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

Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. CE176.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

On September 5, 2001, Extra Flugzeugbau GmbH, Flugplatz Dinslaken Schwarze Heide, 46569 Hu nxe, Federal Republic of Germany, made an application to the FAA for an amended type certificate for the EA-400 airplane. The EA-400 airplane is currently approved under TC No. A43CE. The proposed modification incorporates a novel or unusual design feature, such as an electronic attitude direction indicator that is vulnerable to HIRF external to the airplane.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, § 21.101, Extra Flugzeugbau GmbH must show that the EA-400 airplane meets the following provisions, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application, 14 CFR part 23 at Amendment 23-54.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards because of novel or unusual design features of an airplane, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are normally issued in accordance with § 11.19 as required by and become a part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101(d).

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model already included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

Extra Flugzeugbau GmbH plans to incorporate certain novel and unusual design features into an airplane for which the airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for protection from the effects of HIRF. These features include an electronic attitude direction indicator, which are susceptible to the HIRF environment, that were not envisaged by the existing regulations for this type of airplane.

Recent advances in technology have given rise to the application in aircraft designs of advanced electrical and electronic systems that perform functions required for continued safe flight and landing. Due to the use of sensitive solid state advanced components in analog and digital electronics circuits, these advanced systems are readily responsive to the transient effects of induced electrical current and voltage caused by the HIRF. The HIRF can degrade electronic systems performance by damaging components or upsetting system functions.

Furthermore, the HIRF environment has undergone a transformation that was not foreseen when the current requirements were developed. Higher energy levels are radiated from transmitters that are used for radar, radio, and television. In addition, the number of transmitters has increased significantly. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined.

The combined effect of the technological advances in airplane design and the changing environment has resulted in an increased level of vulnerability of electrical and electronic systems required for the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Effective measures against the effects of exposure to HIRF must be provided by the design and installation of these systems. The accepted maximum energy levels in which civilian airplane system installations must be capable of operating safely are based on surveys and analysis of existing radio frequency emitters. These special conditions require that the airplane be evaluated under these energy levels for the protection of the electronic system and its associated wiring harness. These external threat levels, which are lower than previous required values, are believed to represent the worst case to which an airplane would be exposed in the operating environment.

These special conditions require qualification of systems that perform critical functions, as installed in aircraft, to the defined HIRF environment in paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed value using laboratory tests, in paragraph 2, as follows: The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational capability of the installed electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is exposed to the HIRF environment defined below:

(2) The applicant may demonstrate by a system test and analysis that the electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions can withstand a minimum threat of 100 volts rms per meter, electrical field strength, from 10 kHz to 18 GHz. When using this test to show compliance with the HIRF requirements, no credit is given for signal attenuation due to installation.

A preliminary hazard analysis must be performed by the applicant, for approval by the FAA, to identify either electrical or electronic systems that perform critical functions. The term “critical” means those functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. The systems identified by the hazard analysis that perform critical functions are candidates for the application of HIRF requirements. A system may perform both critical and non-critical functions. Primary electronic flight display systems, and their associated components, perform critical functions such as attitude, altitude, and airspeed indication. The HIRF requirements apply only to critical functions.

Compliance with HIRF requirements may be demonstrated by tests, analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or any combination of these. Service experience alone is not acceptable since normal flight operations may not include an exposure to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a system with similar design features for redundancy as a means of protection against the effects of external HIRF is generally insufficient since all elements of a redundant system are likely to be exposed to the fields concurrently.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the EA-400 airplane. Should Extra Flugzeugbau GmbH apply at a later date for a design approval to modify any other model on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the specified airplane model(s). It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

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

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, by the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the EA-400 airplane modified by Extra Flugzeugbau GmbH to add an electronic attitude direction indicator.

1. Protection of Electrical and Electronic Systems from High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF). Each system that performs critical functions must be designed and installed to ensure that the operations, and operational capabilities of these systems to perform critical functions, are not adversely affected when the airplane is exposed to high intensity radiated electromagnetic fields external to the airplane.

2. For the purpose of these special conditions, the following definition applies: Critical Functions: Functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane.

