The interim rule on identification of blended meat or seafood products served in the school meals programs was published on June 8, 2000 (65 FR 36315). The interim rule was issued in response to concerns about the possibility that blended beef, pork, poultry or seafood products or dishes containing more than 30 percent fully hydrated vegetable protein (of the hydrated soy and meat total) might be presented as beef, pork, poultry or seafood. (Readers will note that the term “vegetable protein product or VPP” is used in the preamble since this term reflects common usage; however, for technical reasons, the term “alternate protein products” is used in the regulatory text.)

While these blended products and dishes fulfill an essential role in the programs, misrepresentation or misperception of the nature of those products serves neither industry nor program participants well. Children and their parents must be aware of what is in the foods offered in the lunch and breakfast programs if they are to make informed food choices. Thus, to the extent that school food authorities identify foods in the menu, on the serving line or through other available means of communicating with program participants, the interim rule required identification of beef, pork, poultry or seafood products and dishes containing more than 30 percent fully hydrated vegetable protein (of the hydrated soy and meat total) in a manner which does not characterize the products or dishes solely as beef, pork, poultry or seafood. The interim rule revised 7 CFR 210.10(h) and 7 CFR 220.8 (m).

We received six comment letters on the interim rule, all of which were from food industry representatives. The commentors generally supported the changes made by the interim rule. However, commentors expressed concerns about formulation of blended VPP products used in the Child Nutrition Programs. We have been and will continue to work with interested parties about their concerns.

Two commentors had a specific recommendation. They recommended that the level for identifying a product or dish as a blended product be 50 parts fully hydrated VPP, not 30 parts fully hydrated VPP. These commentors stated that at a 50-50 level, the product is predominantly VPP.

Identifying products as blended which contain 50 percent or more VPP would place only those products which are equally or predominantly made with VPP under the identification requirement. The 30-70 ratio has been the established ratio used to describe blended products. Maintaining the 30-70 standard will avoid unnecessary confusion and will provide notification when products vary from the traditional blend levels. Therefore, we are retaining the 30 parts fully hydrated VPP as the level products must be identified as a blended product or dish. Because we made no changes to the interim rule, it is adopted as final at 7 CFR 210.10(h) and 220.8(m).

This final rule was determined to be non-significant and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) generally prepares a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires FNS to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.

This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

This final rule was reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 through 612). The Acting Administrator of FNS has certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule makes no changes to the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program meal patterns. However, when certain products are used, this rule would require schools to use existing methods of communication to advise children and their parents of the use of such products.

The National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Nos. 10.555 and 10.553, respectively. Each is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V and final rule related notice at 48 FR 29112, June 24, 1983.)

This final rule was reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule is intended to have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full implementation. This final rule is not intended to have retroactive effect unless so specified in the Dates section of this preamble. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this final rule or the application of the provisions, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted. This includes any administrative procedures provided by State or local governments and, for disputes involving procurements by State agencies and sponsors, any administrative appeal procedures to the extent required by 7 CFR Part 3016.

For the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program, the administrative procedures are set forth under the following regulations: (1) School food authority appeals of State agency findings as a result of an administrative review must follow State agency hearing procedures as established pursuant to 7 CFR 210.18(q); (2) school food authority appeals of FNS findings as a result of an administrative review must follow FNS hearing procedures as established pursuant to 7 CFR 210.30(d)(3); and (3) State agency appeals of State Administrative Expense fund sanctions (7 CFR 235.11(b)) must follow FNS Administrative Review Process as established pursuant to 7 CFR 235.11(f).

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the third party disclosure requirements included in this final rule were reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. OMB has approved these requirements for part 210 under OMB #0584-0006. The requirements for part 220 are approved under OMB #0584-0012.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 767 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2000 (65 FR 80796). For certain airplanes that action proposed to require rework of the bonding jumper assemblies. For certain other airplanes, that action proposed to require repetitive inspections of the drain tube assemblies of the slat track housing of the wings to find discrepancies, and corrective actions, if necessary. That action also provides for terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

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

Several commenters ask that the compliance time for doing the terminating action specified in paragraph (b) of the proposed rule be extended, as follows.

The first commenter states that the terminating action specified in paragraph (b) of the proposed rule requires compliance within 6,000 flight hours or 18 months after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs first; but current Boeing delivery schedules forecast a 12-month delivery time for the required kits. The commenter further states that they have ordered the material (kits), but the kits have not yet arrived, which affects the commenter's ability to comply with the proposed rule. The commenter proposes to do the terminating action at a heavy maintenance visit as soon as the kits are delivered, but asks that the compliance time be changed to within 48 months after the effective date of the AD to allow time for delivery of the kits. The commenter adds that the repetitive visual inspections for the fuel leak specified in the service bulletin and a compliance time of 48 months provide an acceptable level of safety.

The second commenter states that the proposed rule, as written, does not take into consideration the amount of time needed to defuel and purge the fuel tanks. The commenter estimates that approximately 48 hours are needed to ensure adequate safety before maintenance personnel may enter the fuel tanks. The commenter does not specify a change to the compliance time, but states that the time given to do the terminating action should be extended to allow for proper airplane scheduling.

The third commenter states that the compliance time for doing the terminating action as specified in paragraph (b) of the proposed rule corresponds to a maintenance planning document “C” check interval, and is unreasonable. The commenter notes that the cracking of the slat track housing drain tubes is due to airframe vibration, which is related to flight hours, not calendar time. The commenter adds that the terminating action was considered optional based on ongoing inspections specified in the referenced service bulletin. The requirement to rework the drain tubes within 18 months after the effective date of the AD will not allow adequate time for airlines to obtain the necessary parts and do the rework within existing planned maintenance intervals, and does not allow for escalated maintenance programs. The commenter notes that the rework cannot be adequately done within planned maintenance outside of a “C” required to drain and vent the fuel tanks prior to tank entry. Additionally, there will be considerable impact on the airline operation when airplanes are scheduled for rework outside of routine maintenance checks. The commenter proposes that the calendar time limit for the terminating action specified in paragraph (b) of the proposed rule be extended to 24 months (the equivalent of a scheduled “C” check). The commenter wants the flight hour threshold specified in paragraph (b) to remain the same, which means the actual operating period for the airplane prior to rework is unchanged.

The fourth commenter states that they use Maintenance Planning Document MPD 57-50-00-A to inspect their airplanes at the enroute check before every flight. The commenter notes that this inspection is adequate to find fuel leaks, and no leaks have been found during these inspections. The commenter plans to do the terminating action specified in the proposed rule at the next heavy maintenance check per the normal defueling requirements of the MPD. The MPD task to defuel is at the 4C check, 72-month interval. The commenter adds that a 72-month compliance time could minimize their cost impact.

The fifth commenter states that since the terminating action in the proposed rule was optional in the service bulletin referenced in paragraph (b) of the proposed rule, kits were ordered only on demand as the operators planned their maintenance action. Since the proposed rule mandates that the terminating action be done within 18 months, there is a shortage of parts. The manufacturer has delivered 176 kits to date, and currently there are only 2 kits in supply, with 200 kits on order that are due to arrive in July 2001. The commenter adds that they will not be able to get enough kits for all 671 airplanes within the 18-month compliance time. The commenter also states that the repeat inspection at intervals not to exceed 500 flight hours, as specified in paragraph (a) of the proposed rule, maintains an adequate level of safety until the terminating action can be done. The commenter notes that there have not been any reported leaks at the slat track drain tube location since the proposed rule was issued. The commenter asks that the compliance time specified in paragraph (b) of the proposed rule be changed to within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of the AD, whichever comes first, to allow operators time to obtain the necessary parts.

The FAA concurs with the commenters that the compliance time required by paragraph (b) of the final rule should be extended somewhat to ensure that enough parts are available to do the required actions within the specified compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time for the terminating action required by the final rule, we considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the unsafe condition, but the practical aspect of incorporating the required drain tube modification on the Model 767 fleet in a timely manner. Other factors included in the determination of an acceptable compliance time are that we informed the Air Transport Association in March 1998 of our plans to mandate appropriate service information to alleviate the unsafe condition, and affected operators have had access to the service bulletin that was revised to add the terminating modification since December 1998. Therefore, operators have had time to incorporate into their individual maintenance plans the inspections and terminating action required by this final rule.

It is our intent in this final rule to have the terminating action done within the time frame of a ‘C' check maintenance interval. We took the commenters' recommendations into account, as well as the time necessary to do the terminating action, and we find that a 24-month compliance time should correspond with the regular maintenance schedules of the majority of affected operators. An extension of the compliance time to 24 months will not adversely affect safety because the inspections required by paragraph (a) of the final rule will provide an acceptable level of safety until the terminating action required by paragraph (b) is done. Paragraph (b) of the final rule has been changed accordingly.

In response to the commenters' concerns that parts will not be available for installation within the compliance time required by the final rule, we have confirmed with the manufacturer that parts will be available to support a compliance time of 24 months after the effective date of this final rule.

In response to the third commenter's statement that the cracking of the slat track housing drain tubes is due to airframe vibration, which is related to flight hours, not calendar time; our determination is that the drain tubes failed in service due to corrosion.

One commenter asks that Boeing Service Bulletins 767-57A0060, Revision 1, and 767-57-0068, referenced in the proposed rule as the appropriate sources of service information for accomplishment of the actions, be addressed in two separate rulemaking actions. The commenter states that these two service bulletins do not address the same discrepant condition and should not be grouped together in one proposed rule.

