The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay certification of the airplane and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has previously been subject to the public comment process with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.

Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the rules docket number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. The Administrator will consider all communications received on or before the closing date for comments. The special conditions described in this document may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to these special conditions must include with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. NM193.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

On January 11, 2001, Piedmont Hawthorne—Associated Air Center, P.O. Box 540728, (8321 Lemmon Ave, Love Field), Dallas, Texas 75234, applied for a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) to modify the Boeing Model 737-7BC airplane. The Model 737-7BC is one of the Boeing Business Jet (BBJ) variants of Model 737 airplanes. It is a large transport category airplane powered by two CFM 56 engines, with a maximum takeoff weight of 171,000 pounds. The modified 737-7BC airplane operates with a 2-pilot crew, up to 3 flight attendants, and can hold up to 18 passengers.

The modification incorporates the installation of an electrically heated surface, called a cooktop. Cooktops introduce high heat, smoke, and the possibility of fire into the passenger cabin environment. These potential hazards to the airplane and its occupants must be satisfactorily addressed. Since existing airworthiness regulations do not contain safety standards addressing cooktops, special conditions are therefore needed.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Piedmont Hawthorne—Associated Air Center must show that the Boeing Model 737-7BC airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate Data Sheet No. A16WE, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate Data Sheet No. A16WE are part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-77, with reversions to earlier amendments, voluntary compliance with later amendments, special conditions, equivalent safety findings, and exemptions listed in the Type Certificate Data Sheet.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (that is, part 25 as amended) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 737-7BC airplane modified by Piedmont Hawthorne—Associated Air Center because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, this Boeing Model 737-7BC airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of part 34 and the noise certification requirements of part 36.

Special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38, and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101(b)(2).

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should Piedmont Hawthorne-Associated Air Center apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

As noted earlier, the modification of the Boeing Model 737-7BC airplane will include installation of a cooktop in the passenger cabin. Cooktops introduce high heat, smoke, and the possibility of fire into the passenger cabin environment. The current airworthiness standards of part 25 do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards to protect the airplane and its occupants from these potential hazards. Accordingly, this system is considered to be a novel or unusual design feature.

Currently, ovens are the prevailing means of heating food on airplanes. Ovens are characterized by an enclosure that contains both the heat source and the food being heated. The hazards represented by ovens are thus inherently limited, and are well understood through years of service experience. Cooktops, on the other hand, are characterized by exposed heat sources and the presence of relatively unrestrained hot cookware and heated food, which may represent unprecedented hazards to both occupants and the airplane. Cooktops could have serious passenger and airplane safety implications if appropriate requirements are not established for their installation and use. These special conditions apply to cooktops with electrically-powered burners equipped with an automatic power shut off feature, which turn off the power to the cooktop whenever the cooktop cover is closed. This automatic shut off feature prevents the cooktop from being a hazard to the passengers and crew and from becoming a fire hazard when the cover is closed thus increasing the level of safety. Since the design proposed by Associated Air Center currently includes this power shut off feature it was not deemed necessary to include it in the design limitations, but it should be known that the automatic power shut off feature will be required for all future cooktop designs.

The use of an open flame cooktop (for example natural gas) is beyond the scope of these special conditions and would require separate rulemaking action. The requirements identified in these special conditions are in addition to those considerations identified in Advisory Circular (AC) 25-10, Guidance for Installation of Miscellaneous Non-required Electrical Equipment, and those in AC 25-17, Transport Airplane Cabin Interiors Crashworthiness Handbook. The intent of these special conditions is to provide a level of safety that is consistent with that on similar airplanes without cooktops.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 737-7BC airplane modified by Piedmont Hawthorne-Associated Air Center. Should Piedmont Hawthorne-Associated Air Center apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the Boeing Model 737-7BC airplane modified by Piedmont Hawthorne-Associated Air Center. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

The substance of these special conditions has previously been subjected to the notice and comment period and has been derived without substantive change. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunity for comment described above.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the supplemental type certification basis for the Boeing Model 737-7BC airplane modified by Piedmont Hawthorne-Associated Air Center.