Section 1612 of the Social Security Act (the Act) describes the meaning of “income” for purposes of the SSI program. This section also explains what is excluded from income. Section 1612(b)(1) provides an exclusion from earned income for a child who is a student regularly attending a school, college, or university, or a course of vocational or technical training designed to prepare for gainful employment. The section also provides that the Commissioner may prescribe the maximum amount of the exclusion. Prior to January 2001, regulations at §§ 416.1112(c)(3) and 416.1161(c) provided, for a child who is a student, an SEIE of up to $400 a month of earned income with an annual limit of $1,620.

If an SSI eligible individual lives in the same household with a parent or spouse who does not receive SSI benefits (hereafter referred to as an “ineligible parent” or “ineligible spouse”), the ineligible parent's or spouse's income may be considered available (deemed) to the eligible individual. This concept is called “deeming” and is provided for in section 1614 of the Act. In determining the amount of an ineligible parent's or spouse's income to consider in determining the individual's eligibility and benefit amounts, we deduct an allocation for other children living in the household who are not eligible for SSI benefits (hereafter referred to as “ineligible children”) (see § 416.1160(c)(2)). We reduce the amount of this allocation by the amount of the ineligible child's own income (see § 416.1161(c)). However, if an ineligible child is a student who is working, his or her earned income is reduced by the amount of the SEIE exclusion before that income is used to reduce the amount of the allocation.

On December 29, 2000, we published final rules in the Federal Register (65 FR 82905) to, among other things, revise § 416.1112(c)(3) of our regulations. Effective for earned income beginning in January 2001, these revisions increased the maximum monthly and yearly SEIE amounts used in determining SSI eligibility and payment amounts for student children, and provided for the automatic adjustment of the monthly and yearly exclusion amounts each year based on increases in the cost of living. Under our longstanding rules, the SEIE maximum exclusion amounts have been the same for ineligible children as for eligible children. However, the new rules applied the new exclusion amounts to eligible children but inadvertently did not include ineligible children for deeming calculation purposes. The preamble to those rules noted that the prior amounts had been in place since 1974, and stated that the change in these amounts was being made in response to increases in school expenses since that time. The rationale for this increase is equally applicable to ineligible student children as for eligible student children.

This final rule amends the regulations to apply the same increase in the SEIE amounts to ineligible children as for eligible children. We are now addressing the oversight noted above in order to be consistent with our longstanding policy of having the same SEIE amounts for both eligible and ineligible children and with the regulatory increase in the SEIE amounts already made for eligible children. This final rule therefore amends § 416.1161(c) to provide a cross-reference to the eligible child regulation in § 416.1112(c)(3) that provides for a SEIE in 2001 of up to $1,290 a month with an annual limit of $5,200, and automatic adjustments each subsequent year as provided in that section. These amounts have increased for calendar year 2002 to $1,320 and $5,340, respectively.

The effects of this rule change are most easily understood by considering an example. John, an ineligible student, lives with his mother and his SSI eligible brother, Mark. In June, July and August of 2002, John earns $750 each month to defray his school expenses in the fall. His mother also works and her earnings are deemed to Mark. As part of the deeming computation we deduct from the mother's earnings a living allowance allocation of $272 each month for John subject to reduction for his own income after application of the SEIE. Under the prior rule: The maximum monthly SEIE amount of $400 would be subtracted from John's earnings ($750−$400=$350), and $350 would be considered in reducing the living allowance of ineligible student. Since $350 is more than the $272 allocation, there would be no deduction from the mother's earnings of a living allowance allocation for John. Under the new rule: The maximum monthly SEIE amount of $1,320 exceeds John's monthly earnings of $750. Therefore, the SEIE would apply to all of John's earnings, and none of those earnings would reduce the living allowance allocation for John. Therefore, a living allowance allocation of $272 each month would be deducted from the amount of the mother's earnings deemed to Mark.

Pursuant to section 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), SSA follows the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 in the development of its regulations. The APA provides exceptions to its notice and public comment procedures when an agency finds there is good cause for dispensing with such procedures on the basis that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. We have determined that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), good cause exists for dispensing with the notice and public comment procedures in this case. Good cause exists because this rule merely adapts the rules for the SEIE that have always been reflected in our regulations for both eligible and ineligible student children in order to continue SSA's longstanding policy of having the same exclusion amounts apply to both eligible and ineligible children. This final rule contains no substantive changes of interpretation. Therefore, opportunity for prior comment is unnecessary, and we are issuing this as a final rule.

