A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 95-09-02, Amendment 39-9206 (60 FR 20189, April 25, 1995), applicable to Textron Lycoming LTS101 series turboshaft and LTP101 series turboprop engines incorporating Chandler Evans Company (CECO) engine fuel pumps, part numbers (P/N's) 4-301-128-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -06, -07, -08, -09, and -10 was published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2000 (65 FR 57753). That action proposed to require a reduction in inspection intervals for the engine fuel pump internal drive splines in accordance with AlliedSignal Service Bulletin (SB) LT 101-73-20-0203, dated August 18, 1999. Since the publication of the NPRM, Honeywell International Inc. purchased AlliedSignal and has issued SB LT 101-73-20-0203, Revision 1, dated January 5, 2001.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. However, certain editorial changes have been made to the “Initial Inspection” section of the AD Compliance for clarification without changing the requirements of the AD.

Since the publication of the NPRM, the FAA has reviewed and approved the contents of Honeywell International Inc. SB LT 101-73-20-0203, Revision 1, dated January 5, 2001. The revised SB differs from the original SB only in that it also covers engine model LTS101-600A-3A and pump P/N 4-301-128-11. Engine model LTS-600A-3A represents a conversion from engine model LTS-600A-3, and the addition of this new engine model to the applicability of this AD will not increase the number of engines affected by this AD. Pump P/N 4-301-128-11 is installed on engine model LTS-600A-3A. Therefore, the FAA has added engine model LTS-600A-3A and pump P/N 4-301-128-11 to the applicability of this AD.

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

Because initial removal and replacement activities are scheduled at intervals compatible with existing AD 95-09-02, no additional impact on part and labor cost is anticipated. The number of engines affected by this AD does not change.

This final rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this final rule.

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 the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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 by contacting 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 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2001 (66 FR 14096). That action proposed to require inspection of certain floor beams and transverse beams, and corrective actions, if necessary.

The 737 Aging Fleet Structures Working Group has recommended accomplishment of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1139, Revision 4, dated April 16, 1992, which this AD identifies as the appropriate source of service information for the actions required by this AD. This AD is in consonance with the group's recommendation.

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 request that the FAA revise the applicability statement of the proposed AD for clarification. The commenters point out that not all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes with line numbers 1 through 1585 inclusive are included in the effectivity listing of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1139, Revision 4, dated April 16, 1992 (which the proposed rule lists as the appropriate source of service information for the proposed actions). One of the commenters specifically states that not all Model 737-200C series airplanes are included in the effectivity listing. The commenters suggest that the FAA revise the applicability statement to include only those Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes listed in the service bulletin.

The FAA concurs with the commenters' request. Certain Model 737-200 and -200C series airplanes have different structure in the area subject to this AD. Thus, these airplanes are not subject to the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. We have revised the applicability statement of this final rule accordingly.

Two commenters request that the FAA extend the compliance time for the initial inspection in paragraph (a) of the proposed AD and the interval for the repetitive inspections in paragraph (a)(1) of the proposed AD. One commenter, an operator, requests that the grace period and repetitive interval be extended from 3,000 to 4,000 flight cycles. This commenter's rationale is that such an increase would allow it to accomplish the requirements of paragraph (a) of the proposed AD during a “C” check. Another commenter requests that the repetitive interval in paragraph (a)(1) be increased to 6,000 flight cycles. This commenter states that an investigation by the airplane manufacturer shows that a repetitive interval of 6,000 flight cycles would adequately ensure the safety of the affected airplanes. The commenter also notes that this change will be incorporated into a future revision of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1139.

The FAA concurs with the commenters' requests to extend the compliance time for the initial inspection in paragraph (a) of this AD and the repetitive interval for the inspections in paragraph (a)(1) of this AD. Based upon our review of the airplane manufacturer's investigation, we have determined that a grace period and repetitive interval of 6,000 flight cycles is adequate to ensure safety. This determination is based in part on the airplane manufacturer's recommendation to which the second commenter refers.

In addition, the FAA finds it appropriate to add a new option for a grace period for the initial inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD. The compliance time for paragraph (a) is now 12,000 total flight cycles, 6,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, or 15 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs latest. The FAA finds that this new option is consistent with other inspections of aging airplane structure mandated previously and will allow operators of affected airplanes more flexibility in planning compliance.

Paragraphs (a) and (a)(1) of this AD have been revised accordingly.

One commenter requests that the FAA extend the compliance time for certain initial and repetitive inspections. Though the commenter does not specify which paragraph its comments apply to, the FAA infers, based on the context, that the commenter is requesting changes to paragraph (b). The commenter requests that the FAA extend the grace period for the initial inspection in paragraph (b) and the interval for the repetitive inspections in paragraph (b)(1) from 6,000 to 9,000 flight cycles. The commenter's rationale is that such increases will facilitate accomplishing the inspections at a regularly scheduled maintenance visit. The commenter states that the proposed compliance time would potentially adversely affect its operations and could damage its level of service to its customers. The commenter justifies its request based on the fact that, in inspections of its fleet, it has found only one airplane with cracks in the areas subject to this AD.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The FAA finds that there is insufficient data to justify revising the compliance time and repetitive interval in paragraph (b) from 6,000 to 9,000 flight cycles as the commenter requests. The commenter's crack findings (or lack thereof) in its own fleet cannot be generalized to all affected airplanes. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

However, as previously explained relative to paragraph (a) of this AD, the FAA finds it appropriate to add a new compliance time alternative of 15 months after the effective date of this AD for the initial inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD. For certain operators, this may extend the compliance time for the initial inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD. The FAA has revised paragraph (b) of this AD accordingly.

One commenter requests that the FAA allow existing repairs as terminating action for both the initial and repetitive inspections as well as the repairs specified in the proposed rule. The commenter states that identifying previous repairs as terminating action for actions in the proposed rule would ease the burden of gaining reapproval for existing approved repairs.

The FAA partially concurs with the commenter's request. The FAA finds that previously approved repairs (as well as repairs according to the procedures in the service bulletin) may be considered acceptable and eliminate the need for repetitive inspections of the repaired area according to this AD. Operators should note that this applies only to inspections of repaired structure: Any unrepaired areas continue to be subject to the inspection and repair requirements of this AD. Accordingly, the FAA has revised paragraph (c)(1) of this AD to state, “For airplanes in Groups 1, 2, and 5; as listed in the service bulletin: Modification of the LBL and RBL 24.8 floor beams in the area of the aileron control quadrant cutout in accordance with Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin constitutes terminating action for the initial and repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.” Also, the FAA has added a new paragraph (d)(2) which states, “Repairs approved previously as alternative methods of compliance in accordance with AD 90-06-02, amendment 39-6489, and AD 93-17-08, amendment 39-8679, are approved as alternative methods of compliance with this AD for the AREA OF REPAIR ONLY.”

One commenter notes that the modifications in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1139, Revision 4, are already required by AD 90-06-02, amendment 39-6489 (55 FR 8372, March 7, 1990). The commenter requests additional recent documentation to substantiate the need for the proposed inspections.

