers, such as restricting the delivery of electronic disclosures to only those consumers who initiate transactions electronically.

The Board also obtained views through four focus groups with individual consumers, conducted in the Washington-Baltimore metropolitan area. Participants reviewed and commented on the format and content of the proposed sample consent forms, as well as on alternative revised forms.

On June 30, 2000, the President signed the E-Sign Act, which was enacted to encourage the continued expansion of electronic commerce. The E-Sign Act generally provides that electronic documents and signatures have the same validity as paper documents and handwritten signatures. The act contains special rules for the use of electronic disclosures in consumer transactions. Consumer disclosures may be provided in electronic form only if the consumer affirmatively consents after receiving certain information specified in the statute.

The Board and other government agencies are permitted to interpret the E-Sign Act's consumer consent requirements within prescribed limits, but may not impose additional requirements for consumer consent. In addition, agencies generally may not re-impose a requirement for using paper disclosures in particular transactions, such as those conducted in person.

The consumer consent provisions in the E-Sign Act became effective October 1, 2000, and did not require implementing regulations. Thus, financial institutions are currently permitted to use electronic disclosures under Regulations B, E, M, Z and DD if the consumer affirmatively consents in the manner required by section 101(c) of the E-Sign Act. Under section 101(c)(5) of the E-Sign Act, consumers who consented prior to the effective date of the act to receive electronic disclosures as permitted by any law or regulation, are not subject to the consent requirements.

The Board is adopting an interim final rule to establish uniform standards for the electronic delivery of disclosures required under Regulation Z. Consistent with the requirements of the E-Sign Act, creditors generally must obtain consumer's affirmative consent to provide disclosures electronically.

The interim rules also establish uniform requirements for the timing and delivery of electronic disclosures. Disclosures may be sent by e-mail to an electronic address designated by the consumer, or they may be made available at another location, such as an Internet web site. If the disclosures are not sent by e-mail, consumers must receive a notice alerting them to the availability of the disclosures. Disclosures posted on a web site must be available for at least 90 days, to allow consumers adequate time to access and retain the information. With regard to the timing of electronic disclosures, for disclosures that must be provided before the consumer becomes obligated for an extension of credit, consumers are required to access the disclosures before becoming obligated. Under the interim rule, institutions must make a good faith attempt to redeliver electronic disclosures that are returned undelivered, using the address information available in their files. Similar rules are being adopted under Regulations B, E, M, and DD.

The interim rules include most of the revisions that were part of the 1999 proposals and were not affected by the E-Sign Act. The Board is adopting these rules with some minor changes discussed below. The rules are adopted as interim rules, to allow commenters to present new information or views not previously considered in the context of the 1998 and 1999 proposals. Since the Board's 1999 proposals were issued, more institutions have gained experience in offering financial services electronically. The Board believes that additional comments, beyond those previously considered in connection with the Board's earlier proposals, might inform the Board whether any developments in technology or industry practices have occurred that warrant further changes in the rules. The comment period ends on June 1, 2001. The Board expects to adopt final rules on a permanent basis prior to October 1, 2001.

Under section 104(b) of the E-Sign Act, the Board and other government agencies are permitted to interpret the act, within prescribed limits. The Board may issue rules that interpret how the E-Sign Act's consumer consent requirements apply for purposes of the laws administered by the Board. Also, the Board may, by regulation, exempt a particular category of disclosures from the E-Sign Act's consumer consent requirements if it will eliminate a substantial burden on electronic commerce without creating material risk for consumers.

The Board requests comment on whether the Board should exercise its authority under the E-Sign Act in future rulemakings to interpret the consumer consent provisions or other provisions of the act, as they affect the Board's consumer protection regulations. Comment is requested on whether the statutory provisions relating to consumer consent are sufficient, or whether additional guidance is needed. For example, is interpretative guidance needed concerning the statutory requirement that consumers confirm their consent electronically in a manner that reasonably demonstrates they can access information in the form to be used by the creditor? Is clarification needed on the effect of consumers' withdrawing their consent, or on requesting paper copies of electronic disclosures? Institutions must also inform consumers of changes in hardware or software requirements if the change creates a material risk that the consumer will not be able to access or retain the disclosure. The Board solicits comment on whether regulatory standards are needed for determining a “material risk” for purposes of Regulation Z and other financial services and fair lending laws administered by the Board, and if so what standards should apply.

Under section 104(d) of the E-Sign Act, the Board is authorized to exempt specific disclosures from the consumer consent requirements of section 101(c) of the E-Sign Act, if the exemption is necessary to eliminate a substantial burden on electronic commerce and will not increase the material risk of harm to consumers. The Board requests comment on whether it should consider exercising this exemption authority.

The E-Sign Act eliminated legal impediments to the use of electronic records and signatures. The Board requests comment on whether other legislative or regulatory changes are needed to adapt current requirements to online banking and lending and facilitate electronic delivery of consumer financial services.

As an example, under Regulations Z and DD, periodic statements inform consumers about their account activity over a period of time, typically monthly. The beginning and ending dates of the cycle determine costs and other information that must be disclosed. In addition, transmittal of the periodic statement triggers important consumer protections such as billing error resolution procedures. Online banking, however, can provide consumers with up-to-date information about their accounts on a continuing basis. Such information is a helpful supplement to—but does not comply as a substitute for—periodic statements. Should the rules for periodic statements be modified for online banking, and if so, how could the rules be crafted to maintain for consumers (1) a perspective of the cost and activity of an account over time, and (2) protections for resolving errors or liability for unauthorized transactions.

The comments may assist the Board in future efforts to update the regulations. The comments may also be used in connection with a study required under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. That act requires the federal bank supervisory agencies to conduct a study of banking regulations that affect the electronic delivery of financial services and to submit to the Congress a report recommending any legislative changes that are needed to facilitate online banking and lending.

Pursuant to its authority under section 105 of TILA, the Board amends Regulation Z to establish uniform standards for the use of electronic communication to provide disclosures required by this regulation. Electronic disclosures can effectively reduce compliance costs without adversely affecting consumer protections. The purpose of Regulation Z disclosures is to ensure that consumers have meaningful information about credit terms and to promote comparison shopping. The use of electronic communication may allow creditors to provide Regulation Z disclosures to the consumer earlier in the lending process. To the extent that a creditor may make electronic disclosures available at its Internet web site instead of providing the disclosures directly to the consumer, the Board finds that such an exception is warranted, acting pursuant to its authority under section 105(a) of TILA. Below is a section-by-section analysis of the rules for providing disclosures by electronic communication, including references to changes in the official staff commentary.

Section 226.5(a)(5) is added to provide a cross reference to rules governing the electronic delivery of disclosures in § 226.36.

Comment 5(b)(2)(ii)-3 is revised. Under the current rules for open-end plans, creditors may permit, but may not require, consumers to pick up their periodic statements in lieu of receiving them automatically. In 1997, the staff commentary was revised to clarify that consumers who elect to pick up written periodic statements might, instead, receive copies of such statements by electronic means (62 FR 10193, March 6, 1997). Consumers making that election, however, would not waive their right to also obtain written periodic statements. Accordingly, the comment did not specify the manner or form of consumers' consent to electronic copies of their statement.

As discussed below, § 226.36(b) as adopted sets forth the general rule that a creditor subject to Regulation Z may provide disclosures electronically only if the creditor complies with section 101(c) of the E-Sign Act. This requirement applies to electronic statements provided in accordance with comment 5(b)(2)(ii)-3, and the comment has been revised accordingly.

Regulation Z requires credit and charge card issuers to provide cost disclosures in certain applications and solicitations to open card accounts.

Regarding the timing of the § 226.5a disclosures, the 1999 proposal stated that for electronic card applications or solicitations, the disclosures must appear on the screen before the application or solicitation appears. Under the final rule, a consumer must be able in all cases to access the disclosures at the time the blank application or reply form is made available by electronic communication, such as on a card issuer's Internet web site. Card issuers have flexibility in satisfying this requirement. For example, if a link is not used, the application or reply form must clearly and conspicuously refer to the fact that rate, fee and other cost information either precedes or follows the application or reply form. Alternatively, card issuers may provide a link to electronic disclosures as long as consumers cannot bypass the disclosures before submitting the application or reply form. Or the disclosures could automatically appear on the screen when the application or reply form appears. A card issuer need not confirm that the consumer has read the disclosures. As adopted, comment 5a(a)(2)-8 has been modified from the 1999 proposal to provide additional guidance. Similar guidance is provided for home-equity lines of credit and adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) loans.

Section 226.5a(b)(1)(ii) is revised and (iii) is added to address the accuracy of the APR in connection with electronic credit and charge card applications and solicitations. Where terms are disclosed in card applications and solicitations, card issuers are required to disclose the periodic rate that would apply, expressed as an APR. For fixed rates, card issuers are required to disclose the APR currently available under the plan. For variable rates, the APR disclosed in a direct mail solicitation must be accurate within 60 days before mailing; in a take-one, within 30 days before printing.

As part of the 1999 proposals, the Board proposed a single standard for APR accuracy in electronic disclosures: for a variable-rate plan, the disclosed APR would be deemed accurate if it is one that was in effect within 30 days before the disclosures are sent to the consumer's e-mail address. If disclosures are made available at another location such as the card issuer's Internet web site, the APR would be one in effect within the last 30 days. Commenters generally supported applying a uniform standard to both the e-mail and web site posting methods of providing applications or solicitations. The final rule is adopted as proposed.

The format and content requirements differ for cost disclosures in card applications or solicitations sent in direct mail campaigns and for those made available to the general public such as in “take-one” applications and catalogs or magazines. Disclosures accompanying direct mail applications and solicitations must be presented in a table. Disclosures in a take-one also may be presented in a table with the same content as for direct mail, but the act and regulation permit two alternatives for format and content: (1) A narrative that describes how finance charges and other charges are assessed, and (2) a statement that costs are involved, along with a toll-free telephone number to call for further information.

With regard to the format and content of disclosures, the Board's 1999 proposals generally applied the same rules to card applications and solicitations made in the electronic context as apply to paper-based applications and solicitations. Card issuers sending applications or solicitations to a consumer's e-mail address would follow the direct mail rules; applications or solicitations made available to the general public would follow the take-one rules. Commenters generally supported the proposal.

The Board believes that in the context of on-line credit shopping, consumers would benefit from consistent disclosures among credit card issuers, whether consumers view an application or solicitation from an e-mail address or at another location such as a card issuer's web site. The option to distribute paper-based take-ones without cost information addresses, in part, a concern that the disclosures may become inaccurate with no practical means to recall the take-ones. This concern is not an issue for disclosures posted on an Internet web site. Requiring all card issuers to post a table on web sites that have credit and charge card applications or solicitation would not be unduly burdensome. Pursuant to the Board's general authority under section 105(a) to create exceptions to carry out the purposes of the act and the Board's specific authority under section 127(c)(5) to modify disclosures to carry out the purposes of the rules affecting applications and solicitations, § 226.5a(c) is revised to apply the direct mail rules to electronic credit and charge card applications or solicitations.

Comment 5b(b)-7 is added to provide guidance on the timing of disclosures for electronic applications for a home-equity line of credit (HELOC). Regulation Z requires that disclosures (including a brochure) be provided at the time an application for a HELOC is provided to a consumer. The disclosures generically describe the creditor's HELOC product. In the September 1999 proposal, comment 5b(b)-7 stated that if a HELOC application is made available electronically, such as on a creditor's Internet web site, the disclosures must appear before the application is provided.

The final comment has been modified to provide guidance similar to that given for credit and charge card applications and solicitations under § 226.5a and ARM loans under § 226.19(b). In all cases, a consumer must be able to access the disclosures (including the brochure) at the time the blank application or reply form is made available by electronic communication, such as on a creditor's Internet web site.

Under § 226.5b(c), persons other than the creditor that provide applications for a HELOC must give the consumer a brochure at the time the application is given, and in some cases also provide other disclosures. Section 226.5b(c)(2) is added to clarify that such persons who are required to comply with Regulation Z may use electronic communication to do so, as long as the requirements of § 226.36(b) are satisfied.