In addition, we find good cause for dispensing with the 30-day delay in the effective date of a substantive rule, provided for by 5 U.S.C. 553(d). As explained above, we are not making any substantive changes in the SEIE provision. However, without these changes, our rules will conflict and may mislead the public. Therefore, we find that it is in the public interest to make this rule effective upon publication.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.

We certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required.

This final rule does not contain reporting or recordkeeping requirements that require OMB review.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, we are amending part 416 of Chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

These regulations are being issued without prior notice and public procedure pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). For this reason, the collection of information contained in these regulations has been reviewed and, pending receipt and evaluation of public comments, approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1545-1774. Responses to this collection of information are voluntary.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.

For further information concerning this collection of information, and where to submit comments on the collection of information and the accuracy of the estimated burden, and suggestions for reducing this burden, please refer to the preamble to the cross-referencing notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register .

Books or records relating to the collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Section 337(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, enacted in 1986, directs the Secretary to prescribe regulations to ensure that the purposes of General Utilities repeal, which generally requires a corporation to recognize gain or loss on a disposition of any asset, may not be circumvented through the use of the consolidated return regulations. Pursuant to that directive, in 1990, the IRS and Treasury promulgated § 1.337(d)-2. Section 1.337(d)-2 generally disallows any loss recognized by a member of a consolidated group on the disposition of subsidiary stock, except to the extent the consolidated group disposes of its entire equity interest in a subsidiary to persons not related to any member of the consolidated group within the meaning of section 267(b) or section 707(b)(1) (applying the language “10 percent” instead of “50 percent”) and can establish that such loss is not attributable to the recognition of built-in gain. Section 1.337(d)-2, however, only applies with respect to dispositions and deconsolidations that occur on or after November 19, 1990, and that are not subject to § 1.1502-20.

Section 1.1502-20, which applies to all dispositions and deconsolidations of subsidiary stock that occur on or after February 1, 1991, disallows certain losses recognized by a member of a consolidated group on the disposition of subsidiary stock. The rule disallows losses to the extent of the sum of “extraordinary gain dispositions,” “positive investment adjustments,” and “duplicated loss.” The rule is designed not only to implement General Utilities repeal, but also to further single entity principles by preventing the allowance of stock losses that are reflected in a subsidiary's assets or loss carryovers.

In Rite Aid Corp. v. United States , 255 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the duplicated loss component of § 1.1502-20 was an invalid exercise of regulatory authority. As stated in Notice 2002-11, 2002-7 I.R.B. 526, the IRS has decided that the interests of sound tax administration will not be served by continuing to litigate the validity of the loss duplication factor of § 1.1502-20. Moreover, because of the interrelationship in the operation of all of the loss disallowance factors, the IRS and Treasury have decided that new rules governing loss disallowance on sales of stock of a member of a consolidated group should be implemented.

This Treasury decision adds §§ 1.337(d)-2T, 1.1502-20T(i), and 1.1502-32T(b)(4)(v), as described below.

For dispositions and deconsolidations of subsidiary stock on or after March 7, 2002, unless the disposition or deconsolidation was effected pursuant to a binding written contract entered into before such date that was in continuous effect until the disposition or deconsolidation, this Treasury decision provides that § 1.337(d)-2T, and not § 1.1502-20, governs the amount of loss allowable on such sales, or the amount of basis reduction required on such deconsolidations, of subsidiary stock. In substantial part, § 1.337(d)-2T restates the current § 1.337(d)-2, with certain modifications. As described above, as currently in effect, § 1.337(d)-2 permits recognition of loss only where a consolidated group disposes of its entire equity interest in a member of the group to persons not related to any member of the consolidated group within the meaning of section 267(b) or section 707(b)(1) (applying the language “10 percent” instead of “50 percent”). Section 1.337(d)-2T eliminates those restrictions.