The FAA infers that the commenter is requesting that the FAA withdraw the proposed rule. The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The modifications in the referenced service bulletin are already required as part of AD 90-06-02, but that AD requires these modifications at 75,000 flight cycles. Cracking has been found on in-service airplanes much earlier than this threshold. Therefore, the FAA considers it necessary to mandate the inspections in this AD, in addition to the modifications required by AD 90-06-02, to ensure the continued safety of the airplane fleet. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

The airplane manufacturer requests that the FAA revise the proposed rule to refer to a new revision of the referenced service bulletin. The commenter states that it will issue Revision 5 of the service bulletin at an unspecified later date. The commenter notes that this new revision will revise a certain compliance time and repetitive interval.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The FAA cannot approve a document that we have not reviewed. Once the airplane manufacturer issues a new revision of the service bulletin, the FAA will review the service bulletin and approve it, if appropriate. At that point, the FAA will consider allowing Revision 5 of the service bulletin to be used as an alternative method of compliance for the actions required by this AD. With regard to the extended compliance time and repetitive interval, as explained previously, the FAA has extended the grace period for the requirements of paragraph (a) and the repetitive interval for the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) from 3,000 to 6,000 flight cycles, which corresponds to the times that the airplane manufacturer will identify in Revision 5 of the service bulletin. No further change to this AD is necessary.

One commenter asks the FAA to revise the statement of unsafe condition to remove the statement that cracking at the aileron control quadrant cutouts and in the cabin floor beams and pressure web transverse beams above the main wheel well could result in rapid loss of cabin pressure and reduced structural integrity of the airframe. The commenter states that the redundancy in the floor beam structure over the wing center section significantly reduces the potential for rapid decompression due to fatigue cracking at a certain location of one floor beam.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. Because the commenter provides no technical data to justify its request, the FAA cannot validate the commenter's claim. No change to the AD 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 971 Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 333 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, and that it will take approximately 10 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspections, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of these inspections on U.S. operators is estimated to be $199,800, or $600 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

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 all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 series airplanes, and KC-10A and KDC-10 (military) airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on April 28, 2000 (65 FR 24894). That action proposed to require certain modifications of the thrust reverser control and indication system and wiring on each engine.

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 AD.

Three commenters inquired about the proposed compliance time.

One commenter asks that the compliance time of within 18 months or 12,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, as specified in paragraph (a) of the proposed AD, be extended to within 24 months or 12,000 flight hours. The commenter notes that McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-78-060, dated December 17, 1999, requires concurrent accomplishment of McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 78-40, Revision 1, dated July 24, 1979. The commenter states that it intends to accomplish the referenced service bulletins concurrently, and concludes that the modifications should be accomplished during heavy maintenance due to extensive access.

The FAA concurs with the commenter that the compliance time for accomplishment of the modification required by paragraph (a) of the final rule may be extended to 24 months or 12,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. Based on information supplied by the commenter and the manufacturer, we acknowledge that a compliance time of within 24 months or 12,000 flight hours corresponds more closely to the operators' normal maintenance schedules. We have determined that this extension will not adversely affect safety. But we have concluded that a compliance time of within 24 months or 12,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, represents the maximum interval in which the affected airplanes could continue to operate without compromising safety. Paragraph (a) of the final rule has been revised accordingly.

A second commenter asks that the compliance time of within 5 years after the effective date of this AD for accomplishment of the thrust reverser wiring modification and installation of an additional locking system, as specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the proposed AD, be extended to within 6 years or 26,000 flight hours. The commenter states that the 5-year compliance time will require it to accomplish this extensive modification work at the airplane heavy check interval (3 years or 13,800 flight cycles for the commenter), and adds that the work should be accomplished at its major check interval (6 years or 26,000 flight hours). The commenter notes that the major check provides for maximum airplane access, and allows sufficient time to accomplish this work. The commenter also states that the proper time to install the indication circuit modification, as specified in paragraph (a) of the proposed AD, is concurrently with the sync-lock wiring and hardware installations.

A third commenter asks for clarification as to why the modifications specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the proposed AD must be accomplished within 5 years. The commenter states that the proposed 5-year compliance time for implementing these numerous modifications is very aggressive when compared to the safe operating records of Model DC-10 series airplanes; particularly because of the few, if any, occurrences of in-flight thrust reverser deployment. The commenter adds that the proposed compliance time could cause the unscheduled removal of airplanes from revenue service, possibly for an extended period of time, due to the overall scope of the modifications involved in the proposed AD. Additionally, many operators will be competing for limited industrial resources where Model DC-10 series airplanes can be modified within the proposed compliance time. The commenter plans to convert its DC-10 fleet to an MD-10 fleet between the years 2001 and 2007, and during that time the commenter states that it could incorporate this complex lock system modification. The conversion project alone will consume significant industrial modification capabilities of several aviation maintenance vendors.

The FAA does not concur with the commenters that the compliance time of within 5 years after the effective date of this AD for accomplishment of the thrust reverser wiring modification and installation of an additional locking system, as required by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this AD, should be extended to within 6 years or 26,000 flight hours, whichever occurs later. In developing an appropriate compliance time for these actions, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the manufacturer's recommendation as to an appropriate compliance time, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required modification and installation within an interval of time that parallels normal scheduled maintenance for the majority of affected operators. In light of these factors, the FAA finds a 5-year compliance time for completing the modification and installation to be warranted, in that it represents an appropriate interval of time allowable for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.

We also have noted the problem the second commenter will have meeting the compliance deadline because of lack of manpower and resources for accomplishment of the modifications in a timely manner. However, under the provisions of paragraph (d) of this AD, the FAA may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety.

One commenter disagrees with the proposed installation of an additional locking device as specified in paragraph (c) of the proposed AD. The commenter states that the installation should not be required if all other proposed actions are accomplished. The commenter's reasons and the FAA responses follow:

1. An acceptable level of reliability is achieved and maintained by accomplishing the thrust reverser health checks at the intervals specified in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC10-78A056, dated January 19, 1998 (“C” checks). As part of an intensive maintenance program, many other thrust reverser components are also inspected during the “C” checks.

The FAA does not concur. We have determined that periodic inspections and tests (thrust reverser health checks) are a means of verifying proper operation of the thrust reverser components, but do not provide an adequate level of safety for the remainder of the life of the fleet of Model DC-10 series airplanes due to latent and maintenance failure modes.

2. There have only been a few “known” in-flight deployments of the thrust reverser, and no major control problems resulted from those. The cause of these in-flight deployments is known, and modifications have been implemented to prevent future occurrences. Based on the favorable history of in-flight deployments, availability of preventive maintenance programs and modifications, and favorable flight simulator testing, the possibility of an in-flight deployment and subsequent flight control problems is highly unlikely.

The FAA does not concur. We recognize that in-flight thrust reverser deployments have occurred on Model DC-10 series airplanes in certain flight conditions with no significant airplane controllability problems being reported. However, the FAA has been unable to establish that acceptable airplane controllability would be achieved following such a deployment. The FAA finds that, in the event of thrust reverser deployment during high-speed climb using high engine power, or during cruise, the airplane may not be controllable.

3. The cost to install an additional locking device on the affected airplanes would be more than 4.2 million dollars.

The FAA's response to the significant cost incurred by installing an additional locking device on affected airplanes is discussed in the section titled, “Cost Impact Information.”