Section 226.15 provides that in certain open-end plans secured by a consumer's principal dwelling, the consumer has three business days to rescind the transaction after becoming obligated on the debt. Consumers with an ownership interest in the dwelling used as security must receive (1) cost disclosures about the transaction, and (2) two copies of a notice that explains consumers' rescission rights and how to effect rescission, including a form the consumer may use to notify the creditor if the consumer decides to rescind the transaction.

Section 226.15(b)(1) is revised to permit a creditor to provide a single rescission notice by electronic communication to each consumer with an ownership interest in the dwelling who has affirmatively consented to electronic delivery of the notice. Comment 15(b)-1 is revised to provide guidance on electronic rescission notices. Similar guidance is provided under § 226.23 regarding rescission notices for closed-end transactions.

Stating certain credit terms in an advertisement for an open-end credit plan triggers the disclosure of additional terms. Section 226.16(c) permits creditors using a multiple-page advertisement to state the additional disclosures in a table or schedule as long as the triggering credit terms appearing anywhere else in the advertisement refer to the page where the table or schedule is printed. Of the few comments received on this provision, commenters supported expanding the use of a table or schedule to electronic advertisements. Section 226.16(c) is revised to cover electronic advertisements as proposed and a conforming amendment in the staff commentary is made to comment 16(c)(1)-1. Comment 16(c)(1)-2 is added as proposed to provide guidance in complying with the requirements of this section for creditors using electronic communication.

Section 226.17(a)(3) is added to provide a cross reference to rules governing the electronic delivery of disclosures in § 226.36.

Section 226.17(g) allows creditors to defer TILA disclosures when a consumer makes a credit purchase or requests credit by mail, telephone, or any other written or “electronic communication” without face-to-face or direct solicitation by the creditor. The deferral rule pre-dates online or Internet banking; the term “electronic communication” included credit requests by telegraph transmissions and facsimiles. The rationale underlying the deferral is that creditors cannot provide transaction-specific disclosures in written form as required by the regulation at the time of the consumer's purchase or request. In such cases, creditors may delay providing disclosures until the first payment due date, provided certain information has been “made available in written form” before the consumer's request.

The interim final rule provides as did the 1999 proposal that creditors offering loan products by electronic communication (for example, those offered on the Internet) may not delay providing disclosures under § 226.17(g). The difficulties in providing disclosures for credit requests by mail or telephone are not present for credit requests received by e-mail or through the Internet. Thus, specific disclosures must be provided before transactions are consummated using electronic communication as defined in § 226.36. The language has been revised from the proposal to clarify that the deferral rule in § 226.17(g) remains available to creditors offering loan products by facsimile machine (as well as mail and telephone) without face-to-face or direct telephone solicitation.

For certain loans with variable-rate features (loans where the APR may increase during the loan term) that are secured by the consumer's principal dwelling, creditors must provide consumers with a booklet and other disclosures generically describing the creditor's product when an application is given (or a nonrefundable fee is paid, whichever occurs earlier). In the September 1999 proposal, comment 19(b)-2 was revised to address the timing for providing disclosures required by § 226.19(b) when electronic communication is used. The final rule has been modified consistent with the rules for providing disclosures with applications and solicitations for credit and charge cards under § 226.5a and applications for home-equity lines of credit under § 226.5b. In all cases, a consumer must be able to access the disclosures (including the brochure) at the time the blank application is made available by electronic communication, such as on a creditor's Internet web site.

Section 226.23 provides that in certain transactions secured by a consumer's principal dwelling, the consumer has three business days to rescind the transaction after becoming obligated on the debt. Consumers with an ownership interest in the dwelling used as security must receive (1) cost disclosures about the transaction, and (2) two copies of a notice that explains consumers' rescission rights and how to effect rescission, including a form the consumer may use to notify the creditor if the consumer decides to rescind the transaction. Consistent with amendments to § 226.15(b)(1) regarding rescission notices provided electronically for open-end credit plans, § 226.23(b)(1) is amended to permit a creditor delivering rescission notices electronically to send a single notice to each consumer with an ownership interest in the dwelling used as security (rather than two notices). Comment 23(b)-1 is added to provide guidance on electronic rescission notices.

Regulation Z prescribes certain disclosures for closed-end loan advertisements. Although the specific requirements differ somewhat for closed-end loans and open-end credit plans, the revisions adopted by the Board for closed-end loan advertisements are substantially similar to those discussed above for open-end credit plans.

Section 226.24(b) permits creditors to state a simple annual rate of interest or periodic rate in addition to the APR, as long as the rate is stated in conjunction with, but not more conspicuously than, the APR. Comment 24(b)-6 contains guidance on how this rule applies to an electronic advertisement.

Stating certain credit terms in an advertisement for closed-end credit triggers the disclosure of additional terms. Section 226.24(d) permits creditors using a multiple-page advertisement to state the additional disclosures in a table or schedule as long as the triggering credit terms appearing elsewhere in the advertisement refer to the page where the table or schedule is printed. Section 226.24(d) is revised to cover electronic advertisements, as proposed, and a conforming amendment is made to comment 24(d)-2. Comment 24(d)-4 is added as proposed to provide guidance in complying with the requirements of this section for creditors using electronic communication.

To provide consistency among the regulations, § 226.27 is revised as proposed to permit creditors to provide disclosures in languages other than English as long as disclosures in English are available to consumers who request them.

Section 226.31(b) is revised to provide a cross reference to rules governing the electronic delivery of disclosures in § 226.36.

As adopted, the definition of the term “electronic communication” remains substantially unchanged from the 1999 proposals. Section 226.36(a) limits the term to a message transmitted electronically that can be displayed on equipment as visual text; an example is a message displayed on a personal computer monitor screen. Thus, audio-and voice-response telephone systems are not included. Because the rule permits the use of electronic communication to satisfy the statutory requirement for written disclosures that must be clear and conspicuous, the Board believes visual text is an essential element of the definition. Creditors that accommodate vision-impaired consumers by providing disclosures that do not use visual text must also provide disclosures using visual text.

Some commenters asked for clarification that the definition was not intended to preclude the use of devices other than personal computers, which also can display visual text. The equipment on which the text message is received is not limited to a personal computer, provided the visual display used to deliver the disclosures meets the “clear and conspicuous” format requirement, discussed below.

Effective October 1, 2000, the E-Sign Act permits creditors to provide disclosures using electronic communication, if the creditor complies with the consumer consent requirements in Section 101(c). Under section 101(c) of the E-Sign Act, creditors must provide specific information about the electronic delivery of disclosures before obtaining the consumer's affirmative consent to receive electronic disclosures. The consent requirements in the E-Sign Act are similar but not identical to the Board's 1999 proposal. Accordingly, § 226.36(b) sets forth the general rule that creditors subject to Regulation Z may provide disclosures electronically if the creditor complies with section 101(c) of the E-Sign Act.

The E-Sign Act authorizes the use of electronic disclosures. It does not affect any requirement imposed under TILA other than a requirement that disclosures be in paper form, and it does not affect the content or timing of disclosures. Electronic disclosures are subject to the regulation's format, timing and retainability rules and the clear and conspicuous standard. Comment 36(b)-1 contains this guidance.

Electronic disclosures must be clear and conspicuous, as is the case for all written disclosures under TILA and Regulation Z. See §§ 226.5(a)(1), 226.17(a)(1), and 226.31(b). A creditor must provide electronic disclosures using a clear and conspicuous format. Also, in accordance with the E-Sign Act: (1) The creditor must disclose the requirements for accessing and retaining disclosures in that format; (2) the consumer must demonstrate the ability to access the information electronically and affirmatively consent to electronic delivery; and (3) the creditor must provide the disclosures in accordance with the specified requirements. Comment 36(b)-2 contains this guidance.

Commenters posed a few questions about the applicability of the clear and conspicuous standard to particular situations. Some asked whether electronic advertisements or other unrelated promotional information may appear on the same screen as mandatory disclosures that are posted on an Internet web site. Except to the extent required by the regulation, disclosures do not have to be provided separately from other information. Advertisements should not be integrated into the text of the disclosure in a manner that violates the clear and conspicuous standard.

Commenters also had questions about the use of navigational tools with electronic disclosures. For example, some believed that such tools might be helpful in directing consumers to related information that explains the terminology used in the disclosures. Many Internet web sites use navigational tools that are conspicuous through the use of bold text, larger fonts, different colors, underlining, or other methods of highlighting. Such tools are not per se prohibited so long as they are not used in a manner that would violate the clear and conspicuous standard.

Disclosures delivered electronically must comply with existing timing requirements under TILA and Regulation Z. See, for example, §§ 226.5(b), 226.17(b), and 226.31(c). Commenters on the Board's 1999 proposals requested specific guidance that an electronic disclosure would be considered timely based on the time it is sent by e-mail or posted on an Internet web site, regardless of when the consumer receives or reads the disclosure.

Under the final rule, consistent with rules for disclosures that are sent by postal mail, disclosures provided by e-mail are timely when they are sent by the required time. Disclosures posted periodically at an Internet web site are timely if, by the required time, the creditor both makes the disclosures available at that location and, in accordance with § 226.36(d)(2), sends a notice alerting the consumer that the disclosures have been posted. For example, under § 226.9, creditors offering open-end plans must provide a change-in-terms notice to consumers at least 15 days in advance of certain changes. For a change-in-terms notice posted on the Internet, a creditor must both post the notice and notify consumers of its availability at least 15 days in advance of the change. Comment 36(b)-4 contains this guidance.

Certain disclosures must be provided before the consumer becomes obligated. For example, when a creditor permits the consumer to consummate a closed-end transaction on-line, the consumer must be required to access the disclosures required under § 226.18 before becoming obligated. A link to the disclosures satisfies the timing rule if the consumer cannot bypass the disclosures before becoming obligated. Or, the disclosures in this example must automatically appear on the screen, even if multiple screens are required to view the entire disclosure. Comment 36(b)-3 contains this guidance, as proposed, but has been expanded to provide the following additional guidance.

For disclosures that are not required to be segregated and thus may be interspersed into the text of another document, the creditor may satisfy the requirement to provide the disclosures if the document appears automatically or via a nonbypassable link. For example, when a creditor permits the consumer to open a credit card account and make a purchase immediately thereafter, disclosures required under § 226.6 must be provided before the first transaction. The consumer must be required to access the disclosures (or the document containing the disclosures such as a credit card agreement) before becoming obligated for the plan (or before the first transaction).

Some industry commenters believed that requiring disclosures to automatically appear or be accessed by the consumer is cumbersome and unnecessary. Some commenters suggested that the Board allow the required disclosures to be accessible via a clearly marked navigational tool; they believe that once the tool is provided, the disclosure should be deemed to have been provided to the consumer.

TILA and Regulation Z require that creditors provide or send disclosures to consumers. It is not sufficient for creditors to provide a bypassable navigational tool that merely gives consumers the option of receiving the disclosures. Such an approach reduces the likelihood that consumers will notice and receive the disclosures. The final rule ensures that consumers actually see cost disclosures provided electronically so that they have the opportunity to read them when shopping for credit or before becoming obligated for an extension of credit, as applicable.

Commenters on the various proposals requested guidance regarding the creditor's duty in cases where a creditor cannot provide timely disclosures because an automated loan machine or other automated equipment controlled by the creditor malfunctions or otherwise fails to operate properly. Where the creditor controls the equipment and disclosures are required at that time, a creditor might not be liable for failing to provide timely disclosures if the defense in section 130(c) of TILA is available.

Under TILA and Regulation Z, many of the disclosures required to be in writing must be in a form the consumer can retain. Electronic disclosures are subject to this requirement. Comment 36(b)-5 contains guidance on this requirement.

Consumers may communicate electronically with creditors through a variety of means and from various locations. Depending on the location (at home, at work, in a public place such as a library), a consumer may not have the ability at a given time to preserve TILA disclosures presented on-screen. To ensure that consumers have an adequate opportunity to access and retain the disclosures, the creditor also must send them to the consumer's designated e-mail address or make them available at another location, for example, on the creditor's Internet web site, where the information may be retrieved at a later date.

Where the creditor controls the equipment providing the electronic disclosures (for example, an automated loan machine or computer terminal located in the creditor's lobby), the creditor must ensure that the consumer has the opportunity to retain the required information. Comment 36(b)-6 contains guidance on this requirement.

