This interim rule revises certain requirements regarding CED deposit arrangements to increase flexibility and reduce burden by permitting the OCC to impose deposit requirements based on the same supervision by risk approach that it uses in its supervision of national banks. The interim rule revises 12 CFR 28.15(d) to clarify that the OCC may vary the terms of CED Agreements (Agreement) based on the circumstances and supervisory risks present at a particular branch or agency. For example, an Agreement may permit a foreign bank to withdraw assets from its CED account, reducing the net value of the assets held in the account without OCC approval, as long as the withdrawal does not reduce the value below the minimum CED level required for that institution. Moreover, it may not be necessary in all cases for a foreign bank to pledge its CED assets to the OCC or for the depository bank to be a signatory to the Agreement unless required by the OCC. The OCC will make these determinations on a case by case basis, consistent with its supervisory assessment of the risks presented by the particular institution.

The OCC requests comment on all aspects of this interim rule.

The OCC also requests comment on whether the interim rule is written clearly and is easy to understand. On June 1, 1998, the President issued a memorandum directing each agency in the Executive branch to write its rules in plain language. This directive applies to all new proposed and final rulemaking documents issued on or after January 1, 1999. In addition, Public Law 106-102 requires each Federal agency to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The OCC invites comments on how to make this rule clearer. For example, you may wish to discuss:

(1) Whether we have organized the material to suit your needs;

(2) Whether the requirements of the rule are clear; or

(3) Whether there is something else we could do to make the rule easier to understand.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the OCC certifies that this proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The principal effect of the rule is to remove several requirements with respect to deposit arrangements for the CED and reduce burden on qualifying foreign banks with Federal branches and agencies.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates Act) requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires an agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. The OCC has determined that the interim rule will not result in expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments or by the private sector of $100 million or more. Accordingly, the OCC has not prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the regulatory alternatives considered.

The OCC has determined that this rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The rule is effective immediately on an interim basis. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, agencies may issue a rule without public notice and comment when the agency, for good cause, finds that such notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Section 553 also permits agencies to issue a rule without delaying its effectiveness if the agency finds good cause for the immediate effective date.

The OCC finds good cause to issue this rule without notice and public comment and without a delayed effective date. The change will enable the OCC to make determinations on a case by case basis, consistent with its supervisory assessment of the risks presented by a particular institution, as to whether a foreign bank should continue to be required to pledge its CED assets to the OCC or to obtain the OCC's approval to reduce the aggregate value of the CED assets by withdrawal. These requirements are costly and burdensome, and where they are not required for safety and soundness reasons, it is in the public interest to make this interim rule effective immediately so that qualifying foreign banks that do not pose safety or soundness issues may take advantage immediately of the cost savings and burden reduction benefits of the change. The OCC is seeking public comment on all aspects of this interim rule and will consider those comments when promulgating the final rule. The OCC will publish in the Federal Register a response to any significant adverse comments received, along with modifications to the rule, if any.

Subject to certain exceptions, 12 U.S.C. 4802(b)(1) provides that new regulations and amendments to regulations prescribed by a federal banking agency that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other new requirements on an insured depository institution must take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form. The interim rule imposes no additional reporting, disclosure, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions. Instead it removes restrictions for qualifying foreign banks with Federal branches and agencies. For this reason, section 4802(b)(1) does not apply to this rulemaking.

The OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The information collection requirements contained in 12 CFR Part 28 have been approved under OMB control number 1557-0102.

The information collection requirements contained in this rule are contained in section 28.15(d). Under this section as amended, capital equivalency deposits may not be reduced in value below the minimum required for that branch or agency without prior OCC approval, and Federal branches and agencies are required to maintain records.

Estimated number of respondents: 35.

Estimated number of responses: 35.

Estimated burden hours per response: 1 hour.

Estimated number of recordkeepers: 35.

Estimated number of recordkeeping burden hours:

Estimated total burden hours:

The OCC has a continuing interest in the public's opinion regarding collections of information. Members of the public may submit comments regarding any aspects of the collections of information to Jessie Dunaway, OCC Clearance Officer, 250 E Street, SW., Mailstop 8-4, Washington, DC 20219. Due to the temporary delay in mail delivery, you may prefer to send your comments by electronic mail to: jessie.dunaway@occ.treas.gov.

The OCC invites comments on:

(1) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information has practical utility:

(2) The accuracy of the estimate of the burden;

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology;

(5) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchases of services to provide information.

On July 25, 2001, an uncontained engine failure (engine case only) and in flight shutdown (IFSD) occurred on a CF6-80E1 engine installed in an Airbus A330 airplane. There was no nacelle penetration or aircraft damage as a result of this event. However, similar events have occurred on other CF6 engine models with similar design HPT S2 NGV's that have resulted in nacelle penetration and minor airplane damage. HPT NGV's modified per GE Aircraft Engines (GE) Service Bulletin (SB) 72-0164, part numbers (P/N's) 1647M84G09/G10, are more susceptible to airfoil outer fillet cracking. This cracking can propagate to a condition where the nozzle segment sags backward and contacts the HPT Stage 2 blade row. This contact can progress to notching of the blade airfoil at the root and lead to blade failure. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent blade failure from HPT S2 NGV distress, which could result in an uncontained engine failure.

The FAA has reviewed and approved the technical contents of GE SB CF6-80E1 S/B 72-0217, dated October 25, 2001, and S/B 72-0217, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2002 that describe procedures for initial and repetitive flex borescope inspection of HPT S2 NGV P/N's 1647M84G09/G10.

Although none of these affected engine models are used on any airplanes that are registered in the United States, the possibility exists that the engine models could be used on airplanes that are registered in the United States in the future. This AD is being issued to prevent blade failure from HPT S2 NGV distress, which could result in an uncontained engine failure. This AD requires flex borescope inspections of HPT S2 NGV's installed in CF6-80E1 model turbofan engines. The actions are required to be done in accordance with the service bulletin described previously.

Since there are currently no domestic operators of this engine model, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, a situation exists that allows the immediate adoption of this regulation.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2001-NE-45-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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 .

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

The FAA has received reports indicating that fractured bearings and blocked lubrication passages of the link assembly joint in the inboard and outboard flaps of the trailing edge were found on certain Boeing Model 767 series airplanes. The fractured bearings cause looseness in the joint, resulting in damage to the joint pin, the link assembly bore, and another joint fitting. The bearings were thought to have fractured due to lack of lubrication to the joint, which was caused by shot peen pellets blocking the lubrication passage. However, further data revealed that failure of the bearings can occur even when they are properly lubricated. Such failure in the link assembly joint, if not found and fixed, could result in separation of the outboard flap and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-27A0167, dated December 7, 2000, which describes procedures for initial and repetitive inspections of the lubrication passage and link assembly joint in the inboard and outboard flaps of the trailing edge for discrepancies (blocked lubrication passage, fractured bearings, loose or damaged joint). The service bulletin also provides corrective action for the repetitive inspections and states that it eliminates the need for continued inspections. The corrective action includes removal and inspection of the link assembly for damage, and replacement of the link assembly with a new assembly if damage is found.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, this AD is being issued to prevent failure of the bearings in the link assembly joint. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the lubrication passage and link assembly joint in the inboard and outboard flaps of the trailing edge for discrepancies, and corrective action, if necessary. The actions are required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.

Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin provides for a terminating action that involves replacing the link assemblies in the inboard and outboard flaps of the trailing edge. Because of the recent failure of a bearing that was properly lubricated, the FAA does not currently recognize that action as terminating action for the repetitive inspections described previously. Therefore, while this AD requires replacement of the link assemblies as corrective action, the FAA does not recognize such replacement as terminating action, so the repetitive inspections must continue.

The compliance time for the initial inspections of the lubrication passage and link assembly joint in the inboard and outboard flaps of the trailing edge, as specified in the service bulletin, is within 90 days for Group 1 airplanes, or within 18 months for Group 2 airplanes. For airplanes that have done Part 2 of the service bulletin, this AD requires the initial inspection be done within 6 months after the effective date of this AD. For airplanes that have not done Part 2 of the service bulletin, this AD requires the initial inspection be done within 90 days after the effective date of this AD or within 36 months after date of manufacture of the airplane, whichever is later.

The service bulletin also specifies doing follow-on repetitive inspections every 60 days if the lubrication passage is blocked and no fractured bearing or loose or damaged joint is found, until accomplishment of the terminating action within 24 months after the initial inspections. This AD requires doing repetitive inspections every 30 days if the lubrication passage is blocked and no fractured bearing or loose or damaged joint is found, then accomplishment of the corrective action within 6 months after doing the initial inspections, and repetitive inspections every 6 months after that. This AD also requires doing the repetitive inspections every 6 months if the lubrication passage is not blocked and no fractured bearing or loose or damaged joint is found. The FAA has determined that these compliance times represent the maximum interval of time allowable for affected airplanes to continue to safely operate before the required actions are accomplished.

In addition, the service bulletin does not identify the type of inspection that is involved in the procedures for inspecting the lubrication passage and link assembly joint in the inboard and outboard flaps of the trailing edge. The FAA refers to this inspection in the AD as a “general visual” inspection.

This is considered to be interim action until final action is identified, at which time the FAA may consider further rulemaking. The final action may require accomplishment of Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, in addition to a new terminating action that may be developed. The new action may specifically address the failure of properly lubricated bearings, and the two actions may have different compliance thresholds.

Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2001-NM-385-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

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 BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 series airplanes and Avro 146-RJ series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on October 12, 2001 (66 FR 52070). That action proposed to require replacement of the standby generator with a new, improved standby generator.

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

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

The FAA estimates that 40 Model BAe 146 series airplanes and Avro 146-RJ series airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required replacement of the standby generator with a new, improved standby generator, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. There is no charge for required parts. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the replacement required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $7,200, or $180 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146-200A series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on October 29, 2001 (66 FR 54466). That action proposed to require replacement of the signal summing units (SSUs) for the stall identification system with new, improved parts.

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

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

The FAA estimates that 12 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the replacement, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost between $23,747 and $29,688 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $285,684 and $356,976, or between $23,807 and $29,748 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2001 (66 FR 45950). That action proposed to require replacement of the trigger spring of the slide bar on each of the passenger doors with a new, stronger trigger spring.

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

The commenter requests that the FAA revise the compliance time of paragraph (a) of the proposed AD to refer to “30 months after the ‘entry in service’ of the airplane” instead of “30 months from the date of manufacture of the airplane.” The commenter points out that the date of manufacture is the date of the first flight of the airplane, whereas the date of “entry into service” is the date of delivery of the airplane. The difference between these dates could be one month or more. The commenter notes that its recommended change would make the FAA's proposed AD consistent with the corresponding French AD.

We do not concur. For clarification, we define the “date of manufacture” as the date of issuance of the Certificate of Airworthiness. We find that this constitutes a definitive date when all of the manufacturing processes are completed. We have determined that this date should be readily discernible by operators, and no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

The FAA has determined that the wording of the applicability statement in the proposed AD may be confusing for some operators. Therefore, we have revised the wording of the applicability statement of this final rule for clarity.

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

The FAA estimates that 152 Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 8 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required replacement, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will be provided at no charge by the manufacturer. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $72,960, or $480 per airplane.

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

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

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

Several occurrences of dual-engine flameout on aircraft caused FAA to examine the service history of certain type-certificated airplanes. Among those examined were the Fairchild Aircraft SA26, SA226, and SA227 series airplanes.

Our analysis reveals the following:

A dual engine flameout could result in failure of both engines with consequent loss of control of the airplane.

We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain Fairchild Aircraft SA26, SA226, and SA227 series airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on May 30, 2001 (66 FR 29268). The NPRM proposed to require you to incorporate a kit that would modify the torque sensing system to allow the igniters to automatically turn on when an engine senses low torque.

The FAA encouraged interested persons to participate in the making of this amendment. We did not receive any comments on the proposed rule or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

During the comment period, we realized that the following AD's relate to this subject:

The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all Dornier Model 328-100 series airplanes. The LBA advises that an operator reported that during flight there was an advisory message on the Crew Alerting System showing “HYD MAIN PMP INOP.” The “HYD PWR MAIN” button was in the on position, but illuminated “OFF.” Investigation revealed that a circuit breaker had popped and the alternating current (AC) main pump motor had failed. Subsequent testing revealed that it was possible to have an inoperative AC hydraulic pump without pre-flight indication to the pilot. The AC pump provides hydraulic power to the brakes, ground spoiler, anti-skid control box, and nose wheel steering. Takeoff with an inoperative pump could result in an extended takeoff roll or a rejected takeoff, and consequent runway overrun, structural damage to the airplane, and possible injury to occupants.

The manufacturer has issued Dornier 328 All Operators Telefaxes (AOT) AOT-328-29-018 and AOT-328-29-019, both dated September 20, 2001, which describe procedures for revising the Normal Procedures section of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to provide the flight crew with the appropriate procedures necessary to verify correct operation of the primary AC pump of the main hydraulic system before takeoff.

The LBA classified the AOTs as mandatory and issued German airworthiness directive 2001-358, dated December 13, 2001, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Germany.

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

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, this AD is being issued to prevent takeoff with an inoperative primary AC pump of the main hydraulic system, which could result in an extended takeoff roll or a rejected takeoff, and consequent runway overrun, structural damage to the airplane, and possible injury to occupants. This AD requires revising the Normal Procedures section of the FAA-approved AFM to provide the flight crew with the appropriate procedures necessary to verify correct operation of the pump before takeoff.

The German airworthiness directive mandates doing the AFM revision before the next flight of the airplane. This AD allows operators 10 days to complete the required AFM revision. The FAA recognizes the severity of the unsafe condition presented by this situation, but finds a 10-day compliance time appropriate in consideration of the safety implications, the average utilization of the fleet, and the practical aspects of planning and scheduling accomplishment of the required AFM revision. We have considered all these factors and have determined that this compliance time will not adversely affect the continued operational safety of the fleet.

Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES . All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002-NM-07-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81, -82, -83, and -87 series airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on August 3, 2001 (66 FR 40645). That action proposed to require replacement of the dust seals of the passenger service unit (PSU) panels of the overhead stowage compartment with new dust seals.

Since the proposed AD was published, the FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-25-377, Revision 01, dated July 17, 2001. (The proposed AD cited the original service bulletin as the appropriate source of service information for the procedures for the dust seal replacement.) Revision 01 was issued to clarify the procedures for trimming the dust seal to facilitate its installation; no other significant changes were made.

Boeing had previously issued Alert Service Bulletin MD80-25A376, dated September 21, 2000, which describes procedures for removal of the lower dust seals from the outboard PSU panels, repetitive cleaning of the oxygen canisters and PSU components (including the removal of all visible traces of dust and dirt particles from the oxygen canisters), and repetitive inspections to ensure that the oxygen masks, hoses, and lanyards do not bind in the PSU door. The repetitive cleaning and inspections would extend the time to install new PSU dust seals.

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

Two commenters request that the proposed AD be revised to provide interim actions that would extend the compliance time to install new dust seals. The commenters state that, once a seal is removed from the airplane, and the PSU panel is periodically cleaned of accumulated dust and lint, the potential fire source from the affected seal no longer exists. The commenters suggest a compliance time of 6 months to initiate the interim actions, a repetitive interval of 14 months, and a compliance time of 5 years to replace the seal—based on the availability of materials, manpower, and maintenance facilities.

The FAA partially concurs. The FAA agrees that, once the affected dust seals are removed from the airplane, the potential fire source from the seals no longer exists. However, the accumulation of dust and lint on the oxygen canister and within the PSU panel may create another fire source, which would be minimized or mitigated by the installation of new dust seals. The FAA finds that repetitive cleaning and inspections are acceptable for a period of time, but reliance on these interim repetitive actions to provide an adequate degree of safety for the fleet over a 5-year period is not appropriate.

In determining the appropriate compliance time for the interim actions, the FAA considered the compliance time for the entire replacement action, as proposed, which indicated that no action is necessary for 24 months. Earlier inspections (e.g., at 6 months as the commenter suggests) are therefore unnecessary.

In determining the appropriate compliance time for the seal replacement, the FAA considered additional relevant factors. Certain airplanes affected by this AD are also subject to the requirements of AD 2000-11-01, amendment 39-11749 (65 FR 34322, May 26, 2000), which requires replacement of certain insulation blankets within 5 years. The FAA considers that replacing the insulation blankets and the dust seals concurrently would greatly reduce the cost of accomplishing the actions separately. In addition, extending the compliance times for the seal replacement will provide additional time for operators to procure parts and schedule maintenance. In consideration of these factors, as well as the safety implications, parts availability, and maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the actions, the FAA finds it appropriate to require the seal installation within 42 months.

Under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, changing the proposed AD to shorten the proposed compliance time and add new actions would necessitate that the FAA reissue the notice, reopen the period for public comment, consider any additional comments received, and eventually issue a final rule. The FAA has determined that further delay of this action is not appropriate. Therefore, this final rule has been revised to provide operators two options to comply with this AD:

1. Accomplish the entire replacement within 24 months, as proposed; or

2. Accomplish the replacement action in three separate actions by removing the seals (within 24 months) and repetitively cleaning and inspecting the area thereafter (at 14-month intervals) until the new seals are installed (within 42 months).

One commenter, an operator, generally supports the proposal but offers an estimate of the cost impact on its fleet. The commenter states that replacing the dust seal would take approximately 32 work hours per airplane, rather than 24 work hours as estimated in the proposed AD, and the required materials would cost approximately $1,500 per airplane, rather than $3,000 as previously estimated.

In light of this information, the FAA considers it appropriate to revise the cost estimates in the final rule.

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

There are approximately 529 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 261 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

It will take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to remove the dust seals, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost impact to remove the seals is $240 per airplane.

It will take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to clean and inspect the PSU, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost impact of the cleaning and inspection is $240 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

It will take approximately 30 hours to install new dust seals, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts for the seal installation will cost approximately $1,500 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost impact of the seal installation is $3,300 per airplane.

The concurrent accomplishment of all seal replacement actions would result in a reduction in cost of approximately $240 per inspection cycle that would no longer be required.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD, 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 .

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

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 Bombardier Model DHC-8-100, -200, and -300 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2001 (66 FR 45653). That action proposed to require repetitive inspections of the rudder pedal adjustment fittings for cracks and replacement of cracked fittings with new fittings. That action also proposed to provide an optional terminating action.

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

The FAA has added a note, Note 2, to the final rule to clarify the definition of the detailed visual inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD. Subsequent notes have been renumbered accordingly.

Also, we have changed paragraph (c) of this AD to clarify that only “cracked” fittings are required to be replaced.