For dispositions and deconsolidations of subsidiary stock before March 7, 2002, and dispositions and deconsolidations of subsidiary stock on or after March 7, 2002, that were effected pursuant to a binding written contract entered into before such date that was in continuous effect until the disposition or deconsolidation, this Treasury decision adds § 1.1502-20T(i). Section 1.1502-20T(i) permits consolidated groups to calculate allowable loss on the sale of subsidiary stock by applying § 1.1502-20 in its entirety or, in lieu thereof, by electing to apply one of two alternative regimes. In particular, the group may elect to apply the provisions of § 1.1502-20 without regard to the duplicated loss factor of the loss disallowance formula, i.e., calculating disallowed loss by taking into account only extraordinary gain dispositions and positive investment adjustment amounts. Alternatively, the group may elect to apply the provisions of § 1.337(d)-2T. Such election may be made with the original return for the taxable year that includes the later of March 7, 2002, and the date of the disposition or deconsolidation of the stock of the subsidiary. Alternatively, the election may be made with an amended return, provided that the amended return is filed before the date the original return for the taxable year that includes March 7, 2002, is due.

An election described in § 1.1502-20(g) to reattribute losses will be respected only if the requirements of § 1.1502-20(g), including the requirement that the election be filed with the group's income tax return for the year of the disposition, have been or are satisfied. The temporary regulations do not extend the time for filing an election under § 1.1502-20(g). If a group made an election described in § 1.1502-20(g) and elects to determine allowable loss by applying one of the alternative regimes pursuant to § 1.1502-20T(i), the amount of loss treated as reattributed may be reduced. If the group elects to determine allowable loss by applying the provisions of § 1.1502-20 without regard to the duplicated loss factor of the loss disallowance formula, the amount of loss treated as reattributed is equal to the amount of loss originally reattributed, reduced to the extent that it exceeds the greater of (1) the loss disallowance amount determined by taking into account only extraordinary gain dispositions and positive investment adjustments (and not the duplicated loss factor of the loss disallowance formula) and (2) the amount of reattributed losses that the common parent of the selling group absorbed in closed years. If the group elects to determine allowable loss by applying § 1.337(d)-2T, the amount of loss treated as reattributed is the greater of (1) zero and (2) the amount of reattributed losses that the common parent of the selling group absorbed in closed years. For this purpose, a taxable year is a closed year to the extent the assessment of a deficiency is prevented by any law or rule of law as of the date the election to apply one of the alternative regimes is filed and at all times thereafter.

To the extent that an election under § 1.1502-20T(i) results in a reduction in the amount of losses treated as reattributed, such excess losses will be treated as available for use by the subsidiary or any other group of which the subsidiary is a member, subject to any applicable limitations (e.g., section 382). In order to permit the subsidiary's use of such losses that are subject to an existing section 382 limitation, § 1.1502-20T(i) allows the common parent of the group that disposed of the stock to make certain adjustments to the amount of such a limitation apportioned under § 1.1502-95 or § 1.1502-96.

Section 1.1502-20T(i) requires the common parent of the selling group to notify the subsidiary of the recomputed reattribution amount and any adjustment to the apportionment of a section 382 limitation made in connection with the election to apply one of the alternative regimes. In addition, if the acquirer was a member of a consolidated group at the time of the acquisition, the common parent of the selling group must provide such notification to the common parent of the acquirer at the time of the acquisition. The rules set forth in § 1.1502-20T(i) also confirm that any losses treated as reattributed to the common parent of the selling group will not be available to offset income of the subsidiary or any other group of which such subsidiary is a member.

The IRS and Treasury do not intend for a purchasing consolidated group to be unfairly disadvantaged in the event that the common parent of a selling member elects to apply one of the alternative regimes under § 1.1502-20T(i) and, as a result, the amount of losses treated as reattributed to the common parent of the selling group is decreased and the amount of losses treated as available to the subsidiary is increased. Therefore, this Treasury decision adds § 1.1502-32T(b)(4)(v), which provides that, to the extent that the subsidiary's loss carryovers are increased by reason of an election to apply one of the alternative regimes and such loss carryovers expire, or would have been properly used to offset income, in a closed year, the purchasing group will be deemed to have made an election to treat all of such expired loss carryovers as expiring for all Federal income tax purposes immediately before the subsidiary became a member of the purchasing group. Accordingly, no basis reduction under § 1.1502-32 will result from the expiration of, or failure to use, such losses.