Under the E-Sign Act, consumers must affirmatively consent before they receive electronic disclosures “relating to a transaction” if the disclosures are required by law or regulation to be in writing. Section 226.36(c) is added to provide that certain disclosures are not deemed to be related to a transaction for purposes of the E-Sign Act's consumer consent provision. These include disclosures in connection with advertisements (§ 226.16 and § 226.24), credit and charge card applications and solicitations (§ 226.5a), HELOC and ARM loan applications (§ 226.5b and § 226.19(b)), and disclosures under § 226.17(g)(1)-(5). In some circumstances, disclosures are available to the general public, such as advertisements and solicitations; in other circumstances, consumers receiving disclosures with a solicitation for credit may not enter in the credit transaction. Those entering into credit transactions will ultimately receive disclosures subject to the consent requirements.

Consistent with the 1999 proposals, the interim rule provides that creditors may deliver electronic disclosures by sending them to a consumer's e-mail address. Alternatively, the rule provides that creditors may make the disclosures available at another location such as an Internet web site. If the creditor makes a disclosure available at such a location, the creditor effectively delivers the disclosure by sending a notice alerting the consumer when the disclosure can be accessed and preserving the disclosure at the location for at least 90 days. The time period for keeping disclosures available at a location such as a creditor's Internet web site under the interim rule differs from the 1999 proposals, based on commenters' concerns as discussed below.

For purposes of § 226.36(d), a consumer's electronic address is an e-mail address that is not limited to receiving communications transmitted solely by the creditor, as proposed. This guidance is contained in comment 36(d)(1)-1.

An electronic address would not include systems that permit communication only between the consumer and the creditor, for example, home-banking programs that allow consumers to communicate directly with a creditor on-line with the use of a computer and modem. These systems, like a creditor's web site accessed via the Internet, give consumers access to information about their accounts at a location controlled by the creditor. In both cases, the creditor determines how long account information will be available to the consumer. Consumers who receive disclosures at their e-mail address, however, may choose when to review, and for how long to retain, account information. Consumers who receive disclosures by contacting a creditor's site need to be alerted when the information is first available in order to ensure that they have the opportunity to access the information before it is removed. Thus, disclosures provided using systems such as home-banking programs are treated in the same manner as disclosures made available at an Internet web site, and a notice alerting the consumer when disclosures are posted must be sent, by e-mail or to a postal address, at the creditor's option.

Under § 226.36(d)(2)(i) of the interim rule, for disclosures made available at an Internet web site, a notice alerting the consumer when disclosures are posted must be sent by e-mail (or to a postal address, at the creditor's option). Section 226.36(d)(2)(i) requires that the alert notice identify the account involved and the address or other location where the disclosure is available. Comment 36(d)(2)-1 provides guidance on the level of detail required in identifying the account.

As proposed, under § 226.36(d)(2)(ii) of the interim rule, disclosures provided at an Internet web site must remain available for at least 90 days. The requirement seeks to ensure that consumers have adequate time to access and retain a disclosure under a variety of circumstances, such as when a consumer may not be able for an extended period of time to access the information due to computer malfunctions, travel, or illness. Making the periodic statement for 90 days also ensures that it will be available for a sufficient time in most cases to allow alleged errors to be resolved under the procedures in Regulation Z. The 90-day period is uniform for all disclosures, for ease of compliance. Comment 36(d)(2)-2 is added to provide that during this period, the actual disclosures must be available to the consumer, but the creditor has discretion to determine whether they should be available at the same location for the entire period.

Some industry commenters believed the 90-day time period is reasonable and feasible. About an equal number of commenters believed it was too burdensome and costly; some of these commenters suggested periods that ranged from 30 to 60 days.

The 1999 proposals provided that after the 90-day time period, disclosures would be available upon consumers' request, generally for 24 months, in the same format as initially provided to the consumer. The 24-month period is consistent with a creditor's duty to retain records that evidence compliance. Consumer advocates supported the proposed retention period; some recommended that disclosures should be available upon request for the length of the contractual relationship with the consumer.

Industry commenters strongly opposed the 24-month period. Many believed that keeping copies of electronic disclosures actually provided to consumers for that period of time would be costly and burdensome. Moreover, industry commenters believed that once a consumer has accessed the disclosures, the consumer rather than the creditor should have the duty to retain them for future reference. They also noted that under existing record retention requirements applicable to paper disclosures, a creditor need only demonstrate compliance with the rules, but need not retain copies of the actual disclosures provided to consumers.

The requirement for creditors to provide duplicate disclosures upon request for 24 months has not been adopted. A creditor's duty to retain evidence of compliance for 24 months remains unchanged.

Section 226.36(d)(3) is added to make clear that the requirements of paragraphs (i) and (ii) of § 226.36(d)(2) do not apply to disclosures in credit and charge card applications and solicitations mailed or otherwise distributed to the general public (§ 226.5a), certain credit advertisements (§§ 226.16 and .24), cost information for representative transactions made available to consumers or to the public (§ 226.17(g)), or disclosures for certain home-secured credit (§§ 226.5b and 19(b)).

Industry commenters on the 1998 proposal asked for clarification that sending the electronic disclosures complies with the regulation, and that institutions are not required to confirm that the consumer actually received them. Consumer advocates asked that institutions be required to verify the delivery of disclosures by return receipt, in the case of e-mail. In the 1999 proposals, the Board solicited comment on the need for and the feasibility of such a requirement.

Consumer advocates believe that e-mail systems are not yet sufficiently reliable, and that safeguards are necessary to ensure that consumers actually receive disclosures. Industry commenters stated that a return receipt requirement would be costly and burdensome, and would require creditors to monitor return receipts in every case to determine that individual consumers received the disclosures.

Section 101(c) of the E-Sign Act requires that consumers consent electronically, or confirm their consents electronically, in a manner that reasonably demonstrates that the consumer can access the information that the creditor will be providing. This requirement seeks to verify at the outset that the consumer is actually capable of receiving the information in the electronic format being used by the creditor. After the consumer consents, the E-Sign Act also requires creditors to notify consumers of changes that materially affect consumers' ability to access electronic disclosures.

The interim rule does not impose a verification requirement because the cost and burden associated with verifying delivery of all disclosures would not be warranted. When electronic disclosures are returned undelivered, however, § 226.36(e) imposes a duty to attempt redelivery (either electronically or to a postal address) based on address information in the institution's own files. Unlike paper disclosures delivered by the postal service, there generally is no commonly-accepted mechanism for reporting a change in electronic address or for forwarding e-mail. Where a creditor actually knows that the delivery of an electronic disclosure did not take place, the creditor should take reasonable steps to effectuate delivery in some way. For example, if an e-mail message to the consumer (containing an alert notice or other disclosure) is returned as undeliverable, the redelivery requirement is satisfied if the creditor sends the disclosure to a different e-mail address or postal address that the creditor has on file. Sending the disclosures a second time to the same electronic address would not be sufficient if the institution has a different address for the consumer on file. Comment 36(e)-1 provides this guidance.

This redelivery requirement is limited to situations where the electronic communication cannot be delivered and does not apply to situations where the disclosure is delivered but, for example, cannot be read by the consumer due to technical problems with the consumer's software. A creditor's duty to redeliver a disclosure under § 226.36(e) does not affect the timeliness of the disclosure. Creditors comply with the timing requirements of the regulation when a disclosure is initially sent in a timely manner, even though the disclosure is returned undelivered and the creditor is required under § 226.36(e) to take reasonable steps to attempt redelivery.

The E-Sign Act provides that electronic signatures have the same validity as handwritten signatures. Section 106 of the act defines an electronic signature. Section 226.36(f) is added to incorporate the E-Sign Act's definition of electronic signature into the regulation. To comply with the E-Sign Act, an electronic signature must be executed or adopted by a consumer with the intent to sign the record. Accordingly, regardless of the technology used to meet this requirement, the process must evidence the consumer's identity. Comment 36(f)-1 provides this guidance.

The interim rule does not impose document integrity standards. Consumer advocates and others expressed concerns that electronic documents can be altered more easily than paper documents. They say that consumers' ability to enforce rights under the consumer protection laws could be impaired, in some cases, if the authenticity of disclosures they retain cannot be demonstrated.

Institutions are generally required to retain evidence of compliance with the Board's consumer regulations. Accordingly, the Board requested comment on the feasibility of requiring institutions to have systems in place capable of detecting whether or not information has been altered, or to use independent certification authorities to verify disclosure documents.

Consumer advocates strongly supported document integrity requirements (including the use of certification authorities) that would apply to all-electronic disclosures. Signatures, notary seals, and verification procedures such as recordation are used to protect against alterations for transactions memorialized in paper form. Consumer advocates believe that comparable verification procedures are needed for electronic disclosures as well.

Industry commenters opposed mandatory document integrity standards for electronic disclosures. Because the technology in this area is still evolving, they believe that mandatory standards would be premature. Others believe that imposing document integrity standards or requiring the use of certification authorities would be costly to implement.

The Board recognizes the concerns about document integrity, but believes it is not practicable at this time to impose document integrity standards for consumer disclosures or mandate the use of independent certification authorities. Effective methods may be too costly. Other less costly methods may deter alterations in some cases, but would not necessarily ensure document integrity.

Moreover, the issue of document integrity affects electronic commerce generally and is not unique to the written disclosures required under the consumer protection laws administered by the Board. Section 104(b)(3) of the E-Sign Act authorizes federal or state regulatory agencies to specify performance standards to assure the accuracy, record integrity, and accessibility of records that are required to be retained, but prohibits the agencies from requiring the use of a particular type of software or hardware in order to comply with record retention requirements. Technology is likely to develop to protect electronic contracts and other legal documents. Thus, it seems premature for the Board to specify any particular standards or methods for consumer disclosure at this time.

Comment letters should refer to Docket No. R-1043, and, when possible, should use a standard typeface with a font size of 10 or 12. This will enable the Board to convert the text to machine-readable form through electronic scanning, and will facilitate automated retrieval of comments for review. Also, if accompanied by an original document in paper form, comments may be submitted on 3 1/2 inch computer diskettes in any IBM-compatible DOS- or Windows-based format.

The Board has reviewed these interim amendments to Regulation Z, in accordance with section 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 604). Two of the three requirements of a final regulatory flexibility analysis under the Act are (1) a succinct statement of the need for and the objectives of the rule and (2) a summary of the issues raised by the public comments, the agency's assessment of those issues, and a statement of the changes made in the final rule in response to the comments. These two areas are discussed above.

The third requirement of the analysis is a description of significant alternatives to the rule that would minimize the rule's economic impact on small entities and reasons why the alternatives were rejected. This interim final rule is designed to provide creditors with an alternative method of providing disclosures; the rule will relieve compliance burden by giving creditors flexibility in providing disclosures required by the regulation. Overall, the costs of providing electronic disclosures are not expected to have significant impact on small entities. The expectation is that providing electronic disclosures may ultimately reduce the costs associated with providing disclosures.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and an organization is not required to respond to, this information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number is 7100-0199.

The collection of information that is revised by this rulemaking is found in 12 CFR Part 226 and in Appendices F, G, H, J, K, and L. This information is mandatory (15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ) to evidence compliance with the requirements of the Regulation Z and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The respondents/recordkeepers are for-profit financial institutions, including small businesses. Institutions are required to retain records for twenty-four months. This regulation applies to all types of creditors, not just state member banks. However, under Paperwork Reduction Act regulations, the Federal Reserve accounts for the burden of the paperwork associated with the regulation only for state member banks. Other agencies account for the paperwork burden on their respective constituencies under this regulation.

The revisions provide that creditors may deliver disclosures electronically upon obtaining consumers' affirmative consent in accordance with the E-Sign Act. The revisions also provide guidance to institutions on the timing and delivery of electronic disclosures, to ensure that consumers have adequate opportunity to access and retain the information.

With respect to state member banks, it is estimated that there are 1000 respondent/recordkeepers and an average frequency of 136,294 responses per respondent each year. The current annual burden is estimated to be 1,886,392 hours. No comments specifically addressing the burden estimate were received, therefore, the numbers remain unchanged. There is estimated to be no additional cost burden and no capital or start up cost associated with the interim final rule.

Because the records would be maintained at state member banks and the notices are not provided to the Federal Reserve, no issue of confidentiality arises under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Board has a continuing interest in the public's opinions of the Federal Reserve's collections of information. At any time, comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be sent to: Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (7100-0199), Washington, DC 20503.