Since the issuance of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the FAA has also determined that the optional terminating action specified in paragraph (d) of the NPRM needs to be clarified. That paragraph states, “Replacement of the rudder pedal adjustment fittings having P/N 82710038-101, with steel rudder pedal adjustment fittings having P/N 82710080-101, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD.” However, the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD is not a repetitive inspection. Additionally, it was our intent that operators may elect to accomplish the replacement in lieu of the inspections required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (d) of the final rule to state, “Replacement of rudder pedal adjustment fittings having P/N 82710038-101, with steel rudder pedal adjustment fittings having P/N 82710080-101, constitutes terminating action for the requirements 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 previously. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

The FAA estimates that 188 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $11,280, or $60 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 .

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

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 Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on November 5, 2001 (66 FR 55896). That action proposed to require repetitive operational tests for discrepancies of the heating system of pitot tube #1, and replacement of the pitot tube, if necessary. That action also proposed to require eventual modification of the alternating current sensing circuit for pitot tube #1, which would terminate the repetitive operational test requirement.

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

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

The FAA estimates that 129 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

It will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required operational test, at the average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the operational test required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $7,740, or $60 per airplane, per test cycle.

It will take approximately 34 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required modification, at the average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $350 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the modification required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $308,310, or $2,390 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.

The FAA has been advised that certain engine mounts on affected airplanes have developed cracks. One operator discovered cracking during a routine inspection on the aft flange of the left engine forward carry-through mount bracket. Additional airplanes were subsequently inspected, and cracking was discovered in the same location on four airplanes. At the time of the crack findings, all of those airplanes had accumulated between 2,000 and 3,000 total flight hours, and all were equipped with thrust reversers. The cracks originate in the radius of the cutout of the aft flange of the engine mount brackets. The purpose of the cutout is to provide clearance for certain engine components. Because all of these airplanes were equipped with thrust reversers, it was initially determined that the condition would be found only on airplanes with thrust reversers. However, similar cracking was later discovered on a number of airplanes without thrust reversers. The cause of the cracking has not been determined. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the engine mount and possible loss of the engine, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

The FAA has reviewed and approved Raytheon Safety Communique No. 189, Revision 1, dated January 2002, which describes procedures for a one-time visual inspection to detect evidence of cracking of the left engine forward carry-through mount bracket, and a subsequent one-time fluorescent penetrant inspection to detect cracking in the same area. The communique recommends immediate replacement of any cracked bracket with a new bracket and fitting.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other Raytheon Model Beech 400, 400A, and 400T series airplanes; Model Beech MU-300-10 airplanes; and Model Mitsubishi MU-300 airplanes of the same type design, this AD is being issued to prevent failure of the engine mount and possible loss of the engine, and consequent loss of control of the airplane. This AD requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking in the radius of the cutout of the aft flange of the left engine forward carry-through mount bracket, and replacement with a new bracket and fitting if necessary. The actions are required to be accomplished in accordance with the service information described previously, except as discussed below.

The FAA has determined that a ferry flight permit, if granted, must include certain limitations for airplanes equipped with thrust reversers, due to the increased loads and vibration levels associated with thrust reverser operation.

The applicability of this AD and the manufacturer's Safety Communique No. 189 are identical with the exception of one serial number. For Beech MU-300-10 airplanes, the communique specifies serial numbers A1001SA through 1010SA inclusive. The type certification data sheet for this model specifies A1011SA as the last serial number. The FAA assumes serial number A1011SA may have been converted to a different model and reidentified and therefore has determined that it is necessary to include serial number A1011SA in the applicability of this AD to ensure the inclusion of all airplanes subject to the identified unsafe condition.

In addition, Safety Communique No. 189 recommends inspection of the subject area via a one-time visual inspection within 25 flight hours (for airplanes with more than 1,500 total flight hours) and a one-time fluorescent penetrant inspection within 50 flight hours. However, in light of the potential severity of the unsafe condition and the uncertainty of the cause of the premature cracking, the FAA finds these recommendations inadequate to address the identified unsafe condition in a timely manner. The FAA has determined that a fluorescent penetrant inspection could detect cracking that a visual inspection might miss. Also, the FAA has determined that the initial inspection must be performed at the earlier of 14 days or 25 flight hours, and that the inspections must be repetitively performed, to timely detect cracking that could contribute to the unsafe condition.

In developing appropriate actions and compliance times for this AD, the FAA considered not only the manufacturer's recommendations, but the availability of parts, the average utilization of the affected fleet, the time necessary to perform an inspection (2 work hours), and the degree of urgency associated with addressing the identified unsafe condition. In light of all of these factors, the FAA finds initial and repetitive fluorescent penetrant inspections to be warranted, in that they will provide more detailed data, allow operators to detect cracking before it becomes a hazard to the structure, and provide the necessary continued operational safety for the fleet.

This is considered to be interim action until final action is identified, at which time the FAA may consider further rulemaking.

Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES . All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket 2001-NM-382-AD.” The postcard will be date-stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

On July 6, 1998, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued airworthiness directive (AD) 98-15-03, Amendment 39-10654 (63 FR 37761, July 14, 1998), to require:

• Initial and repetitive eddy current inspection (ECI) for cracks in the high pressure compressor (HPC) stage 2-6 spool spacer arms, forward and aft of the stage 3-4 and stage 4-5 interstage seal teeth, and, if necessary, replacement with serviceable parts.

• A shop level ECI for cracks in the HPC stage 2-6 spool interstage seal teeth, and, if necessary, replacement with serviceable parts.

That action was prompted by reports of cracked HPC stage 2-6 spools installed on General Electric Company (GE) GE90-76B, -77B, -85B, -90B, and -92B model turbofan engines. That condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the HPC stage 2-6 spool due to cracks, which could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

Since that AD was issued, the FAA has determined that either of the inspection methods required by the current AD may be used to satisfy either inspection requirement if done in accordance with the applicable Service Bulletins. Furthermore, certain spools have been approved as terminating the need for continuing inspections. Lastly, the FAA has determined that the affected spools are required to be removed from service no later than a specified number of engine cycles or by June 30, 2005, whichever occurs first.

The manufacturer has confirmed the design integrity of two of the spools affected by the current AD, P/N 350-005-770-0 (except for SN LAO37677) and P/N 350-005-771-0. Based on additional test and analysis, these spools need no further inspection. In addition, the manufacturer has introduced a new design HPC stage 2-6 spool, P/N 350-005-780-0 and a repair procedure which creates two other spools part numbers, P/N 350-005-775-0 and P/N 350-005-776-0. With spools having any of these five part numbers installed, this AD will no longer apply to the engine, terminating the requirement for additional inspections. Also, reference to the GE90-92B model is removed from the AD applicability because the manufacturer has informed the FAA that no engines of that model were produced and has requested the FAA remove this model designation from the GE90 Type Certificate. In addition, HPC spool P/N 350-005-769-0 is deleted since the manufacturer has informed the FAA that this P/N spool has never been produced and will not be produced.

The FAA has reviewed and approved the technical contents of GE Service Bulletin No. GE90 S/B 72-0352, Revision 4, dated July 31, 2000, that describes ECI procedures for cracks in the HPC stage 2-6 spool interstage seal teeth, and GE Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. GE90 72-A0357, Revision 4, dated July 31, 2000, that describes procedures for ECI for cracks in the HPC stage 2-6 spool spacer arm, forward and aft of the stage 3-4 and stage 4-5 interstage seal teeth. This ASB also removes the inspection requirement for HPC spools P/N 350-005-770-0 (except for S/N LAO37677) and P/N 350-005-771-0.

Although none of these affected engine models are used on any airplanes that are registered in the United States, the possibility exists that the engine models could be used on airplanes that are registered in the United States in the future. Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other GE90 series turbofan engines of this same type design, this AD is being issued to prevent failure of the HPC stage 2-6 spool due to cracks, which could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. This AD requires:

• Initial and repetitive ECI for cracks in the HPC stage 2-6 spool spacer arms, forward and aft of the stage 3-4 and stage 4-5 interstage seal teeth, and, if necessary, replacement with a serviceable part.

• A shop level ECI for cracks in the HPC stage 2-6 spool interstage seal teeth, and, if necessary, replacement with serviceable parts.

• Removal of affected part number HPC stage 2-6 spools from service based on either engine cycles or calendar date, whichever occurs first.

The actions must be done in accordance with the service bulletins described previously.

Since there are currently no domestic operators of these engine models, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, a situation exists that allows the immediate adoption of this regulation.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES . All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 98-ANE-17-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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 .

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom (UK), recently notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on Dowty Aerospace Propellers Type R334/4-82-F/13 with propeller hub assemblies, P/N 660709201. On September 23, 2001, a complete R334/4-82-F/13 propeller separated from the engine flange on a Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A. (CASA) 212 airplane. Laboratory analysis of the retained portion of the hub indicated that fatigue cracks had emanated from multiple origins in five of the eight insert bolt hole locations of the rear half of the hub wall. These fatigue cracks propagated outward in a radial direction relative to the axis of the threaded insert. The fatigue cracks then intersected the spigot diameter and the center bore hole of the hub. The remainder of the hub fracture resulted from fatigue cracks propagating circumferential to hub failure and release. The CAA also advised the FAA that the CAA received a report of a similar incident on another CASA airplane. The incident date was not provided, but the CAA indicated that it was within the past 1 1/2 to 2 year period.