4. Experience acquired over the last 27 years has shown that the basic thrust reverser control system, as designed, is far too complex and difficult to maintain. Currently, there are over 15 separate components for each of the thrust reverser control systems that can prevent an inadvertent in-flight deployment. The proposed modification (installation of an additional locking device) will increase the number of electromechanical devices and wiring circuits. The commenter concludes that, for the reasons specified, additional reliability and maintainability problems will occur, and there will be an increase in the number of thrust reversers that fail to deploy when the airplane lands.

The FAA does not concur. This AD addresses an unsafe condition identified as deployment of a thrust reverser during flight and requires the installation of an additional thrust reverser system locking feature to correct that unsafe condition. We have determined that the installation and modification required by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this AD are necessary because the thrust reverser system does not provide an adequate level of safety for the remainder of the life of the fleet of Model DC-10 series airplanes. We agree that the required modification (installation of an additional locking device) will increase the electromechanical devices and wiring circuits, adding to the complexity of the thrust control system design. However, the increased reliability provided by the additional locking system will result in fewer in-flight deployments and will not significantly increase the number of thrust reversers that fail to deploy when the airplane lands.

One commenter asks if technical data and other related maintenance documents will be available when the final rule is released. The commenter states that the service bulletins referenced in the proposed AD (not the referenced drawings that specify concurrent accomplishment of the actions), indicate that certain technical manuals will be affected. However, the commenter is not aware of the release of any technical data updates with changes related to the specified modifications. The commenter adds that, without adequate maintenance information, operators cannot properly maintain this new system after implementation. The commenter concludes that the final rule should not be released until all maintenance support issues (review of related technical data and maintenance documents) of the modifications are resolved, available, and ready for use.

The FAA does not concur. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to provide the operators with technical data and other maintenance documents related to continued airworthiness. This includes updates with changes that affect the subject modifications. It is the operator's responsibility to implement related changes upon receipt. If the commenter is not receiving updated documentation from the manufacturer, the commenter should contact the manufacturer and request that any revised data that relates to the modifications required by this final rule be provided without delay. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter states that it is the lead airline in the conversion and recertification of Model DC-10 series airplanes to Model MD-10 series airplanes. The commenter notes that the proposed AD and related service information do not address Model DC-10 series airplanes that will be recertified as Model MD-10 series airplanes. Accomplishment of the service bulletins referenced in paragraph (a) of the proposed AD within 18 months will result in installation of some modifications, and then removal of the installed modifications as the airplanes are converted. The commenter adds that the 18-month requirement, during implementation of airplane conversions, is an unnecessary expenditure of time and materials, because some of the modifications are subsequently removed during the conversion process.

The FAA does not concur. Most of the design changes required by this AD are incorporated into the MD-10 type design; therefore, most of the modifications would not have to be removed upon conversion. Additionally, this modification is required to reposition the reverser indications so that the pilot flying the airplane can immediately react in the event of an unwanted thrust reverser deployment. If this modification is not accomplished within the time specified, continued safety of flight could be jeopardized in the event of unwanted thrust reverser deployment.

One commenter asserts that the proposed AD underestimates the work hours required to accomplish the proposed modifications (modify thrust reverser wiring and install additional locking system). The commenter states that the cost impact information is close to their own estimate of approximately $631,000 per airplane, which applies the same $60 per work hour labor rate, but then an additional 40% higher labor requirement is added by the commenter (plus higher cost for some materials), for accomplishment of the modifications specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the proposed AD. The commenter adds that accomplishing the modifications will have a significant financial impact on all Model DC-10 operators.

The commenter further notes that the proposed AD does not include sufficient information to adequately support maintenance planning after the airplane modifications are accomplished. Since the modifications are new and quite extensive, component and cost breakdowns of the numerous kits specified in the service bulletins referenced in the proposed AD should be included in the proposed AD and/or the service bulletins. This includes the modifications specified in the Middle River Aircraft Systems drawings. Such information would enable operators to conduct spares forecasting and support other maintenance planning requirements for this new airplane subsystem. Further, since the referenced service bulletins are not adequate in this area, the proposed AD should not be released until the missing information is included in the proposal and/or the service bulletins, to allow operators to assess the total impact of the cost of the modifications and plan accordingly.

The FAA infers that the commenter is asking that the cost impact information in the final rule be revised to reflect the estimate derived from the information provided (above). The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. As specified in the “Cost Impact” section of the proposed AD, “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.”

Furthermore, the FAA considers it inappropriate to attribute the costs associated with maintenance planning after the modifications are accomplished to the cost of the AD. This is because it is the operators' responsibility to provide their own forecasting maintenance and planning schedules, as well as any associated costs. Therefore, 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 change previously described. The FAA has determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

There are approximately 409 Model DC-10 series airplanes and KC-10A and KDC-10 (military) airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet.

For airplanes listed in McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin DC10-78-060, (301 U.S.-registered airplanes) described below:

For General Electric powered airplanes (277 U.S.-registered airplanes): It will take approximately 56 work hours per airplane to accomplish the modification of the indication light system, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost between $6,419 and $11,315 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this required modification is estimated to be between $9,779 and $14,675 per airplane.

For Pratt & Whitney-powered airplanes (24 U.S.-registered airplanes): It will take approximately 140 work hours per airplane to accomplish the modification of the indication light system, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost between $8,753 and $12,674 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this required modification is estimated to be between $17,153 and $21,074 per airplane.

For airplanes listed in McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 78-40 (179 U.S-registered airplanes): It will take approximately 10 work hours per airplane to accomplish the installation of a thrust reverser interlock, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will be obtained from the operator's stock. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this required installation is estimated to be $107,400, or $600 per airplane.

For airplanes listed in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-78-7 (56 U.S-registered airplanes): It will take approximately 52 work hours per airplane to accomplish the modification of the overpressure shutoff valve, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $2,100 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this required modification is estimated to be $292,320, or $5,220 per airplane.

For airplanes listed in Rohr Service Bulletin MDC-CNS 78-41 (3 U.S.-registered airplanes): It will take approximately 6 work hours per airplane to accomplish the wiring modification, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this required wiring modification is estimated to be $1,080, or $360 per airplane.

For airplanes listed in McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 78-061 (284 U.S.-registered airplanes): It will take between 222 and 364 work hours per airplane to accomplish the installation of provisional wiring, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost between $11,216 and $17,986 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this required installation is estimated to be between $24,536 and $39,826 per airplane.

For airplanes on which Middle River Aircraft Systems Modification Drawing 537L68229 or 537L68231 is accomplished (284 U.S.-registered airplanes): It will take 96 work hours per airplane to accomplish the installation of the mounting hardware for the electromechanical locking system for the thrust reversers, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $14,307 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this required installation is estimated to be $5,699,028, or $20,067 per airplane.

For airplanes listed in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-78-062 (284 U.S.-registered airplanes): It will take approximately 622 work hours per airplane to accomplish the installation of an additional thrust reverser locking system, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $236,000 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this required installation is estimated to be $77,622,880, or $273,320 per airplane.