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 requires the Board to use “plain language” in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Board invites comments on whether the interim rule is clearly stated and effectively organized, and how the Board might make the rule easier to understand.

Advertising, Federal Reserve System, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Truth in lending.

What prior AD action did FAA take on this subject? The following AD's currently require you to repetitively inspect and/or modify the elevator structure on certain Piper Models PA-31, PA-31-300, PA-31P, PA-31T, and PA-31T1 airplanes.

What has happened to necessitate further AD action? Piper has informed FAA of reports of damage in the elevator structure area on additional airplanes. These are Piper Models PA-31-325, PA-31-350, PA-31T3, and PA-31P-350 airplanes.

On December 24, 1996, FAA issued a special airworthiness information bulletin (SAIB) to encourage compliance with new service information related to the elevator structure on the above-referenced airplanes. We continue to receive reports of damage in the elevator structure area on these airplanes.

Has FAA taken any action to this point? We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain Piper Models PA-31, PA-31-300, PA-31-325, PA-31-350, PA-31P, PA-31T, PA-31T1, PA-31T2, PA-31T3, and PA-31P-350 airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on July 21, 2000 (65 FR 45319). The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 70-26-06, AD 76-03-01, and AD 80-02-15. The NPRM also proposed to initially retain the inspection and modification requirements currently required in AD 70-26-06, AD 76-03-01, and AD 80-02-15, add certain other airplane models to the AD applicability; and require a modification at a certain time period, as terminating action for the currently required repetitive inspections.

Does this AD follow FAA's aging commuter-class aircraft policy? The actions required in this AD are consistent with FAA's aging commuter aircraft policy, which briefly states that, when a modification exists that could eliminate or reduce the number of required critical inspections, the modification should be incorporated. This policy is based on our determination that reliance on critical repetitive inspections on airplanes utilized in commuter service carries an unnecessary safety risk when a design change exists that could eliminate or, in certain instances, reduce the number of those critical inspections. In determining what inspections are critical, we consider (1) the safety consequences of the airplane if the known problem is not detected by the inspection; (2) the reliability of the inspection such as the probability of not detecting the known problem; (3) whether the inspection area is difficult to access; and (4) the possibility of damage to an adjacent structure as a result of the problem.

The alternative to modifying the elevator structure on the affected airplanes will be to require you to repetitively inspect this area for the life of the airplane.

Was the public invited to comment? Interested persons were afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposed rule or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

What is FAA's final determination on this issue? After careful review of all available information related to the subject presented above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We determined that these minor corrections:

How many airplanes does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD affects 2,344 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate the following costs to accomplish the modification:

What events have caused this AD? The FAA has received several reports of improper engine fuel flow settings on Cessna Models 172R and 172S airplanes. These improper settings could prevent the engine from operating at idle speed when the pilot reduces power (i.e., landing approach, power off stalls, etc.). An over-rich fuel mixture is a reason why the engine may not operate at idle speed. This over-rich fuel mixture also contributes to the engine not restarting during flight when using published in-flight restart procedures.

The current pilot operating handbook (POH) and FAA-approved airplane flight manual (AFM) procedures for the Cessna Models 172R and 172S airplanes do not address the pilot bringing the throttle back to the hard idle stop (throttle full aft). The POH/AFM also does not address emergency engine restart procedures to enable engine startup if a rich fuel mixture exists.

What are the consequences if the condition is not corrected? This condition, if not corrected, could result in rough engine operation or engine stoppage. The over-rich fuel mixture also contributes to the engine not restarting during flight when using published in-flight restart procedures.

What has FAA decided? The FAA has reviewed all available information and determined that:

Is there service information that applies to this subject? Cessna has issued Service Bulletin SB01-11-02, dated March 5, 2001. This service bulletin:

What does this AD require? This AD requires a one-time inspection for proper engine idle speed and fuel control mixture setting and adjustment, as necessary. This AD also requires incorporating engine operating procedures into the POH/AFM.

Procedures for accomplishing the inspection are included in the AD. We are not utilizing the procedures included in Cessna Service Bulletin SB01-11-02, dated March 5, 2001.

Why is FAA not requiring the actions specified in the service bulletin? The inspection procedures in Cessna Service Bulletin SB01-11-02 agree with the service manual procedures. The procedures we are including in this AD agree with the Cessna factory production procedures. After examining these procedures, FAA has determined that:

Will I have the opportunity to comment prior to the issuance of the rule? Because the unsafe condition described in this could result in rough engine operation or engine stoppage, FAA finds that notice and opportunity for public prior comment are impracticable. Therefore, good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

How do I comment on this AD? Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by notice and opportunity for public comment, we invite your comments on the rule. You may submit whatever written data, views, or arguments you choose. You need to include the rule's docket number and submit your comments in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. We will consider all comments received on or before the closing date specified above. We may amend this rule in light of comments received. Factual information that supports your ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether we need to take additional rulemaking action.

Are there any specific portions of the AD that FAA wants me to address? The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. You may examine all comments we receive before and after the closing date of the rule in the Rules Docket. We will file a report in the Rules Docket that summarizes each FAA contact with the public that concerns the substantive parts of this AD.

We are reviewing the writing style we currently use in regulatory documents, in response to the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998. That memorandum requires federal agencies to communicate more clearly with the public. We are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document is clear, and any other suggestions you might have to improve the clarity of FAA communications that affect you. You can get more information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain language initiative at http://www.plainlanguage.gov.

How can I be sure FAA receives my comment? If you want us to acknowledge the receipt of your comments, you must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. On the postcard, write “Comments to Docket No. 2001-CE-14-AD.” We will date stamp and mail the postcard back to you.

Does this AD impact various entities? These regulations 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, FAA has determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Does this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and 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 (otherwise, an evaluation is not required). A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket.

On January 17, 2001, the FAA issued AD 2001-02-06, amendment 39-12090 (66 FR 8082, January 29, 2001), applicable to all EMBRAER Model EMB-120 series airplanes, to require revising the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to include requirements for activation of the ice protection systems and to add information regarding operation in icing conditions; installing an ice detector system; and revising the AFM to include procedures for testing system integrity. That AD also requires installing the ice detector system in accordance with revised procedures. That action was prompted by issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign civil airworthiness authority. The actions specified by that AD are intended to ensure that the flightcrew is able to recognize the formation of significant ice accretion and take appropriate action; such formation of ice could result in reduced controllability of the airplane in normal icing conditions.

Since the issuance of AD 2001-02-06, the FAA has noted that a typographical error appeared in paragraph (a)(2) of that AD, which specified certain AFM revisions. Paragraph (a)(2) of the AD should have read, “AIRSPEED (Flaps and Gear Up) . . . . . 160 KIAS MINIMUM” instead of “. . . 60 KIAS MINIMUM.” While the typographical error may be readily apparent to a pilot rated in the EMBRAER Model EMB-120 series airplane, there is no way to know what the correct figure should be. Therefore, in view of the effective date of AD 2001-02-06 (March 5, 2001), we consider it necessary to supersede the existing AD to correct and clarify that AFM revision.

In addition, the FAA has been advised that EMBRAER has issued Revision 50 of AFM-120-794, dated November 3, 1997, which contains revised procedures for activation of the ice protection systems and adds information regarding operation in icing conditions; installing an ice detector system; and revises the AFM to include procedures for testing system integrity.

The Departmento de Aviacao Civil (DAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, classified Revision 50 of the AFM as mandatory, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil.

This airplane model is manufactured in Brazil and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the Departmento de Aviacao Civil (DAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

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 supersedes AD 2001-02-06 to require revision of the Normal Procedures Section of the current AFM. The revision corrects and clarifies the Normal Procedures Section of the current AFM revision, which currently specifies that when atmospheric or ground icing conditions exist, “AIRSPEED (Flaps and Gear Up) . . . 60 KIAS.” The revision corrects the reference to 60 KIAS to read “160 KIAS.”

This AD also provides an alternative method of compliance to revise the AFM required by paragraph (a) of this 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 2001-NM-36-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 .

On January 30, 2001, the FAA proposed to amend Part 71 of the Federal Aviation regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by amending Class D airspace at Valdosta Moody AFB, GA (66 FR 9986) at the request of the U.S. Air Force, the primary airspace user. Class D airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from the surface of the earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9H, dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received.

This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) amends Class D airspace at Valdosta Moody AFB, GA.

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

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on January 31, 2001 (66 FR 8361, Airspace Docket No. 00-ACE-35). An error was subsequently discovered that the airspace designation of Council Bluffs, IA should be Omaha, NE. This action corrects that error. The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period the regulation would become effective on May 17, 2001. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

Section 255.12 of the rules establishes a sunset date for the rules to ensure that we periodically reexamine the need for the rules and their effectiveness. The original sunset date was December 31, 1997. We have changed it three times, so the current sunset date is March 31, 2001. 62 FR 66272 (December 18, 1997); 64 FR 15127 (March 30, 1999); and 65 FR 16808 (March 30, 2000). We concluded that these extensions were necessary to prevent the harm that would arise if the CRS business were not regulated and that extending the rules would not impose substantial costs on the industry.

We are now changing the sunset date to March 31, 2002, because we have been unable to complete our reexamination of the current rules by March 31, 2001. Since we believed that the rules should remain in effect until we complete that process, we proposed an additional extension of the rules' expiration date to March 31, 2002, to achieve that result. 66 FR 13860 (March 8, 2001). Our notice of proposed rulemaking gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our proposal. Comments were filed by America West, Delta, Orbitz, and Worldspan, each of whom supported the proposal, and the Air Carrier Association of America, which urged us to suspend one of the rules pending reexamination.

In 1992 the Department adopted its rules governing CRS operations, 14 CFR Part 255, because they were necessary to protect airline competition and to ensure that consumers can obtain accurate and complete information on airline services. 57 FR 43780 (September 22, 1992). Because almost all airlines found it essential to participate in each system, market forces did not discipline the price and quality of services offered airlines by the systems. Travel agents depended on CRSs to provide airline information and make bookings for their customers, and agencies typically relied on one system to obtain information on airline services and to make bookings. One or more airlines or airline affiliates, moreover, owned each of the systems and could operate the system in ways designed to prejudice the competitive position of other airlines.

The rules have always had a sunset date to ensure that we would periodically reexamine whether the rules were necessary and effective. 14 CFR 255.12; 57 FR 43829-43830 (September 22, 1992). We began a proceeding to determine whether the rules are necessary and should be readopted and, if so, whether they should be modified, by issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. 62 FR 47606 (September 10, 1997). Last year we published a supplemental advance notice of proposed rulemaking that asked the parties to update their comments in light of recent developments and to comment on whether any rules should be adopted regulating the use of the Internet in airline distribution. 65 FR 45551 (July 24, 2000). Almost all of the parties responding to our supplemental advance notice of proposed rulemaking (and the initial advance notice of proposed rulemaking) contend that CRS rules remain necessary. Few parties argue that the continued regulation of the CRS business is harmful and unnecessary. An extension of the current rules pending completion of the current reexamination of those rules would be consistent with the positions taken by most of the commenters.

We have also been informally studying recent developments in airline distribution and the proposed business plan and operational strategy of Orbitz, a travel website being developed by five major U.S. airlines. See July 20, 2000, Statement of A. Bradley Mims, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. In addition, in recent years we have amended the rules twice to further promote competition. 62 FR 59784 (November 5, 1997); 62 FR 66272 (December 18, 1997).

We proposed again to change the expiration date for our CRS rules to March 31, 2002, so that the rules would remain in effect while we complete our reexamination of the need for the rules and their effectiveness. 66 FR 13860 (March 8, 2001). We could not finish the steps required for our overall reexamination of our rules by the current expiration date, March 31, 2001. In addition, we wished to complete our informal studies of airline distribution developments before we determine whether to propose readopting the rules.

Changing the sunset date to March 31, 2002, would preserve the status quo until we determine whether the rules should be readopted and, if so, how they should be modified. Maintaining the current rules would be consistent with the expectations of the systems and their users—airlines and travel agencies—that each system would operate in compliance with the rules. Systems, airlines, and travel agencies, moreover, would be unreasonably burdened if the rules were allowed to expire and we later determined that those rules (or similar rules) should be adopted, since they could have changed their business methods in the meantime.