Dowty Aerospace Propellers has issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. 61-1119, Revision 2, dated December 6, 2001, that specifies procedures for ultrasonic inspection of the rear wall of the rear half of the propeller hub for cracks. The CAA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued CAA UK AD No. 003-11-2001, dated November 30, 2001, in order to assure the airworthiness of these Dowty Aerospace Propellers in the UK.

Although Appendix A of Dowty Aerospace Propellers SB No. 61-1119, Revision 2, dated December 6, 2001, requires reporting the inspection data to Dowty Aerospace Propellers, this AD requires that the data be reported to the Boston Aircraft Certification Office of the FAA.

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

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other Dowty Aerospace Propellers Type R334/4-82-F/13 with propeller hub assemblies, P/N 660709201, this AD is being issued to prevent propeller hub failure due to cracks in the hub, which could result in loss of control of the airplane. This AD requires a one-time ultrasonic inspection of the rear wall of the rear half of the propeller hub for cracks. The actions must be done in accordance with the service bulletin described previously.

Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. Comments sent via the Internet must contain the docket number in the subject line. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2001-NE-50-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

The TRICARE Retiree Dental Program (TRDP), a voluntary dental insurance plan completely funded by enrollees' premiums, was implemented in 1998 to provide benefits for basic dental care and treatment based on the authority of 10 U.S.C. 1076c. Under the enabling legislation, the benefits that could be provided were limited to “basic dental care and treatment, involving diagnostic services, preventative services, basic restorative services (including endodontics), surgical services, and emergency services.” Accordingly, the implementing regulation, 32 CFR 199.22, limited coverage to the most common dental procedures necessary for maintenance of good dental health and did not include coverage of major restorative services, prosthodontics, orthodontics or other procedures considered to be outside of the “basic dental care and treatment” range.

In section 704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Pub. L. 106-065, Congress responded to concerns that the enabling legislation was too restrictive in the range of benefits authorized by amending 10 U.S.C. 1076c to allow the Secretary of Defense to offer additional coverage. Under provisions of the amendment, the TRDP benefits may now be “comparable to the benefits authorized under section 1076a” of title 10, the Dependents Dental Plan, commonly known as the TRICARE Family Member Dental Plan. Thus, in addition to the original basic services described above, which continue to be mandated, coverage of “orthodontic services, crowns, gold fillings, bridges, complete or partial dentures, and such other services as the Secretary of Defense considers to be appropriate” [10 U.S.C. 1076a(d)(3)] may be covered by the TRDP.

On August 14, 2000, an interim final rule was published (65 FR 49491) to allow the additional dental coverage and address the administrative and operational issues associated with the enhanced TRDP benefits. No public comments were received.

The interim final rule allows expansion of the TRDP benefits to be comparable to the coverage under Active Duty Dental Plan at 32 CFR 199.13, commonly known as the TRICARE Family Member Dental Plan. It maintains the original basic TRDP coverage, with the original initial and renewal enrollment periods, until contractual arrangements are in place for the additional benefits. Enrollment in the original basic plan will be superseded by enrollment in the enhanced plan. Effective with the implementation of an enhanced plan, new enrollments for basic coverage cease. Enrollees in the basic plan at that time may continue their enrollment for basic coverage, subject to the applicable premium and eligibility provisions, as long as the contract administering that coverage is in effect. Enrollees in the basic plan have an enrollment option at the time of the enhanced plan's implementation.

One of the aims of the interim final rule was to allow flexibility in the design of an enhanced benefit structure to help keep the increase in premiums within a reasonable range with the addition of the major dental coverage. This takes into account the increase in premiums not only for the increased benefits but the potential increase due to the risk of adverse selection. Adverse selection is the tendency for people who have a greater-than-average likelihood of needing treatment to seek coverage more than those who have a lesser likelihood of needing treatment. Accordingly, the interim final rule provides for renewal enrollment periods of up to 12 months per period for the enhanced benefits, thereby allowing the risk to be spread over a greater period of time than the month-to-month continuing enrollment for the basic coverage. Renewal for the basic program continues to be on a monthly basis. To offset the longer renewal periods, the rule allows a flexibility in the initial enrollment period for the enhanced benefits by permitting it to be in the range of from 12 to 24 months, the exact length to be determined through contractual arrangement. The initial enrollment period for the basis program will continue to be 24 months.

In addition, the interim final rule allows the establishment of an alternative course of treatment policy as in the TFMDP, adds a provision for orthodontic lifetime maximum should an orthodontic benefit be offered, and removes the specific dollar limit on the non-orthodontic annual benefit maximum while retaining the requirement for an annual maximum benefit amount. These changes are being made to permit more flexibility in the design and implementation of an enhanced TRDP benefit structure and allow ways to mitigate the increased risk for adverse selection and unacceptably high premiums that are likely to occur with the addition of major coverage.

Recognizing that occasionally some enrollees experience “buyers's remorse” shortly after enrolling in the program, this rule adds a 30-day grace period that allows new enrollees to terminate a TRDP enrollment immediately after enrollment provided no benefits have been used. This is consistent with the legislative mandate that the retiree dental plan be voluntary and provides enrollees an opportunity to further consider their dental needs before they are obligated for the initial enrollment period.

The final rule is consistent with the interim final rule.

Executive Order 12866 requires certain regulatory assessments for any “significant regulatory action,” defined as one that would result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or have other substantial impacts.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that each federal agency prepare, and make available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis when the agency issues a regulation that would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule has been designated as significant and has been reviewed by the Office Management and Budget as required under the provisions of E.O. 12866.

This rule will not impose additional information collection requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The TRICARE Retiree Dental Program Enrollment Form currently in use was approved in December 2001 and the approval expires December 2003.

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 a NPRM. Publishing a NPRM and delaying the rule's effective date would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is needed to protect the public, ports and waterways of the United States. The Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners and place Coast Guard vessels in the vicinity of these zones to advise mariners of the restriction.

For the same reasons, 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 .

Based on the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center buildings in New York and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, there is an increased risk that subversive activity could be launched by vessels or persons in close proximity to the Florida Power and Light Company power plants located at Hutchinson Island, Saint Lucia, Florida and Turkey Point, Florida City, Florida. The security zone area for Hutchinson Island includes all waters within lines connecting the following points: 27°21.20′ N, 080°16.26′ W; 27°19.18′ N, 080°15.21′ W; 27°20.36′ N, 080°12 83′ W; and 27°22.43′ N, 080°13.8′ W. The security zone area for Turkey Point includes all land and water within lines connecting the following points: 25°26.8′ N, 080°16.8′ W; 25°26.8′ N, 080°21′ W; 25°20′ N, 080°16.8′ W; and 25°20′ N, 080°20.4′ W.

There will be Coast Guard and local police department patrol vessels on scene to monitor traffic through these areas. Entry into these security zones is prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Miami, Florida or his designated representative. During the period, the COTP may issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners on VHF-FM Channels 16 and 22 (157.1 MHz) notifying mariners when they are allowed to temporarily enter the zone.

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) because these zones cover a limited area and vessels may be allowed to enter the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port.

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

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 because small entities may be allowed to enter on a case by case basis with the authorization of the Captain of the Port.

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 will affect your small business, organization, or government jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance in understanding this rule.

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 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 requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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

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

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

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

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

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 relationships 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 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.

CHAMPVA provides health care benefits to the dependents and survivors of veterans rated as 100% permanently and totally disabled from a service-connected condition; to the survivors of veterans who died from a service-connected medical condition; or to survivors of veterans who died in the line of duty and who are not otherwise covered under the TRICARE program.

On October 30, 2000, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Public Law 106-398, was enacted. On June 5, 2001, the Veterans' Survivor Benefits Improvements Act of 2001, Public Law 107-14, was enacted. This interim final rule implements these Acts for the CHAMPVA program. 38 U.S.C. 1713 requires CHAMPVA to provide the same or similar benefits as the DoD TRICARE program (formerly known as CHAMPUS).

Prior to October 1, 2001, CHAMPVA coverage was terminated when a beneficiary became entitled to Part A of Medicare by virtue of becoming age 65. The age limitation for the provision of benefits was the same for TRICARE beneficiaries. Public Laws 106-398 and 107-14 eliminated the age limitation. The following is an explanation of the amended regulations implementing this statutory change.

CHAMPVA beneficiaries age 65 and older prior to June 5, 2001, regain eligibility effective October 1, 2001, for covered inpatient and outpatient benefits, secondary to Medicare and any other health insurance coverage. A beneficiary, who had Parts A and B of Medicare on June 5, 2001, must retain Part B to continue CHAMPVA eligibility. Beneficiaries age 65 on or after June 5, 2001, who are entitled to Medicare Part A must also be enrolled in Part B of Medicare to retain CHAMPVA eligibility effective October 1, 2001.

To be eligible, the individual must be a dependent, spouse or surviving spouse, age 65 or older, of a veteran who is rated 100% permanently and totally disabled from a service-connected condition; died of a service-connected medical condition; or died in active duty. The dependent, spouse or surviving spouse must not otherwise be eligible for benefits under the DoD TRICARE program. Benefits include specified medical services and supplies from authorized civilian sources such as hospitals, other authorized institutional providers, physicians, other authorized professional providers, professional ambulance services, prescription drugs, authorized medical supplies, and rental or purchase of durable medical equipment. Benefits do not include services and supplies for conditions that are expressly excluded from the CHAMPVA benefit by statute or regulation. There may be services that are payable under Medicare that are not payable under CHAMPVA; or conversely there may be benefits that are payable under CHAMPVA that are not payable under Medicare. However, many health care services and supplies are a benefit provided and paid for by both Medicare and CHAMPVA.