1. Means, such as conspicuous burner-on indicators, physical barriers, or handholds, must be installed to minimize the potential for inadvertent personnel contact with hot surfaces of both the cooktop and cookware. Conditions of turbulence must be considered.

2. Sufficient design means must be included to restrain cookware while in place on the cooktop, as well as representative contents (soups or sauces, for example) from the effects of flight loads and turbulence.

(a) Restraints must be provided to preclude hazardous movement of cookware and contents. These restraints must accommodate any cookware that is identified for use with the cooktop.

(b) Restraints must be designed to be easily utilized and effective in service. The cookware restraint system should also be designed so that it will not be easily disabled, thus rendering it unusable.

(c) Placarding must be installed which prohibits the use of cookware that cannot be accommodated by the restraint system.

3. Placarding must be installed which prohibits the use of cooktops (that is, power on any burner) during taxi, takeoff, and landing (TTL).

4. Means must be provided to address the possibility of a fire occurring on or in the immediate vicinity of the cooktop caused by materials or grease inadvertently coming in contact with the burners.

5. The surfaces of the galley surrounding the cooktop, which would be exposed to a fire on the cooktop surface or in cookware on the cooktop, must be constructed of materials that comply with the flammability requirements of part III of appendix F to part 25. This requirement is in addition to the flammability requirements typically required of the materials in these galley surfaces. During the selection of these materials, consideration must also be given to ensure that the flammability characteristics of the materials will not be adversely affected by the use of cleaning agents and utensils used to remove cooking stains.

6. The cooktop must be ventilated with a system independent of the airplane cabin and cargo ventilation system. Procedures and time intervals must be established to inspect and clean or replace the ventilation system to prevent a fire hazard from the accumulation of flammable oils. These procedures and time intervals must be included in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA). The ventilation system ducting must be protected by a flame arrestor.

7. Means must be provided to contain spilled foods or fluids in a manner that will prevent the creation of a slipping hazard to occupants and will not lead to the loss of structural strength due to airplane corrosion.

8. Cooktop installations must provide adequate space for the user to immediately escape a hazardous cooktop condition.

9. A means to shut off power to the cooktop must be provided at the galley containing the cooktop and in the cockpit. If additional switches are introduced in the cockpit, revisions to smoke or fire emergency procedures of the AFM will be required.

This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, and 8260-5. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charges printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR (and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number.

This amendment to part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center (NFDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description on each SIAP is contained in the appropriate FAA Form 8260 and the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent (P) Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) which are incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation's Regulations (FAR). Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction of charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR (and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number.

This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained in the content of the following FDC/P NOTAMs for each SIAP. The SIAP information in some previously designated FDC/Temporary (FDC/T) NOTAMs is of such duration as to be permanent. With conversion to FDC/P NOTAMs, the respective FDC/T NOTAMs have been canceled.

The FDC/P NOTAMs for the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these chart changes to SIAPs by FDC/P NOTAMs, the TERPS criteria were applied to only these specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.

Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment, are based on the criteria contained in the TERPS. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

As a part of continuing efforts to reorganize the part numbering system of title 27 CFR, ATF is removing part 270, in its entirety, and is recodifying the regulations as 27 CFR part 40. This change improves the organization of title 27 CFR.

The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this final rule because there are no new or revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements.

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) do not apply. We sent a copy of this final rule to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with 26 U.S.C. 7805(f). No comments were received.

This final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this final rule is not subject to the analysis required by this Executive Order.

Because this final rule merely makes technical amendments and conforming changes to improve the clarity of the regulations, it is unnecessary to issue this final rule with notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Similarly, because of the nature of this final rule, good cause is found that it is unnecessary to subject this final rule to the effective date limitation of 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

The principal author of this document is Lisa M. Gesser, Regulations Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

The Coast Guard has added a provision to the interim rule that was not contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. For waterway traffic management purposes, the Coast Guard is requesting that the master, owner, or operator of a vessel meeting the requirements for notice of arrival under 33 CFR 160.207 provide notice to the COTP at least 48 hours before entering the RNA.

The Coast Guard is evaluating whether it is necessary to make this provision mandatory. We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-01-006), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this rule in view of them.

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register .