In addition, extending the rules seemed necessary to protect airline competition and consumers against unreasonable and unfair practices. Our past examinations of the CRS business and airline marketing showed that CRSs were still essential for the marketing of the services of almost all airlines. 66 FR 13862 citing 57 FR 43780, 43783-43784 (September 22, 1992). CRS rules were necessary because the airlines relied heavily on travel agencies for distribution, because travel agencies relied on CRSs, because most travel agency offices used only one CRS, because creating alternatives for CRSs and getting travel agencies to use them would be difficult, and because non-owner airlines were unable to cause agencies to use a CRS that provided airlines better or less expensive service instead of another that provided poorer or more expensive service. If an airline did not participate in a system used by a travel agency, that agency was less likely to book its customers on that airline. As a result of the importance of marginal revenues in the airline industry, an airline could not afford to lose access to a significant source of revenue. Almost all airlines therefore had to participate in each CRS, and CRSs did not need to compete for airline participants. We believed that these findings were still valid despite such developments as the increasing importance of the Internet for airline distribution. 66 FR 13862.

We are well aware that we need to reexamine the rules in light of recent developments, such as the growing use of the Internet and the weakening of ties between some of the systems and their former airline owners. 66 FR 13862. We noted, however, that most of the parties that responded to the advance notice of proposed rulemaking and the supplemental advance notice of proposed rulemaking had alleged that the rules remained necessary, and most of them urged us to strengthen them further to protect airlines and travel agencies against potential abuses by system owners.

We therefore tentatively concluded that our past findings on the need for CRS rules are sufficiently valid to justify a short-term extension of the rules' expiration date. 66 FR 13862.

We further noted that our obligation under section 1102(b) of the Federal Aviation Act, recodified as 49 U.S.C. 40105(b), to act consistently with the United States' obligations under treaties and bilateral air services agreements supported an extension of the rules. Many of those bilateral agreements assure the airlines of each party a fair and equal opportunity to compete, and our rules provide an assurance of fair and nondiscriminatory treatment for foreign airlines. 66 FR 13862.

We recognized that the delay in completing the rules' reexamination was regrettable in view of the need to revise our rules to reflect current industry conditions, possibly including an extension of the rules to cover the Internet. We explained that we have had to address other airline competition issues that appeared to be more urgent and that the current rules seem to address the most serious potential competitive and consumer protection issues created by the use of computer reservations systems in airline distribution. 66 FR 13861-13862.

The need to make the final rule effective by March 31, 2001, the current sunset date, caused us to shorten the comment period to ten days. 66 FR 13860.

Worldspan supports the proposed extension on the ground that we need to undertake a thorough review of the issues raised in our advance notices of proposed rulemaking and the parties' comments. Worldspan argues that we should conduct a comprehensive review of the issues without attempting to address certain issues individually. Delta supports the extension but urges us to proceed as quickly as possible with issuing new rules. America West supports the extension but contends that we should take immediate action to control the level of the booking fees charged airlines participating in the systems. Orbitz, which has filed comments asserting that the existing rules have shortcomings, supports the extension if we have decided that we need more time for our overall reassessment of the complex issues presented by the rules.

The Air Carrier Association of America, a trade association for low-fare airlines, took no position on whether the rules should be extended. The Association instead argued that we should immediately suspend section 255.10(a), which requires each system to make available to its participating airlines any marketing and booking data that it chooses to generate from the bookings made through the system.

We are changing the rules' sunset date to March 31, 2002, as we proposed. Delta, America West, Worldspan, and Orbitz support our proposal, and no one has objected to it. We based our proposal on the findings made by us in earlier CRS rulemakings and the position of most of the parties in the underlying rulemaking (Docket OST-97-2881) that CRS rules are still necessary. 65 FR at 11011. In our overall reexamination of the rules we will, of course, consider whether recent developments, such as the divestiture by several airlines of their CRS ownership interests, indicate that the justification and need for some or all of the CRS rules has ended.

America West urges us to act quickly on the specific rule proposals of interest to it. We will consider its arguments as part of our consideration of procedures for completing the reexamination of the rules and for updating the rules to reflect current industry conditions.

We are not suspending section 255.10(a) as requested by the Air Carrier Association. A suspension of the section would not achieve the result sought by the Association, the denial of access by large airlines to the marketing and booking data produced and sold by the systems. Suspending the section would only end the systems' obligation to make the data available to all participating airlines. Unless we adopted a rule prohibiting the release of the data, the systems would be able to continue selling it to airline and non-airline firms. We recognize the importance of reexamining the provision, as we stated in our original advance notice of proposed rulemaking, 62 FR 47610, and we intend to see whether we should change the systems' obligation and ability to sell marketing and booking data. We prefer to do so in the context of our overall reexamination of the rules, since we must also consider the arguments made by United and others that the rules should be terminated. The Association based its request on the need for the Department to take steps to promote a competitive airline industry. We agree that we have a responsibility to ensure competition, and we are considering options for carrying out that responsibility.

As we noted, we have issued a supplemental notice last year asking the parties to update their comments in light of recent developments, and we are completing our informal studies of airline distribution. These steps will enable us to move forward promptly on the rulemaking. 66 FR 13862.

We have determined for good cause to make this amendment effective on March 31, 2001, rather than thirty days after publication as required by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), except for good cause shown. To maintain the current rules in force, we must make this amendment effective by March 31, 2001. Since the amendment preserves the status quo, it will not require the systems, airlines, and travel agencies to change their operating methods. As a result, making the amendment effective less than thirty days after publication will not burden anyone.

This rule is a nonsignificant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that order. The rulemaking is also not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation, 44 FR 11034.

As stated in our notice of proposed rulemaking, we tentatively concluded that maintaining the current rules would not impose significant costs on the systems. They have already taken all the steps necessary to comply with the rules' requirements on displays and functionality, and complying with those rules on a continuing basis does not impose a substantial burden on them. Maintaining the rules would benefit participating airlines, since otherwise they could be subjected to unreasonable terms for participation, and would benefit consumers, who might otherwise be given incomplete or inaccurate information on airline services. The rules also contain provisions designed to prevent certain types of abuses in the systems' contracts with travel agency subscribers. 66 FR 13862-13863.

Our last major CRS rulemaking included our preparation of a tentative economic analysis published with our notice of proposed rulemaking and our decision to make that analysis final when we issued our final rule. Since we believed that that analysis remained applicable to our proposal to extend the rules' expiration date, we reasoned that no new regulatory impact statement appeared to be necessary. We stated, however, that we would consider comments from any party on that analysis before making our proposal final. 66 FR 13863.

No one filed comments on the economic analysis, so we are basing this rule on the analysis used in our last comprehensive CRS rulemaking. We will prepare a new economic analysis as part of our review of the existing rules, if we determine that rules remain necessary.

This rule does not impose unfunded mandates or requirements that will have any impact on the quality of the human environment.

Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , to keep small entities from being unnecessarily and disproportionately burdened by government regulations. The act requires agencies to review proposed regulations that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of this rule, small entities include smaller U.S. airlines and smaller travel agencies.

Our notice of proposed rulemaking set forth the reasons for our proposed extension of the rules' expiration date and the objectives and legal basis for that proposed rule. 66 FR 13863. We additionally noted that maintaining the current rules would not modify the existing regulation of small businesses. We cited our final rule in our last major CRS rulemaking, which contained a regulatory flexibility analysis on the impact of the rules. We determined on the basis of that analysis that the rules did not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Our notice proposing to extend the rules' sunset date stated that that analysis appeared to be valid for that proposed extension. We therefore adopted that analysis as our tentative regulatory flexibility statement, and we stated that we would consider any comments filed on that analysis in connection with this proposal. 66 FR 13863.

Continuing our current CRS rules would primarily affect two types of small entities, smaller airlines and travel agencies. If the rules enable airlines to operate more efficiently and reduce their costs, they would also affect all small entities that purchase airline tickets, since airline fares may be somewhat lower than they would otherwise be, although the difference may be small.

The maintenance of the rules would protect smaller non-owner airlines from several potential system practices that could injure their ability to operate profitably and compete successfully. The rules, for example, limit the ability of each system to bias its displays in favor of its affiliated airlines and against other airlines, since the rules prohibit systems from ranking and editing displays of airline services on the basis of carrier identity. The rules also prohibit charging participating airlines discriminatory fees. No smaller airline has a CRS ownership interest. Market forces do not significantly influence the systems' treatment of airline participants. Thus, if we did not regulate the systems, the systems' owners could use them to prejudice the competitive position of other airlines. The rules, moreover, impose no significant costs on smaller airlines.

The CRS rules affect the operations of smaller travel agencies, primarily by prohibiting certain CRS practices that could unreasonably restrict the travel agencies' ability to use more than one system or to switch systems. The rules prohibit CRS contracts that have a term longer than five years, give travel agencies the right to use third-party hardware and software, and prohibit certain types of contract clauses, such as minimum use and parity clauses, that restrict an agency's ability to use multiple systems. By prohibiting display bias based on carrier identity, the rules also enable travel agencies to obtain more useful displays of airline services.

We invited interested persons to address our tentative conclusions under the Regulatory Flexibility Act in their comments submitted in response to this notice of proposed rulemaking. 66 FR 13863.

No one commented on our Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis. We will adopt the analysis set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking.

This rule contains no direct reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements that would affect small entities. There are no other federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

I certify under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. et seq. ) that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule contains no collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, Public Law. No. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

We stated that we had reviewed this rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and determined that the rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This rule will not limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in this rule would directly preempt any State law or regulation. We are adopting the rule primarily under the authority granted us by 49 U.S.C. 41712 to prevent unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive practices in the sale of air transportation. Our notice of proposed rulemaking stated our belief that the policy set forth in the proposed rule is consistent with the principles, criteria, and requirements of the Federalism Executive Order and the Department's governing statute. We welcomed comments on our conclusions. 66 FR 13863.

None of the comments addressed our federalism assessment. Therefore, we will make that assessment final. Because the rule will have no significant effect on State or local governments, as discussed above, no consultations with State and local governments on this rule were necessary.

FDA is making technical amendments in its regulations under parts 101, 102, 106, 107, 130, 146, 165, and 190 (21 CFR parts 101, 102, 106, 107, 130, 146, 165, and 190). Specifically, as a result of an FDA reorganization in 2000, the Office of Special Nutritionals and the Office of Food Labeling were combined to form the Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements. Therefore, this rule updates the name and mail codes for this new office in FDA regulations on food labeling (part 101), common or usual name for nonstandardized foods (part 102), infant formula quality control procedures (part 106), infant formula (part 107), food standards (part 130), and new dietary ingredient notification requirements for dietary supplements (part 190). In parts 106 and 107, pertaining to infant formulas, this rule also corrects FDA emergency phone numbers and a regulation section citation for FDA district offices. Similarly, this rule updates the names, addresses, and other contact information for several professional organizations cited in FDA regulations on food labeling (part 101) and requirements for standardized foods (part 146). In addition, FDA discovered that minor errors and omissions were inadvertently published in the CFR affecting its regulations on food labeling (part 101), infant formulas (parts 106 and 107), and requirements for standardized foods (part 165). This rule makes the needed corrections. Finally, due to the passage of time, certain food labeling provisions for juices (§ 101.17) are now obsolete and are removed from FDA regulations by this rule.

This final regulation makes the noted technical amendments. The final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required. The changes addressed in this final rule are as follows:

1. FDA's recent reorganization resulted in changes in the names of several of its offices, mail codes, phone numbers, and staff contacts cited in its regulations. This rule amends parts 101, 102, 106, 107, 130, and 190 to incorporate all of these types of changes and other minor corrections as noted below:

• Throughout part 101, pertaining to food labeling, the Office of Food Labeling (HFS-150) or the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-150) is cited as the FDA office responsible for this part's provisions. The new name and mail code for the Office of Food Labeling are the Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements (HFS-800). The new mail code for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition pertaining to part 101 is (HFS-800). The new FDA office name and mail code are substituted for the old ones wherever they appear in part 101.

• In § 101.93(a)(1), dietary supplement manufacturers, packers or distributors are required to notify FDA no later than 30 days post marketing about any structure or function claims made on the labeling of their dietary supplements. The name and mail code of the FDA office to contact for this purpose are changed from Office of Special Nutritionals (HFS-450) to the Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements (HFS-810).