For all services and supplies, Medicare supplemental insurance plans or Medicare HMO plans are considered other health insurance and will pay prior to CHAMPVA. Cost sharing, deductible, and annual catastrophic cap requirements are applicable. Beneficiaries will continue to be responsible for payment of their applicable Medicare or CHAMPVA cost-share and deductible. For health care services for which payment may be made under both plans, CHAMPVA will pay up to the CHAMPVA allowable amount for the actual out-of-pocket costs incurred by the beneficiary over the sum paid by Medicare and the total of all amounts paid or payable by third party payers other than Medicare (such as other health insurance).

When a Medicare+Choice enrollee obtains unauthorized out-of-system care that Medicare+Choice will not cover or only partially cover, CHAMPVA will not process the claim as primary. This is because Medicare already paid for the health care the beneficiary needs in the form of a capitation payment to the Medicare+Choice plan. CHAMPVA will not become the primary payer for services that would have been covered by the Medicare+Choice plan had the beneficiary followed applicable requirements.

Prior to October 1, 2001, CHAMPVA provided for routine physical examinations under the well-child care provisions for children from birth to age six. Public Law 106-398 extended the provision for school-required physicals for TRICARE dependent children to age 12. This rule extends coverage of school-required physical examinations to CHAMPVA eligible beneficiaries through age 17. We believe the small size of CHAMPVA's population under age 18, and the added potential for financial vulnerability for children of 100% permanently and totally disabled veterans or veterans who died of a service-connected condition, supports expanding this benefit to beneficiaries through age 17. Further, the costs required to support this benefit for all dependent children who are required to undergo a school physical is minimal since there are far fewer dependents in this age group than there are in TRICARE. The school-required physicals are subject to the applicable cost sharing and deductibles for all outpatient services.

Previously, for CHAMPVA, the catastrophic cap was $7,500 per calendar year, per family. Under this rule, the catastrophic cap on payments is reduced to $3,000, per calendar year, per family, for CHAMPVA eligible beneficiaries. The benefit is the same as that provided under Public Law 106-398 for the TRICARE program with the exception of the effective date. TRICARE computes the catastrophic cap based on a fiscal year (October through September of the following year) whereas CHAMPVA computes the catastrophic cap based on a calendar year. For this reason the effective date for CHAMPVA beneficiaries is January 1, 2002.

The changes made by this interim final rule in large part reflect statutory changes. Moreover, we have found good cause to dispense with the notice-and-comment and delayed effective date provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Compliance with such provisions would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. A delay in the establishment of the rule would result in significant delays in providing these increased benefits. Also, to avoid significant administrative confusion, it is in the public's interest to provide these benefits within approximately the same period as similar benefits are provided to DoD's TRICARE beneficiaries.

This interim final rule will not impose additional information collection requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3511).

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires (in section 202) that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before developing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any given year. This rule would have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments.

This document has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

The Secretary hereby certifies that this regulatory amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612. It is estimated that there are approximately 89,500 potential beneficiaries over age 65 that will use the benefit of coverage secondary to Medicare, approximately 2,000 beneficiaries impacted by the inclusion of school-required physical examination benefit; and approximately 2,500 families benefiting from the reduction of the catastrophic cap. They are widely geographically diverse and the health care provided to them would not have a significant impact on any small businesses. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this amendment is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

There are no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers for the programs affected by this document.

Section 112(l) of the Act and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63 subpart E authorize EPA to approve of State rules and programs to be implemented and enforced in place of certain CAA requirements, including the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants set forth at 40 CFR part 63. EPA promulgated the program approval regulations on November 26, 1993 (58 FR 62262) and subsequently amended these regulations on September 14, 2000 (65 FR 55810). An approvable State program must contain, among other criteria, the following elements:

(a) A demonstration of the state's authority and resources to implement and enforce regulations that are at least as stringent as the NESHAP requirements;

(b) A schedule demonstrating expeditious implementation of the regulation; and

(c) A plan that assures expeditious compliance by all sources subject to the regulation.

On November 3, 1999, MDE received delegation of authority to implement all emission standards promulgated in 40 CFR part 63, as they apply to major sources, as defined by 40 CFR part 70. On June 26, 2000, MDE submitted to EPA a request to receive delegation of authority to implement and enforce the hazardous air pollutant regulations for the remaining affected sources defined in 40 CFR part 63. The MDE supplemented this request with additional information on October 3, 2001 and November 14, 2001. At the present time, this request includes the regulations for perchloroethylene drycleaning facilities, hard and decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks, ethylene oxide sterilization facilities, halogenated solvent cleaning, secondary lead smelting, hazardous waste combustors, and portland cement manufacturing which have been adopted by reference from the Federal requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 63, subparts M, N, O, T, X, EEE, and LLL respectively. The MDE also requested that EPA automatically delegate future amendments to these regulations and approve MDE's mechanism for receiving delegation of future hazardous air pollutant regulations which it adopts unchanged from the Federal requirements. This mechanism entails MDE's incorporation by reference of the unchanged Federal standard into its regulation for hazardous air pollutant sources at Title 26, Subtitle 11 of the Maryland Code of Regulations and MDE's notification to EPA of such incorporation.

Based on MDE's program approval request and its pertinent laws and regulations, EPA has determined that such an approval is appropriate in that MDE has satisfied the criteria of 40 CFR 63.91. In accordance with 40 CFR 63.91(d)(3)(i), MDE submitted a written finding by the State Attorney General which demonstrates that the State has the necessary legal authority to implement and enforce its regulations, including the enforcement authorities which meet 40 CFR 70.11, the authority to request information from regulated sources and the authority to inspect sources and records to determine compliance status. In accordance with 40 CFR 63.91(d)(3)(ii), MDE submitted copies of its statutes, regulations and requirements that grant authority to MDE to implement and enforce the regulations. In accordance with 40 CFR 63.91(d)(3)(iii)-(v), MDE submitted documentation of adequate resources and a schedule and plan to assure expeditious State implementation and compliance by all sources. Therefore, the MDE program has adequate and effective authorities, resources, and procedures in place for implementation and enforcement of sources subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subparts M, N, O, T, X, EEE, 1 and LLL, as well as any future emission standards, should MDE seek delegation for these standards. The MDE adopts the emission standards promulgated in 40 CFR part 63 into regulation for hazardous air pollutant sources at Title 26, Subtitle 11 of the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR). The MDE has the primary authority and responsibility to carry out all elements of these programs for all sources covered in Maryland, including on-site inspections, record keeping reviews, and enforcement.

In order for MDE to receive automatic delegation of future amendments to the perchloroethylene drycleaning facilities, hard and decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks, ethylene oxide sterilization facilities, halogenated solvent cleaning, secondary lead smelting, hazardous waste combustors, 2 and portland cement manufacturing regulations, as they apply to facilities that are not located at major sources, as defined by 40 CFR part 70, each amendment must be legally adopted by the State of Maryland. As stated earlier, these amendments are adopted into MDE's regulation for hazardous air pollutant sources at Title 26 COMAR, Subtitle 11. The delegation of amendments to these rules will be finalized on the effective date of the legal adoption. The MDE will notify EPA of its adoption of the Federal regulation amendments.

EPA has also determined that MDE's mechanism for receiving delegation of future hazardous air pollutant regulations which it adopts unchanged from the Federal requirements, as they apply to facilities that are not located at major sources, as defined by 40 CFR part 70, can be approved. This mechanism requires MDE to adopt the Federal regulation into the State's regulation for hazardous air pollutant sources at Title 26 COMAR, Subtitle 11. The delegation will be finalized on the effective date of the legal adoption. The MDE will notify EPA of its adoption of the Federal regulation. The official notice of delegation of additional emission standards will be published in the Federal Register . As noted earlier, MDE's program to implement and enforce all emission standards promulgated under 40 CFR part 63, as they apply to major sources, as defined by 40 CFR part 70, was previously approved on November 3, 1999. The notification and reporting provisions in 40 CFR part 63 requiring the owners or operators of affected sources to make submissions to the Administrator shall be met by sending such submissions to MDE and EPA Region III.

If at any time there is a conflict between a MDE regulation and a Federal regulation, the Federal regulation must be applied if it is more stringent than that of MDE. EPA is responsible for determining stringency between conflicting regulations. If MDE does not have the authority to enforce the more stringent Federal regulation, it shall notify EPA Region III in writing as soon as possible, so that this portion of the delegation may be revoked.

If EPA determines that MDE's procedure for enforcing or implementing the 40 CFR part 63 requirements is inadequate, or is not being effectively carried out, this delegation may be revoked in whole or in part in accordance with the procedures set out in 40 CFR 63.96(b).

Certain provisions of 40 CFR part 63 allow only the Administrator of EPA to take further standard setting actions. In addition to the specific authorities retained by the Administrator in 40 CFR 63.90(d) and the “Delegation of Authorities” section for specific standards, EPA Region III is retaining the following authorities, in accordance with 40 CFR 63.91(g)(2)(ii):

(1) Approval of alternative non-opacity emission standards, e.g., 40 CFR 63.6(g) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(2) Approval of alternative opacity standards, e.g., 40 CFR 63.9(h)(9) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(3) Approval of major alternatives to test methods, as defined in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(4) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring, as defined in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.8(f) and applicable sections of relevant standards; and

(5) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting, as defined in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.10(f) and applicable sections of relevant standards.