Section 1.1502-32T(b)(4)(v) further provides that, to the extent the subsidiary's loss carryovers are increased by reason of an election to apply one of the alternative regimes and such loss carryovers have not expired, and would not have been properly used to offset income, in a closed year, the purchasing group may make an election under § 1.1502-32(b)(4) to treat all or a portion of such loss carryovers as expiring for all Federal income tax purposes immediately before the subsidiary became a member of the purchasing group. The election must be filed with the purchasing group's return for the taxable year in which the subsidiary receives the notification of the recomputed reattributed loss amount.

For purposes of § 1.1502-32T(b)(4)(v), a taxable year is a closed year to the extent the refund of an overpayment is prevented by any law or rule of law as of the date the group files its original return for the taxable year in which the subsidiary receives the notification of the recomputed reattributed loss amount and at all times thereafter.

In light of the Federal Circuit's decision in Rite Aid Corp. v. United States , 255 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2001), these temporary regulations are necessary in order to provide taxpayers with immediate guidance regarding allowable loss and basis reductions in connection with dispositions and deconsolidations of subsidiary stock and to carry out the principles of General Utilities repeal pending the issuance of further guidance. These temporary regulations permit taxpayers to determine the amount of allowable loss or basis reduction by applying § 1.1502-20 in its entirety or, in lieu thereof, by electing to apply the provisions of either § 1.337(d)-2T or 1.1502-20 without regard to § 1.1502-20(c)(1)(iii). In addition, these temporary regulations provide taxpayers with guidance on the effect of elections previously made under § 1.1502-20(g) to reattribute losses to the common parent of a selling group. Accordingly, good cause is found for dispensing with notice and public procedure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and with a delayed effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3).

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) do not apply.

The principal authors of these regulations are Sean P. Duffley and Lola L. Johnson, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.

The CSX Transportation railroad swing span drawbridge across Three Mile Creek, Baldwin County, Alabama has a vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position of 10 feet above mean high water and 12 feet above mean low water. The bridge provides unlimited vertical clearance in the open-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists of tugs with tows and fishing vessels. Presently, the draw opens on signal.

CSX Transportation requested a temporary deviation for the operation of the drawbridge to accommodate maintenance work. The work involves replacement of the deficient mechanical operating system with a new hydraulic system. This work is essential for continued operation of the draw span of the bridge and is expected to eliminate frequent breakdowns resulting in emergency bridge closures.

This deviation allows the draw of the CSX Transportation railroad swing span drawbridge to remain closed to navigation from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m. on March 18 and 19, 2002.

In this technical amendment, EPA is amending 40 CFR 81.336 to designate the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area as nonattainment for ozone, with a classification of moderate nonattainment. EPA is making this amendment in response to the September 11, 2001 Court decision in Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) which vacated EPA's June 19, 2000 (65 FR 37879) redesignation of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment and remanded to EPA for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion.

Under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended in 1977, the Cincinnati metropolitan area was designated as an ozone nonattainment area in March 1978 (43 FR 8962). On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), pursuant to section 107(d)(4)(A) of the CAA as amended in 1990, the Cincinnati-Hamilton area was reaffirmed as nonattainment and classified as moderate, due to monitored violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone that occurred during the 1987-1989 time frame.

For the 1996-1998 ozone seasons, Kentucky and Ohio recorded three years of complete, quality-assured, ambient air monitoring data for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area that demonstrated attainment with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, making the area eligible for redesignation. Quality-assured ozone monitoring data for the 1999 and 2000 ozone seasons, and preliminary ozone monitoring data for the 2001 ozone season, show that the area continues to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

Kentucky and Ohio submitted separate requests to redesignate the Cincinnati-Hamilton area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 1999. On January 24, 2000 (65 FR 3630) EPA proposed to approve the redesignation requests. This rulemaking also proposed to determine that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area had attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by its extended attainment date, and proposed to approve an exemption for the area from nitrogen oxides (NO X ) requirements as provided for in section 182(f) of the CAA. After taking and considering public comments, EPA issued a final rulemaking (65 FR 37879, June 19, 2000), effective July 5, 2000, which determined that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area had attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and approved Kentucky's and Ohio's requests for the area's redesignation to attainment and their plans for maintaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. This final rulemaking action revised 40 CFR 81.336 to list the Cincinnati-Hamilton area as attainment for ozone.