• In § 102.23(c)(5), pertaining to requirements for peanut spreads, the FDA mail code for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition is changed from (HFS-150) to (HFS-800).

• In § 106.120(a), pertaining to notification requirements for new formulations and reformulations of infant formulas, the FDA mail code for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition is changed from (HFS-450) to (HFS-830).

• In § 106.20(b), the FDA emergency phone number for manufacturers to call to report adulterated or misbranded infant formulas is changed from 202-737-0448 to 301-443-1240. Also in § 106.120(b), the regulatory section citation for a list of FDA district offices for manufacturers to contact to report this infant formula problem is currently erroneously stated in two places as § 5.115 and is corrected to read § 5.215.

• In § 107.50(e)(1), pertaining to notification requirements for exempt infant formulas, the FDA mail code for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition is changed from (HFS-450) to (HFS-830).

• In § 107.50(e)(2), the FDA emergency phone number for manufacturers to call to report adulterated or misbranded exempt infant formulas is changed from 202-737-0448 to 301-443-1240. Also in § 107.50(e)(2), the regulatory section citation for a list of FDA district offices for manufacturers to contact to report this problem is currently erroneously stated in two places as § 5.115 and is corrected to read § 5.215.

• In §§ 107.230(e), 170.240(b), and 107.250, pertaining to infant formula recalls, notification requirements for violative infant formulas, and the termination of an infant formula recall, respectively, the regulatory section citation for a list of FDA district offices for manufacturers to contact to report these situations is currently erroneously stated one or more times as § 5.115 and is corrected to read § 5.215. Also, in § 107.240(b), the FDA emergency phone number for manufacturers to call to report violative infant formula is changed from 202-857-8400 to 301-443-1240.

• In § 130.17(c), the regulations currently state the Chief, Food Standards Branch, Office of Food Labeling, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-158) as the FDA contact to whom a request for a temporary permit must be filed. This temporary permit is for interstate shipment of experimental packs of food varying from the requirements of definitions and standards of identity. The new FDA contact for filing such a permit is the Team Leader, Conventional Foods Team, Division of Standards and Labeling Regulations, Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-822).

• In 190.6(a), the FDA name and mail code for manufacturers or distributors to submit a premarket notification for a dietary supplement containing a new dietary ingredient are changed from the Office of Special Nutritionals (HFS-450) to the Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements (HFS-820).

2. A final rule, published in the Federal Register on September 23, 1997 (62 FR 49825), amended FDA's food labeling regulations to establish requirements for the identification of dietary supplements and for their nutrition labeling and ingredient labeling in § 101.4. Section 101.4(h) requires that the product label for dietary supplements that contain dietary ingredients that are botanicals to state the common or usual names of these ingredients. Current regulations also require that the common or usual names stated on the label for these ingredients be consistent with the names standardized in Herbs of Commerce , 1992 edition, which was incorporated by reference. The address for the American Herbal Products Association, the publisher and source of copies of the Herbs of Commerce , has changed from 4733 Bethesda Ave., suite 345, Bethesda, MD 20814 to 8484 Georgia Ave., suite 370, Silver Spring, MD 20910. This rule amends the address cited in § 101.4(h) for the American Herbal Products Association and includes the following phone and facsimile numbers and electronic mail address as additional ways to contact the association: phone: 301-588-1171, FAX: 301-588-1174, and e-mail: ahpa@ahpa.org.

3. A final rule, published in the Federal Register on September 23, 1997 (62 FR 49859), revised FDA's regulations on nutrient content claims and health claims for conventional foods and dietary supplements. FDA discovered two inadvertent errors from that rulemaking that affect §§ 101.14 and 101.54. Old § 101.14(a)(4) was removed and old § 101.14(a)(5) was redesignated as the new § 101.14(a)(4). At that time, FDA did not realize that § 101.14(e)(3) referenced the original § 101.14(a)(5), which is now paragraph (a)(4). Therefore, this rule amends § 101.14(e)(3) by referring to § 101.14(a)(4) and not (a)(5). In addition, when § 101.54(e)(1) was revised, FDA inadvertently omitted the terms “extra” and “plus” as synonyms for the nutrient content claim “more.” Consequently, this rule reinserts the additional terms for “more” in § 101.54(e)(1).

4. In an amendment to § 101.17 published in the Federal Register on July 8, 1998 (63 FR 37030), FDA allowed, for a specified period of time, the warning statements required in the labeling of juices to be displayed on signs and placards located near products sold in stores as an alternative to having this information included on the product labels themselves. Section 101.17(g)(4)(i) and (g)(4)(ii), respectively, stated that the dates for this labeling flexibility were September 8, 1999, for apple juice or apple cider and November 5, 1999, for all other juices. Since these dates have passed, these sections of the regulations are no longer needed. This rule deletes these two paragraphs as well as the words “except that” from that end of the sentence in the introductory § 101.17(g)(4) directly preceding § 101.17(g)(4)(i) and (g)(4)(ii).

5. A final rule, published in the Federal Register on March 24, 1998 (63 FR 14035), amended FDA's regulations to reflect a change in the name and address for the association of Official Analytical Chemists. The association's old address was P.O. Box 540, Benjamin Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. The association's new name and address are AOAC INTERNATIONAL, 481 North Frederick Ave., suite 500, Gaithersburg, MD 20877-2504. FDA discovered that there are two instances in parts 101 and 146 where this change was inadvertently overlooked. Therefore, this rule amends § 101.100(a)(4), pertaining to exemptions from food labeling requirements, and § 146.132(a)(1), pertaining to food standard requirements for canned grapefruit juice, to reflect the current name and address for AOAC INTERNATIONAL.

6. In § 165.110(b)(2) and (b)(4)(i)(C), pertaining to the microbiological and chemical quality testing of bottled water, the regulations currently state the address for the American Public Health Association as 1015 15th (or Fifteenth) St. NW., Washington, DC 20005. The American Public Health Association is the source of copies of a resource incorporated by reference for analyzing the quality of water. The new address for the American Public Health Association is 800 I St. NW., Washington, DC 20001. This rule amends part 165 to reflect the new address of the American Public Health Association.

7. In § 165.110(b)(4)(iii)(E), (b)(4)(iii)(E)( 1 )( ii ), and (b)(4)(iii)(E)( 11 )( i ), pertaining to the requirements for bottled water, current regulations mistakenly state the address for the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce as 5825 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161. NTIS is the source of copies of a resource incorporated by reference for analyzing trace minerals in water. The correct street address is 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161. In addition, these paragraphs inconsistently refer to the National Technical Information Service by either including or excluding the acronym (NTIS) with the name or by using the acronym without the name spelled out. This rule amends part 165 to consistently and correctly cite the name and address for the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).

Publication of this document constitutes final action of these changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). FDA has determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary because these amendments are merely correcting nonsubstantive errors.

2. Part 101 is amended by removing the words “Office of Food Labeling (HFS-150)” wherever they appear and by adding in their place “Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements (HFS-800)”, and by removing the old mail code “(HFS-150)” after the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition wherever it appears and by adding in its place the new mail code “(HFS-800)”.

3. Section 101.4 Food; designation of ingredients is amended in paragraph (h) by removing the address for American Herbal Products Association “4733 Bethesda Ave., suite 345, Bethesda, MD 20814” and by adding in its place “8484 Georgia Ave., suite 370, Silver Spring, MD 20910, 301-588-1171, FAX 301-588-1174, e-mail: ahpa@ahpa.org”.

4. Section 101.14 Health claims: general requirements is amended in paragraph (e)(3) by removing the words “paragraph (a)(5)” and by adding in their place “paragraph (a)(4)”.

5. Section 101.17 Food labeling warning and notice statements is amended in paragraph (g)(4) by removing the words “, except that:” from the end of the sentence in the introductory paragraph, and by adding in their place a period after the word “container”, and by removing paragraphs (g)(4)(i) and (g)(4)(ii).

6. Section 101.54 Nutrient content claims for “good source,” “high,” “more,” and “high potency” is amended in paragraph (e)(1) by removing the words ‘and “added” ’ and by adding, in their place the words ‘ “added,” “extra,” and “plus” ’.

7. Section 101.93 Certain types of statements for dietary supplements is amended in paragraph (a)(1) by removing the words “Office of Special Nutritionals (HFS-450)” and by adding in their place “Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements (HFS-810)”.

8. Section 101.100 Food; exemptions from labeling is amended in paragraph (a)(4) by removing the words “Association of Official Analytical Chemists, P.O. Box 540, Benjamin Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044” and by adding in their place “AOAC INTERNATIONAL, 481 North Frederick Ave., suite 500, Gaithersburg, MD 20877-2504”.

10. Section 102.23 Peanut spreads is amended in paragraph (c)(5) by removing the mail code “(HFS-150)” after the words “Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition” and by adding in its place “(HFS-800)”.

The rule: (1) Reclassifies over-the-counter (OTC) test sample collection systems for drugs of abuse testing from class III (premarket approval) into class I (general controls) and exempts them from premarket notification (510(k)) and current good manufacturing practice requirements; (2) designates OTC test sample collection systems for drugs of abuse testing as restricted devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and (3) establishes restrictions intended to assure consumers that: The underlying laboratory test(s) are accurate and reliable, the laboratory performing the test(s) has adequate expertise and competency, and the product has adequate labeling and methods of communicating test results to consumers.

The agency's implementation of this delay of effective date without opportunity for public comment, effective immediately upon publication today in the Federal Register , is based on the good cause exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3). Seeking public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. The temporary 60-day delay in the effective date is necessary to give the Department of Health and Human Services officials the opportunity for further review and consideration of new regulations, consistent with the Assistant to the President's memorandum of January 20, 2001, sent to all executive departments and agencies. Given the imminence of the effective date, seeking prior public comment on this temporary delay would have been impractical, as well as contrary to the public interest in the orderly issuance and implementation of regulations. The imminence of the effective date is also good cause for making this action effective immediately upon publication.

This amendment to the Schedule of Fees is published as a final rule because it will not have adverse impact on the public and because it is important to have a final rule in place as close in time as possible to the February 27, 2001 effective date of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (CCA), Public Law 106-395. The Department is reducing to $0 the current $100 fee for adjudication of citizenship cases for persons born abroad who have no prior documentation of their U.S. citizenship. This fee is applicable when a U.S. citizen born abroad applying for a passport cannot present a previous passport, a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, a Certificate of Nationality or a Certificate of Citizenship. The $100 fee reflected the fact that such persons typically are seeking to establish U.S. citizenship long after their birth; as a result, adjudication of their cases is relatively time consuming. At the time of the cost study underlying the fee, the Department estimated that a fee of $100 would ensure full cost recovery, allocate the cost to the actual users, and be consistent with the fee established by the Immigration and Naturalization Service for its comparable service, thus removing any cost-based incentive for applicants to file with one agency over the other. See 62 FR 63478, 63479-80 (Dec. 1, 1997).

The Department has decided to reduce the fee to $0 pending the next fee study for a number of reasons. In practice, the amount of time required by the category of cases varies so greatly that the fee seems excessive in some cases that in fact require little time to adjudicate, while in others it is far below cost recovery. While the $100 fee was intended to average the costs involved over all users of the particular service, the Department wishes to revisit this approach in light of the wide variation in time required for cases covered by the fee. Also, the number of cases to which the fee applies has been relatively small, so that discontinuing the fee will not have a significant impact on fee revenuses. In addition, the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 has created a new class of persons who will be seeking citizenship documentation service and who would be required to pay the $100 fee if it were maintained. The Department believes it best to cease collecting the fee until the cost of this service can be reviewed again.

The Department notes that it is in the process of examining its fees in a number of areas, and that subsequent revisions to the fee schedule may result in the restoration of this fee at an appropriate level or the allocation of the cost of this service to other services to ensure appropriate cost recovery. (Prior to the 1998 amendments to the schedule of fees, the cost of this service was allocated to the passport fee.)

This rule is being promulgated as a final rule without prior notice and comment, and will take effect in less than 30 days after publication. The Department has determined that the rule is exempt from the advance notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) (the “good cause” exception to notice and comment and 553(d)(3) (the good cause exception to delayed effective date). The rule reduces a consular fee from $100 to zero and hence will benefit the public without causing any related adverse impact. Moreover, it is important to have a final rule in place as close in time as possible to the February 27, 2001 effective date of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (CCA), Public Law 106-395.