On May 31, 2001, we published a NPRM entitled Regulated Navigation Area; Cape Fear River and Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, North Carolina in the Federal Register (66 FR 29524). We received one letter commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Work on the channel deepening project is scheduled to begin on August 1, 2001. There are many significant safety concerns associated with the drilling, blasting, and dredging operations being undertaken as part of the channel-deepening project. The maritime industry and other users of the Cape Fear River and Northeast Cape Fear River were consulted by the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at various fora before developing the proposed rule. The parameters of the RNA are a direct result of the comments and input received from the maritime industry, other users of the waterway, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Therefore, the Coast Guard finds that it is in the public interest to have the regulation in place on August 1, 2001 when operations resume. In addition, the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the RNA via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners.

The Cape Fear River and Northeast Cape Fear River are the areas to be designated as a RNA. The RNA is to enhance vessel safety during the extensive channel-deepening project being undertaken by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, which involves dredging, drilling and blasting in these areas. Current channel depths restrict the full economy of existing and future generations of deep draft vessels. This project, which is expected to last approximately six years (completion is expected by 2006), will deepen the existing channel of 25 feet at the upstream limits of the deepening project and 40 feet at the entrance channel to 34 feet and 44 feet, respectively, to accommodate the deeper draft vessels.

Dredging work within the RNA will be conducted in five distinct areas: Ocean Bar II, Horseshoe Shoal, Passing Lane & Anchorage Basin, Big Island, and the Northeast Cape Fear River. Drilling or blasting is expected to occur within the Passing Lane & Anchorage Basin, Big Island, and the Northeast Cape Fear River work areas. Drilling and blasting is not expected to occur at the Ocean Bar II and Horseshoe Shoal work areas although dredging will still take place. During the project, the RNA will impose channel restrictions and other safety measures to facilitate the dredging operations and enhance navigation safety. The area has been and will continue to be available for use by the general public.

On May 31, 2001, we published a notice of NPRM entitled Regulated Navigation Area; Cape Fear River and Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, North Carolina in the Federal Register (66 FR 29524). We received one comment. The comment focused on the necessity of communications between waterway users and the vessels conducting drilling, blasting, and dredging operations in order to keep disturbances to operations and vessel traffic to a minimum. The Coast Guard agrees. The rule requires and encourages communications between vessels transiting the RNA and the vessels conducting drilling, blasting, and dredging operations.

The interim rule adds a provision. For waterway traffic management purposes, the Coast Guard is requesting that the master, owner, or operator of a vessel that meets the requirements for notice of arrival under 33 CFR 160.207 provide notice to the COTP at least 48 hours before entering the RNA. The requested notice is the same notice required by 33 CFR 160.207 and will meet the reporting requirement contained in 33 CFR 160.207.

This provision is necessary because of the dynamic nature of dredging, drilling, and blasting operations in the Cape Fear River. Drilling and blasting operations in particular require detailed planning to minimize traffic interruptions. For example, once a drill barge commences operations, explosive charges are inserted into the river bottom. These charges are connected to the drill barge by several wires. Although vessel traffic may continue to pass the blast site in this situation, the drill barge is not able to move off station. In some cases, the blast site may be well into the navigable channel, potentially delaying deep draft vessel traffic. For this reason, every effort will be made to schedule a blast between transits of deep draft vessels to minimize delays. The increased notice of arrival will allow the Marine Safety Office, Wilmington, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the blasting contractor, to coordinate blast times and surveys, taking into account tidal concerns, and safety restrictions.

In addition, the Coast Guard added language to the effective period terminating the rule in 2006, added a start reference point for measuring miles and defined miles in terms of nautical miles.

This interim rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).

(1) This rule only affects a limited area of water for limited periods of time. Vessels will only be restricted from transiting the work areas during blasting operations. The estimated delays resulting from blasting are expected to last no longer than sixty (60) minutes and occur no more than two (2) times daily in any one area.

(2) Requiring vessels over 300 gross tons and tugs with tows to contact the COTP 12 hours before vessel movement within the RNA will permit the COTP to review additional traffic management considerations for vessels which are tidal dependent or draft restrictive.