On August 17, 2000, two Ohio residents and the Ohio chapter of the Sierra Club petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Court) for review of EPA's redesignation of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. On September 11, 2001, the Court concluded that EPA erred only on one element that pertained solely to the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. The Court thus upheld EPA's actions, with the sole exception of EPA's finding that it could approve Ohio's redesignation request before Ohio had fully adopted all of the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) rules of Part D, Subpart 2 of the Clean Air Act. The Court vacated EPA's action in redesignating the Cincinnati-Hamilton area and remanded to EPA for further proceedings. See Wall v. EPA, (265 F.3d 426, 6th Circuit 2001). EPA is therefore amending 40 CFR 81.336 to reflect the Court's decision.

This technical amendment amends the listing in 40 CFR 81.336 to indicate that Hamilton, Butler, Clermont, and Warren Counties, Ohio are designated as nonattainment for ozone, with a classification of moderate nonattainment. This technical amendment has no impact on the official designation of the Kentucky Counties of Boone, Campbell, and Kenton, as identified in 40 CFR 81.318. The attainment status of the Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area has been addressed in a separate rulemaking action.

The other EPA actions taken in the June 19, 2000, redesignation rulemaking for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area which were upheld by the Court are unaffected by this amendment. EPA's approvals of Kentucky's and Ohio's maintenance plans have remained in place, since the Court upheld our approval of these plans. Similarly, EPA's determination of attainment for the area has remained in place. Thus the requirements of section 172(c)(1), 182(b)(1) and 182(j) concerning the submission of the ozone attainment demonstration and the requirements of section 172(c)(9) concerning contingency measures for reasonable further progress (RFP) or attainment continue to remain inapplicable to the area. Since the NO X exemption was not affected by the Court's ruling, the area also remains exempt from section 182(f) NO X requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment areas.

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 is taken pursuant to a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and merely reflects the Court's action in reinstating the area's previous designation, an action that affects the attainment status of a geographical area. Under these circumstances, correcting the listing for the designation of the area as nonattainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA does not impose any new requirements on sources, including small entities. 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 merely reflects the Court's decision, reinstating a prior existing designation, it does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that previously required and 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 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). This action corrects the listing of the area's nonattainment designation, pursuant to court decision. It does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements. Nor does it alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this action. This action 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.

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

The regulated entities are public water systems. All large community and non-transient non-community water systems serving more than 10,000 persons are required to monitor and report under the UCMR. A community water system (CWS) means a public water system which serves at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents. Non-transient non-community water system (NTNCWS) means a public water system that is not a community water system and that regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons over 6 months per year. This rule does not apply to systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons that were randomly selected to participate in the unregulated contaminant monitoring program, since EPA arranges for testing and reporting for those systems. States, Territories, and Tribes, with primacy to administer the regulatory program for public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act, sometimes conduct analyses to measure for contaminants in water samples and are regulated by this action. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include the following:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware of that could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

SDWA section 1445 (a)(2), as amended in 1996, requires EPA to establish criteria for a program to monitor unregulated contaminants and to issue, by August 6, 1999, a list of contaminants to be monitored. In fulfillment of this requirement, EPA published Revisions to the UCMR for public water systems on September 17, 1999 (66 FR 46221), March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11372), and January 11, 2001 (66 FR 2273), which included lists of contaminants for which monitoring was required or would be required in the future. On September 4, 2001 (56 FR 46221), EPA published a rule delaying requirements for reporting of unregulated contaminant monitoring results until its electronic reporting system was ready to accept data. This rule provides the new reporting deadline.