This fee is established under the user charge statutes, 31 U.S.C. 9701 and 22 U.S.C. 4219, which authorizes the President (who delegated his authority to the Secretary of State in Executive Order 10718 of June 27, 1957), to prescribe the fees to be charged for official services performed by U.S. embassies and consulates. Within the Department, these authorities are delegated to the Under Secretary for Management. There is no one in that position at present, but the Under Secretary's authorities have been delegated by the Secretary to the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security until an Under Secretary for Management is appointed.

The Schedule of Fees for Consular Services is set forth in 22 CFR 22.1, as most recently amended on September 7, 2000 (64 FR 54297).

The Department is publishing this rule as a final rule for the reasons set forth above. The rule makes no substantive regulatory changes.

The Department of State, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), 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.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $1 million or more in any 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.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. 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 companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

The Department of State does not consider this rule, to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review.

This regulation 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, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

This rule does not impose any new reporting or record-keeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

Section 212(d)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides the authority for the Secretary of State, acting jointly with the Attorney General, to waive the passport and/or visa requirement for a nonimmigrant who is in immediate and continuous transit through the United States and is using a carrier that has entered into a Transit Without Visa (TWOV) Agreement as provided in INA 233(c).

Since TWOV does not involve the issuance of a visa, the Department's role in the day-to-day administration of the TWOV program is minimal. Therefore, the Department's regulation at 22 CFR 41.2(i), for the most part, is merely a restatement of the INS regulation on the same subject. The Department does become involved, however, in the designation of those countries whose citizens are ineligible to utilize the TWOV. The current regulation provides a list of ineligible countries.

This rule adds Colombia to the list of countries whose citizens cannot TWOV.

The Department and INS have determined that Colombia's citizens are ineligible to TWOV because of their increasing abuse of the TWOV privilege and Colombia's high nonimmigrant visa refusal rates. Colombian citizens are increasingly using TWOV as an opportunity to claim asylum during their “transit” through the U.S.

This rule, and the INS rule published elsewhere in this issue, amend the list of countries found at 22 CFR 41.2(i) whose citizens the Department and the INS have determined are not eligible for the transit without visa (TWOV) program.

The Department is implementing this rule as an interim rule, with a 60-day provision for post-promulgation public comments, based on the “good cause” exceptions found at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3). The Department finds it necessary to implement this rule effective immediately to minimize abuse of the TWOV privilege.

The Department of State, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), 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.

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 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.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. 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 companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

The Department of State does not consider this rule to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review process under section 6(a)(3)(A).

This regulation 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, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

This rule does not impose any new reporting or record-keeping requirements. The information collection requirement (Form OF-156) contained by reference in this rule was previously approved for use by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections are under sections 338 and1060 of the Internal Revenue Code.

As published, the final regulations contain an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.

The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (“CSB” or “Board”) is mandated by law to “Investigate (or cause to be investigated), determine and report to the public in writing the facts, conditions, and circumstances and the cause or probable cause of any accidental release [within its jurisdiction] resulting in a fatality, serious injury or substantial property damages.” 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(C)(i). The Board has developed practices and procedures concerning witness representation in CSB investigations at 40 CFR 1610.1 (66 FR 1050, Jan. 5, 2001).

These regulations amplifies those rules. Because these regulations provide for the possibility of suspension of attorneys from practice before the Board in certain circumstances, the Board determined that the rules and the procedures herein should be published for comment as a proposed rule. These regulations were published as a proposed rule in the Federal Register of February 5, 2001 (66 FR 8926). The proposed rule provided for a 30-day comment period. No comments were received in response to the proposed rule and invitation for comments. This final rule is unchanged from the proposed rule.

New section 1610.2 provides for sanctions against attorneys who are involved in repeated acts of misconduct and for hearing procedures for issuing suspensions from practice before the Board.

New section 1610.3 provides for the sequestration of witnesses in investigative proceedings and for the exclusion of attorneys representing multiple witnesses in investigations from witness depositions where the person conducting the deposition, after consultation with the Office of General Counsel, determines that the CSB has concrete evidence that the presence of such attorney would obstruct or impede the investigation. This “concrete evidence” standard meets the test set forth by the court in Professional Reactor Operator Society v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 939 F.2d 1047 (D.C. Cir 1991). See also SEC v. Csapo, 533 F.2d 7 (D.C. Cir. 1976).

The Board, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed this regulation and certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 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, Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48.

Based on the experience of other Federal agencies, there is a strong potential that CSB employees will be requested or subpoenaed to provide testimony or produce records in litigation. CSB regulations have not heretofore clearly specified when its employees are required to respond to subpoenas or produce CSB records. This has resulted in the potential of an employee giving testimony or providing records, which diverts such employee from performing his/her duties, and might create the appearance that the CSB is taking sides in private litigation. This regulation is intended to address this situation by generally prohibiting both voluntary appearances and compliance with subpoenas unless authorized by the CSB.

The need for this regulation is even more acute at the CSB, because pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(6)(G), no part of the conclusions, findings or recommendations of the CSB relating to an accidental release or the investigation thereof, may be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages growing out of any matter mentioned in such report. The legislative history of this provision explains why Congress included it:

Identical language in the National Transportation Safety Board's statute (section 304(c) of the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974) was premised on Congress' “strong * * * desire to keep the Board free of the entanglement of such suits.” Rep. No. 93-1192, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., 44 (1974).

The courts have made clear that subpoenas to testify concerning information which U.S. government employees have acquired in the course of performing official duties, or to produce records, are essentially legal actions against the United States for which there has been no waiver of sovereign immunity. Concomitantly, the courts have recognized the authority of Federal agencies to limit compliance with such subpoenas. See United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951). See also United States v. Williams, 170 F.3d 431 (4th Cir. 1999); Smith v. Cromer, 159 F.3d 875 (4th Cir. 1998); Moore v. Armour Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1194 (11th Cir. 1991); Davis Enterprises v. E.P.A., 877 F.2d 1181 (3rd Cir. 1989); Boron Oil Company v. Downie, 873 F.2d 67 (4th Cir. 1989); Swett versus Schenk, 792 F.2d 1447 (9th Cir. 1986).

Moreover, subpoenas by State, territorial or Tribal courts, and legislative or administrative bodies, which attempt to assert jurisdiction over Federal agencies and their employees, are inconsistent with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A Federal regulation, such as this one prohibiting compliance with such subpoenas, is consistent with the Supremacy Clause. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 7 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819); Houston Business Journal, Inc. v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 86 F.3d 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Giza v. Secretary of HEW, 628 F.2d 748 (1st Cir. 1980); United States v. McLeod, 385 F.2d 734 (5th Cir. 1967). Accordingly, this regulation restricts a CSB employee from complying with subpoenas from State, territorial or Tribal courts, and legislative or administrative bodies without the approval of the General Counsel of the CSB.

In addition, this regulation describes procedures by which the CSB will make its employees and records available in response to subpoenas in Federal court civil proceedings in which the United States is not a party. In the event that the CSB or its Office of General Counsel fails to reach an agreement regarding the proper scope of a subpoena, the Office of General Counsel will coordinate with the Department of Justice to file appropriate motions, including motions to quash or for a protective order.

This regulation does not apply to congressional proceedings. This regulation also does not apply to Federal court civil proceedings in which the United States is a party, because the Department of Justice is already representing the CSB's interests and may file appropriate protective motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This regulation likewise does not apply to either Freedom of Information Act or Privacy Act requests.

This regulation applies to information which CSB employees acquire in the course of performing official duties, to production of records in CSB files, and to testimony concerning such records. It is recognized that employees may, on their own time or while in an approved leave status, appear as private citizens in proceedings in which CSB policies and programs are not at issue. This regulation does not restrict such activities.

Finally, the CSB is sometimes asked to authenticate copies of official records for purposes of admissibility under 28 U.S.C. 1733, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44, or comparable State or Tribal law. Since official actions and policies can best be proved by CSB records, and since this regulation provides that it is generally inappropriate for employees to appear as witnesses to discuss the background of CSB policies and action in private litigation, this regulation provides that the CSB will authenticate copies of CSB records upon request.

Because this regulation establishes internal policy for CSB employees, the Administrative Procedure Act does not require that it be published as a proposed regulation for notice and public comment. 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). This regulation provides immediate clarifying guidance on how CSB employee testimony and CSB records may be obtained. As such, the CSB finds that good cause exists for making the regulation effective immediately upon publication. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

This regulation is not a significant rule and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

(1) This regulation will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. This regulation regulates how and when CSB employees and documents may be provided in certain situations. As such, it will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities.

(2) This regulation will not create a serious inconsistency or interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.

(3) This regulation does not alter the budgetary effects or entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients.

(4) This regulation is consistent with well-established constitutional and statutory principles and does not raise novel legal or policy issues.

The Board, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed this regulation and by adopting it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation merely regulates how and when CSB employees may testify and that documents may be provided in certain situations.

This regulation is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Because this regulation only regulates how and when CSB employees may testify and that CSB documents may be provided in certain situations, this regulation:

a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local government agencies or geographic regions.

c. Does not have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This regulation does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. This regulation does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector because this regulation only regulates how and when CSB employees may testify and that CSB documents may be provided in certain situations. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this regulation does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.

The CSB has determined that this regulation conforms to the Federalism principals of Executive Order 13132. It also certifies that to the extent a regulatory preemption occurs, it is because the exercise of State and Tribal authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause and Federal statute. This regulation is, however, restricted to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of 5 U.S.C. 301, pursuant to which this regulation is promulgated.

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the CSB has determined that this regulation does not unduly burden the judicial system, under United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951), and does meet the requirements of section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

This regulation contains no reporting or recordkeeping requirements which require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3510 et seq.

This regulation does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. A detailed statement under the NEPA is not required.

The fisheries for coastal migratory pelagic resources are regulated under the FMP. The FMP was prepared jointly by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and was approved by NMFS and implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

In accordance with the FMP’s framework procedure, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) and South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council) recommended, and NMFS published, a proposed rule (65 FR 63837, October 25, 2000) for Gulf group king mackerel to reduce the TAC, reinstate a 2-fish per person daily bag limit for captain and crew of for-hire vessels (charter vessels and headboats), and revise the commercial trip limit applicable within the Florida east coast subzone (Miami-Dade County, FL through Volusia County, FL) to increase its flexibility. The proposed rule described the need and rationale for these measures.

The following are the comments received on the proposed rule and NMFS' responses.

Comment 1 : One commenter supported the revision of the trip limit for Gulf group king mackerel in the Florida east coast subzone.

Response : NMFS agrees that the more flexible trip limit system will allow fishermen a greater opportunity to meet their quota, while maintaining economic stability in the fishery for the majority of the season.

Comment 2 : One commenter opposed the proposed TAC of 10.2 million lb (4.6 million kg), stating that a TAC of more than 10 million lb (4.5 million kg) violates the Gulf Council's maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) for Gulf group king mackerel. The commenter additionally urged NMFS to require the Gulf Council to establish appropriate biomass estimates for maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and optimum yield (OY) so that a minimum stock size threshold (MSST) can be established, and that NMFS require the Gulf Council to pick a level of risk, as identified in the Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel (MSAP) report, associated with MFMT and MSST.

Response : In setting a TAC of 10.2 million lb (4.6 million kg) for Gulf group king mackerel, the Gulf Council considered the comments of its MSAP, Socioeconomic Panel, Scientific and Statistical Committee, and Mackerel Advisory Panel as well as public testimony, and legal requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Currently, the FMP’s OY target for stock rebuilding and the MFMT are equivalent parameters—a fishing mortality rate that would produce a 30-percent static spawning potential ratio.

Based on the FMP’s currently established OY target, the MSAP calculated a range of annual allowable biological catch (ABC) of 8.2 to 12.8 million lb (3.7 to 5.8 million kg). A TAC of 10.2 million lb (4.6 million kg) represents the median of the ABC range. The median value has a 50-percent chance of not exceeding the fishing mortality that would allow the stock to reach the current OY target, and it has a 50-percent chance of not exceeding MFMT. Therefore, the TAC established by this final rule is consistent with the Sustainable Fisheries Act.