For airplanes on which Middle River Aircraft Systems Modification Drawing 537L68230 or 537L68232 is accomplished (284 U.S.-registered airplanes): It will take 32 work hours per airplane to accomplish the installation of the electromechanical locking system for the thrust reversers, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $252,856 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this required installation is estimated to be $72,356,384, or $254,776 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 Boeing Model 707 and 720 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2001 (66 FR 17123). That action proposed to require replacement of wiring for the fuel boost pumps and override pumps with new wiring, installation of Teflon sleeving on the wiring, and associated actions. That action also proposed to require repetitive inspections to detect damage of the wiring or evidence of a fuel leak.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. The FAA has duly considered several comments received from a single commenter.

The commenter requests that we revise the proposed rule to reference Boeing Service Bulletin A3500, Revision 1, dated April 26, 2001. (The proposed rule refers to the original issue of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin A3500, dated July 27, 2000, as the appropriate source of service information for doing the proposed actions.) The commenter notes Revision 1 of the service bulletin contains updated information, such as changes to part numbers, but necessitates no additional work on airplanes modified per the original issue of the service bulletin.

We concur and have revised paragraphs (a) and (b) of this final rule to reference Revision 1 of the service bulletin. We have also added a new note, Note 4, which states that accomplishment of the actions required by this AD prior to the effective date of this AD according to the original issue of the service bulletin is acceptable for compliance with this AD.

The commenter requests that we revise paragraph (b) of the proposed AD to remove the instructions in that paragraph and instead refer to the appropriate section of the Accomplishment Instructions of the referenced service bulletin. The commenter states that, as written, paragraph (b) would require an operator to replace the wiring, Teflon sleeving, and conduit with new parts if a small fuel leak is found, even if no evidence of electrical arcing or an exposed conductor is found. The commenter notes that the intent of the proposed AD is to require replacement of the wiring and sleeving only when there is evidence of arcing or an exposed conductor.

We concur with the commenter's request and rationale. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (b) to require, if any electrical arcing or exposed copper wire or evidence of a fuel leak is detected during any inspection per paragraph (b), accomplishment of applicable corrective actions (including finding the source of any fuel leak and repairing the affected area, replacing the wiring, replacing the conduit, or installing new Teflon sleeving; as applicable) according to the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.

The commenter asks that we revise the Cost Impact section of the proposed AD to reduce the number of affected U.S.-registered airplanes from 65 to 22 airplanes. The commenter states that the airplane manufacturer's records show that there are only 22 U.S.-registered Boeing Model 707 and 720 series airplanes in service.

We do not concur. The figure of 22 U.S.-registered airplanes cited by the commenter does not include all of the Model 707 series airplanes operated by the U.S. military. When these airplanes are included in the total, there are 65 U.S. airplanes affected by this AD. No change is necessary in this regard.

The commenter also asks us to revise the Cost Impact section of the proposed AD to increase the number of work hours necessary to do the required actions from 27 to 38 work hours. The commenter states that the referenced service bulletin provides a figure of 38 work hours.

We partially concur. The figure of 38 work hours in the service bulletin includes time for gaining access and closing up. The cost impact analysis in AD rulemaking actions typically includes only the “direct” costs of the specific actions required by the AD, and 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. However, we find that the time needed for testing may be included in the cost estimate of this AD. Therefore, the estimate for the number of work hours for the required actions stated in the Cost Impact section of this final rule has been revised from 27 to 31 work hours.

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 261 Model 707 and 720 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 65 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The replacement and initial associated actions will take approximately 31 work hours per airplane, at the average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost impact of these required actions on U.S. operators to be $120,900, or $1,860 per airplane.

The inspection for damage of the wiring or evidence of a fuel leak will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane, at the average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost impact of this required inspection on U.S. operators to be $11,700, or $180 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.

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 McDonnell Douglas Model 717 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2001 (66 FR 26817). That action proposed to require repetitive inspections of the rod ends of the spoiler hold-down actuators for breakage along the intersection of the thread runout and the outer spherical surface of the lug; and replacement of any broken rod end of the spoiler hold-down actuators with a new rod end. It also proposed to require replacement of the rod ends of the spoiler hold-down actuators with new rod ends, and reidentification of the spoiler hold-down actuators, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

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 costs 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 33 Model 717 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 23 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

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 inspection required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,380, or $60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

It will take approximately 14 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required replacement and reidentification, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. The manufacturer has committed previously to its customers that it will bear the cost of replacement parts. As a result, the cost of those parts is not attributable to this AD. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the replacement and reidentification required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $19,320, or $840 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.

On June 26, 2001, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued AD 2001-13-19, amendment 39-12301 (66 FR 35538, July 6, 2001), which applies to all Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, -314, and -315 series airplanes. That AD requires revising the Bombardier maintenance program to incorporate repetitive inspections to detect fatigue cracking in certain structures; and corrective actions, if necessary. That AD was prompted by issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information issued by a foreign airworthiness authority. The actions required by that AD are intended to ensure that fatigue cracking of certain principal structural elements is detected and corrected; such fatigue cracking could adversely affect the structural integrity of these airplanes.

The FAA notes that paragraph (a)(1), Table 1, of AD 2001-13-19, contains an error in referencing certain airplane models for the effectivity of de Havilland Temporary Revision TR AWL 2-15, dated September 3, 1999. Our intent was to specify the airplane models referenced in TR AWL 2-15 as only Models DHC-8-201 and -202 series airplanes. We also note that Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2000-07, dated March 3, 2000, as referenced in AD 2001-13-19, specifies only Model DHC-8-201 and -202 series airplanes for the effectivity of TR AWL 2-15. We have revised Table 1 of this AD accordingly.

The FAA has determined that the correction to Table 1 in paragraph (a)(1) of this AD is necessary. The correction will ensure that operators are notified of the correct airplane models that must be inspected, as required by this AD.

This document corrects the error and correctly adds the AD as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13).

The AD is reprinted in its entirety for the convenience of affected operators. The effective date of the AD remains August 10, 2001.

Since this action only corrects the airplane models as specified by Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2000-07 and TR AWL 2-15, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, the FAA has determined that notice and public procedures are unnecessary.

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (“CFMA”) 1 amended the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”) to permit the trading of security futures products,2 subject to the joint jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).3 Security futures products may be traded on any board of trade either designated as a contract market (“DCM”) by the Commission pursuant to section 5 of the Act or registered with the Commission as a derivatives transaction execution facility (“DTF”) pursuant to section 5a of the Act.4

Alternatively, section 5f of the Act permits certain entities that are otherwise regulated by the SEC to become designated contract markets for the limited purpose of trading security futures products.5 Specifically, any board of trade registered with the SEC as a national securities exchange pursuant to section 6(a) of the '34 Act or as a national securities association pursuant to section 15A(a) of the '34 Act, or that operates as an alternative trading system (“ATS”) as defined by section 1a(1) of the Act, shall be a designated contract market in security futures products (“SFPCM”) if:

The designation “shall be effective contemporaneously with the submission of notice * * * to the Commission.” 7 Moreover, section 5f(b)(4) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt SFPCMs from any provision of the Act or regulations thereunder, and requires that the Commission determine procedures which would allow SFPCMs to apply to the Commission for such an exemption, “to the extent [any] such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and is consistent with the protection of investors.”