The FAA does not concur. We agree that two unsafe conditions do exist with the same drain tube installation, but we consider it acceptable to address both conditions in one rule. The reasons for this are as follows:

Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0060, Revision 1, provides procedures for repetitive visual inspections of the drain tube assemblies of the slat track housing of the wings to find discrepancies. Such discrepancies may lead to an airplane fire as a result of fuel leakage onto an engine or exhaust nozzle. The service bulletin also provides procedures for replacement of the existing drain tube assembly with a newly designed assembly that would constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57-0068 provides procedures for modification of the bonding jumper assembly on the drain tube assembly of the slat track housing of the wings. An earlier production installation of the bonding assembly on the newly designed drain tube assembly did not meet the current bonding specifications. Those airplanes with the earlier production installation must have the bonding provisions modified to protect against an in-tank ignition source due to electrostatic discharge or lightning. Incorporation of this service bulletin will bring affected airplanes into the same configuration as those airplanes modified by Service Bulletin 767-57A0060. Clarification of the related procedures in these two service bulletins was provided in the preamble of the proposed rule.

One commenter states that the Summary and Discussion sections of the proposed rule should be changed to explicitly state that only the numbers 5 and 8 inboard slat track housing drain locations are affected by the proposed rule. The commenter adds that it also should be explicitly stated that visual inspections are to be done at the exterior lower wing surface drain locations, as shown in Figure 2 of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0060, Revision 1, located on page 21.

The FAA concurs with these comments and acknowledges that the description of the area (numbers 5 and 8 inboard) of the drain assembly of the slat track housing affected could have been more specific in the Summary and Discussion sections, but the Discussion section is not restated in this final rule. The intent of the Summary section of the final rule is to provide a brief explanation of the unsafe condition and the actions necessary to find and fix any discrepancies. We have revised the Summary section, as well as the other applicable sections in this final rule, to further clarify the unsafe condition and the specified actions.

One commenter asks that the Differences section of the proposed rule be changed. The commenter points out that there is a typographical error in the MPD section number that is specified in the Differences, the correct number is Section 57-50-00-A.

We concur that a typographical error in the Differences section resulted in an incorrect reference to Section 57-59-00-A of the MPD, instead of the correct reference to Section 57-50-00-A. But this final rule does not restate the Differences section of the proposed rule wherein the commenter has requested changes. That difference merely stated that the proposed rule would require accomplishment of the initial and repeat visual inspections regardless of earlier accomplishment of the inspection specified in the MPD.

One commenter states that Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0060, Revision 1, describes the Boeing 767 MPD, Section 57-50-00-A, as an acceptable means to inspect and detect damage and/or fuel leakage, as an alternative to the visual inspection specified in Part I of the service bulletin. The commenter asks that the FAA confirm that the MPD can be used instead of doing the visual inspection specified in paragraph (a) of the proposed rule.

The FAA does not concur. As stated in the Differences section of the proposed rule, discussed previously, the final rule requires accomplishment of the initial and repeat visual inspections regardless of earlier accomplishment of the inspection specified in the MPD. This is necessary because the inspection in the MPD does not require a minimum amount of fuel in each wing tank, but the visual inspections described in Part I of the service bulletin specify a minimum of 4,400 gallons of fuel in each wing tank to ensure adequate fuel coverage over the drain tubes during the fuel leakage check.

One commenter states that the number of work hours estimated for doing the actions in the proposed rule, as specified in the service bulletins, are more accurate than the number of work hours specified in the cost impact section of the proposed rule. The commenter notes that the estimate for replacement of the drain tube assemblies as specified in the proposal is 12 work hours, but the estimate specified in the applicable service bulletin is 40 work hours for the replacement. The estimate for rework of the bonding jumper assemblies specified in the proposal is 4 work hours, but the estimate specified in the applicable service bulletin is 25 work hours. The commenter asks that the work hours estimated in the service bulletins be used in the Cost Impact section of the proposed rule.

The FAA does not concur. The cost impact information (below) estimates only the “direct” costs of the specific actions required by this final rule. The number of work hours necessary to do the required actions was provided to us by the manufacturer, based on the data available to date. We recognize that in doing the actions required by this final rule, operators may incur “incidental” costs in addition to the “direct” costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however, typically does not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close-up; planning time; or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Because incidental costs may vary significantly from operator to operator, they are almost impossible to calculate. Further, because ADs require specific actions to address specific unsafe conditions, they appear to impose costs that would not otherwise be incurred by operators. However, because of the general obligation of operators to maintain and operate airplanes in an airworthy condition, this cost estimate is inaccurate. Attributing those costs to the requirements of this final rule is unrealistic because in the interest of maintaining and operating safe airplanes, operators would do the required actions even if they were not required to do the final rule.

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

There are approximately 745 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 275 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

For airplanes listed in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0060, Revision 1 (228 U.S.-registered airplanes): It will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $13,680, or $60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

It will take approximately 12 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required replacement of the drain tube assemblies specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0060, Revision 1, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $5,236 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required replacement on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,357,968, or $5,956 per airplane.

For airplanes listed in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57-0068, (47 U.S.-registered airplanes): It will take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required rework of the bonding jumper assemblies, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $322 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required rework on U.S. operators is estimated to be $26,414, or $562 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 737-100 and -200 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2001 (66 FR 10390). That action proposed to require repetitive inspections to find fatigue cracking in the main deck floor beams located at certain body stations, and repair, if necessary. That action also proposed to provide for optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

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

One commenter asks that the compliance time for the detailed visual inspection specified in paragraph (a) of the proposal be extended. The commenter states that the service bulletin specified in the proposed rule is listed in Boeing Document D6-38505, which is titled “The Aging Airplane Service Bulletin Structural Modification and Inspection Program,” hereinafter referred to as the “Boeing Document.” The commenter notes that previous ADs issued against bulletins included in this document contain provisions to minimize the impact of the ADs. To be consistent with previous ADs, the commenter suggests that a 15-month phase-in period be implemented before the issuance of this proposed rule.

The FAA concurs. This final rule relates to the recommendations of the Airworthiness Assurance Task Force assigned to review Model 737 series airplanes, which indicate that, to assure long term continued operational safety, various structural inspections should be accomplished per the Boeing Document. To be consistent with the other inspections required by the Aging Airplane Program, we have extended the compliance time in paragraph (a) of this AD to within 6,000 flight cycles or 15 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

The same commenter asks that the initial inspection specified in paragraph (a) of the proposed rule be done within 10,000 flight cycles after the effective date of the AD, instead of within 6,000 flight cycles. The commenter states that, due to the fact that the proposed rule requires a repetitive inspection interval that must be accomplished at a ‘C’ check interval, and the inspection area is not readily available, most operators will do the terminating action instead of the repetitive inspections. The commenter suggests that an initial 10,000-flight-cycle threshold be added to the rule that would allow operators to modify the floor structure without the ‘C’ check inspections. The commenter adds that it is doing the proposed inspections at a 4-year interval, and this interval is adequate to find and address cracks before they reach critical length. Additionally, at no time has the commenter found a crack that caused any risk of failure of the main deck floor beam. The commenter notes that the evident level of urgency of the proposed rule is unwarranted and adds that the referenced service bulletin has been a topic of the 737 Structures Task Group since 1993 with no significant findings presented to the industry to support an urgent, accelerated inspection program.

The FAA does not concur. Insufficient data were submitted to support the commenter's request. We are unable to validate that the level of urgency for the unsafe condition as specified in the service bulletin is unwarranted, because the data submitted does not include all the airplanes affected by this final rule. Additionally, the necessity for the inspection was established by a review conducted by the 737 Structures Working Group. As the commenter shows no correlation between a 4-year interval or 10,000 flight cycles, we have determined that no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

A second commenter, the manufacturer, asks that the repetitive inspection interval specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the proposal be changed from every 3,000 flight cycles to every 6,000 flight cycles. The commenter states that the repetitive inspection interval specified in the referenced service bulletin was changed following an investigation by the manufacturer that showed that inspecting every 6,000 flight cycles adequately addresses the unsafe condition.

The FAA concurs. The commenter provided documentation from the 737 Structures Working Group that supports an extension of the repetitive inspection interval. Paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the final rule has been changed accordingly.

One commenter asks for clarification that repairs done per the referenced service bulletin terminate the repetitive inspections. The FAA concurs as this clarification is consistent with the referenced service bulletin. Paragraph (c) of the final rule has been revised accordingly.

One commenter, the manufacturer, asks that the Applicability section of the proposed rule be changed to, “All Model 737-100 and “200 series passenger airplanes.”

The FAA partially concurs. Model 737-200C series airplanes have a different structure in the areas specified in the proposed rule, and are not subject to the inspection requirements; however, 737-200C airplanes are not listed in the applicability of the proposed rule. The requested change is consistent with the effectivity specified in the referenced service bulletin; however, identifying the airplanes as “passenger” is not sufficient. Some passenger airplanes have been converted to freighters per a supplemental type certificate, and are still subject to the unsafe condition. The Summary section of the final rule has been changed to “certain” Model 737-100 and -200 series airplanes, and the Applicability section has been changed to add, “as listed in the referenced service bulletin,” for clarification.

One commenter asks that the Summary and Discussion sections of the proposed rule be changed to include information addressing the recommendations of the Airworthiness Assurance Task Force as published in the Boeing Document. The commenter states that, in AD 2000-07-12, amendment 39-11666 (65 FR 19310, May 16, 2000), the Discussion section gave significant detail explaining the purpose of the Aging Airplane Programs and why an AD was written against the service bulletin. The commenter adds that both sections should refer to the Boeing Document to reinforce the link between the proposal and the Aging Airplane Programs.

While the FAA concurs with these comments in principle and acknowledges that the description of the Aging Airplane Programs could have been more specific in the Summary and Discussion sections, the Discussion section is not restated in this final rule. The intent of the Summary section of the final rule is to provide a brief explanation of the unsafe condition and the action necessary to prevent failure of the main deck floor beams at certain body stations due to fatigue cracking. However, we have included information addressing the recommendations of the Airworthiness Assurance Task Force in the Summary section of the final rule.