The following provisions are included in this delegation, in accordance with 40 CFR 63.91(g)(1)(i), and can only be exercised on a case-by-case basis. When any of these authorities are exercised, MDE must notify EPA Region III in writing:

(1) Applicability determinations for sources during the title V permitting process and as sought by an owner/operator of an affected source through a formal, written request, e.g., 40 CFR 63.1 and applicable sections of relevant standards  3 ;

(2) Responsibility for determining compliance with operation and maintenance requirements, e.g., 40 CFR 63.6(e) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(3) Responsibility for determining compliance with non-opacity standards, e.g., 40 CFR 63.6(f) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(4) Responsibility for determining compliance with opacity and visible emission standards, e.g., 40 CFR 63.6(h) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(5) Approval of site-specific test plans  4 , e.g., 40 CFR 63.7(c)(2)(i) and (d) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(6) Approval of minor alternatives to test methods, as defined in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)(i) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(7) Approval of intermediate alternatives to test methods, as defined in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(8) Approval of shorter sampling times/volumes when necessitated by process variables and other factors, e.g., 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)(iii) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(9) Waiver of performance testing, e.g., 40 CFR 63.7 (e)(2)(iv), (h)(2), and (h)(3) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(10) Approval of site-specific performance evaluation (monitoring) plans  5 , e.g., 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) and (e)(1) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(11) Approval of minor alternatives to monitoring methods, as defined in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.8(f) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(12) Approval of intermediate alternatives to monitoring methods, as defined in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.8(f) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(13) Approval of adjustments to time periods for submitting reports, e.g., 40 CFR 63.9 and 63.10 and applicable sections of relevant standards; and

(14) Approval of minor alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting, as defined in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.10(f) and applicable sections of relevant standards.

As required, MDE and EPA Region III will provide the necessary written, verbal and/or electronic notification to ensure that each agency is fully informed regarding the interpretation of applicable regulations in 40 CFR part 63. In instances where there is a conflict between a MDE interpretation and a Federal interpretation of applicable regulations in 40 CFR part 63, the Federal interpretation must be applied if it is more stringent than that of MDE.

Written, verbal and/or electronic notification will also be used to ensure that each agency is informed of the compliance status of affected sources in Maryland. The MDE will comply with all of the requirements of 40 CFR 63.91(g)(1)(ii). Quarterly reports will be submitted to EPA by MDE to identify sources determined to be applicable during that quarter.

Although MDE has primary authority and responsibility to implement and enforce the hazardous air pollutant general provisions and hazardous air pollutant emission standards for perchloroethylene drycleaning facilities, hard and decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks, ethylene oxide sterilization facilities, halogenated solvent cleaning, secondary lead smelting, hazardous waste combustors, 6 and portland cement manufacturing, nothing shall preclude, limit, or interfere with the authority of EPA to exercise its enforcement, investigatory, and information gathering authorities concerning this part of the Act.

EPA is approving MDE's request for delegation of authority to implement and enforce its hazardous air pollutant regulations for perchloroethylene drycleaning facilities, hard and decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks, ethylene oxide sterilization facilities, halogenated solvent cleaning secondary lead smelting, hazardous waste combustors, 7 and portland cement manufacturing which have been adopted by reference from 40 CFR part 63, subparts M, N, O, T, X, EEE, and LLL, respectively. This approval will automatically delegate future amendments to these regulations. In addition, EPA is approving of MDE's mechanism for receiving delegation of future hazardous air pollutant regulations which it adopts unchanged from the Federal requirements. This mechanism entails legal adoption by the State of Maryland of the amendments or rules into the State's regulation for hazardous air pollutant sources at Title 26 COMAR, Subtitle 11 and notification to EPA of such adoption. This action pertains only to affected sources, as defined by 40 CFR part 63, which are not located at major sources, as defined by 40 CFR part 70. The delegation of authority shall be administered in accordance with the terms outlined in section IV., above. This delegation of authority is codified in 40 CFR 63.99. In addition, MDE's delegation of authority to implement and enforce 40 CFR part 63 emission standards at major sources, as defined by 40 CFR part 70, approved by EPA Region III on November 3, 1999, is codified in 40 CFR 63.99.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial rule and anticipates no adverse comment because MDE's request for delegation of the hazardous air pollutant regulations pertaining to perchloroethylene drycleaning facilities, hard and decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks, ethylene oxide sterilization facilities, halogenated solvent cleaning, secondary lead smelting, hazardous waste combustors, 8 and portland cement manufacturing and its request for automatic delegation of future amendments to these rules and future standards, when specifically identified, does not alter the stringency of these regulations and is in accordance with all program approval regulations. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register , EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve of MDE's request for delegation if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on April 1, 2002 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by March 1, 2002. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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 13211, “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 tribal implications because it will 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). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not substantially 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). This action 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 CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing requests for rule approval under CAA section 112, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 requests for rule approval under CAA section 112 for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a request for rule approval under CAA section 112, to use VCS in place of a request for rule approval under CAA section 112 that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. 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. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 1, 2002. 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, pertaining to the approval of MDE's delegation of authority for the hazardous air pollutant emission standards for perchloroethylene dry cleaning facilities, hard and decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks, ethylene oxide sterilizers, halogenated solvent cleaning, secondary lead smelting, hazardous waste combustors, and portland cement manufacturing (CAA section 112), may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Section 112(l) of the Act and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63 subpart E authorize EPA to approve of State rules and programs to be implemented and enforced in place of certain CAA requirements, including the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants set forth at 40 CFR part 63 and the chemical accident prevention provisions set forth at 40 CFR part 68. EPA promulgated the program approval regulations on November 26, 1993 (58 FR 62262) and subsequently amended these regulations on September 14, 2000 (65 FR 55810). An approvable State program must contain, among other criteria, the following elements:

(a) a demonstration of the State's authority and resources to implement and enforce regulations that are at least as stringent as the 40 CFR part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant (NESHAP) requirements and the 40 CFR part 68 chemical accident prevention provisions, including an auditing strategy at least as stringent as the EPA regulation;

(b) a schedule demonstrating expeditious implementation of the regulations;

(c) a plan that assures expeditious compliance by all sources subject to the regulations;

(d) a requirement that subject sources submit a risk management plan (RMP);

(d) procedures for reviewing RMPs; and,

(e) procedures to provide technical assistance to subject sources, including small businesses, under the chemical accident prevention provisions.

On March 30, 1998 and October 30, 1998, ACHD, through letters from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), submitted to EPA requests to receive delegation of authority to implement and enforce the hazardous air pollutant regulations which have been adopted by reference from 40 CFR part 63 and the chemical accident prevention regulations which have been adopted by reference from 40 CFR part 68. On August 4, 1999, PADEP submitted a copy of an Agreement for Implementation of the Title V Operating Permits Program between EPA, PADEP and ACHD. On June 15, 2001, ACHD submitted a letter to EPA clarifying its request for delegation of authority of the NESHAPs and the chemical accident prevention provisions. In this letter, ACHD stated that it was seeking delegation of authority of the NESHAPs, as they applied to sources subject to the Title V program and to sources which have taken a federally-enforceable limit on their potential to emit to below the major source thresholds, as defined in 40 CFR part 70. The ACHD also clarified that it was seeking automatic delegation of future NESHAPs for these sources. This letter also reiterated that ACHD was seeking delegation of the chemical accident prevention regulations for all sources. These four submissions provided detailed information on ACHD's legal and enforcement authority, resources, and implementation procedures for addressing the hazardous air pollutant regulations at facilities required to obtain an operating permit under 40 CFR part 70 and the chemical accident prevention regulations at all facilities. On October 24, 2001, ACHD submitted to EPA additional information necessary to receive delegation of authority to implement and enforce the hazardous air pollutant regulations for perchloroethylene drycleaning facilities, hard and decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks, ethylene oxide sterilization facilities, halogenated solvent cleaning and secondary lead smelting which have been adopted by reference from 40 CFR part 63, subparts M, N, O, T and X, respectively, at sources not addressed in ACHD's previous requests. In this October 24, 2001 request, ACHD also asked that EPA automatically delegate future amendments to these specific regulations and future hazardous air pollutant regulations adopted unchanged from the Federal requirements which were not addressed by ACHD's previous requests. Because ACHD automatically adopts by reference the regulations in 40 CFR part 63, the recently promulgated regulations addressing hazardous waste combustors, portland cement manufacturing, and secondary aluminum smelting (40 CFR part 63 subparts EEE, LLL, and RRR, respectively), while not specifically mentioned in this October 24, 2001 letter, are also part of the delegation request.

Based on ACHD's program approval request and its pertinent laws and regulations, EPA has determined that such an approval is appropriate in that ACHD has satisfied the criteria of 40 CFR 63.91 and 63.95. In accordance with 40 CFR 63.91(d)(3)(i), ACHD submitted two written findings by the County Solicitor which demonstrate that ACHD has the necessary legal authority to implement and enforce its regulations, including the enforcement authorities which meet 40 CFR 70.11, the authority to request information from regulated sources and the authority to inspect sources and records to determine compliance status. In accordance with 40 CFR 63.91(d)(3)(ii), ACHD submitted copies of its statutes, regulations and requirements that grant authority to ACHD to implement and enforce the regulations. In accordance with 40 CFR 63.91(d)(3(iii)-(v), ACHD submitted documentation of adequate resources and a schedule and plan to assure expeditious implementation and compliance by all sources. Therefore, the ACHD program has adequate and effective authorities, resources, and procedures in place for implementation and enforcement of the emission standards of 40 CFR part 63, including 40 CFR part 63, subparts M, N, O, T, X, EEE  1 , LLL and RRR, and the chemical accident prevention provisions of 40 CFR part 68, at all covered facilities. In addition, the ACHD program has adequate and effective authorities, resources and procedures in place for implementation and enforcement of any future emission standards.