Accordingly, on May 31, 2001, the Commission proposed new regulations 41.31, 41.32, 41.33, and 41.34, which would apply to boards of trade seeking notice-designation as an SFPCM.8 In addition to these rule proposals, the Commission sought comment on a variety of related issues, including a potential disparity between the Commission's proposed notice-designation procedures and related notice-registration procedures proposed by the SEC. The Commission received two comment letters.9

To implement the procedures identified in regulations 41.31 through 41.34, the Commission proposed to establish regulation 41.1, which would contain six definitions: “alternative trading system”; board of trade”; “national securities association”; “national securities exchange”; “rule”; and “security futures product.” The definitions of “alternative trading system,” “board of trade,” and “security futures product” would be taken verbatim from section 1a of the Act. The terms “national securities exchange” and “national securities association” would have the same meanings as in the “34 Act, and the definition of “rule” would be identical to the definition found in Commission regulation 40.1.10 No comments were received regarding this rule, and the Commission has determined to adopt it as proposed.

Section 5f(a)(2) of the Act states that a board of trade may obtain designation as a contract market in security futures products by filing “written notice with the Commission in such form as the Commission, by rule, may prescribe containing such information as the Commission, by rule, may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of customers.” The Commission therefore proposed new regulation 41.31, which would establish notice-designation procedures for any board of trade which operates as a national securities exchange, national securities association, or alternative trading system and which seeks designation as an SFPCM.

The proposed content requirements of the notice include contact information, a description of the security futures products that would be traded, a copy of the rules of the board of trade, and five certifications derived from various requirements found in sections 5f and 2(a)(1)(D)(vii) of the Act.11 The Commission believes that this information is necessary in order to maintain communication with a board of trade and to receive information about its operations, two functions that are “necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of customers.” CBT is supportive of this proposed rule, stating that the Commission's approach is “reasonable and consistent with the intent of the CFMA.” 12 The Commission has determined to adopt regulation 41.31 as proposed.13

Proposed regulation 41.32 would establish a mechanism for the Commission to receive the following from an SFPCM:

(1) Notification of any change in its regulatory status with the SEC or with a futures association registered under section 17 of the Act; 14

(2) a certification consistent with the requirements of section 2(a)(1)(D)(vii) of the Act each time the board of trade lists a new security futures product for trading; 15

(3) a copy of any new rules or rule amendments that relate to the trading of security futures products, including any operational rules and the terms and conditions of any security futures products; 16

(4) upon request, information related to its business as a designated contract market in security futures products; and

(5) upon request, a written demonstration, including supporting data, that the board of trade is in compliance with a specified provision of the Act or regulations thereunder.

This information would facilitate the Commission's efforts in carrying out its market oversight responsibilities under the Act and would help ensure that SFPCMs continue to comply with the conditions of designation under section 5f(a) of the Act and regulation 41.31.17

This rule contains no reporting or record keeping requirements which are subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).

Pursuant to sections 5, 6, and 8 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. 205, 206, 208), and by means of Administrative Order No. 665 (66 FR 7513), the Secretary of Labor appointed and convened Industry Committee No. 24 for Industries in American Samoa, referred to the Committee the question of the minimum rates of wages to be paid under section 8 of the FLSA to employees within the industries, and gave notice of a hearing to be held by the Committee.

Subsequent to an investigation and a hearing conducted in Pago Pago pursuant to the notice, the Committee filed with the Acting Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division a report containing its findings of fact and recommendations with respect to minimum wage rates for various industry classifications. The FLSA requires that the Secretary publish this report in the Federal Register and further requires that the recommendations in the report be effective 15 days after publication. Accordingly, as authorized and required by section 8 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and 29 CFR 511.18, this rule hereby revises §§ 697.1 and 697.3 of 29 CFR part 697 to implement the recommendations of Industry Committee No. 24.

For the convenience of the public, this regulation has been restructured to facilitate understanding of its content. Section 697.1 provides definitions of the industries for which minimum wage rates have been established. Section 697.2 provides industry wage rates and their effective dates in table form. Under the column heading “September 11, 2001,” the rates provided are those established prior to the effective date of the rates recommended by Special Industry Committee No. 24 except for the fish canning and processing industry, for which the Committee set an effective date of “September 11, 2001.” The prior rate for the fish canning and processing industry was $3.20. The final two columns of the table provide the rates effective on October 1, 2001 and October 1, 2002. Section 697.4 (formerly § 697.3) specifies the effective date of this regulation.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, and no regulatory impact analysis is required. This document puts into effect the wage rates recommended by Industry Committee No. 24, which met in Pago Pago, American Samoa during the week of June 4, 2001. The Committee recommended increases over two years in various industry categories, ranging from 6 cents per hour for fish canning and processing and the bottling, brewing, and dairy products industry to 12 cents per hour over two years for shipping and transportation, classification A, stevedoring, lighterage, and maritime shipping agency activities.

When these increases are fully implemented, wage rates will range from $2.57 an hour (miscellaneous activities) to $4.09 an hour (shipping and transportation, classification A, stevedoring, lighterage, and maritime shipping activities).

There are approximately 16,000 covered employees in the various industry classifications. Based on the number of workers whose wages must be increased to the new minimum wage levels in 2001 and/or 2002, and assuming that some employees currently paid at or in excess of the new minimum wages will also receive commensurate wage increases to maintain relative pay comparability, increases in the overall annual wage bill are expected to be very modest. Thus, this rule is not expected to result in a rule that may (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866.

For reasons similar to those noted above, the rule does not require a § 202 statement under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Finally, the rule is not a major rule within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. Although the rule will impact solely on American Samoa, its impact on costs or prices is not expected to be major, for the reasons discussed above.

The Department has reviewed this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have federalism implications.

The rule does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for the rule under 5 U.S.C. 533(b), the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. 96-354,94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., pertaining to regulatory flexibility analysis, do not apply to this rule. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

Good cause exists for issuance of this rule without publication 30 days in advance of its effective date, as normally required by Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act. As discussed above, Section 8 of the FLSA requires that the rule be effective 15 days after publication.

This document was prepared under the direction and control of Annabelle T. Lockhart, Acting Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. This rule is being promulgated without an NPRM due to the short time frame allowed between the submission of the request by the U.S. Army and the date of the event.

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. This rule should be made effective in less than 30 days due to the short time frame allowed between the submission of the request by the U.S. Army and the date of the event.

On July 11, 2001, the Department of the Army Rock Island Arsenal requested a temporary change to the operation of the Rock Island Railroad & Highway Drawbridge across the Upper Mississippi River, Mile 482.9 at Rock Island, Illinois. The Rock Island Railroad Drawbridge navigation span has a vertical clearance of 23.8 feet above normal pool in the closed-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft. Presently, the draw opens on signal for passage of river traffic. The Rock Island Arsenal requested the drawbridge be permitted to remain closed-to-navigation from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. on September 23, 2001. During this time a foot race will cross the bridge. This temporary drawbridge operation regulation has been coordinated with the commercial waterway operators. No objections to the proposed temporary rule were raised.

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).

The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of the temporary 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 is because river traffic is not likely to be delayed more than 4 hours.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this 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 rule will be in effect for only 4 hours early in the day and the Coast Guard expects the impact of this action to be minimal. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Any individual that qualifies or, believes he or she qualifies as a small entity and requires assistance with the provisions of this rule, may contact Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at (314) 539-3900, extension 378.