(3) Requesting 48-hour notice of arrival, will enable the Coast Guard to consider additional traffic management considerations for vessels which are tidal dependant or draft restrictive.

(4) If deemed necessary, the Captain of the Port, Wilmington may, upon written request, authorize a deviation from any regulation in this section if it is found that the proposed operations can be done safely. A written application for deviation must be received not less than 48-hours before intended operation and must state the need and describe the proposal.

(5) Advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, facsimile, and at Cape Fear Waterways Management Council meetings.

(6) Based upon discussions with and comments received from the maritime industry, other users of the waterway, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the regulations have been narrowly tailored in scope to impose the least impact on maritime interests yet provide the level of safety deemed necessary.

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

This interim rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: Shipping companies, towing companies, dredging companies, commercial fishing vessels and recreational vessels. This interim rule was preceded by a NPRM. One comment was received by a small entity regarding this rule. The comment focused on the necessity of communications between waterway users and the vessels conducting drilling, blasting, and dredging operations in order to keep disturbances to operations and vessel traffic to a minimum. The Coast Guard agrees. The rule requires and encourages communications between vessels transiting the RNA and the vessels conducting drilling, blasting, and dredging operations.

For the reasons stated in the Regulatory Evaluation section above, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605 (b) that this interim 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 (Public Law 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to assist small entities in understanding the proposed rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

If this rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact ENS David Dixon, Asst. Chief, Port Operations, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Wilmington at (910) 772-2208 or the Waterways Management Branch at (910) 772-2180.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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

This rule will not 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 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. This interim rule fits paragraph 34(g) as it establishes a Regulated Navigation Area. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

This interim 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.

On July 29, 1993, New Hampshire Air Resources Division (ARD) formally submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for purposes of meeting the requirements of the CAA. The revision consists of changes to New Hampshire's PART Env-A 610, “Additional Requirements in Nonattainment Areas and the New Hampshire Portion of the Northeast Ozone Transport Region.” The revision did not include provisions to implement two requirements of the CAA, the adequate SIP implementation requirement under section 173(a)(4) and the alternative siting analysis requirement under section 173(a)(5). On July 2, 1999, the ARD submitted additional changes to PART Env-A 610 (renumbered as Env-A 622) that met the requirements of sections 173(a)(4) and 173(a)(5) of the CAA. With the inclusion of the two missing provisions, the ARD's rules regarding the permitting of new major sources in nonattainment areas and the OTR are consistent with all CAA NSR requirements. In addition, the ARD's July 2, 1999 SIP revision removed the dual source definition of stationary source and adopted a plant-wide stationary source definition consistent with federal requirements.

Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

The air quality planning requirements for nonattainment NSR are set out in part D of subpart I of Title I of the Act. The EPA has issued a “General Preamble” describing EPA's preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under part D, including those State submittals containing nonattainment area NSR SIP requirements. See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). Because EPA is describing its interpretations here only in broad terms, the reader should refer to the General Preamble and the January 25, 2001 Technical Support Document entitled, “New Hampshire New Source Review Revisions,” located at the addresses listed above for a more detailed discussion of the interpretations of part D advanced in today's proposal and the supporting rationale.

The general nonattainment NSR requirements are found in sections 172 and 173 of part D and must be met by all nonattainment areas. The following paragraphs reference the nonattainment NSR requirements required to be submitted to EPA by November 15, 1992 and explain how New Hampshire's rules meet those requirements. New Hampshire's existing SIP already contained some of these provisions, while others are being approved today.

1. New Hampshire regulation Env-A 610.05(d) establishes provisions in accordance with section 173(a)(1)(A) of the CAA to assure that calculations of emissions offsets are based on the same emissions baseline used in the demonstration of Reasonable Further Progress (RFP).

2. New Hampshire regulation Env-A 610.05(c) establishes provisions in accordance with section 173(c)(1) of the CAA to allow offsets to be obtained in another nonattainment area if: (i) The area has an equal or higher nonattainment classification and, (ii) emissions from the other nonattainment area contribute to an NAAQS violation in the area in which the source would construct.