One commenter asks that previously installed approved repairs exceeding the service bulletin repair size terminate the inspections specified in paragraph (a) of the proposed rule. The commenter states that many operators have already done the inspections and repairs per the Boeing Document instead of the referenced service bulletin. The commenter adds that the proposed AD requires that all repairs not installed per the service bulletin be submitted to the FAA for approval. To ease the burden of approving previously installed repairs, the commenter suggests that paragraph (b) of the proposal should be changed to add, “* * * previously installed approved repairs exceeding the service bulletin repair size are considered terminating action for the inspections.”

The FAA partially concurs. Previously approved repairs have been subject to analysis prior to acceptance as terminating action. Such repairs can be, in addition to the repairs described in the service bulletin, considered satisfactory and eliminate the need for reinspection in that area. The repairs do not have to be larger than the repairs described in the service bulletin to meet these conditions. However, installation of a local repair would eliminate the need for reinspection in the repaired area only. Paragraph (d) of this AD has been changed to add that the previously approved alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) of such repairs, issued for AD 90-06-02, amendment 39-6489 (55 FR 8372, March 7, 1990), and AD 93-08-04, amendment 39-8551 (58 FR 25546, April 27, 1993), are approved for this final rule.

Three commenters ask that a revised service bulletin be used for doing the actions specified in the proposed rule. One commenter asks that Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1210, Revision 1, be referenced in the proposed rule as the appropriate source of service information for doing of the specified actions, instead of the original issue that is now referenced. A second commenter states that it has done the modification specified in the proposed rule on approximately half of its fleet and at least eight of its airplanes have factory production changes which should negate the requirement to install modifications. The commenter adds that these changes are not identified in the service bulletin and notes that issuing an AD would be premature until the service bulletin can be revised. A third commenter asks that the proposed rule be put on hold until the manufacturer has updated the referenced service bulletin to include repairs to address the new conditions.

The FAA does not concur with the commenters. The AD will not be revised to reference Revision 1 of the service bulletin because we cannot approve the use of a document that does not yet exist. Due to the urgency of the unsafe condition, the final rule will be issued using the original issue of the service bulletin as the appropriate source of service information for doing the specified actions. However, operators may submit a request for an AMOC to use a later service bulletin through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, as provided for by paragraph (d)(1) of this AD.

One commenter states that the cost and time impacts for the inspection are unrealistic. The commenter notes that, although the FAA does not consider time necessary to gain access and return the area to the previous condition, this would constitute the majority of the time required to accomplish the inspections. The commenter adds that repetitive inspections would be required every 3,000 flight cycles, which would necessitate accomplishing the inspections on a special schedule when access to the area is not normally available. The commenter estimates that it would take 16 hours to gain access and close up, so the time and cost estimate for the inspection should be greatly increased. Also, if the cost data utilized by the FAA for procurement of parts is based upon the referenced service bulletin, then the data is approximately 10 years old and should be reviewed for accuracy.

The FAA does not concur with what it infers is a request to revise the cost estimate. We stated in the Cost Impact section of the proposed rule that, “The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.” Our position on this matter has not changed since issuance of the proposed rule. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

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

There are approximately 935 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 340 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 8 work hours per airplane to do the required inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $163,200, or $480 per airplane.

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

Should an operator elect to do the optional terminating action rather than continue the repetitive inspections, it will take approximately 96 work hours per airplane to do the change, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost between $218 and $1,426 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this optional terminating action is estimated to be between $5,978 and $7,186 per airplane.

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Aerospatiale Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and -500 series airplanes and all Model ATR72 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2001 (66 FR 17101). That action proposed to require temporarily revising the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to add tests of the engine fire protection system and conducting those tests prior to each flight. That action also proposed to require replacement of defective engine fire handles with serviceable fire handles, which would terminate the revision of the AFM and the repetitive tests of the engine fire protection system.

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

One commenter asks that the applicability section, as specified in the proposed rule, be changed to exclude airplanes that do not have the affected engine fire handles, or that have already complied with the proposed rule. The commenter provides specific serial numbers for the affected airplanes and part numbers for the engine fire handles.

The FAA concurs that the applicability as specified in the final rule can be changed to some extent; however, it would be confusing to operators to list all the part numbers and serial numbers not affected by the final rule. Therefore, we have changed the applicability to specify the following: Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and -500 series airplanes equipped with Labinal engine fire handles, as listed in Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-26-0023 Revision 1, dated September 14, 2000; and Model ATR72 series airplanes equipped with Labinal engine fire handles, as listed in ATR72-26-1014 Revision 1, dated September 14, 2000. We also have changed the preamble to specify “certain” airplanes instead of “all” airplanes.

One commenter asks that the unsafe condition, as written in the proposed rule, be changed to describe how the problem could affect the operation of the fire extinguisher system. The commenter states the unsafe condition as written could be interpreted as a failure of the system to provide a source for extinguishing a fire in the engine zone. In the case of improper functioning of the fire handles, there is a potential to make contact with one of the two sets of switches. In the most serious situation, this could result in the malfunction of the trigger (squib) to activate one of the two engine fire extinguishers. The second fire extinguisher remains operative and can be triggered, provided it is still armed. The commenter adds that this is the reason for the pre-flight test of the trigger for the fire extinguisher system, and asks that the unsafe condition be clarified.

The FAA agrees with the commenter. The unsafe condition has been clarified in the applicable sections of the final rule.

The manufacturer has advised the FAA that, since the issuance of the proposed rule, it has issued Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-26-0023, Revision 1, dated September 14, 2000 (for Aerospatiale Model ATR42 series airplanes); and Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR72-26-1014, Revision 1, dated September 14, 2000 (for Model ATR72 series airplanes). The manufacturer requests that the final rule be revised to require accomplishment of the actions in accordance with these new revisions of the service bulletins.

The FAA agrees with the manufacturer's request. We have reviewed Revision 1 of these service bulletins, and find that they contain minor changes from the original versions (which were cited as the appropriate sources of service information for accomplishment of the actions in the proposed rule). Therefore, paragraphs (c) and (d) of the final rule have been revised to require accomplishment of the actions in accordance with Revision 1 of the applicable service bulletin due to minor changes in paragraphs 1.C.(2) and 1.C.(3) of the Planning Information specified. A note also has been added to give credit for inspections and repairs accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD in accordance with the original issue of the service bulletin.

One commenter asks that the wording in paragraph (a) of the proposed rule be changed from “* * * may be accomplished * * *” to “* * * will be accomplished * * *.” The commenter states that the repetitive tests of the engine fire protection system are covered by inserting a copy of the AD into the Normal Procedures section of the AFM. The commenter adds that since this is temporary mandated action until accomplishment of the terminating action, no specific temporary revision of the AFM is required.

The FAA does not agree. Inserting this AD into the AFM is one way to comply with the final rule requirements. However, the operator has the option of accomplishing the terminating action specified in paragraph (c) of the final rule instead of accomplishing the temporary revision specified in paragraph (a) of the final rule. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter asks that the proposed rule be withdrawn. The commenter states that all its affected airplanes have already complied with the requirements of the proposed AD. Therefore, the commenter requests that the FAA withdraw the proposed AD.

The FAA does not agree. We acknowledge that the manufacturer has stated that all the actions have been accomplished on all U.S.-registered airplanes, as specified in Labinal Special Inspection Service Bulletin 26-26-11-001, dated June 2000 (one source of service information specified in the final rule). However, if a U.S. operator were to purchase an airplane that does not have a U.S. registration, there would not be a U.S. AD to mandate the required actions. We have determined that it is necessary to issue a final rule to prevent an inadvertent installation of an engine fire handle having part number (P/N) 19-51-41 or P/N 19-51-51 and having a serial number listed in paragraph 1.C.(2) of the Planning Information of Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-26-0023, dated July 7, 2000, or Revision 1, dated September 14, 2000 (for ATR42 series airplanes); or ATR72-26-1014, dated July 7, 2000, or Revision 1, dated September 14, 2000 (for Model ATR72 series airplanes). Therefore, no change to the final rule is necessary.

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

The FAA estimates that 69 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

It will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the temporary revision of the AFM, at an average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the temporary revision of the AFM on U.S. operators is estimated to be $4,140, or $60 per airplane.

It will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the pre-flight test of the engine fire protection system, at an average labor cost of $60. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the test on U.S. operators is estimated to be $4,140, or $60 per airplane, per test.

It will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the inspection for defective engine fire handles, at an average labor cost of $60. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $8,280, or $120 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Aerospatiale Model ATR72-101, -201, -102, -202, -211, and -212 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2001 (66 FR 20946). That action proposed to require replacement of the clamp retaining the power supply cable loom of the green circuit hydraulic pump at frame 28 with a smaller clamp in a different orientation.

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

The commenter expresses concern that the final rule be issued as quickly as possible.

The FAA concurs, and the final rule is issued as proposed.

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

The FAA estimates that 60 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspection and replacement, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will be supplied by the manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the actions required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,600, or $60 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 727, 737, 757-200, 757-200CB, and 757-300 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2001 (66 FR 10384). That action proposed to require modification of the latch assembly of the escape slides. For certain airplanes, that action also proposed to require installation of a cover assembly on the trigger housing of the inflation cylinder on the escape slides.

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

One commenter supports the proposed rule.

One commenter requests that the FAA revise the proposed rule to identify an additional affected airplane model. The commenter states that Boeing Model 737-200C airplanes are included in the effectivity listing of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1405, dated May 25, 2000, but points out that these airplanes were not identified in the proposed rule with Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes.