NMFS continues to work cooperatively with the Gulf Council to develop better estimates of biomass-based thresholds and targets that can be used to monitor the status of the stock of Gulf group king mackerel. Nevertheless, development of new or alternative stock threshold and target parameters is beyond the scope of this rule for annual catch specifications as submitted by the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils. Under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS can only approve, partially approve, or disapprove proposed actions submitted by the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils for agency review, approval, and implementation. NMFS cannot substitute an alternative action of its own for one of those actions submitted by the Councils.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration when this rule was proposed that it would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Only one comment was received regarding the economic impact of the rule; that comment supported the more flexible trip limit provided by the rule. Because the basis for the certification has not changed, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared.

The Atlantic swordfish and tuna fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act. The Atlantic shark drift gillnet fishery is managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.

Pelagic longline gear is one of the major commercial fishing gear used by U.S. fishermen in the Atlantic Ocean to target HMS. The gear consists of a mainline, often many miles long, suspended in the water column by floats and from which baited hooks are attached on leaders (gangions). Though not completely selective, longline gear can be modified (e.g., through gear configuration, hook depth, timing of sets) to target preferentially yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, or swordfish.

Observer data and vessel logbook data indicate that pelagic longline fishing for Atlantic swordfish and tunas results in the bycatch of protected species, including threatened and endangered sea turtles. In certain times and areas, the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery has relatively high rates of sea turtle bycatch, with associated mortality. Although a high percentage of hooked sea turtles are released alive, NMFS remains concerned about serious injuries of sea turtles taken by pelagic longline gear.

In its most recent Biological Opinion (BO) on Atlantic HMS fisheries, completed June 30, 2000, NMFS concluded that operation of the pelagic longline fishery jeopardizes the continued existence of threatened loggerhead and endangered leatherback sea turtles. However, NMFS thereafter concluded that further analyses of observer data and additional population modeling of loggerhead sea turtles were needed to determine more precisely the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on sea turtles. Consequently, NMFS re-initiated consultation. NMFS anticipates completing the consultation and issuing a new BO in March 2001. In the interim, NMFS issued an emergency rule (65 FR 60889, October 13, 2000) to reduce sea turtle bycatch and bycatch mortality in the pelagic longline fishery in the short-term. The emergency rule will expire on April 9, 2001, unless it is extended. This interim final rule adopts the requirements in the emergency rule regarding the possession and use of dipnets and line clippers to facilitate the release of sea turtles with a minimum of injury.

Under the emergency rule, all Atlantic pelagic longline vessels that have been issued Federal HMS permits are required to carry on board dipnets and line clippers that meet NMFS design and performance standards and comply with requirements for the use of these dipnets and line clippers for the handling of incidentally caught sea turtles. Technical descriptions of the dipnet and line clipper gear are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) and are also included in this interim final rule. While specific line clipper devices are not available in the commercial market, line clippers meeting the minimum design standards of this interim final rule may be fashioned from readily available tools and components. Consequently, line clippers may be fabricated or obtained and put into use in the fishery at low cost. NMFS' minimum design standards are intended to allow users flexibility in adapting line clippers and dipnets for optimum use on board individual vessels. The emergency rule also reiterates existing resuscitation and release requirements.

NMFS is adopting these requirements because dipnets and line clippers better enable the vessel captain, crew, and observers to disengage sea turtles hooked or entangled in their gear. All sea turtles brought on board for dehooking and/or disentanglement must be handled in a manner that prevents injury and promotes post-release survival. Active and comatose sea turtles should be brought on board immediately and handled in accordance with the procedures specified in 50 CFR 223.206(d)(1). If a sea turtle is too large or hooked in a manner that prevents safe boarding, the line clippers must be used to remove as much line as possible prior to releasing the animal.

The regulatory text for the final rule implementing the DeSoto Canyon, East Florida Coast, and Charleston Bump closures (65 FR 47214, August 1, 2000) defines pelagic longline gear in a manner designed to avoid applying the vessel monitoring system requirement and fishing restrictions to vessels fishing with bottom longline gear. The regulations define pelagic longline gear as a longline that is suspended by floats in the water column and that is not fixed to or in contact with the ocean bottom. As defined, pelagic longline gear consists of five components: a power-operated longline hauler, a mainline, high-flyers, floats capable of supporting the length of the mainline, and leaders (gangions) with hooks. Those regulations further state that the removal of any one of these components from a vessel constitutes the removal of pelagic longline gear. Vessel operators removing one or all of the listed components would be eligible to fish with other gear in the closed areas and would not be required to operate a VMS while at sea. Since publication of the time and area requirements, NMFS has become aware that it is possible to use a longline that is suspended by floats without the use of high-flyers. Operators of fishing vessels could potentially utilize the remainder of the defined components of pelagic longline gear to target tunas, swordfish and sharks in the closed areas, thereby undermining the objective of bycatch reduction and reducing the benefits of the closures. Removal of the term “high-flyer” from the list of components constituting pelagic longline gear would avoid this potential problem. NMFS proposed this regulatory change among other changes in a notice of proposed rulemaking published December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76601). During the comment period, NMFS received one comment in support of this change and no objections or concerns were raised. Therefore, NMFS has included this change in this interim final rule. This definition change will have no measurable impact on the environment or fishermen, since the intent of the closures is to prohibit all pelagic longline fishing by vessels with HMS fishing permits when the areas are closed. The environmental, economic, and social impacts associated with the area closures were previously considered and are discussed in detail in the HMS FMP and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement issued for the August 1, 2000, final rule.

Drift gillnet fishing for sharks occurs primarily in the waters off the coasts of Georgia and Florida. The fishery is comprised of 4 to 12 vessels that engage in nearshore fishing trips that typically last less than 13 hours. Legislation in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida has prohibited the use of commercial gillnets in state waters, causing these vessels to operate further offshore in waters under Federal jurisdiction. Historically, eight shark species made up over 99 percent of sharks caught, including: blacknose, Atlantic sharpnose, blacktip, finetooth, scalloped hammerhead, bonnethead, spinner, and great hammerhead.

The southeast shark drift gillnet fishery is believed to be responsible for the bycatch of at least one right whale, and has interacted with sea turtles as well as valuable finfish along the Georgia coast for a number of years. The BO issued under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires 100-percent observer coverage during the right whale calving season (November 15 to March 31) as well as observer coverage for the rest of the year at a level sufficient to provide a reasonably precise estimate of sea turtle takes. In an effort to improve the estimates of bycatch and bycatch mortality of protected species, juvenile sharks, and other finfish, NMFS established a 100-percent observer requirement in this fishery year-round. Regulations issued on May 28, 1999 (64 FR 29090) prohibited the use of drift gillnet gear in the Atlantic shark fisheries unless a NMFS-approved observer is on board the vessel.

However, recent scientific analysis indicates that a 53-percent coverage rate, rather than 100-percent coverage, is statistically significant and adequate to provide reasonable estimates of sea turtle and marine mammal takes in the shark drift gillnet fishery outside the right whale calving season. The level of observer coverage necessary to maintain statistical significance will be reevaluated annually and adjusted accordingly. Based on this analysis, this interim final rule reduces the observer coverage requirement so that the 100-percent coverage applies from November 15 to March 31, and for the rest of the year vessels will be selected for observer coverage according to a statistically-based sampling plan.

NMFS is accepting comments regarding this interim final rule for 30 days, through April 30, 2001. Comments on the gear requirements were requested in the emergency rule published on October 13, 2000 (65 FR 60889). One comment was received concerning the line clipper specifications that said the line clipper blade should be modified to better cut heavier line. NMFS also received comments concerning the dipnets and line clippers during the technical gear workshop held in Silver Spring, MD on January 17 and 18, 2001. While many of the comments were positive, it was indicated that better specifications could be developed. NMFS intends to conduct further research to develop more effective specifications, if possible.

This interim final rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) has determined that these regulations are necessary to reduce, to the extent practicable, the bycatch mortality of sea turtles in the pelagic longline fishery. This interim final rule also reduces the cost to the industry by reducing required observer coverage in the shark drift gillnet fishery to levels that will provide reasonable estimates of sea turtle and marine mammal takes.

NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment that describes the impact of the interim final rule on the human environment and found that no significant impact would result from the implementation of these measures. NMFS also prepared a Regulatory Impact Review that assesses the economic costs and benefits of this action. Requiring the use of line clippers and dipnets to release hooked turtles is not expected to increase fishing costs substantially and will not negatively impact small business entities. In a similar rule for the fisheries in the Western Pacific, NMFS estimated the total cost for the materials to fabricate and/or purchase line clippers and dipnets to be $250 (65 FR 16347, March 28, 2000). Moreover, affected vessels that complied with the emergency rule would already have this gear.

The reduction in the level of observer coverage in the shark drift gillnet fishery is based on recent scientific analysis that indicates that a 53-percent coverage rate is adequate to provide reasonable estimates of sea turtle and marine mammal takes in this fishery outside the right whale calving season. The level of appropriate coverage will be reassessed each year to maintain statistical significance. Reduced observer coverage will result in reductions in industry costs associated with carrying observers on vessels in this fishery.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required to be published for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553 or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable and no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was prepared.

This interim final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the AA finds that there is good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity to comment on this action. Notice and opportunity to comment was provided on the emergency rule (65 FR 60990, October 13, 2000) that first implemented the dipnet and line clipper requirement. For the change in the definition of pelagic longline gear, comments were solicited in a notice of proposed rulemaking (65 FR 76601, December 7, 2000). It would be contrary to the public interest to provide additional prior notice and opportunity for comment because it would prevent the agency from implementing this action in a timely manner to both reduce the post-release mortality of sea turtles incidentally captured in the pelagic longline fishery and prevent pelagic longline fishing in closed areas.

Furthermore, the AA finds good cause also under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) not to delay the effective date of this interim final rule for 30 days. Such delay would also cause a lapse in the gear requirements and handling techniques that reduce the post-release mortality of sea turtles incidentally captured in the pelagic longline fishery and undermine the effectiveness of the closed areas, contrary to the public good. NMFS believes there is good cause for waiving the notice and comment period and the delay in effectiveness because the reduction in the level of observer coverage in the Atlantic shark drift gillnet fishery relieves current restrictions.

NMFS has determined that this interim final rule is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the coastal zone management programs of those Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean coastal states that have approved coastal zone management programs.

On September 11, 2000, NMFS announced a harvest guideline for Pacific mackerel in the Federal Register (65 FR 54817) of 20,740 mt for the fishing season of July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001. The harvest guideline was based on an annual biomass estimate and calculated by a formula in the FMP applying information on that portion of the stock in U.S. waters and the required harvest rate above a minimum biomass.

On October 27, 2000, (65 FR 65272, November 1, 2000), the directed fishery for Pacific mackerel was closed and an incidental landing of Pacific mackerel of 20 percent of the total weight of all coastal pelagic species was implemented. Subsequent changes to the incidental landing provision were published on November 17, 2000 (65 FR 69483), and February 22, 2001 (65 FR 11119).

As of March 12, 2001, 20,751 mt of Pacific mackerel has been harvested; therefore, the fishery must be closed.

For the reasons stated here and in accordance with the FMP and its regulations governing closure of the fishery, the fishery for Pacific mackerel will be closed at 12 a.m. on March 27, 2001, after which time no more than 1 mt of any landing may be Pacific mackerel.

This action is required by 50 CFR 660.509 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The A season apportionment of the 2001 Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI was established by the Final 2001 Harvest Specifications and Associated Management Measures for the Groundfish Fisheries Off Alaska (66 FR 7276, January 22, 2001) as a directed fishing allowance of 159 metric tons. See § 679.20(c)(3)(iii), § 679.20(c)(7), and § 679.20(a)(7)(i)(A) and (C).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the A season apportionment of the 2001 Pacific cod TAC allocated as a directed fishing allowance to catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI will soon be reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA and longer using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI.

Maximum retainable bycatch amounts may be found in the regulations at § 679.20(e) and (f).

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds that the need to immediately implement this action to prevent exceeding the A season apportionment of the 2001 Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear constitutes good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 50 CFR 679.20(b)(3)(iii)(A), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Similarly, the need to implement these measures in a timely fashion to prevent exceeding the A season apportionment of the 2001 Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear constitutes good cause to find that the effective date of this action cannot be delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effective date is hereby waived.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.