3. New Hampshire regulation Env-A 610.05 (c)(5)c. establishes provisions in accordance with section 173(c)(1) of the CAA that any emissions offsets obtained in conjunction with the issuance of a license to a new or modified source must be in effect and enforceable by the time the new or modified source commences operation.

4. New Hampshire regulation Env-A 610.05(a) establishes provisions in accordance with section 173(c)(1) of the CAA to assure that emission increases from new or modified sources are offset by real reductions in actual emissions.

5. New Hampshire regulations Env-A 610.05(b)(2) and (3) establish provisions in accordance with section 173(c)(2) of the CAA to prevent emissions reductions otherwise required by the Act from being credited for purposes of satisfying part D offset requirements.

6. The 1990 CAAA modified the Act's provisions on growth allowances in nonattainment areas by (1) eliminating existing growth allowances in the nonattainment area that received a notice prior or subsequent to the Amendments that the SIP was substantially inadequate, and (2) restricting growth allowances to only those portions of nonattainment areas formally targeted as special zones for economic growth. Sections 173(b) and 173(a)(1)(B) of the CAA. New Hampshire's regulations do not contain provisions for growth allowances and are consequently consistent with the Act.

7. New Hampshire has a practice of supplying information to EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse in accordance with section 173(d) of the CAA.

8. New Hampshire regulation Env-A 610.04(b) establishes provisions, in accordance with section 173(a)(3) of the CAA, to assure that owners or operators of each proposed new or modified major stationary source demonstrate, as a condition of license issuance, that all other major stationary sources under the same ownership in the State are in compliance with the CAA.

9. New Hampshire regulation Env-A 622.04 establishes provisions in accordance with 173(a)(5) of the CAA that, as a prerequisite to issuing any part D license, require an analysis of alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and environmental control techniques for the proposed source that demonstrates that the benefits of the proposed source significantly outweigh the environmental and social costs imposed as a result of its location, construction, or modification.

10. New Hampshire regulation Env-A 622.06 establishes provisions in accordance to section 173(a)(4) of the CAA that require as a prerequisite to issuing a part D permit, the Administrator has not determined that the applicable implementation plan is not being adequately implemented for the nonattainment area in which the proposed source is to be constructed or modified.

The general nonattainment NSR requirements are found in sections 172 and 173 of part D and must be met by all nonattainment areas. The requirements for ozone that supplement or supersede these requirements are found in subpart 2 of part D. In addition to requirements for ozone nonattainment areas, subpart 2 includes section 182(f), which states that requirements for major stationary sources of VOC shall apply to major stationary sources of oxides of nitrogen ( NO X ) unless the Administrator makes certain determinations related to the benefits or contribution of NO X control to air quality, ozone attainment, or ozone air quality. States were required under section 182(a)(2)(C) to adopt new NSR rules for ozone nonattainment areas by November 15, 1992.

Pursuant to sections 172(c)(5) of the CAA, State implementation plans must require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources in nonattainment areas. The federal statutory permit requirements for ozone nonattainment areas are generally contained in revised section 173, and in subpart 2 of Subchapter I, part D of the CAA. These are the minimum requirements that States must include in an approvable implementation plan. For all classifications of ozone nonattainment areas and for ozone transport regions (OTRs), States must adopt the appropriate major source thresholds and offset ratios, and must adopt provisions to ensure that any new or modified major stationary source of NO X satisfies the requirements applicable to any major source of VOC, unless a special NO X exemption is granted by the Administrator under the provision of section 182(f). For serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas, State plans must implement section 182(c)(6) with regard to modifications of major sources.

The State of New Hampshire currently contains serious, marginal and nonclassified nonattainment areas, as well as areas classified as attainment. In addition, the entire State is contained within the OTR (see section 184 of the CAA). The CAA provisions that apply to the OTR provide equal or more stringent requirements than those provisions applicable to the marginal and moderate nonattainment areas. Under the CAA, the OTR provisions are applicable throughout the State.

The following paragraphs reference the serious ozone nonattainment and OTR NSR requirements that New Hampshire was required to submit to EPA by November 15, 1992 and how New Hampshire has met those requirements. To identify those areas of New Hampshire that are within the more stringent serious ozone nonattainment area, New Hampshire's regulations establish a definition for the Four-County Ozone Classified Nonattainment Region. This region includes the counties of Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham and Strafford and encompasses the geographic area classified as a serious nonattainment area as designated by the EPA within Section 107 of the CAA. All regions outside the four-county ozone classified nonattainment region are subject to the federal NSR requirements for the OTR.