The FAA concurs with the commenter's request. Though the FAA inadvertently failed to refer to Model 737-200C series airplanes separately from Model 737-200 series airplanes in the proposed rule, these airplanes are affected by this AD. Therefore, the “Cost Impact” section, the applicability statement, and Table 1 of this final rule have been revised to specifically identify Model 737-200C series airplanes along with the other airplane models affected by this AD.

One commenter requests that the FAA remove paragraph (b) from the proposed AD. (That paragraph, the “Spares” paragraph, would prohibit installation of certain escape slide assemblies or escape latch assemblies after the effective date of this AD.) The commenter states that an operator may replace an escape slide on an airplane at any time due to a maintenance discrepancy or the slide reaching its overhaul threshold. The commenter notes that, on certain fleets, the slide latch is part of the complete escape slide assembly; therefore, the latch is replaced when a new slide is installed. The commenter states that, by not allowing the installation of a non-modified latch prior to the compliance time required by the proposed AD, the operator's entire spares inventory of escape slides would have to be modified according to the proposed AD before the AD becomes effective.

The FAA concurs with the commenter's request. Operators must comply with the requirements of this AD by the specified compliance time. If an operator must install a slide, it is their responsibility to ensure that all affected parts of that slide conform to the requirements of this AD by the compliance deadline. Accordingly, paragraph (b) of the proposed rule has not been included in this final rule. (Operators should note, however, that once an airplane has been modified according to this AD, the airplane cannot be modified in any way that negates accomplishment of the actions in this AD—i.e., a modified latch assembly cannot be replaced with an unmodified assembly.)

One commenter states that the FAA did not adequately consider AD 90-12-11 R1, amendment 39-6683, when it proposed this AD. The commenter points out that AD 90-12-11 R1 requires repetitive inspections of all Boeing Model 727, 737, and 757 series airplanes with escape slides having release cables installed. Escape slides with such release cables installed do not have the split ring assembly that the proposed AD would require to be replaced on certain airplanes. The commenter further notes that Boeing has issued certain service bulletins that provide instructions for replacing release cables on escape slides with release chains, which eliminates the need for the inspections required by AD 90-12-11 R1. The commenter states that it operates some airplanes that have not been modified according to these service bulletins, so the airplanes are still equipped with escape slides with release cables (and without the split ring assembly). The commenter asks whether the FAA intends to require the installation of escape slides with release chains on all subject airplanes as part of this AD, or if escape slides with release cables are still considered to be acceptable, provided that the airplanes continue to be repetitively inspected according to AD 90-12-11 R1.

The FAA concurs that clarification is necessary with regard to the requirements of AD 90-12-11 R1. The modification of the escape slide latch assembly required by this AD involves two actions for certain airplanes. The first action involves replacement of existing spring pins with new spring pins. While AD 90-12-11 R1 requires repetitive inspections of the slide release latch assembly for frayed or broken cables, that AD does not require inspections for corrosion of the spring pins because the spring pins cannot be properly inspected for corrosion. Therefore, the replacement of the existing spring pins with new spring pins is necessary for all airplanes subject to this AD. The second action that is part of the modification involves replacement of the existing split ring which attaches the chain assembly to the latch block assembly, with a clevis. In response to the commenter's concern, the FAA finds that an operator of an airplane subject to the requirement to replace the split ring with a clevis may not be required to do this replacement if the airplane is equipped with a release cable instead of a release chain. Operators of airplanes equipped with a release cable instead of a release chain may request approval of an alternative method of compliance under the provisions of paragraph (b) of this AD, as long as the airplane is receiving the repetitive inspections required by AD 90-12-11 R1. Operators should note that Note 1 of this AD applies to airplanes modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. Due to the fact that Note 1 already addresses this circumstance, no change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that the FAA extend the compliance time from 18 months to 36 months for the actions required by this AD on Boeing Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes. The commenter notes that, as the FAA stated in the proposed rule, the 18-month compliance time for these airplanes is based on the degree of urgency associated with installation of a cover assembly on the trigger housing of the inflation cylinder on the escape slides, as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1403, dated May 4, 2000. The commenter states that some operators have already accomplished that service bulletin, and other airplanes are not subject to the actions in that service bulletin because they are equipped with different escape slides. The commenter states, for these airplanes, the compliance time for accomplishment of the modification of the slide latch assembly described in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1404, dated May 25, 2000, should be 36 months.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request to extend the compliance time. The commenter notes that, for certain airplanes as listed in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1404, that service bulletin specifies accomplishment of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1403 as an integral part of the other actions in that service bulletin. For this reason, the FAA finds that it is necessary to mandate accomplishment of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1404 within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, as proposed. However, the FAA notes that operators of airplanes on which Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1403 has been accomplished may request approval of an alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time under the provisions of paragraph (b) of this AD. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

The modification of the escape slide latch assembly for all airplanes subject to this AD involves replacement of existing spring pins with new spring pins made from corrosion-resistant material. One commenter requests that the FAA approve the use of a new, solid spring pin with both ends staked as an alternative to the spring pin of hollow-roll design that is specified in the service bulletins. The commenter states that the spring pin specified in the service bulletins may allow for collection of water in the pin which could lead to corrosion. The commenter states that a solid pin will provide the corrosion prevention needed to ensure the integrity of the pin and operation of the slide latch and will provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the pin specified in the service bulletins.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request to allow use of a solid pin with staked ends. The FAA notes that the latch assembly housing is a forged part and is made of hard, corrosion-resistant steel. If solid spring pins are installed and staked at both ends, it may be possible for these pins to bend or be insufficiently staked, which could result in an unacceptable latch assembly. Therefore, the FAA finds that the spring pins must be replaced with the new pins specified in the applicable service bulletin. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter states that the escape slide latch assemblies that are subject to this AD should not be reworked as allowed by the proposed rule, but, rather, should be replaced with new latch assemblies. The commenter is concerned about modifying the existing latches due to the critical nature of these latches.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The FAA does not consider the modifications in the referenced service bulletins technically challenging, and expects that operators should be able to accomplish such modifications. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter states that, because the proposed AD results from a design defect, replacement parts for the modification of the escape slide latch assembly should be supplied at no cost to the operators. The commenter makes no specific request for a change to the proposed rule. The FAA acknowledges this comment, but the FAA cannot mandate which party should bear the cost of replacement parts. This issue must be negotiated between the operator and the manufacturer. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

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

There are approximately 5,759 Model 727, 737, 757-200, 757-200CB, and 757-300 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 2,906 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. The following table shows the estimated cost impact for airplanes affected by this AD. “Action 1” is the modification of the escape slide latch assembly, and “Action 2” is the installation of a cover assembly on the trigger housing of the inflation cylinder on the escape slide. The average labor rate is $60 per work hour. The estimated cost impact is as follows:

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 2000-08-21, amendment 39-11707 (65 FR 25281, May 1, 2000), which is applicable to all Boeing Model 747 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on April 19, 2001 (66 FR 20111). The action proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the forward and aft inner chords and the splice fitting of the forward inner chord of the station 2598 bulkhead, and repair, if necessary. The action also proposed to add repetitive inspections of an expanded inspection area, which would end the inspections specified in the existing AD, and to limit the applicability of the existing AD.

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

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

There are approximately 1,115 Model 747 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 258 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection that currently is required by AD 2000-08-21 takes approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this inspection is estimated to be $120 per airplane.

The detailed visual inspection that currently is required by AD 2000-08-21 takes approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this inspection is estimated to be $120 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The HFEC inspections that are required by this new AD will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this inspection is estimated to be $120 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

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

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

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

On April 4, 2001 a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) for an RNAV, Helicopter Point in Space Approach to the Westmoreland Hospital Heliport, Greensburg, PA was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 17827-17828).

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA on or before May 4, 2001. No comments to the proposal were received. The rule is adopted as proposed. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83.

Class E airspace areas designations for airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of 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 E airspace designation listed in this document will be published in the order.

This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) provides controlled Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for aircraft conducting Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the Westmoreland Hospital Heliport, Greensburg, PA.

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

On February 28, 2001, a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3200 feet MSL within a 4.1 mile radius of Washington County Regional Airport was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 12741-12742). The Class E2 airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times when the Class D airspace is not in effect.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA on or before March 30, 2001. No comments to the proposal were received. The rule is adopted as proposed.

The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83.

Class E airspace areas designations for airspace extending upward from the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6002 of 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 E airspace designation listed in this document will be published in the order.

This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) provides controlled Class E airspace extending upward from the surface for aircraft conducting IFR operations at the Washington County Regional Airport, Hagerstown, MD at times when the ATCT is closed.

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

On April 18, 2001 a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) for a GPS, Helicopter Point in Space Approach to the Kane Community Hospital Heliport, Kane, PA was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 19909).

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA on or before May 4, 2001. No comments to the proposal were received. The rule is adopted as proposed. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83.

Class E airspace areas designations for airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9H, dated September 1, 200 and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published in the order.

The amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) provides controlled Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for aircraft conducting Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the Kane Community Hospital Heliport, Kane, PA.

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

The reference to the Clearinghouse in section 1000.26, Office of Information Services, is being moved to section 1000.27, Directorate for Epidemiology.

Since this rule relates solely to internal agency management, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) notice and other public procedures are not required and it is effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register . Further, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, and, thus, is exempt from the provisions of the Act.

On May 11, 2001, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued interim final rules to address the functional exceptions for banks from the new definitions of “broker” and “dealer” that were added to the Exchange Act by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The rules are designed to provide guidance on, and to grant exemptive relief, from the new definitions. The deadline for submitting public comments established by the adopting release was July 17, 2001. The Commission has received requests to extend the deadline so that commenters have more time to address the issues raised by the interim final rules. The Commission believes that it is appropriate to give commenters additional time and, therefore, we are extending the comment period to September 4, 2001.