Today's action establishes August 9, 2002, as a new, later date by which all unregulated contaminant monitoring results received before May 13, 2002, must be reported to EPA. All monitoring results received on or after May 13, 2002, must be reported within thirty days following the month in which laboratory results are received, as currently specified in 40 CFR 141.35. Today's rule to establish the reporting date will not result in a major burden or impact on any affected party. Prior dates had been established in previous rules promulgated on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556), and January 11, 2001 (66 FR 2273), but changed because the EPA database was not ready to receive the data. The reporting date was delayed by rule on September 4, 2001 (66 FR 46221), to allow the initial version of the database to be completed and tested before operation. The database has now been in operation since October 1, 2001, and has been receiving data from water systems. Data resulting from unregulated contaminant monitoring and sample analysis received before May 13, 2002, must be reported by August 9, 2002. The establishment of this reporting date only affects community and non-transient non-community water systems serving more than 10,000 persons which are required to monitor for unregulated contaminants and report monitoring data to EPA.

Today's amendment to the UCMR does not require any additional costs that were not already considered in previous rulemakings related to this action. The only reason that the reporting date is being established in this rule at this time is that the previously established dates could not be implemented because the EPA database was not ready to receive the data. Through the public comment on the January 11, 2001 rulemaking for this program, commenters indicated that EPA should not require reporting of unregulated contaminant monitoring results until the database was ready. That database is now ready and has been receiving such data as of October 1, 2001.

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

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

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

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

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

It has been determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not “economically significant” under EO 12866; nor does it concern an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.

Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no additional enforceable duty on any State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector. This rule does not change the costs to State, local, or Tribal governments as estimated in the final revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (64 FR 50556, September 17, 1999; 65 FR 11372, March 2, 2000; and 66 FR 2273, January 11, 2001). This rule merely establishes a new, later date by which unregulated contaminant monitoring results received by large systems serving more than 10,000 persons before May 13, 2002, must be reported. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

EPA has determined that this final rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because this rule does not apply to small systems (i.e., systems serving a population of 10,000 or less), including those owned and operated by small governments. Thus today's rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et.seq. This rule makes a minor revision to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule to establish a new, later reporting deadline. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirement under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions.

The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity. It also authorizes an agency to use alternative definitions for each category of small entity, “which are appropriate to the activities for the agency” after proposing the alternative definition(s) in the Federal Register and taking comment. 5 U.S.C. secs. 601(3)--(5). In addition to the above, to establish an alternative small business definition, agencies must consult with the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) Chief Counsel for Advocacy.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, EPA considered small entities to be public water systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons. This is the cut-off level specified by Congress in the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act for small system flexibility provisions. In accordance with the RFA requirements, EPA proposed using this alternative definition for all three categories of small entities in the Federal Register , (63 FR 7620, February 13, 1998) requested public comment, consulted with SBA regarding the alternative definition as it relates to small businesses, and expressed its intention to use the alternative definition for all future drinking water regulations in the Consumer Confidence Reports regulation (63 FR 44511, August 19, 1998). As stated in that final rule, the alternative definition would be applied to this regulation as well.

After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule makes a minor revision to the UCMR and imposes no additional enforceable duty on any State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector. It merely establishes a new, later date by which unregulated contaminant monitoring results received by large systems serving more than 10,000 persons before May 13, 2002, must be reported.

Section 12 (d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

EPA's use of voluntary consensus standards in the UCMR program and approval of Method 515.4 were addressed in the September 1999 and January 2001 rulemakings (64 FR 50608 and 66 FR 2298). This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

Executive Order 12898 establishes a Federal policy for incorporating environmental justice into Federal agency missions by directing agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. Today's rule makes a minor change to the UCMR, and does not alter the regulatory impact of those regulations.

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Today's rule merely makes a minor change to the UCMR, establishing a new, later date by which unregulated contaminant monitoring results received by large systems serving more than 10,000 persons before May 13, 2002, must be reported. The rule imposes no cost on State and local governments, and does not preempt State law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

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

This rule does not have Tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Today's rule merely makes a minor change to the UCMR establishing a new, later date by which unregulated contaminant monitoring results received by large systems serving more than 10,000 persons before May 13, 2002, must be reported. The rule imposes no cost on Tribal governments and does not pre-empt Tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), provides that agencies shall prepare and submit to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for certain actions identified as “significant energy actions.” Section 4(b) of Executive Order 13211 defines “significant energy actions” as “any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register ) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.”