In accordance with 40 CFR 63.95(b)(1), ACHD submitted information which demonstrates that it has the authority and resources to implement and enforce regulations that are no less stringent than the regulations in 40 CFR part 68, subparts A through G and 68.200 and a requirement that subject sources submit a RMP that reports at least the same information in the same format as required under 40 CFR part 68, subpart G. As required by 40 CFR 63.95(b)(3)-(4), ACHD submitted documentation that it has adequate procedures for reviewing RMPs, providing technical assistance to stationary sources, including small businesses, and auditing RMPs in a manner consistent with the Federal regulation.

The ACHD automatically adopts the emission standards promulgated in 40 CFR part 63 and the chemical accident prevention provisions promulgated in 40 CFR part 68 into the County of Allegheny, Pennsylvania, Ordinance No. 16782 and Allegheny County Health Department Rules and Regulations, Article XXI Air Pollution Control 2104.08. The ACHD has the primary authority and responsibility to carry out all elements of these programs for all sources covered in Allegheny County, including on-site inspections, record-keeping reviews, and enforcement.

In order for ACHD to receive automatic delegation of future amendments to the hazardous air pollutant regulations  2 and the chemical accident prevention provisions, each amendment must be legally adopted by Allegheny County. As stated earlier, these amendments are automatically adopted into the County of Allegheny, Pennsylvania, Ordinance No. 16782 and ACHD Rules and Regulations, Article XXI Air Pollution Control 2104.08. The delegation of amendments to these rules will be finalized on the effective date of the legal adoption.

EPA has also determined that ACHD can be delegated the authority to implement and enforce all future hazardous air pollutant regulations, which it adopts unchanged from the Federal requirements. The delegation of future hazardous air pollutant regulations will be finalized on the effective date of the legal adoption. The official notice of delegation of additional emission standards will be published in the Federal Register . The notification and reporting provisions in 40 CFR part 63 requiring the owners or operators of affected sources to make submissions to the Administrator shall be met by sending such submissions to ACHD and EPA Region III.

If at any time there is a conflict between an ACHD regulation and a Federal regulation, the Federal regulation must be applied if it is more stringent than that of ACHD. EPA is responsible for determining stringency between conflicting regulations. If ACHD does not have the authority to enforce the more stringent Federal regulation, it shall notify EPA Region III in writing as soon as possible, so that this portion of the delegation may be revoked.

If EPA determines that ACHD's procedures for enforcing or implementing the 40 CFR part 63 or 40 CFR part 68 requirements are inadequate, or are not being effectively carried out, this delegation may be revoked in whole or in part in accordance with the procedures set out in 40 CFR 63.96(b).

Certain provisions of 40 CFR part 63 and 40 CFR part 68 allow only the Administrator of EPA to take further standard setting actions. In addition to the specific authorities retained by the Administrator in 40 CFR 63.90(d) and 40 CFR 68.120 and the “Delegation of Authorities” section for specific standards, EPA Region III is retaining the following authorities, in accordance with 40 CFR 63.91(g)(2)(ii):

(1) approval of alternative non-opacity emission standards, e.g., 40 CFR 63.6(g) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(2) approval of alternative opacity standards, e.g., 40 CFR 63.9(h)(9) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(3) approval of major alternatives to test methods, as defined in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(4) approval of major alternatives to monitoring, as defined in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.8(f) and applicable sections of relevant standards; and

(5) approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting, as defined in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.10(f) and applicable sections of relevant standards.

The following provisions are included in this delegation, in accordance with 40 CFR 63.91(g)(1)(i), and can only be exercised on a case-by-case basis. When any of these authorities are exercised, ACHD must notify EPA Region III in writing:

(1) applicability determinations for sources during the title V permitting process and as sought by an owner/operator of an affected source through a formal, written request, e.g., 40 CFR 63.1 and applicable sections of relevant standards; 3

(2) responsibility for determining compliance with operation and maintenance requirements, e.g., 40 CFR 63.6(e) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(3) responsibility for determining compliance with non-opacity standards, e.g., 40 CFR 63.6(f) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(4) responsibility for determining compliance with opacity and visible emission standards, e.g., 40 CFR 63.6(h) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(5) approval of site-specific test plans, 4 e.g., 40 CFR 63.7(c)(2)(i) and (d) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(6) approval of minor alternatives to test methods, as defined in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)(i) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(7) approval of intermediate alternatives to test methods, as defined in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(8) approval of shorter sampling times/volumes when necessitated by process variables and other factors, e.g., 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)(iii) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(9) waiver of performance testing, e.g., 40 CFR 63.7 (e)(2)(iv), (h)(2), and (h)(3) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(10) approval of site-specific performance evaluation (monitoring) plans, 5 e.g., 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) and (e)(1) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(11) approval of minor alternatives to monitoring methods, as defined in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.8(f) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(12) approval of intermediate alternatives to monitoring methods, as defined in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.8(f) and applicable sections of relevant standards;

(13) approval of adjustments to time periods for submitting reports, e.g., 40 CFR 63.9 and 63.10 and applicable sections of relevant standards; and

(14) approval of minor alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting, as defined in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.10(f) and applicable sections of relevant standards.

As required, ACHD and EPA Region III will provide the necessary written, verbal and/or electronic notification to ensure that each agency is fully informed regarding the interpretation of applicable regulations in 40 CFR part 63 and 40 CFR part 68. In instances where there is a conflict between a ACHD interpretation and a Federal interpretation of applicable regulations in 40 CFR part 63 and 40 CFR part 68, the Federal interpretation must be applied if it is more stringent than that of ACHD. Written, verbal and/or electronic notification will also be used to ensure that each agency is informed of the compliance status of affected sources in Allegheny County. The ACHD will comply with all of the requirements of 40 CFR 63.91(g)(1)(ii). Quarterly reports will be submitted to EPA by ACHD to identify sources determined to be applicable during that quarter. Although ACHD has primary authority and responsibility to implement and enforce the hazardous air pollutant regulations  6 and the chemical accident prevention provisions, nothing shall preclude, limit, or interfere with the authority of EPA to exercise its enforcement, investigatory, and information gathering authorities concerning this part of the Act.

EPA is approving ACHD's request for delegation of authority to implement and enforce its hazardous air pollutant emission standards  7 which have been adopted by reference from the Federal requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 63 and its chemical accident prevention provisions which have been adopted by reference from the Federal requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 68. This approval will automatically delegate future amendments to these regulations. For sources which are required to obtain an operating permit under 40 CFR part 70, this delegation addresses all existing hazardous air pollutant emission standards as adopted by reference from 40 CFR part 63. For sources which are not required to obtain an operating permit under 40 CFR part 70, this delegation presently addresses hazardous air pollutant regulations for perchloroethylene drycleaning facilities, hard and decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks, ethylene oxide sterilization facilities, halogenated solvent cleaning, secondary lead smelting, hazardous waste combustors, 8 portland cement manufacturing, and secondary aluminum smelting as adopted by reference from 40 CFR part 63, subparts M, N, O, T, X, EEE, LLL and RRR, respectively. This delegation addresses all sources subject to the accidental release prevention regulations. In addition, EPA is taking direct final action to automatically delegate all future hazardous air pollutant regulations which ACHD adopts unchanged from the Federal requirements. The delegation of authority shall be administered in accordance with the terms outlined in section IV., above. This delegation of authority is codified in 40 CFR 63.99.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial rule and anticipates no adverse comment because ACHD's request for delegation of the hazardous air pollutant regulations and its request for automatic delegation of future amendments to these rules and future standards does not alter the stringency of these regulations and is in accordance with all program approval regulations. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register , EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve of ACHD's request for delegation if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on April 1, 2002 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by March 1, 2002. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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 13211, “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 (Pub. L. 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 CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing requests for rule approval under CAA section 112, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 requests for rule approval under CAA section 112 for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a request for rule approval under CAA section 112, to use VCS in place of a request for rule approval under CAA section 112 that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 1, 2002. 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, pertaining to the approval of ACHD's delegation of authority for the hazardous air pollutant emission standards and the chemical accident prevention provisions (CAA section 112), may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

The Department of the Interior's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) conducts hearings and renders decisions in a wide variety of administrative appeals from actions taken by the bureaus and offices of the Department. OHA consists of a headquarters office, located in Arlington, Virginia, and nine field offices located throughout the country. The headquarters office contains the Office of the Director, the Interior Board of Contract Appeals, the Interior Board of Indian Appeals, the Interior Board of Land Appeals, the headquarters component of the Hearings Division, and a Division of Administration. Since 1970, the headquarters office has been located at 4015 Wilson Boulevard, and that address is included in numerous provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations relating to administrative appeals within the Department.

Effective February 11, 2002, the OHA headquarters office is being relocated to 801 North Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia. In anticipation of that move, the Department is revising its administrative appeals regulations to reflect OHA's new street address.

The Department has determined that the public notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), do not apply to this rulemaking because the changes being made relate solely to matters of agency organization, procedure, and practice. They therefore satisfy the exemption from notice and comment rulemaking in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).