The north bascule span of the US 11 bridge across Lake Pontchartrain, between New Orleans and Slidell, has a vertical clearance of 13 feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited in the open-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists of tugs with tows, fishing vessels, sailing vessels, and other recreational craft. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development requested a temporary deviation from the normal operation of the drawbridge in order to accommodate the installation of a new submarine cable beneath the north bascule span. During the closure period, traffic will be able to pass through the north leaf of the span between noon and 1 p.m. and from 7 p.m. until 6 a.m. Emergency repairs to the south leaf of the north bascule span are ongoing and will be completed by 4 p.m. on August 30, 2001. Scaffolding beneath the south leaf has reduced the vertical clearance by approximately two feet.

This deviation allows the north channel bascule span of the US 11 bridge across Lake Pontchartrain, between New Orleans and Slidell, Orleans and St. Tammany Parishes, Louisiana, to be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. until noon and from 1 p.m. until 7 p.m. on August 6, 7, 8, 2001.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM, and, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The airshow poses several dangers to the public including excessive noise and objects falling from any accidents. Accordingly, prompt regulatory action is needed in order to provide for the safety of spectators and participants during the event. If normal notice and comment procedures were followed, this rule would not become effective until after the date of the event. Temporary regulations of similar size and duration have been in place for the past several years and have not generated significant controversy.

The Coast Guard is adopting a temporary safety zone regulation on the waters of Lake Washington, Seattle, Washington, for the Seafair Blue Angels Performance. The Coast Guard has determined it is necessary to close the area in the vicinity of the air show in order to minimize the dangers that low-flying aircraft present to persons and vessels. These dangers include, but are not limited to, excessive noise and the risk of falling objects from any accidents associated with low flying aircraft. In the event that aircraft require emergency assistance, rescuers must have immediate and unencumbered access to the craft. The Coast Guard, through this action, intends to promote the safety of personnel, vessels, and facilities in the area. Entry into this zone will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his representative. This safety zone will be enforced by Coast Guard personnel. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the fact that the regulated area established by the regulation would encompass an area near the middle of Lake Washington, not frequented by commercial navigation. The regulation is established for the benefit and safety of the recreational boating public, and any negative recreational boating impact is offset by the benefits of allowing the Blue Angels to fly. For the above reasons, the Coast Guard does not anticipate any significant economic impact.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), the Coast Guard considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. “Small entities” include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this portion of Lake Washington during the time this regulation is in effect. The zone will not have a significant economic impact due to its short duration and small area. The only vessels likely to be impacted will be recreational boaters and small passenger vessel operators. The event is held for the benefit and entertainment of those above categories. Because the impacts of this proposal are expected to be so minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those costs. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.

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

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

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

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

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

We considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph(34)(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.lC, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A Categorical Exclusion is provided for temporary safety zones of less than one week in duration. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone of limited duration that will be within the one-week timeframe.

Although this regulation is published as an interim rule without prior notice, an opportunity for public comment is nevertheless desirable to ensure the regulation is both reasonable and workable.

The Coast Guard encourages all interested persons to participate in this interim rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments. Persons submitting comments should identify this rulemaking (CGD 11-01-013), the specific section of the rule to which each comment applies, and the reason for each comment. All comments and attachments must be submitted in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 × 11 inches, suitable for copying. Persons wanting acknowledgment of receipt of comments should enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. All comments and other materials referenced in this notice will be available for inspection and copying at the Coast Guard location under ADDRESSES , between 6:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. The Coast Guard will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this rule in view of them.

The Coast Guard plans no public hearing. Interested persons may request a public hearing by writing to the Coast Guard at the address under ADDRESSES . The request should include the reasons why a hearing would be beneficial. If it determines that the opportunity for oral presentations will aid in this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold a public hearing at a time and place to be announced by a later notice in the Federal Register .

The Coast Guard did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation, however the Coast Guard did publish an NPRM and a Final Rule regarding Anchorage 8 on February 28, 2001 (66 FR 12742) and June 26, 2001 (66 FR 33833), respectively, both of which have an effect on the Oakland Harbor RNA. The newly expanded Anchorage 8 inadvertently overlapped the boundary line for the Oakland Harbor RNA.

The Coast Guard believes that decreasing the size of the RNA to compensate for the increase in the size of Anchorage 8 will not affect any significant operation in the vicinity of the Oakland Harbor. The correction to the northern boundary of the Oakland Harbor RNA will simply align the coordinates in the RNA regulation with what has already been accurately charted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on their 50th edition of chart 18650, dated January of 2001. Both of these changes are required immediately in order to prevent confusion among the public and to maintain the highest levels of safety within the RNA and Anchorage 8. Publishing an NPRM in this istuation is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM for this Interim Final Rule.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard also finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The new Anchorage 8 boundary becomes effective as of July 26, 2001. In order to enforce properly the anchorage regulations along with the RNA regulations, and to avoid public confusion and unsafe conditions in the waterway, these rules need to coincide, as closely as possible, in their effective dates.

As discussed in the Regulatory Information section, there have been both an NPRM and a Final Rule published in the Federal Register on the changes of Anchorage 8, which in turn requires a change to the Oakland Harbor RNA. Over time, demands of waterway usage in the San Francisco Bay have led to the need for increases in anchorage grounds. Anchorage 8 was one of the anchorages recently requested by the mariners to be modified to make better use of available water. Such a change has resulted in Anchorage 8 area protruding into the nearby Oakland Harbor RNA, necessitating an adjustment to the boundary designation of the RNA. No comments were received on the Anchorage 8 regulation change that objected on the grounds that the Oakland Harbor RNA would need to be reduced. Additionally, the reduction in the RNA will not result in any adverse effect to waterway users.

The northern boundary coordinates in the regulation for the Oakland Harbor RNA was recently discovered to be off by approximately 30 to 200 yards. This rulemaking will correct the points listed in the RNA regulation, accurately reflecting the alignment of the northern boundary of the Oakland Harbor RNA with the Bar Channel and what has already been charted by NOAA.

This Interim Rule incorporates an administrative change to correct the boundary line of the affected Oakland Harbor RNA to coincide with the new boundaries of Anchorage 8. While Anchorage 8 will increase in size by approximately 2,300 square feet to the northwest, the Oakland Harbor RNA lying just north of this anchorage will decrease in size by the same amount. The regulations that apply to vessels within this RNA will still remain the same.

This Interim Rule also incorporates an administrative change to correct the mis-printed coordinates in the current RNA regulation for the northern boundary of the Oakland Harbor RNA. The corrected coordinates will reflect what has already been charted by NOAA.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It has been exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget under that order. It is not “significant” under the Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This rule is merely re-designating the boundary lines of the Oakland Harbor RNA to coincide with the recently published Anchorage 8 boundary change and to correct a mistake on the northern boundary coordinates of the RNA.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), the Coast Guard must consider whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” may include small businesses and not-for profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their respective fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations less than 50,000. This rule does not require a general notice of proposed rulemaking and, therefore, is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Although this rule is exempt, we have reviewed it for potential economic impact on small entities. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule, if adopted, is not expected to have a significant economic impact on any substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will have a significant impact on it, please submit a comment. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

In accordance with 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard wants to assist small entities in understanding this Interim Rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rule making process. If your small business or organization is affected by this rule and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the U.S. Coast Guard using information in Addresses above.

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

The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has determined it does not have implications of federalism under that order.

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, Figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), reducing the size of an RNA is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation.

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

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

We published a document in the Federal Register of June 13, 2001, (66 FR 32073) establishing the public health and environmental radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In the Regulatory Analysis section, the certification required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act was inadvertently omitted.

In FR Doc. 01-14626 (66 FR 32073), make the following corrections:

(1) On page 32131, column one, Section H entitled “Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 3501-20” is corrected to read:

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , agencies must prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of a rule upon “small entities” (5 U.S.C. 603). “Small entities” include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601). However, the requirement to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis does not apply if the Administrator certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The rule today would establish requirements that apply only to the Department of Energy. Therefore, it does not apply to small entities. Accordingly, I hereby certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.

(2) A new section K is added to read:

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the right or obligations of non-agency parties. (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). We are not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-45 released on June 29, 2001. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

1. In this Report and Order, we adopt a rule proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ), 66 FR 23204, May 8, 2001, to provide additional time for recipients under the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism to implement contracts or agreements with service providers for non-recurring services. We adopt a rule that will extend the deadline for receipt of non-recurring services from June 30, to September 30 following the close of the funding year. Further, we adopt a rule that will establish a deadline for the implementation of non-recurring services for certain qualified applicants who are unable to complete implementation by the September 30 deadline. We find that the amended rules will provide schools and libraries with more time to install non-recurring services, and thereby make greater use of their universal service discounts.

2. In the NPRM, the Commission also sought comment on its rule addressing the allocation of discounts for schools and libraries under the federal universal service mechanism when there is insufficient funding to support all requests for internal connections. Specifically, the Commission sought comment on whether to modify the rule to give funding priority to requests for internal connections made by individual schools and libraries that did not receive funding commitments for internal connections during the previous funding year. After consideration of the proposals, we conclude that we will not revise the Commission's rules of priority for Funding Year 4 of the schools and libraries universal service mechanism.

The Commission sought comment in the NPRM regarding a modification to our rules relating to the deadline for implementation of non-recurring services. Non-recurring services are funding requests with a one-time cost listed on Block 5 of an applicant's FCC Form 471. We conclude that it is reasonable for schools and libraries to have additional time to implement non-recurring services, given the fact that many of these services must be installed during the summer months when classes are not in session. Therefore, we adopt a rule change that would allow schools and libraries to implement non-recurring services by September 30, following the close of the funding year.