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because it views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. EPA does not anticipate adverse comment because this rule merely establishes a new, later reporting deadline for UCMR data collected before May 13, 2002. However, in the “Proposed Rule” section of today's Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal for this rule if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on May 13, 2002, without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 11, 2002. If EPA receives adverse comment, it 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 companion proposed rule published elsewhere in today's Federal Register . EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective on May 13, 2002.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-222, adopted March 1, 2002, and released March 6, 2002. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-332, adopted March 1, 2002, and released March 6, 2002. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via-e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

In the Federal Register of January 15, 2002, (67 FR 1903), FRA incorrectly modified §§ 214.105(b)(14) and 214.117(a). This document corrects those modifications.

In rule FR Doc. 02-723 published on January 15, 2002 (67 FR 1903), amend the following sections.

1. On page 1907, in the second column, in § 214.105(b)(14), correct “3,699” to read “3,000”.

2. On page 1908, in the second column, in § 214.117 correct paragraph (a) to read as follows:

(a) Railroad bridge workers shall be provided and wear eye and face protection equipment when potential eye or face injury may result from physical, chemical, or radiant agents.

The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cero, cobia, little tunny, dolphin, and, in the Gulf of Mexico only, bluefish) is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

Based on the Councils' recommended total allowable catch and the allocation ratios in the FMP, on April 30, 2001 (66 FR 17368, March 30, 2001) NMFS implemented a commercial quota of 2.25 million lb (1.02 million kg) for the eastern zone (Florida) of the Gulf migratory group of king mackerel. That quota is further divided into separate quotas for the Florida east coast subzone and the northern and southern Florida west coast subzones. On April 27, 2000, NMFS implemented the final rule (65 FR 16336, March 28, 2000) that divided the Florida west coast subzone of the eastern zone into northern and southern subzones, and established their separate quotas. The quota newly implemented for the southern Florida west coast subzone is 1,040,625 lb (472,020 kg). That quota is further divided into two equal quotas of 520,312 lb (236,010 kg) for vessels in each of two groups fishing with hook-and-line gear and run-around gillnets (50 CFR 622.42(c)(1)(i)(A)( 2 )( i )).

In accordance with 50 CFR 622.44(a)(2)(ii)(B)( 2 ), from the date that 75 percent of the southern Florida west coast subzone's quota has been harvested until a closure of the subzone's fishery has been effected or the fishing year ends, king mackerel in or from the EEZ may be possessed on board or landed from a permitted vessel in amounts not exceeding 500 lb (227 kg) per day.

NMFS has determined that 75 percent of the quota for Gulf group king mackerel for vessels using hook-and-line gear in the southern Florida west coast subzone will be reached on March 10, 2002. Accordingly, a 500-lb (227-kg) trip limit applies to vessels in the commercial hook-and-line fishery for king mackerel in or from the EEZ in the southern Florida west coast subzone effective 12:01 a.m., local time, March 11, 2002. The 500-lb (227-kg) trip limit will remain in effect until the fishery closes or until the end of the current fishing year (June 30, 2002), whichever occurs first.

The Florida west coast subzone is that part of the eastern zone south and west of 25°20.4′ N. lat. (a line directly east from the Miami-Dade County, FL boundary). The Florida west coast subzone is further divided into northern and southern subzones. The southern subzone is that part of the Florida west coast subzone which from November 1 through March 31 extends south and west from 25°20.4′ N. lat. to 26°19.8′ N. lat.(a line directly west from the Lee/Collier County, FL boundary), i.e., the area off Collier and Monroe Counties. From April 1 through October 31, the southern subzone is that part of the Florida west coast subzone which is between 26°19.8′ N. lat. and 25°48′ N. lat.(a line directly west from the Monroe/Collier County, FL, boundary), i.e., the area off Collier County.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds that the need to immediately implement this action to reduce the trip limit constitutes good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Similarly, there is a need to implement these measures in a timely fashion to prevent an overrun of the commercial quota of Gulf group king mackerel, given the capacity of the fishing fleet to harvest the quota quickly. Any delay in implementing this action would be impractical and contradictory to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and the public interest. NMFS finds for good cause that the implementation of this action cannot be delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effective date is waived.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.44(a)(2)(iii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.