1. New Hampshire regulation Env-A 610.01(a)(2)b.1. establishes, in accordance with the OTR requirements provided in section 184(b)(2) of the CAA, a major source threshold level of 50 TPY for VOC for the entire state.

2. New Hampshire regulation Env-A 610.01(a)(2)b.2.ii. establishes, in accordance with sections 184(b)(2), 182(f) and 302(j) of the CAA, a major source threshold level of 100 tpy for NO X for sources located outside the four-county ozone nonattainment region. This major source threshold level satisfies the OTR NSR requirements.

3. New Hampshire regulation Env-A 610.05(c)(1)b. of New Hampshire's regulation establishes, in accordance with sections 184(b)(2), 182(b)(5) and 182(f) of the CAA, an offset ratio of 1.15 to 1 for major sources or major modifications to major sources of VOC and NO X outside the four-county ozone nonattainment area. This offset ratio satisfies the federal OTR NSR Federal requirement.

1. New Hampshire regulation Env-A 610.01(a)(2)b.1. establishes, in accordance to the serious nonattainment area requirements provided in section 182(c) of the CAA, a major source threshold level of 50 TPY for VOC for the entire state.

2. New Hampshire regulation Env-A 610(a)(2)b.2.i establishes, in accordance with sections 182(c) and 182(f) of the CAA, a major stationary source threshold of 50 TPY for NO X in the four-county ozone classified nonattainment region.

3. New Hampshire regulation Env-A 610.05(c)(1)a. establishes, in accordance with sections 182(c)(10) and 182(f) of the CAA, an offset ratio of 1.2 to 1 for major sources or major modifications of VOC or NO X in the four-county ozone classified nonattainment region.

4. New Hampshire regulations Env-A 610.03(e)(1) and 610.03(f)(1) establish provisions that are consistent with the requirements of section 182(c)(6) of the CAA, the “De Minimis rule.”

On August 7, 1980 (45 FR 52676), EPA promulgated a rule defining a “stationary source” as “any building, structure, facility, or installation.” Known as the “dual source definition,” a stationary source is both a building structure or facility and an installation (e.g., an individual piece of equipment). For NSR applicability, permitting authorities consider each emission unit as a separate independent stationary source and as a component of the entire stationary source. Emission increases from a physical or operational changes at an emission unit are reviewed both with and without regard to reductions elsewhere in the plant. Consequently, with respect to NSR applicability, the dual source definition does not offer any benefits to sources that reduce emissions at emission units not undergoing modification. On October 14, 1981 (46 FR 50766), EPA revised its NSR regulations to allow adoption of a “plantwide” definition. Under this definition, sources determining major NSR applicability of a proposed modification are not required to consider each emission unit as an individual stationary source. Consequently, the plantwide definition provides sources the opportunity to take credit for emissions reductions achieved across the entire facility when determining NSR applicability for modifications occurring at individual emission unit(s).

New Hampshire is revising its stationary source definition in Env-A 622-01 to make the definition consistent with EPA's plantwide definition of stationary source as adopted in EPA's NSR regulations under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1).

General Savings Clause. The ARD's adoption of plantwide source definition revises a regulation that was in effect before the enactment of the CAAA of 1990. Pursuant to Section 193 of the Clean Air Act, the “general savings clause,” EPA must determine whether this revision to New Hampshire's NSR Program ensures equivalent or greater reductions of nonattainment area pollutants. In conducting this analysis, EPA examines the impact of all revisions to New Hampshire's SIP since 1990. The analysis found that New Hampshire's SIP revisions made since 1990 will ensure equivalent or greater emissions reductions as compared with New Hampshire SIP in effect as of 1990.