As noted in each year of the schools and libraries program, the Commission has extended the deadline for receipt of non-recurring services. Non-recurring services often involve the installation of equipment or wiring, for which schools and libraries incur a one-time cost. As a result, many non-recurring services need to be performed while students are not in school or during a time period that will modify our rule to permanently minimize disruptions for classrooms and students. We now find that it is appropriate to extend the deadline from June 30 to September 30. The extended deadline is more realistic, and appropriately takes into consideration the needs of program participants.

We note that this rule change does not affect the twelve-month funding year for non-recurring and recurring services. Rather, this rule change only affects the deadline for receiving non-recurring services. In addition, we do not increase the amount that schools and libraries may receive for non-recurring services for each program year. Instead, we are merely providing schools and libraries with additional time in which to complete their receipt of these discounted non-recurring services.

In the NPRM, the Commission also sought comment regarding a rule that would further extend the deadline for implementation of non-recurring services for schools and libraries that are unable to meet the original deadline due to circumstances beyond their control. We adopt the proposed rule, thereby extending the deadline for implementation of non-recurring services for certain qualified applicants who are unable to meet the September 30 deadline. Applicants may qualify for the extension, based on satisfaction of one of four criteria. Subsequently, the Administrator will calculate a revised implementation deadline, based on the date that the applicant satisfies one of the criteria.

We believe the revised rule will ensure that schools and libraries have a reasonable and predictable deadline for implementation of non-recurring services. External circumstances, like delayed funding decisions or manufacturing problems, can create situations where deadlines are both impractical and unreasonable. Adoption of the proposed rule will set in place a predictable mechanism to recalculate the implementation deadline in certain limited circumstances. Furthermore, consistent with the Commission's commitment to providing support for schools and libraries, we believe that this action will increase the likelihood that schools and libraries may successfully utilize discounts available from the schools and libraries universal service mechanism.

Specifically, under the revised rule, applicants will qualify for an extension of the implementation deadline for non-recurring services if they satisfy one of the following criteria: (1) Applicants whose funding commitment decision letters are issued by the Administrator on or after March 1 of the funding year for which discounts are authorized; (2) applicants who receive service provider change authorizations or service substitution authorizations from the Administrator on or after March 1 of the funding year for which discounts are authorized; (3) applicants whose service providers are unable to complete implementation for reasons beyond the service provider's control; or (4) applicants whose service providers are unwilling to complete installation because funding disbursements are delayed while the Administrator investigates their application for program compliance.

Should an applicant satisfy one of the four criteria, March 1 is the key date for calculating the extended deadline. If one of the conditions is satisfied before March 1 (of any year), the applicant will have until the subsequent September 30 to complete implementation. If one of the conditions is satisfied after March 1, the applicant will have until September 30 of the following year to complete implementation. Therefore, if an applicant receives authorization for a service provider change on February 27, 2002 (before March 1), the deadline for receipt of non-recurring services will be September 30, 2002. By contrast, for funding commitments made in April 2002 for Funding Year 4 applications (after March 1), the deadline for receipt of non-recurring service will be September 30, 2003.

The Administrator will consider whether criteria (1) and (2) have been satisfied, respectively, based on the date that the funding commitment decisions are issued, or service provider changes or service substitutions are authorized. The revised deadline for implementation of non-recurring services will then be determined, based on the date that one of these events occurs.

Similar to the requirements outlined in the November 2000 Extension Order, applicants who wish to satisfy criteria (3) should submit documentation to the Administrator requesting relief on these grounds on or before the original non-recurring services deadline. The revised deadline will be calculated based on the date of the Administrator's decision relating to the explanation. For example, if an entity is awarded discounts for internal connections in Funding Year 4, and installation is delayed due to circumstances beyond its control, it will need to file with the Administrator an explanation and evidence of the delay on or before September 30, 2002. If the Administrator grants an extension before March 1, 2003, they will have until September 30, 2003 to complete installation.

Furthermore, we recognize that there may be a wide range of situations under criteria (3) in which an applicant through no fault of its own is unable to complete installation by the applicant's original September 30 implementation deadline. Circumstances beyond the service provider's control may include manufacturing delays and natural disasters. Commenters suggested that the Commission further clarify the type of events that may satisfy criteria (3). Because we are unable to anticipate every type of circumstance that may arise under criteria (3), we instead direct the Administrator to address such situations on a case by case basis, consistent with the reasoning set forth in this Report and Order.

With regard to criteria (4), applicants must certify to the Administrator that its service provider was unwilling to deliver or install non-recurring services before the expiration of the original non-recurring services installation deadline, because the Administrator had withheld payment for those services on a properly-submitted invoice for more than 60 days after the submission of the invoice. Applicants must make this certification on or before the original non-recurring services installation deadline. The revised implementation date will be calculated based on the date that the funds are released by the Administrator.

We conclude that a rule change will ensure schools and libraries are not penalized when they are not responsible for missing the installation deadline. Additionally, implementation of this policy will provide clarity to the Administrator and applicants by establishing a certain deadline for installation. Ultimately, this rule gives all schools and libraries the opportunity to schedule implementation of non-recurring services over the summer months.

In addition, we adopt a rule granting a limited extension of the Commission's competitive bidding rules for contracts for non-recurring services. Under this rule, contracts for non-recurring services may be voluntarily extended to coincide with the appropriate deadline for implementation. Parties may not, however, extend other contractual provisions beyond the dates established by the Commission's rules without complying with the competitive bidding process. This action will ensure equitable treatment for recipients of discounts for non-recurring services.

In the NPRM, the Commission also sought comment on two options relating to the Commission's rules of priority and the distribution of support for internal connections. The Commission determined it was appropriate to consider revising the rules of priority because of heavy demand in Funding Year 4 of the schools and libraries universal service mechanism. In April, the Administrator estimated that after funding priority one services (telecommunications services and Internet access) in Funding Year 4, there would not be enough funds available to fund priority two requests (internal connections) from the poorest schools and libraries, who qualify for a 90% discount under the schools and libraries discount matrix.

The first proposal in the NPRM was to maintain the Commission's rules as currently written, which direct that the remaining funds be prorated by discount band. The second proposal was to give funding priority to requests for internal connections made by individual schools and libraries that did not receive funding commitments for internal connections during the previous funding year. After consideration of two proposals regarding the distribution of support for internal connections, we now conclude that we will not revise the rules of priority relating to the funding of internal connections for Funding Year 4 of the schools and libraries program. Therefore, under the current rules, the Administrator will allocate the available funds among applicants in the 90 percent discount level on a pro rata basis, so that each such applicant in Funding Year 4 receives a portion of the amount requested.

The overwhelming majority of commenters expressed concern about revising the rules of priority during Funding Year 4, after the application process had closed. In fact, commenters suggested that they would have structured their technology plans differently had they been aware of the proposed rules of priority. Furthermore, commenters emphasized the need for predictability and raised operational questions regarding implementation of the rule in the current funding year. Given the strong concerns voiced by the schools and libraries community, we agree that the Commission should not revise its rules of priority for Funding Year 4 of the schools and libraries universal service mechanism.

Several commenters supported giving funding priority to requests for internal connections made by individual schools and libraries that did not receive funding commitments for internal connections during the previous funding year. Those commenters believed that the proposed rules would enable many needy schools and libraries, who have not previously been awarded discounts, the opportunity to receive funding for internal connections. The Commission is strongly committed to ensuring that discounts continue to go to schools and libraries that are economically disadvantaged. Based on the current record, we conclude it is not reasonable to revise the rule for Funding Year 4 applications. We will continue to consider the operational and other implementation issues raised by commenters for future funding years.

4. The action contained herein has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and found to impose new or modified reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements or burdens on the public. Implementation of these new or modified reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements will be subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date.

5. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the NPRM. The Commission sought written public comments on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA, as amended.

6. We modify our rules to provide additional time for recipients under the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism to implement contracts or agreements with service providers for non-recurring services. First, we extend the deadline for receipt of non-recurring services from June 30, to September 30 following the close of the funding year. Second, we establish a deadline for the implementation of non-recurring services for certain qualified applicants who are unable to complete implementation by the September 30 deadline.

7. The Commission also sought comment on its rule addressing the allocation of discounts for schools and libraries under the federal universal service mechanism when there is insufficient funding to support all requests for internal connections. After consideration, the Commission will not revise the Commission's rules of priority for Funding Year 4 of the schools and libraries universal service mechanism.

8. The Commission received no comments directly addressing the IRFA.

9. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations. “Small governmental jurisdiction” generally means “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000.” As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 governmental entities in the United States. This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000. The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (96 percent) are small entities.

10. Under the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism, which provides support for elementary and secondary schools and libraries, an elementary school is generally “a non-profit institutional day or residential school that provides elementary education, as determined under state law.” A secondary school is generally as “a non-profit institutional day or residential school that provides secondary education, as determined under state law,” and not offering education beyond grade 12. For-profit schools and libraries, and schools and libraries with endowments in excess of $50,000,000, are not eligible to receive discounts under the program, nor are libraries whose budgets are not completely separate from any schools. Certain other statutory definitions apply as well. The SBA has defined as small entities elementary and secondary schools and libraries having $5 million or less in annual receipts. In funding year 2 (July 1, 1999 to June 20, 2000) approximately 83,700 schools and 9,000 libraries received discounts under the schools and libraries universal service mechanism. Although we are unable to estimate with precision the number of these entities that would qualify as small entities under SBA's definition, we estimate that fewer than 83,700 schools and 9,000 libraries would be affected annually by the rules promulgated in this Order, under current operation of the program.