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 contains 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 unfunded mandate costs. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.

This rule will not affect 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.

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. Promulgation of changes to drawbridge regulations has been found not to have significant effect on the human environment. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

The Bayou Boeuf swing span bridge across Bayou Boeuf, mile 10.2, near Amelia, St. Mary and Assumption Parishes, Louisiana, has a vertical clearance of 6 feet above high water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited clearance in the open-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists of small tugs with tows, fishing vessels, and recreational craft. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company requested a temporary deviation from the normal operation of the drawbridge in order to accommodate the maintenance and repair work on the west side rest pier and fender system. These repairs are necessary for the continued operation of the bridge.

This deviation allows the draw of the Bayou Boeuf swing span drawbridge across Bayou Boeuf, mile 10.2, to remain closed to navigation from 7 a.m. until 5 p.m. from September 16, 2001 through September 18, 2001.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. 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 permit application did not allow sufficient time for publication of an NPRM followed by a temporary final rule effective 30 days after publication. Any delay of the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest by exposing the public to the known dangers associated with fireworks displays and the possible loss of life, injury, and damage to property.

This safety zone is established to safeguard the public from the hazards associated with launching of fireworks from Harbor Island in the outer Milwaukee Harbor. The size of the zone was determined by using previous experiences with fireworks displays in the Captain of the Port Milwaukee zone and local knowledge about wind, waves, and currents in this particular area.

The safety zone will be in effect on August 31, 2001, from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. (CST). The safety zone will encompass all waters bounded by the following coordinates: from the point of origin at 43°02.209′N, 087°53.714′W; southeast to 43°02.117′N, 087°53.417′W; south to 43°01.767′N, 087°53.417′W; southwest to 43°01.555′N, 087°53.772′W; north along the shoreline back to the point of origin. This also includes the Harbor Island Lagoon area. The size of this zone was determined using the National Fire Prevention Association guidelines and local knowledge concerning wind, waves, and currents. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).

All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Milwaukee or his designated on scene patrol personnel. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Milwaukee or his designated on scene representative. The Captain of the Port Milwaukee may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

This 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).

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this 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.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the vicinity of Harbor Island in Milwaukee's outer harbor from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. (CST) on August 31, 2001.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only one hour on one day and late in the day when vessel traffic is minimal. Vessel traffic may enter or transit through the safety zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port Milwaukee or his designated on scene representative. Before the effective period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the Port of Milwaukee.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. 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 Marine Safety Office Milwaukee (See ADDRESSES.)

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).

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) 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 would 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 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.

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

On April 5, 1991, the State of California submitted a revision to the EDCAPCD portion of the SIP, which we disapproved in part on October 1, 1999. See 64 FR 53210. Our disapproval action started an 18-month clock beginning on November 1, 1999 for the imposition of one sanction (followed by a second sanction 6 months later) and a 24-month clock for promulgation of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). The State subsequently submitted revised SIP rules on May 23, 2001. We have taken direct final action on this submittal pursuant to our modified direct final policy set forth at 59 FR 24054 (May 10, 1994). In the Rules and Regulations section of today's Federal Register, we have issued a direct final full approval of the State of California's submittal of its SIP revision. In addition, in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, we have proposed full approval of the State's submittal. Based on the direct final full approval set forth in today's Federal Register, we believe that it is more likely than not that the State has corrected the original disapproval deficiencies. Therefore, we are taking this final rulemaking action, effective on publication, finding that the State has corrected the deficiencies. However, we are also providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this final action. If, based on any comments on this action and any comments on our proposed full approval of the State's submittal, we determine that the State's submittal is not fully approvable and this final action was inappropriate, we will either propose or take final action finding that the State has not corrected the original disapproval deficiencies. As appropriate, we will also issue an interim final determination or a final determination that the deficiency has been corrected.

This action does not stop the sanctions clock that started for this area on November 1, 1999. However, this action will stay the imposition of the offsets sanction and will defer the imposition of the highway sanction. If our direct final action fully approving the State's submittal becomes effective, such action will permanently stop the sanctions clock and will permanently lift any imposed, stayed or deferred sanctions. If we must withdraw the direct final action based on adverse comments and we subsequently determine that the State, in fact, did not correct the disapproval deficiencies, we will also determine that the State did not correct the deficiencies and the sanctions consequences described in the sanctions rule will apply. See 59 FR 39832 (August 4, 1994), codified at 40 CFR 52.31.

We are taking interim final action finding that the State has corrected the disapproval deficiencies that started the sanctions clock. Based on this action, imposition of the offset sanction will be stayed and imposition of the highway sanction will be deferred until our direct final action fully approving the State's submittal becomes effective or until we take action proposing or finally disapproving in whole or part the State submittal. If our direct final action fully approving the State submittal becomes effective, at that time any sanctions clocks will be permanently stopped and any imposed, stayed, or deferred sanctions will be permanently lifted.

Because we have preliminarily determined that the State has an approvable submittal, relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as possible. Therefore, we are invoking the good cause exception to the 30-day notice requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act because the purpose of this notice is to relieve a restriction. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

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 stays and defers federal sanctions. 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 only stays an imposed sanction and defers the imposition of another, 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). For the same reason, this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely stays a sanction and defers another one, 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.

This rule does not contain technical standards, 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 neceessary 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. However, section 808 provides that any rule for which the issuing agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rule) that notice and public procedure thereon are impractible, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the agency promulgating the rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefor, and established an effective date of August 27, 2001. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Represenetatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

Table 1 lists the rules we are approving or rescinding and the negative declaration we are approving with the dates that they were adopted or rescinded by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

On July 3, 2001, these submittals were found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

We approved a version of Rule 238 into the SIP on October 1, 1999 (64 FR 53210) as Rules 900, 901, 902, 903, and 904. We approved a version of Rule 244 into the SIP on October 1, 1999 (64 FR 53210) as Rules 905, 906, 907, 908, 910, 911, and 912. There are no previous versions of Rule 245 in the SIP. Rules 909, 913, and 914 were approved into the SIP on October 1, 1999 (64 FR 53210) and are now submitted for recision.

The purposes of the revisions contained in Rule 238 are to:

• Remedy the deficiencies cited in the limited approval and limited disapproval of October 1, 1999 (64 FR 53210). Most of these deficiencies addressed enforceability problems.

• Simplify by combining five rules into one.

• Revise the rule to include new CARB standards, reverification testing, inspection procedures, test methods, and recordkeeping.

The purposes of the revisions contained in Rule 244 are to:

• Remedy the deficiencies cited in the limited approval and limited disapproval of October 1, 1999 (64 FR 53210). Most of these deficiencies addressed enforceability problems.

• Simplify by combining seven rules into one.

The purpose of new Rule 245 is to:

• Require that valves and flanges in a petroleum refinery, chemical plant, or oil production field handling VOCs shall be inspected and repaired according to specific requirements and that records be kept for five years.

The purposes of rescinding Rules 909, 913, and 914 are, respectively, to remove a rule without any applications to regulate, to remove a local enforcement rule not appropriate for the SIP, and to remove a permitting rule that has already been replaced.