Moreover, the Department has determined that there is good cause to waive the requirement of publication 30 days in advance of the rule's effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Since the timing of OHA's relocation is dictated by the construction schedule for the building to which OHA is moving, the actual move date was confirmed only in the past few weeks. If the changes in this rule were to become effective 30 days after publication, it could cause delays in processing appeals. A February 11, 2002, effective date means that appeals will go directly to the new address and thus will be processed more quickly. Because a February 11 effective date benefits the public, there is good cause for making this rule effective in less than 30 days, as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

The Department has reviewed this rule under the following statutes and executive orders governing rulemaking procedures: the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ; the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ; the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ; the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ; Executive Order 12630 (Takings); Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review); Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform); Executive Order 13132 (Federalism); Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation); and Executive Order 13211 (Energy Impacts). The Department has determined that this rule does not trigger any of the procedural requirements of those statutes and executive orders, since this rule merely changes the street address for OHA's headquarters office.

A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on July 31, 2001 (66 FR 39475). As discussed in the proposed rule, small vessel fishermen have raised concerns over the potential for gear conflicts between the small-vessel (less than or equal to 50 ft (15.2 m) in length overall) fishing fleet and large longline fishing vessels greater than 50 ft (15.2 m) length overall, hereafter called “large vessels,” targeting PMUS in the American Samoa pelagic fishery, as well as regarding adverse impacts on fishery resources resulting from the increased numbers of large fishing vessels in the fishery. Due to the limited mobility of the smaller vessels, an influx of large domestic vessels fishing in the nearshore waters of the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around American Samoa could lead to gear conflicts, catch competition, and reduced opportunities for sustained fishery participation by the locally based small boat operators. Local fishermen and associated fishing communities depend on this fishery not only for food, income, and employment, but also for the preservation of their Samoan culture.

This final rule, is a regulatory amendment under the Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (FMP). It prohibits U.S. vessels more than 50 ft (15.2 m) in length overall from fishing for PMUS within areas 3 nm from shore (i.e., waters regulated by the government of American Samoa) to approximately 50 nm around the islands of American Samoa. The boundaries of the closed areas are defined by latitude and longitude, and are delineated as straight lines drawn point to point, except for those segments that are bounded by the outer boundary of the EEZ around American Samoa. A vessel owner whose longline vessel was registered for use under a Federal longline general permit and made at least one landing of PMUS in American Samoa on or before November 13, 1997, is exempt from this final rule. An exemption may be registered for use with other vessels owned by the same person; however, exemptions may not be applied to a replacement vessel that is larger than the vessel for which it was originally issued. If more than one person (e.g., a partnership or corporation), owned a large vessel when it was registered for use with a longline general permit, and made at least one landing of a PMUS prior to November 13, 1997, an exemption will be issued to only one person. Exemptions are not transferable between persons.

NMFS received sets of comments from three different commenters. These comments generally supported this action. NMFS addresses comments that recommended actions not in this final rule below.

Comment 1 : One commenter recommended that the larger domestic longline vessels operating in the EEZ around American Samoa be required to use vessel monitoring system (VMS) units installed by NMFS to facilitate enforcement of the closed areas around American Samoa.

Response : NMFS agrees that VMS would enhance monitoring and enforcement of area closures around American Samoa as demonstrated by its application to the longline area closures around the Hawaiian Islands. However, due to budgetary constraints, NMFS is unable to provide VMS units to all the large longline vessels. NMFS may consider requiring industry to purchase VMS units for those vessels that do not already have them. However, VMS may not be necessary for an effective area closure program with adherence to these new closures and cooperation among the fishermen, both small and large fishing vessel operators and the local community to avoid conflicts and localized depletions of the fisheries.

Comment 2 : One commenter recommended a more extensive 100-nm closed area around Rose Atoll, a National Wildlife Refuge. An extended area closure would provide a larger buffer zone around the atoll and safeguard against potential groundings of fishing vessels.

Response : NMFS believes the 50-nm nearshore closure provides adequate protection for the fauna and flora at Rose Atoll, while striking a balance with the needs of large domestic longline fishing vessels for access to offshore fishing grounds.

The final rule is changed from the proposed rule with respect to the coordinates specified for the boundaries of the closed areas around Swains Island and the remainder of the American Samoa islands (Tutuila Island, the Manu’a Islands, and Rose Atoll). These coordinates describe generally rectangular shapes approximating the radius of 50-nm circles drawn around each island or island group. Although this change will not affect the intent of this action, i.e, establish 50-nm area closures, it corrects and improves the coordinates of the closure area boundaries that were published in the proposed rule. Some of those coordinates in the proposed rule were determined by utilizing outdated technology and information that resulted in area closures substantially greater than those intended by the Council. In another situation, the coordinates published for the area around Swains Island were based on an earlier Council recommendation for a 30-nm closure.

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

On March 30, 2001, NMFS issued a FEIS that analyzes the environmental impacts of U.S. pelagic fisheries in the western Pacific region. This analysis includes the pelagic longline fishery around American Samoa. The FEIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency; a Notice of Availability was published on April 6, 2001 (66 FR 18243). In November 2000, the Council prepared a background document/environmental assessment on the prohibition on fishing for PMUS within closed areas around the islands of American Samoa. Information from this document was used to evaluate and provide the basis for adoption of the preferred alternative contained in the subsequent FEIS.

A FRFA that describes and updates the impact this final rule is likely to have on small entities was prepared and is available from (see ADDRESSES ). A summary of the FRFA follows.

The need for and objectives of this final rule are stated in the SUMMARY and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of this document and are not repeated here. No comments on the initial regulatory flexibility analysis or the economic effects of this action were received. This action does not contain reporting and recordkeeping requirements or any compliance requirements that would impact small entities. It will not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. This action is taken under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and regulations at 50 CFR part 660.

Both large and small longline vessels affected by this final rule are considered to be “small entities” under guidelines issued by the Small Business Administration because they are independently owned and operated, and have annual receipts not in excess of $3 million. Based on information provided in the FRFA, this rule could potentially impact an estimated 52 active vessel operators, employing 33 small (equal to or less than less than 50 ft) longline vessels and 19 large (greater than 50 ft) longline vessels, two or three of which may qualify for exemption. It could also potentially impact an additional 22 small vessels, and 10 large vessels, which have inactive longline permits. Albacore trolling vessel operators are not anticipated to be significantly impacted as they have not historically fished in the EEZ around American Samoa. Similarly, impacts on tuna purse seine vessel operators are expected to be low as they are believed to have made a total of only eleven sets in the EEZ around American Samoa over the past decade, and will likely continue fishing outside of the closed area.

NMFS considers that this rule provides a balanced approach that allows large domestic vessels, primarily longliners, to continue fishing within two-thirds of the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around American Samoa, while maintaining one-third for use by local small-scale fishing vessels. The overall direct economic impacts of this final rule are not quantifiable, as pelagic fisheries interactions are difficult to document and model due to inadequate data, insufficient knowledge of the biology and population dynamics of the resource, and poor understanding of environmental influences. In addition, how various gears fishing in the same time and area compete for local fishery resources and the effects on availability of the target fish are poorly understood. Although most large vessel fishing effort around American Samoa already takes place outside of the closed area and thus will be unaffected by this measure, some large vessel operators continue to fish within 50 nm of shore. This choice is due to several factors, including greater familiarity with those fishing grounds. It is estimated that the costs of this measure to the operators of these displaced large vessels will average between $1,960 to $4,900 per vessel. These costs, which are between 1 and 2.5 percent of the average annual operating costs of such vessels, depend largely on the size of the individual vessel. Once these displaced vessels become more familiar with the offshore areas, they may anticipate annual increases in vessel gross revenues which will offset the losses resulting from this closure. Current cannery prices, along with higher longline catch rates in offshore areas (as indicated by logbook data), may enable them to recoup, or potentially surpass, the losses resulting from this action.

Four alternatives to this final rule were considered and rejected. The first alternative would have closed waters within 50 nm of Tutuila Island, the Manu’a Islands, and Rose Atoll, and within 30 nm of Swains Island. This alternative was rejected because this approach would have provided unequal and insufficient protection for small vessel operators who chose to fish around Swains Island, as well as for those that might decide to become home ported there. The second alternative would have closed waters within 100 nm around all islands of American Samoa and was rejected because the potential negative economic impacts on large vessels was considered to outweigh the possible benefits to the local small-vessel fishing fleet of approximately 30 active vessels fishing generally within 50 nm from shore. The third alternative would have excluded large U.S. pelagic fishing vessels from waters around American Samoa in which the FMP already prohibits longline fishing by foreign vessels (an area approximately 20 nm around each island) and was rejected because such small closed areas would have provided insufficient protection for the local small-vessel fishing fleet. The fourth alternative to this rule was no action. This alternative was rejected as it would not provide any protection to the small vessel fleet.

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) states that for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides”. The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rule making process, a small entity compliance guide (compliance guide) was prepared. Copies of this final rule and the compliance guide will be sent to all holders of permits issued for the western Pacific pelagic fisheries. The compliance guide will be available at the following web site http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/piao/guides.htm. Copies can also be obtained from the PIAO (see ADDRESSES ).

On October 1, 2001, NMFS completed an informal Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on the final rule. The informal consultation concluded that this action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat considered in the March 29, 2001, biological opinion (BiOp) issued by NMFS for authorization of pelagic fisheries under the FMP. The informal consultation stated that there is no information that would indicate that the final rule will alter the potential for impact to listed species or critical habitat from the Federal action as analyzed in the BiOp.