To determine the impact of New Hampshire's revision to its source definition, EPA considered the potential increase in emissions from sources modifying their facilities. Typically, the change from the dual source definition to plantwide source definition may allow more sources with modifications to “net out” of major NSR applicability. However, determining how many additional modifications would “net out” due to the revision is difficult. The NSR rules contain numerous complex applicability provisions that all work together in determining if a new source is subject to NSR. However, in reviewing past permit transactions completed under New Hampshire's old dual source definition, EPA did not identify any modifications that triggered major NSR review. The review suggests that the number of modifications potentially effected by the ARD's source definition revision is relatively small and that the impact to the State's overall emissions would also be small.

To offset the relatively small increase in emissions from the revision, EPA considered other revisions approved into New Hampshire since 1990 that strengthen its SIP. On November 14, 2000, EPA approved the ARD's Order 98-001 into the SIP. The order requires Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) to meet by 1999 a yearly emissions cap that significantly reduces emissions from their facilities in New Hampshire. A significant portion of these emission reductions, over a thousand tons per year, are surplus reductions not required by any CAA requirement. These surplus reductions more than offset any potential emission increase resulting from DES's revisions to their stationary source definition.

In summation, EPA concludes that the overall effect of New Hampshire's revised SIP will ensure reductions equivalent to those obtained in the existing SIP. EPA understands that the plantwide definition revision will effect a small number of sources and may cause a slight increase in State's emissions. However, EPA believes the ARD's PSNH order strengthens the SIP and provides surplus emission decreases not required by the CAA. These surplus emission reductions more than offset the emission increases from the new source definition revision.

EPA is approving the revisions to New Hampshire's PART Env-A 610 (renumbered to Env-A 622), “Additional Requirements in Nonattainment Areas and the New Hampshire Portion of the Northeast Ozone Transport Region.” The Agency has reviewed this request for revision of the Federally-approved State implementation plan for conformance with the provisions of the 1990 amendments enacted on November 15, 1990. These revisions meet the nonattainment area NSR provisions of Part D of the CAA.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This action will be effective September 25, 2001 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by August 27, 2001.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on September 25, 2001 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 25, 2001. Interested parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the comment period allowed for in the proposal. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

The modified base flood elevations are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified base flood elevation determinations are available for inspection is provided.

Any request for reconsideration must be based upon knowledge of changed conditions, or upon new scientific or technical data.

The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. , and with 44 CFR part 65.

For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

The modified base flood elevations are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

These modified elevations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, state or regional entities.

The changes in base flood elevations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

The Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required to maintain community eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

This interim rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

This rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency makes the final determinations listed below of modified base flood elevations for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Acting Administrator has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

The modified base flood elevations are not listed for each community in this notice. However, this rule includes the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified base flood elevation determinations are available for inspection.

The modifications are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. , and with 44 CFR part 65.

For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

The modified base flood elevations are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

These modified elevations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, state or regional entities.

These modified elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings.

The changes in base flood elevations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

The Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required to maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

This rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA or Agency) makes final determinations listed below of base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations for each community listed. The proposed base flood elevations and proposed modified base flood elevations were published in newspapers of local circulation and an opportunity for the community or individuals to appeal the proposed determinations to or through the community was provided for a period of ninety (90) days. The proposed base flood elevations and proposed modified base flood elevations were also published in the Federal Register .

This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67.

The Agency has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Map available at the address cited below for each community.

The base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

The Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because final or modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required to establish and maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

This rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-240, adopted July 11, 2001, and released July 13, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, located at 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

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

The Pacific halibut bycatch allowance for the GOA trawl deep-water species fishery, which is defined at § 679.21(d)(3)(iii)(B), was established by the Final 2001 Harvest Specifications and Associated Management Measures for the Groundfish Fisheries Off Alaska (66 FR 7276, January 22, 2001, and 66 FR 37167, July 17, 2001) for the third season, the period July 1, 2001, through October 1, 2001, as 400 metric tons.

In accordance with § 679.21(d)(7)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the third seasonal apportionment of the 2001 Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl deep-water species fishery in the GOA has been caught. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for the deep-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the GOA. The species and species groups that comprise the deep-water species fishery are: All rockfish of the genera Sebastes and Sebastolobus , deep-water flatfish, rex sole, arrowtooth flounder, and sablefish.

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

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

This action is required by § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.