The purpose of the negative declaration is to certify that there are no sources in the District in the categories of bulk terminal facilities or external or internal floating roof tanks. The TSD has more information about all of these rules.

Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the CAA), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(b)(3)(A)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The EDCAPCD regulates a severe ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rules 238, 244, and 245 must fulfill the requirements of RACT.

Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific enforceability and RACT requirements include the following:

• Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.

• “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register Notice,” (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the May 25, 1988 Federal Register.

Rule 238 was also evaluated against the EPA Draft Model Rule, Gasoline Dispensing Facility—Stage II Vapor Recovery (August 17, 1992). In evaluating RACT, EPA also considered information published since the 1992 Draft Model Rule, including documents associated with development of CARB's Enhanced Vapor Recovery Guidelines (March 23, 2000) and South Coast Air Quality Managements District's Draft Rule 461, Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing (December 15, 1999). EPA, Region IX, has summarized RACT requirements in the Draft Gasoline Vapor Recovery Guidelines (April 24, 2000).

We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. All of the deficiencies identified in our previous limited approval and limited disapproval action have been adequately addressed as follows:

• (Lack of a specific definition of the facilities to which the rules apply.) Applicability statements were added to all submitted rules.

• (Improper definition of test methods.) Appropriate test methods were added to all submitted rules.

• (Control Officer discretion to require unspecified control equipment.) A CARB certified vapor recovery system is required in Rule 238 and is an alternate requirement in Rule 244. The other alternate in Rule 244, where a CARB-certified system is not required, is to have the same vapor recovery as a CARB-certified system and obtain District approval. Control equipment is not relevant to Rule 245.

• (A higher throughput exemption than allowed by section 182(b)(3) of the CAA.) Throughput exemptions are not now used in any of the submitted rules.

Rules 238 and 245 are more stringent than the corresponding existing SIP requirements. Rule 244 is less stringent than the corresponding existing SIP requirements, due to the decreased vapor recovery system efficiency.1 However, this decrease in efficiency is more than offset by the increased stringency of Rules 238 and 245. Therefore, the combined submittal of Rules 238, 244, and 245 are given full approval as a strengthening of the SIP.

Rescinded Rules 900, 901, 902, 903, and 904 are replaced by Rule 238. Rescinded Rules 905, 906, 907, 908, 910, 911, and 912 are replaced by Rule 244. Rescinded Rule 914 is replaced by SIP Rule 501.

Rescinded Rule 913 is not replaced. Rule 913 concerns local enforcement authority which is not appropriate for the SIP, because EPA independently has this authority.

Rescinded Rule 909 is not replaced. A Negative Declaration certifying that the EDCAPCD does not have any Bulk Terminal Facility or External or Internal Floating Roof Tank Sources regulated by Rule 909 is approved. The Negative Declaration is provided to show that there is no such source in the District that needs to meet the requirements of RACT and to demonstrate that there is no relaxation of the SIP by rescinding Rule 909. The TSD has more information on our evaluations.

The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local agency modifies the rules.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this, so we are finalizing the approval without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by September 26, 2001, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on October 26, 2001. This will incorporate these rules into the federally-enforceable SIP.

VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Table 2 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of these local agency VOC rules.

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. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 32111, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). 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. section 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. section 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 October 26, 2001. 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).)

Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

On October 17, 2000 (65 FR 61744), we published a notice of final rulemaking to adopt a number of changes to the test methods listed in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. As the preamble to the final rule explained, these changes were largely intended to be minor, nonsubstantive revisions and represented, in effect, a “housekeeping” effort to correct typographical and technical errors, and eliminate obsolete or no longer applicable material. In addition, we promulgated Performance Specification 15, which contains criteria for certifying continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) that use fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and we changed the outline of the test methods and CEMS performance specifications already listed in parts 60, 61, and 63 to fit a new format recommended by the Environmental Monitoring Management Council. The editorial changes and technical corrections were intended to update the rules and help maintain their original intent.

The amendment made to § 60.13(g) which is affected by today's action applies to facilities that are subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and are required to install continuous opacity monitors on effluent streams. Specifically, the amendment provides that when the effluents from two or more affected facilities subject to the same opacity standard are combined into a single stack, and if opacity is monitored on each stream, a combiner system comprised of opacity and flow monitoring systems must be installed. In this case, gas flow rates from the individual streams must be known to correct the measured opacity to the exit stack dimensions and therefore must be measured. By contrast, preamended § 60.13(g) only implied, but did not explicitly require, that flow measurements from the individual streams were necessary. The intent of the amendment was to explicitly require such flow measurements and to identify what we perceived to be the most commonly used method of doing that (namely, the use of flow monitors). However, during the public comment period, some members of the utility industry objected to our specifying flow monitors as the only option and suggested that other indicators of flow rate they had traditionally employed (e.g., unit load, fan motor ampere readings, damper settings, etc.) should continue to be allowed. Because we did not anticipate the industry having to make substantive changes from its current practices to implement the amendments, we promulgated the amended § 60.13(g) without fully responding to the industry's comments in the preamble to the final rule. After further consideration, we have concluded that the amendment constitutes a substantive change in the original rule since it requires subject facilities to install flow monitors instead of allowing them to continue to use flow indicator methods. Moreover, we did not raise the question of adequacy of such methods in the previous rulemaking and no commenter has presented information indicating that they do not provide adequate measurements of flow rates for the purposes of the NSPS monitoring requirements. This removal of the amendment will reinstate the old § 60.13(g) provision which allowed subject facilities to use flow measuring techniques besides flow monitors.

The statutory authority for this action is 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7413, 7414, 7416, 7601, and 7602.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety in State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs of the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Because this rule merely removes an amendment to, and reinstates the prior provisions of 40 CFR 60.13(g), EPA has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review. Executive Order 12866 also encourages agencies to provide a meaningful public comment period, and suggests that in most cases the comment period should be 60 days. However, in consideration of the very limited and remedial scope of this amendment, we consider 30 days to be sufficient in providing a meaningful public comment period, if requested, for this rulemaking.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires us to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. The EPA has determined that removing the 40 CFR 60.13(g) amendment will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not necessary in connection with this action.

Because this action does not include or create any information collection activities subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., does not apply.

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, we must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before we promulgate a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA requires us to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, we must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. That plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

This action contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, today's action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

The docket includes an organized and complete file of all the information upon which we relied in taking this direct final action. The docketing system is intended to allow you to identify and locate documents readily so that you can participate effectively in the rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of the docket, except for certain interagency documents, will serve as the record for judicial review. (See CAA section 307(d)(7)(A).)

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 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.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or we consult with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. We also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless we consult with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This action does not have federalism implications. The rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Today's action does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal governments. This action does not impose any new or additional enforceable duties on these entities. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This removal action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and the action does not address an environmental health or safety risk that would have a disproportionate effect on children.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.”

This rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., 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 Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. We 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 before it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective October 11, 2001.

Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (March 7, 1996), we are required to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) which are adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. Where we do not use available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, the NTTAA requires us to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards. This action does not involve technical standards. The purpose of today's action is to remove portions of a rule, reinstating previous provisions, and not to impose new substantive requirements or to adopt new technical standards. Consequently, the requirements of NTTAA do not apply.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR. 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

On October 6, 1999, the Health Resources and Services Administration published in the Federal Register (64 FR 54263) a Notice of Intent to remove by technical amendment (final rule) various Agency health professions, nursing, public health, and allied health training grant program regulations under 42 CFR parts 57 and 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Department received no comments response from the public on the Notice of Intent. The statutory authorities of these regulations have been extensively amended since their issuance. Consequently, the regulations no longer reflect the current law. Therefore, the Department is removing the following 19 training grant program regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations:

Medicine and/or General Pediatrics

Program specific guidance and information for preparing applications for the current program authorities under Pub. L. 105-392 are now provided in the grant application materials. Further, current program information is announced in the HRSA Preview and published in the Federal Register semi-annually. The HRSA Preview provides the general public with a single source of program and application information related to the Agency's competitive grant reviews and is designed to replace multiple Federal Register notices which traditionally advertised the availability of HRSA's discretionary funds for its various programs. The most recent edition of the HRSA Preview was published in the Federal Register on July 7, 2000 (Part III, 65 FR 42190-42331).

This final rule rescinds and removes various Public Health Service health professions, nursing, public health, and allied health training grant regulations from title 42 of the CFR, parts 57 and 58. The existing training grant regulations are fundamentally and extensively inconsistent with present statutes as set out in titles VII and VIII of the Public Health Service Act, particularly as most recently amended by the Health Professions Education Partnerships Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-392), enacted November 13, 1998. The general focus of that legislation was to consolidate a myriad of small, highly categorical Federal training grant programs into seven general categories of authorities. These categories are designed to support the training of health personnel most likely to enter practice in rural and other medically underserved areas, and to provide flexibility to program managers in adapting the training supported to changing needs. We have concluded, based on our experience in carrying out the revised programs over the past two years, that this flexibility is best exercised through program-specific guidance and information provided in annual grant application materials. Because statutes always take precedence over regulations, and the existing regulations are inconsistent with the interdisciplinary approach of the current law, the regulations are largely irrelevant and certainly confusing. For these reasons, and in accordance with the October 6, 1999, Notice of Intent referred to above, the Secretary has determined, under 5 U.S.C. 553, that it is unnecessary, impractical, and contrary to the public interest to follow proposed rulemaking procedures or to delay the effective date of these amendments to parts 57 and 58.

Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when rulemaking is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that provide the greatest net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, safety distributive and equity effects). In addition, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, if a rule has a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities the Secretary must specifically consider the economic effect of a rule on small entities and analyze regulatory options that could lessen the impact of the rule.

Executive Order 12866 requires that all regulations reflect consideration of alternatives, of costs, of benefits, of incentives, of equity, and of available information. Regulations must meet certain standards, such as avoiding an unnecessary burden. Regulations which are “significant” because of cost, adverse effects on the economy, inconsistency with other agency actions, effects on the budget, or novel legal or policy issues, require special analysis.

The Department has determined that no resources are required to implement the requirements in this rule. Therefore, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, which amended the RFA, the Secretary certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Secretary has also determined that this final rule does not meet the criteria for a major rule as defined by Executive Order 12866 and would have no major effect on the economy or Federal expenditures.

We have determined that the rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the statute providing for Congressional review of agency rulemaking, 5 U.S.C. 801. Similarly, it will not have effects on State, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector such as to require consultation under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Because this final rule rescinds and removes 19 subparts under 42 CFR parts 57 and 58, the following information collections required under the following 12 subparts, under OMB control number 0915-0060 are also rescinded and removed:

The modified BFEs 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 on 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 BFEs 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 BFEs 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 BFEs 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 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 Council submitted Amendment 9 for Secretarial review on November 21, 2000. NMFS published a notice of availability for Amendment 9 in the Federal Register on December 21, 2000 (65 FR 80411), announcing a 60-day public comment period, which ended on February 20, 2001. The Secretary approved Amendment 9 on March 22, 2001. The proposed rule implementing Amendment 9 was published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2001 (66 FR 17395). The comment period ended on May 14, 2001. No comments were received. The regulatory text remains the same as that in the proposed rule.

On June 10, 1999, Amendment 8 to the Northern Anchovy Fishery Management Plan was partially approved by the Secretary. The portions of Amendment 8 approved by the Secretary added four species to the plan, implemented limited entry to prevent overcapitalization, and changed the name of the plan to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan. Other provisions were not approved. The optimum yield (OY) for squid and the bycatch provisions in Amendment 8 were not approved because they did not conform to National Standards 1 and 9, respectively, of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Amendment 8, contrary to the requirements of National Standard 9, failed to include a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch in the CPS fishery and did not explain whether additional management measures to minimize bycatch and the mortality of unavoidable bycatch were practicable. Also, Amendment 8 failed to provide an estimate of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for squid, which is necessary in order to determine OY. -

Background on the preparation and review of Amendment 9 was summarized in the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here. Based on testimony concerning MSY for squid, the Council decided to include in Amendment 9 only the bycatch provision and a provision establishing a framework to ensure that Indian fishing rights are implemented according to treaties between the U.S. and the specific tribes. Since implementation of the FMP, the CPS fishery has expanded to Oregon and Washington. As a result, the FMP must discuss Indian fishing rights in these areas.

A stock assessment workshop on squid was held at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center on May 14-16, 2001, to review the research being conducted in California. Based on the results of this workshop, the Council will prepare an amendment that will address OY and MSY for squid. -

The Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, determined that Amendment 9 is necessary for the conservation and management of the coastal pelagic species fishery and that it is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. -

This rule only implements provisions of Amendment 9 that relate to Indian fishing rights and codifies existing elements of the FMP requiring observers. The other provisions of Amendment 9 do not require regulatory text. -

This rule does not contain policies with tribal impacts within the meaning of Executive Order 13175.

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

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration when this rule was proposed that it would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No comments were received on the economic impacts of this rule on small entities, and the basis for this certification has not changed. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared. -

NMFS initiated an informal consultation with the Protected Resources Division, Southwest Region, on January 12, 1999, with regard to the effects of Amendment 8 on endangered and threatened marine mammals and salmon under NMFS’ jurisdiction. On June 3, 1999, NMFS determined that Amendment 8 would not likely adversely affect listed species under NMFS jurisdiction. -

On June 8, 1999, NMFS provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) with background information on the harvest strategies in Amendment 8 and their potential impact on other species. NMFS requested that FWS concur with NMFS’ determination that Amendment 8 would not likely adversely affect any threatened or endangered birds under FWS’ jurisdiction. On June 10, 1999, FWS stated that Amendment 8 would not adversely affect endangered or threatened birds under its jurisdiction. -

NMFS reinitiated consultation with its Protected Resources Division, Southwest Region, following the publication of additional listed species. On, September 2, 1999, NMFS determined that the FMP was not likely to adversely affect Central Valley spring-run chinook and coastal California chinook. However, since the CPS fishery has expanded to Oregon and Washington, NMFS reinitiated consultation on April 19, 2000. This consultation is pending. The existing consultations remain adequate because this rule does not affect how the coastal pelagic fisheries impact listed species.