11. We adopt a rule that will require certain applicants, outlined in criteria (3) and (4) to submit information to the Administrator in order to qualify for an extension of the deadline for installation of non-recurring services. Under criteria (3), applicants whose service providers are unable to complete implementation for reasons beyond the service provider's control must submit documentation to the Administrator requesting relief on these grounds. In order to comply with the requirements for criteria (4), applicants must certify to the Administrator that its service provider was unwilling to deliver or install non-recurring services before the expiration of the original non-recurring services installation deadline, because the Administrator had withheld payment for those services on a properly-submitted invoice for more than 60 days after the submission of the invoice.

12. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance and reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for small entities.

13. The Commission adopts two administrative modifications relating to the deadline for implementation of non-recurring services. First, the Commission extends the deadline for implementation of non-recurring services from June 30 of each funding year to September 30. Second, the Commission establishes an extended deadline for certain qualified applicants who are unable to meet the September 30 deadline. We believe that the extension of the deadline for the installation of non-recurring services has the same impact on small and large entities. Further, we believe that the extension of the deadline has no adverse or disparate effect on small or large entities. We previously determined that this was a situation that we needed to evaluate alternatives, had there been any concern expressed about the impact on small entities. After consideration, we conclude that all impact is beneficial and all impact is the same for small and large entities.

14. In the NPRM, the Commission also sought comment relating to the allocation of discounts for schools and libraries when there is insufficient funding to support all requests for internal connections. We conclude in this Report and Order that we will not revise the Commission's rules of priority for Funding Year 4 of the schools and libraries universal service mechanism. Because the Commission promulgates no additional final rules with respect to the rules of priority, there is no impact on small businesses to consider.

15. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register .

16. Pursuant to sections 1-4, 201-205, 218-220, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, that the amendments to part 54 of the Commission's rules, as described in this Report and Order are adopted, and section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553.

17. This document which contains information collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of the Management Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of this section.

18. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

The Secretary of Transportation, as Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, is vested with various authorities governing vessels, seamen (under subtitle II), and maritime liability (under subtitle III) of title 46, United States Code. Section 2104 of title 46 explicitly authorizes the Secretary to delegate all subtitle II authorities to officers, employees, and members of the Coast Guard. In addition, the Coast Guard is primarily responsible for performing many of the Secretary's functions regarding maritime liabilities in subtitle III.

The authorities and functions listed in this rule have traditionally been performed by the Coast Guard, which has the personnel, facilities, expertise, and experience to carry out these traditional functions for the Secretary. The current regulation lists new delegations in title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, of these traditional functions of the U.S. Coast Guard, which had been inadvertently omitted from previous delegations listed in § 1.46. Subparagraphs (1), (2), (4)-(7), and (10) in section 1.46(uu), as well as section 1.46(vv), although limited by subparagraphs (vv)(1)-(2), represent new delegations of such traditional Coast Guard functions. Subparagraphs (3), (8), and (9) in section 1.46(uu) are merely reformatted versions of previous delegations. Delegations of these authorities and functions were generally listed in 49 CFR 1.46 in the order issued, making it difficult to locate a particular delegation without scanning the entire list. The current change publishes all subtitle II and III delegations in a comprehensive form by U.S. Code designation, and specifically identifies any reserved or excepted authorities. Section 1.46 paragraphs rendered unnecessary have been reserved for future use.

With respect to Title II delegations affecting vessels and seamen, established in § 1.46(uu): In subparagraph (1), the Secretary delegates his authority found in Part A (Chapters 21 and 23, codified at 46 U.S.C. 2101-2115 and 2301-2306) dealing with various authority issues with respect to seamen and the operation of vessels, generally. In subparagraph (2), the Secretary delegates his authority found in Part B (Chapters 31-47, codified at 46 U.S.C. 3101-3103; 3201-3205; 3301-3318; 3501-3506; 3701-3719; 3901-3902; 4101-4106; 4301-4311; 4501-4508; and 4701-4705) dealing with regulation of vessels, management of vessels, inspection of vessels, carriage of passengers, carriage of liquid bulk dangerous cargo, carriage of animals, uninspected vessels, recreational vessels, uninspected commercial fishing industry vessels, and abandoned barges, respectively. In subparagraph (3), the Secretary delegates his authority found in Part C (Chapter 51, codified at 46 U.S.C. 5101-5116) dealing with safe load lines for vessels. In subparagraph (4), the Secretary delegates his authority found in Part D (Chapters 61-63, codified at 46 U.S.C. 6101-6104 and 6301-6308) dealing with reporting and investigating marine casualties, respectively. In subparagraph (5), the Secretary delegates his authority found in Part E (Chapters 61-77, codified at 46 U.S.C. 7101-7114; 7301-7319; 7501-7506 and 7701-7705) dealing with licenses & certificates of registry, merchant mariner documents, issuing procedures, as well as suspension and revocation procedures, respectively. In subparagraph (6), the Secretary delegates his authority found in Part F (Chapters 81-93, codified at 46 U.S.C. 8101-8105; 8301-8304; 8501-8503; 8701-8704; 8901-8906; 9101-9102; and 9301-9308) dealing with general authority issues, masters and officers, state and federal pilots, unlicensed personnel (including tankermen and aliens), small vessel manning standards, tank vessel manning standards, and Great Lakes pilotage, respectively. In subparagraph (7), the Secretary delegates his authority found in Part G (Chapters 101-115, codified at 46 U.S.C. 10101-10104; 10301-10321; 10501-10509; 10601-10603; 10701-10711; 10901-10908; 11101-11112; 11201-11204; 11301-11303; and 11501-11507) dealing with reports and reporting requirements, foreign and intercoastal voyages, coastwise voyages, personal effects of deceased seamen, unseaworthiness proceedings, protection and relief for seamen, merchant mariner benefits, official logbooks, as well as offenses and penalties, respectively. In subparagraph (8), the Secretary delegates his authority found in Part H (Chapters 121-125, codified at 46 U.S.C. 12101-12124; 12301-12309; and 12501-12507) dealing with documentation of vessels, numbering of undocumented vessels, and the Vessel Identification System (VIS), respectively. In subparagraph (9), the Secretary delegates his authority found in Part I (Chapter 131, codified at 46 U.S.C. 13101-13110) dealing with interaction with state recreational boating safety programs. In subparagraph (10), the Secretary delegates his authority found in Part J (Chapters 141-147, codified at 46 U.S.C. 14101-14104; 14301-14307; 14501-14504; 14511-14513; 14521-14522; and 14701-14702) dealing with the measurement of vessels, including conventions in measurement, regulatory measurement (general, formal, and simplified), as well as applicable penalties, respectively.

With respect to Title III delegations affecting maritime liability, established in § 1.46(vv), the Secretary delegates all his authority found in Subtitle III (Chapters 301 and 313, codified at 46 U.S.C. 30101 and 31301-31343) with the exception of the two narrow instances, which are noted. In subparagraph (1), the Secretary retains exclusive authority with respect to his statutory authority under 46 U.S.C. 31308 to foreclose a lien as a mortgagee where the mortgage is covered by Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, codified at 46 U.S.C. 1271-1280a. In subparagraph (2), the Secretary retains exclusive authority with respect to his statutory authority under 46 U.S.C. 31329(c) and (d) pertaining to actions with respect to mortgagees and other purchasers of vessels by court order. Finally, the current authority citation for Part 1 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations includes a typographical error referring to “49 U.S.C. 2104(a),” which should have read “49 U.S.C. 322.” This rule corrects that error.

This rule will enhance the public's understanding of the authorities delegated to the Commandant. It does not substantially change the organization or authorities of the Department of Transportation or the Coast Guard.

We publish this rule as a final rule, effective on the date of publication. Because these amendments relate to departmental management, organization, procedure, and practice, notice and comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Further, because this rule does not substantially change the authorities or functions of the Department or the Coast Guard, the Secretary finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for the final rule to be effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register .

On November 1, 2000, the TREAD Act, Public Law 106-414, was enacted in response, in part, to congressional concerns related to manufacturers' inadequate reporting to NHTSA of information regarding possible defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, including tires. The TREAD Act expands 49 U.S.C. 30166, Inspections, investigations, and records, and provides for the Secretary to issue various rules thereunder. The authority to carry out Chapter 301 of Title 49 United States Code, under which the rules directed by the TREAD Act are to be issued, has been delegated to NHTSA's Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.50.

Section 5(b) of the TREAD Act, adds a new section, 49 U.S.C. 30170, to Chapter 301. Section 30170(a)(1) establishes criminal liability for a “person who violates section 1001 of title 18 with respect to the reporting requirements of [49 U.S.C.] section 30166, with the specific intention of misleading the Secretary with respect to motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment safety related defects that have caused death or serious bodily injury to an individual * * * .” Section 1001 of title 18 provides that whoever “* * * knowingly and willfully—(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry” in a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government is subject to a fine and imprisonment.

Section 30170(a)(2)(A) contains a “safe harbor” provision, which states that a

On December 26, 2000 NHTSA promulgated an interim final rule on the reasonable time and manner of correction provision (65 FR 81414). The interim final rule provides violators of 49 U.S.C. 30170 who are seeking to qualify for the statute's safe harbor protection with a “reasonable time” period of 21 days, starting on the date of the report or the date that the report was due to be sent to or received by NHTSA. It also provides that the “correction” of an improper report or failure to report will be sufficient under the statute's safe harbor provision if it satisfies two requirements. First, the violator must submit to NHTSA's Chief Counsel a signed and dated document identifying (1) each previous improper report, (2) each failure to report for which protection is sought, and (3) the specific predicates under which the improper or omitted report should have been provided. Second, the violator must submit to NHTSA the complete and correct information or, if the person cannot do so, provide a detailed description of that information and/or the content of those documents and the reason why the violator cannot provide them to NHTSA.

Comments were received from the Tire Association of North America (TANA); Lawrence F. Henneberger, on behalf of the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) and the Original Equipment Suppliers Association (OESA); and Michael J. McKale, of Delphi Automotive Systems (Delphi), a MEMA and OESA member supporting the comment submitted by MEMA and OESA. None of the comments strongly oppose the interim final rule. However, various comments suggested that NHTSA define the term “violation,” that the “reasonable time” period should begin to toll upon discovery of the improper or misleading report, not the date of the report to NHTSA or the day it was due to be submitted to NHTSA, and that correction submitters be allowed more time, at least 30 days, under NHTSA's “reasonable time” interpretation. The agency has reviewed these comments and addresses them below.

The comment from MEMA/OESA, which is supported by Delphi, urges NHTSA to define the term “violation,” as used in 49 CFR 578.7(a)(1), in the rule itself. MEMA/OESA's rationale for this change is that the TREAD Act's criminal provision, 49 U.S.C. 30170, includes by reference the crime of knowingly and willfully making false statements to a Federal authority, as laid out at 18 U.S.C. 1001. It asserts that the current format requires motor vehicle industry operatives, some of whom have limited levels of legal support, to parse two statutes to determine if a criminal “violation” may have occurred and, if so, whether the “safe harbor” provision in TREAD is applicable. MEMA/OESA attempts to advance its position by noting that there is no guidance in the rule for “a manufacturer that, through inadvertence or mistake, and without the intention to do so, has omitted relevant information from a required report to NHTSA which the manufacturer subsequently discovers.” MEMA/OESA recognizes that “[t]his situation does not create criminal exposure,” but fears that “the interim safe harbor provision, with its references to ‘any improper (i.e. incorrect, incomplete, or misleading) report,’ could be read to imply that inadvertently ‘improper’ reports also raise criminal issues.”

NHTSA declines to engage in rulemaking with respect to the definition of “violation.” The elements of such a violation are defined by the courts, rather than NHTSA. Consistent with statutory direction, the purpose of this rule is limited to establishing by regulation what constitutes a “reasonable time” and a sufficient manner of “correction” under 49 U.S.C. 30170(a)(2). The fact that a statute or regulation references another statute or regulation does not dictate rulemaking or create an excessive burden on those who would otherwise submit a false report. Therefore, no definition of “violation” will be added to 49 CFR 578.4.

TANA commented that the “reasonable time” period to correct any improper reports or failures to report to NHTSA should run “from the date of discovery of the improper report, not the date the report was due” because “[i]t could be weeks or months before an individual discovers a mistake or omission in a report.” TANA also notes that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s Audit Policy, which NHTSA cited in the interim final rule for the criminal penalty safe harbor provision, uses “discovery” to start the clock it uses when deciding whether a violator qualifies for the EPA's limited safe harbor protections. TANA argues that “if NHTSA is truly basing this interim final rule on the framework adopted by EPA's regulations, the same terminology and time frame should be utilized.”

NHTSA did not base the interim final rule on the framework adopted by EPA's audit policy, published at 65 FR 19618 (April 11, 2000), although NHTSA did utilize EPA's time frame. EPA's audit policy and NHTSA's Criminal Penalty Safe Harbor rule generally deal with different kinds of underlying violations. EPA's policy focuses on civil penalties. In general, EPA may seek or impose civil penalties for environmental violations on a “strict liability” basis. The violator need not have any knowledge of the violations. Since the violator may not have known of the violation, EPA's policy provides an open window for reporting by allowing disclosure within a stated time period after the entity discovered that a violation occurred. In a criminal prosecution context, EPA's policy may be applied in making a “no recommendation for criminal prosecution.” However, EPA's incentive has limited applicability in this context and “will not be available, for example, where corporate officials are consciously involved in or willfully blind to violations, or conceal or condone noncompliance” or where the violation(s) cause serious harm to human health or the environment. 65 FR at 19620, 19623, 19625. Finally, EPA's policy was developed, in part, to promote self auditing, which would detect violations.

In contrast to the EPA's policy, the TREAD Act's safe harbor provision was written to apply to criminal activities, including willful concealment. The violator will have known about the violation, because the TREAD Act criminal provision includes the predicate violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, which has a “knowingly and willfully” standard. Thus, there is no need or basis for a discovery element. Accordingly, the time period will run from date of the improper report to NHTSA or the date of the failure to report to NHTSA.

MEMA/OESA, supported by Delphi, also proposes increasing the “reasonable time” period from 21 days to “at least 30 calendar days,” especially since the interim final rule requires that NHTSA be in receipt of the correction submission by the end of the 21 days. MEMA/OESA's rationale for this change is that there are “wide disparities in size, sophistication and legal support among motor vehicle and vehicle parts manufacturers,” and it may take extra time for a smaller industry participant to consult with corporate or individual counsel about the implications of submitting the corrected information and admitting a felony violation. MEMA/OESA recognizes that 21 days may be reasonable time to make a correction where there is only limited civil penalty exposure (e.g., the EPA's Audit Policy is used only to determine civil penalties based on the gravity of the violation, not penalties based on the violator's economic benefit and/or any criminal penalties), but it argues that at least 30 calendar days are required in situations involving criminal liability exposure, as here. MEMA/OESA urges that 49 CFR 578.7(b) be amended accordingly.

In adopting the 21-day time period in the interim final rule, NHTSA considered its own rules and experiences with the current motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment defects program, as well as comparable safe harbor policies used by other federal agencies, to delineate what constitutes a “reasonable time” in a safe harbor rule that requires a person to correct any improper reports or failure to report. NHTSA attempted to reach a balance that still satisfied the agency's motor vehicle safety mission under Chapter 301 by minimizing the time that NHTSA is performing its safety responsibilities using an incorrect or incomplete factual record. We sought a time period that would be short enough to address public safety concerns and to generate an urgency in the violator designed to compel potential correctors to come forward before the time period expires, and yet not be so short as to discourage corrective actions that otherwise would have been taken or be unusable in real world situations.

Even though we do not agree with all of MEMA/OESA's reasoning, NHTSA has decided to adopt MEMA/OESA's request to increase the 21-day period to 30 days. Based on our experiences and the EPA's reported experiences under its Audit Policy, we believe that 21 days ordinarily would be a sufficient time for violators to correct their improper actions. Nonetheless, we are willing to make reasonable accommodations in light of concerns of small businesses, and the requested nine additional days would not significantly undercut the agency's ability to perform its public safety mission. Therefore, the “reasonable time” period for corrections of improper reports or failures to report will be not more than thirty (30) calendar days after the date of the report to the agency or the failure to report, as the case may be.

NHTSA considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This rulemaking is not considered “significant” under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The impacts of this rule are expected to be so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation because this provision only involves a safe harbor for criminal sanctions associated with a criminal provision that NHTSA does not expect to be invoked often.

We have also considered the impact of this notice under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this rule will have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As stated above, this provision only involves a safe harbor for criminal penalties which NHTSA does not expect to be invoked often.

We have analyzed this proposal for the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

NHTSA has determined that this imposes new collection of information burdens within meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). NHTSA began the process of requesting a 3-year clearance for this collection when we published the interim final rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 81414), and provided a 60-day public comment period for the issues listed in OMB regulations 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(i)-(iv). Concurrently, pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.13, Emergency Processing, NHTSA asked the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a temporary emergency clearance for this collection. This emergency PRA approval was granted on January 25, 2001 and is effective through June 30, 2001. Because no PRA-related comments were received by NHTSA or OMB, NHTSA has submitted a request for a 3-year clearance for this collection to OMB.

Executive Order 13132 on “Federalism” requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input” by State and local officials in the development of “regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” The Executive Order defines this phrase to include regulations “that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This rule, which defines terms in a safe harbor provision for criminal penalties for a person who acts with the specific intention of misleading the Secretary regarding safety defects in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, will not have 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule making does not have those implications because it applies to those persons who are required by 49 U.S.C. 30166 to provide information to NHTSA.

This rule does not have a retroactive or preemptive effect. Judicial review of the rule may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribunal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. Because this rule will not have a $100 million annual effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment is necessary and one will not be prepared.

Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:

If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments.

In developing this rule, we tried to address the public comments and anticipated concerns of all our stakeholders. We welcome your views on all aspects of this rule. If you believe that NHTSA should reconsider any aspect of this rule, please follow the suggestions below:

Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.

• Provide solid information to support your views.

• If you estimate potential numbers of reports or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate.

• Tell us which parts of the rule you support, as well as those with which you disagree.

• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

• Offer specific alternatives.

• Refer your comments to specific sections of the rule, such as the units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory sections.

• Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with your petition.

Your petition must be written and in English. To ensure that it is correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your petition.

Your petition must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES .

Petition may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Dockets Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on “Help & Information” or “Help/Info” to obtain instructions for filing the document electronically.

If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your petition, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your petition. Upon receiving your petition, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.

If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel (NCC-30), NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)

We will consider all petitions that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider petitions that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket Management receives a petition late, we will consider that petition as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

You may view the materials in the docket for this rulemaking on the Internet. These materials include the written comments submitted by other interested persons and the preliminary regulatory evaluation prepared by this agency. You may read them at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated above in the same location.

You may also see the comments and materials on the Internet. To read them on the Internet, take the following steps:

Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments.

Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 49 CFR Part 578, which was published at 65 FR 81414 on December 26, 2000, is adopted as a final rule with the following changes: