Effective October 1, 2001, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2001 reinstated TRICARE coverage for Medicare-eligible uniformed services retirees, their survivors and eligible dependents under the new TRICARE-for-Life program. TRICARE or TRICARE-for-Life coverage can be advantageous to many uniformed services beneficiaries who now are covered under the FEHB Program as Federal civilian annuitants, survivors, or former spouses.

Also, recent legislation, Public Law 107-14, provides beneficiaries over age 65 of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with coverage secondary to Medicare under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA). CHAMPVA provides similarly attractive benefits to VA eligible beneficiaries as those benefits provided to uniformed services beneficiaries under the TRICARE or new TRICARE-for-Life programs.

Under previous FEHB regulations, however, an annuitant, survivor, or former spouse who canceled his or her FEHB coverage to use CHAMPVA or TRICARE would not be allowed to return to FEHB coverage. Therefore, OPM is issuing these final regulations to allow these FEHB participants to suspend, rather than cancel, their FEHB coverage to use CHAMPVA or TRICARE or the new TRICARE-for-Life coverage. Under this rule, eligible individuals are allowed to return to FEHB coverage immediately if they involuntarily lose CHAMPVA or TRICARE or TRICARE-for-Life coverage or during a future FEHB Open Season.

We are also amending our regulations to clarify a similar situation involving FEHB-covered annuitants, survivors, and former spouses. The regulations allow an individual who drops FEHB coverage when he or she enrolls in a Medicare-sponsored plan, or in Medicaid or a similar State-sponsored program of medical assistance for the needy, to return to FEHB coverage during the annual Open Season or immediately upon being involuntarily disenrolled from the non-FEHB coverage.

On September 26, 2001, OPM published an interim regulation in the Federal Register (66 FR 49086). OPM received comments from a number of individuals as well as the Department of Veterans Affairs on the regulation. Three commenters were not sure if the regulation allowed surviving spouses of Federal annuitants to suspend their FEHB coverage to use TRICARE or TRICARE-for-Life. One commenter also wanted to know if a surviving spouse could reenroll in the FEHB Program if the annuitant passed away during the suspension period. The regulation authorizes a surviving spouse, who is eligible for health benefits coverage as a survivor annuitant, to suspend FEHB coverage while maintaining the right to reenroll in the future. In order to qualify for health benefit coverage as a survivor annuitant, a surviving spouse must have been enrolled as a family member under the annuitant's Self and Family enrollment and qualify to receive a portion of the annuitant's annuity upon his/her death. The regulation also allows individuals who become survivor annuitants during a period of suspended FEHB coverage to reenroll even though the survivor didn't make the original decision to suspend coverage. The survivor must have been enrolled under the annuitant's Self and Family coverage immediately preceding the annuitant's suspension of FEHB coverage and otherwise qualify as a survivor annuitant.

We received a comment from the VA stating that CHAMPVA provides the same or similar benefits to VA eligible beneficiaries as those benefits provided to TRICARE beneficiaries. Because of this, the VA believes that individuals eligible for CHAMPVA should be permitted to suspend FEHB coverage under the same conditions as those individuals eligible for TRICARE or TRICARE-for-Life. We agree with the VA and have revised the regulation to allow annuitants, survivors, and former spouses to suspend FEHB coverage with the right to reenroll in the future.

One commenter requested that we make the regulation retroactive to the effective date of the TRICARE-for-Life legislation. The commenter stated that many eligible individuals canceled rather than suspended their FEHB enrollments because that was the only option available at the time. The actual date that the new TRICARE-for-Life program became effective for medical, hospital, and surgical coverage was October 1, 2001. Our interim regulation was published and effective on September 26, 2001. Therefore, the authority to suspend, rather than cancel, was available to annuitants and former spouses on the effective date of TRICARE-for-Life coverage. We see no need to make further changes to the regulation's effective date.

One commenter requested that OPM give spouses of living civilian annuitants the opportunity to enroll in Self-Only coverage under the FEHB Program while allowing annuitants the opportunity to suspend FEHB coverage for TRICARE or TRICARE-for-Life. Another commenter requested that OPM give spouses of living annuitants the opportunity to suspend their FEHB enrollment with the right to reenroll in the FEHB Program in the future. Existing FEHB law does not authorize spouses of living employees or annuitants to enroll in the FEHB Program on their own behalf. Therefore, we cannot create this authority through regulation.

One commenter asked if active civil service employees could suspend their FEHB coverage to use TRICARE or TRICARE-for-Life. The regulation does not allow employees to suspend their coverage. This is because employees have always had the option of canceling their coverage with the right to reenroll in the FEHB Program during a future Open Season, or immediately if they involuntarily lose TRICARE coverage. In the past, annuitants, survivors, and former spouses never had the option to reenroll in the FEHB Program after leaving for TRICARE. Our new regulation creates this authority.

We have clarified the period for submitting suspension documentation to OPM and the effective date of suspensions. In the case of an involuntary disenrollment from non-FEHB coverage, if an eligible individual does not request to reenroll in the FEHB Program within the time period specified by the regulation, he or she must wait until the next Open Season to reenroll.

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulation only affects health insurance carriers under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

This regulation has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866.

The regulations in 7 CFR 301.50 through 301.50-10 (referred to below as the regulations) restrict the interstate movement of certain regulated articles from quarantined areas in order to prevent the spread of pine shoot beetle (PSB) into noninfested areas of the United States.

PSB is a pest of pine trees that can cause damage in weak and dying trees, where reproduction and immature stages of PSB occur. During “maturation feeding,” young beetles tunnel into the center of pine shoots (usually of the current year's growth), causing stunted and distorted growth in host trees. PSB is also a vector of several diseases of pine trees. Factors that may result in the establishment of PSB populations far from the location of the original host tree include: (1) Adults can fly at least 1 kilometer, and (2) infested trees and pine products are often transported long distances. This pest damages urban ornamental trees and can cause economic losses to the timber, Christmas tree, and nursery industries.

PSB hosts include all pine species. The beetle has been found in a variety of pine species (Pinus spp.) in the United States. Scotch pine ( P. sylvestris ) is the preferred host of PSB. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has determined, based on scientific data from European countries, that fir ( Abies spp.), larch ( Larix spp.), and spruce ( Picea spp.) are not hosts of PSB.

Surveys conducted by State and Federal inspectors revealed 11 additional areas infested with PSB in 6 States (Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin). Copies of the surveys may be obtained by writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The regulations in Sec. 301.50-3 provide that the Administrator of APHIS will list as a quarantined area each State, or each portion of a State, in which PSB has been found by an inspector, in which the Administrator has reason to believe PSB is present, or that the Administrator considers necessary to regulate because of its inseparability for quarantine enforcement purposes from localities in which PSB has been found.

In accordance with these criteria, we are designating Marshall and Tazewell Counties, IL; Brown, Fayette, Hendricks, and Owen Counties, IN; Franklin County, ME; Dickinson County, MI; Franklin and Monroe Counties, OH; and Kenosha County, WI, as quarantined areas, and we are adding them to the list of quarantined areas provided in § 301.50-3(c).

Entities affected by this interim rule may include nursery stock growers, Christmas tree farms, logging operations, and others who sell, process, or move regulated articles. As a result of this interim rule, any regulated articles to be moved interstate from a quarantined area must first be inspected and/or treated in order to qualify for a certificate or limited permit authorizing the movement.

This rulemaking is necessary on an emergency basis to prevent PSB from spreading to noninfested areas of the United States. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule ( see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the Federal Register . The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule as a result of the comments.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review process required by Executive Order 12866.

This emergency situation makes timely compliance with section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) impracticable. We are currently assessing the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. Based on that assessment, we will either certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or publish a final regulatory flexibility analysis.

This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. ( See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

This interim rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

This final rule is issued in conformance with Executive Order 12866. It was not determined to be significant or economically significant by the Office of Management and Budget.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this rule because the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking on the substance of this rule.

It has been determined by an environmental evaluation that this action will have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.

This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).

This rule contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) for State, local and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

The title and number of the Federal assistance program, as found in the Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance, to which this rule applies is as follows:

10.051—Commodity Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments.

This rule does not impact the information collection requirements of 7 CFR part 723 approved by OMB and assigned OMB control number 0560-0058.

This Final Rule will amend 7 CFR part 723 by implementing requirements of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, Pub. L. 106-78 (the Act), that allow transfer by sale of flue-cured tobacco allotment or quota across county lines if a majority of eligible producers so vote in a referendum.

Current regulations limit the Agency to approving only requests for sale of flue-cured tobacco from one farm to another farm located within the same county. The Act, however, permitted a transfer across county lines if a sufficient number of voting producers who own or grow the tobacco wanted it. The Act directed the Secretary to conduct a referendum within any State in which at least 25 percent of the active flue-cured producers in that State petitioned the Secretary to do so. Thus, the producers themselves would determine if the regulations would permit the sale of flue-cured tobacco across county lines.

More than the required 25 percent of active flue-cured tobacco producers in both Florida and Georgia requested a referendum. The Agency conducted the referenda in October 2001 and a majority of the eligible voters who voted in the referenda approved permitting the sale of flue-cured tobacco quota across county lines.

This rule is not published for notice and comment because it implements statutory and regulatory provisions which are binding on the Agency. Since the Agency does not have discretion in this matter, public comment would not be able to affect the provisions of the rule. Therefore the rule is published as final and effective upon publication.

This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

The Farm Service Agency (FSA) certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities and, therefore, is not required to perform a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 601). This rule does not impact the small entities to a greater extent than the large entities.

It is the determination of FSA that this action is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the environment. Therefore, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, and 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. In accordance with that Executive Order: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings in accordance with 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before requesting judicial review.

The notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983) found the programs and activities within this rule are excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. The rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined by title II of the UMRA, for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

This rule does not contain reporting or record keeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

These changes affect the following FSA programs as listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance:

Section 806 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (the 1999 Act) [Pub. L. 105-277] amended the maximum guaranteed loan limits for farm ownership (FO) and farm operating (OL) loans in §§ 305 and 313, respectively, of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) [7 U.S.C. 1925 and 1943, respectively]. The 1999 Act and this rule do not impact the maximum amounts of any other FSA farm loan programs; only guaranteed OL and FO loans are affected.

Prior to the 1999 Act, FSA guaranteed FO loans were limited to a maximum of $300,000 and guaranteed OLs were limited to $400,000. The 1999 Act increased these limits to a maximum of $700,000 per borrower for either guaranteed FO, guaranteed OL or a combination thereof, and requires an annual increase of the $700,000 maximum so that the loan limit keeps pace with inflation in the cost of farm inputs. The 1999 Act also defines the inflation adjustment as the percentage (if any) by which the average of the Prices Paid by Farmers Index (as compiled by the National Agricultural Statistics Service of the Department of Agriculture) for the 12-month period ending on August 31 of the immediately preceding fiscal year exceeds the average of this index for the 12-month period ending on August 31, 1996.

FSA published a final rule on February 12, 1999 (64 FR 7357-7403), revising the maximum guaranteed loan amounts in 7 CFR 762.122 in accordance with the 1999 Act. In accordance with the calculation prescribed in the 1999 Act, the maximum guaranteed loan amount increased to $717,000 effective October 1, 1999, then to $731,000 effective October 1, 2000, and most recently, to $759,000 effective October 1, 2001. These statutorily mandated increases were implemented internally with or without updating the regulation. Another increase is expected for October 1, 2002.

On January 24, 2001, FSA published a final rule (66 FR 7565-7568) that moved the regulations governing FSA guaranteed farm loan maximum dollar amounts from 7 CFR 762.122 to 7 CFR 761.8, and included the maximum amounts effective at that time. This rule will add language stating that the loan limits originally in effect for FY 2000 will be increased each year based on the percentage change in the Index and that the current maximum loan amount and the effective date of the limits will be available at all USDA Service Centers and on the FSA website at http://www.fsa.usda.gov. This change is made to maintain the accuracy of the regulations and provide the public with current loan limitations.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, the Agency has determined that a notice requesting public comment or a proposed rule is unnecessary for the amendments made in this rule because they are informational enhancements in the regulatory language, rather than substantive revisions to program requirements. Any public notification requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 will be met by making the maximum loan amounts available at any USDA Service Center nationwide and by listing them on the FSA website at http://www.fsa.usda.gov.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF; and 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes; was published in the Federal Register on November 27, 2001 (66 FR 59185). That action proposed to require modification of the right main landing gear and auto-speedbrake control system to provide an air/ground signal to the system.

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

One commenter agrees with the proposed rule.

One commenter (the airplane manufacturer) states that Boeing representatives have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-27A0130, Revision 1, dated October 11, 2001, and recommend that it be added to the final rule as another source of service information for doing certain actions for Model 757 series airplanes. The proposed rule cited Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-27A0130, dated August 31, 2000, as the proper source of service information for doing the specified actions.

The FAA agrees with the commenter. We have reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-27A0130, Revision 1, as an additional source of service information for doing certain modifications specified in this final rule. We find that the changes incorporated in Revision 1 of the service bulletin are not substantive, meaning that airplanes modified per the original issue of the service bulletin are not subject to any additional work under Revision 1 of the service bulletin. Although the functional test has been changed somewhat, if the test was done per the original issue of the service bulletin it need not be done again unless an Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System message is displayed on the pitot heat system. We have revised paragraph (a) of this final rule to refer to Revision 1 of the service bulletin as the appropriate source of service information for the actions in that paragraph applicable to Model 757 series airplanes. In addition, we have added a new Note 2 (and reordered subsequent notes accordingly) to give credit for modifications done before the effective date of this AD according to the original issue of the service bulletin.

One commenter asks that the compliance time of 36 months, as specified in paragraph (a) of the proposed rule, be extended. The commenter states that it supports the manufacturer's recommendation of “the earliest maintenance opportunity when manpower, materials, and facilities are available.” The commenter notes that incorporating a 36-month compliance time for the modifications into the current schedule for 101 Boeing Model 757 series airplanes will negatively impact the flying public, as it will reduce operating capacity by an estimated 30 airplanes. The commenter also estimates the cost of this project at $5,246,850 and recommends that a 54-month compliance time will allow affected airplanes to continue operation without compromising safety.

A second commenter asks that the compliance time specified in the proposed rule be extended to 5 years. The commenter states that this would meet the operator's heavy check schedule and avoid special visits or extended downtime of airplanes. The commenter adds that safety of flight will not be compromised because this issue has existed since 1985 (total of 827,918 flight cycles) without an incident.

A third commenter asks that the compliance time specified in the proposed rule be extended to 48 months. The commenter states that a very limited supply of certain kits needed to accomplish the required tasks is available. The commenter adds that in many cases there is a lead time of up to three weeks for reordering the kits. The commenter notes that, due to the number of airplanes affected, the effective date of the proposed rule should be determined after Boeing produces an adequate number of the kits.

We partially agree with the commenters. We find that an increase in the compliance time will not adversely affect safety, and will allow the required modifications to be completed during a regularly scheduled maintenance visit, and allow time for procurement of the required kits. We have revised paragraph (a) of this final rule to require accomplishment of the modifications within 60 months after the effective date of the AD. However, we do not agree that the effective date of the AD should be determined after production of the kits. The manufacturer has assured us that production of the kits will meet the compliance time specified in this final rule.

One commenter asks that Revision 2 of the referenced service bulletin be added to the proposed rule for doing the specified actions, although the original issue was cited in the proposed rule as the proper source of service information for doing those actions. The commenter states that several operators have requested additional changes to Revision 1 of the service bulletin (specified above) to clarify certain procedures in the accomplishment instructions and effectivity installations of components.

We do not agree with the commenter. Although we have confirmed with the manufacturer that Revision 1 of the service bulletin is being revised, that revision (Revision 2) is not yet completed. However, when that revision has been reviewed and approved by us, we would consider this option under the provisions for requesting approval of an alternative method of compliance in paragraph (b) of this final rule. No change is made to the final rule in this regard.

One commenter asks that a statement be added to the proposed rule or the referenced service information to state, “where inner and outer ferrules are called out in the service bulletin, an equivalent solder sleeve part number is acceptable.” The commenter adds that solder sleeves meet environmental and system temperature requirements.

We do not agree with the commenter. The manufacturer has informed us that the use of solder sleeves is not recommended due to fire safety concerns in the work area. No change is made to the final rule in this regard.

One commenter states that the actions specified in the proposed rule are not necessary for Model 757 series airplanes. The commenter notes that uncommanded deployment of the auto-speedbrake spoiler during flight was a repeated condition for a Model 767 series airplane, and was reported by one operator at a single geographical location. The commenter adds that the digital flight data recorder showed that the air/ground systems momentarily went into ground mode and the crew was able to recover control of the airplane. The commenter also adds that the manufacturer stated that the proximity switch electronic unit (PSEU) did not provide the critical auto-speedbrake system with the level of redundant protection against an unwanted auto-speedbrake spoiler extension. The commenter further notes that the PSEU auto-speedbrake system is designed with built-in redundancy, and, in order to prevent a critical single-point failure, both outputs from systems 1 and 2 must correspond for the PSEU to signal ground mode. The commenter asserts that there may have been external factors at the geographical location that contributed to this anomaly. Additionally, the commenter suggests that inferring that Model 757 and 767 series airplanes will respond similarly under the same circumstances is speculative and lacks supporting analysis. The commenter believes that this anomaly can be addressed effectively by appropriate flight crew notification and awareness through training.

We do not agree with the commenter. The auto-speedbrake systems for Model 757 and 767 series airplanes are equivalent in design and installation. Reliability of the Model 757 and 767 PSEUs is not adequate, as evidenced by the two incidents of in-flight auto-speedbrake deployment during landing approach that are identified in the proposed rule. This final rule will require operators to add a third signal to the auto-speedbrake that is independent of the PSEUs and that will increase redundancy of the system, in order to meet FAA regulations. No change is made to the final rule in this regard.

One commenter asks that gaining access and closeup of the airplane be added to the cost impact section of the proposed rule. The commenter states that this is a significant amount of work, and provides a breakdown of the cost estimates for each work package.

We do not agree with the commenter. We stated in the “Cost Impact” section of the NPRM that, “The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.” Thus, no change to the final rule is made in this regard.

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

There are approximately 1,654 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 583 Model 757 series airplanes and 292 Model 767 series airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. The work hours and cost estimates for the required modifications are listed below:

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

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

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

On September 5, 2000, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued Emergency airworthiness directive (AD) 2000-18-53, applicable to certain Textron Lycoming reciprocating engines. That AD requires the following:

• For engines with more than 50 hours time-since-new (TSN), time-since-overhaul (TSO), or time-since-last replacement of the oil filter plate gasket, replacement of the oil filter converter plate gasket part number (P/N) LW-13388, or the converter plate kit P/N LW-13904.

• For engines with fewer than 50 hours TSN, TSO, or time-since-last replacement of the oil filter converter plate gasket P/N LW-13388, or the converter plate kit P/N LW-13904, inspection of the oil filter base for signs of oil leakage and evidence of gasket extrusion.

• Replacement of converter plate gasket P/N LW-13388 at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS since the last replacement of the gasket. The actions are required to be done in accordance with Textron Lycoming Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) 543A, dated August 30, 2000 and Textron Lycoming Service Instruction No. 1453, dated May 9, 1991.

Since emergency AD 2000-18-53 was issued, Textron Lycoming has issued a service bulletin supplement that relieves the requirements of MSB 543A and that eliminates the need for gasket replacement every 50 ours TSN, TSO, or time since the last replacement.

The FAA has reviewed and approved the technical contents of the following Textron Lycoming Service Information:

• MSB 543A, dated August 30, 2000, and SI No. 1453, dated May 9, 1991, that provide instructions for replacing the oil filter converter plate gasket P/N LW-13388, or the converter plate kit P/N LW-13904.

• Supplement No. 1 to MSB 543A, dated October 4, 2000, that describes procedures for replacing the oil filter converter plate gasket P/N LW-13388, or the converter plate kit P/N LW-13904, with a new improved design.

Since the unsafe condition described is likely to exist or develop on other engines of the same type design, the FAA issued emergency AD 2000-18-53 to prevent complete loss of engine oil and subsequent seizing of the engine and possible fire, caused by oil leakage between the converter plate and accessory housing. This AD requires for engines listed that were shipped from the factory between April 1, 1999 and October 4, 2000, and any engine listed that had the oil filter converter plate gasket replaced with gasket P/N LW-13388, and, any engine listed that had the oil filter converter plate replaced with converter plate kit P/N LW-13904, the following:

• Before further flight after the effective date of this AD, for engines with more than 50 hours TSN or TSO, or time-since-last replacement of the oil filter plate gasket P/N LW-13388, replacement of the oil filter converter plate gasket or the converter plate kit P/N LW-13904.

• Within 10 hours TIS or within 3 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs earlier, for engines with fewer than 50 hours TSN, TSO, or time-since-last replacement of the oil filter converter plate gasket P/N LW-13388, or the converter plate kit P/N LW-13904, inspection of the oil filter base for signs of oil leakage and evidence of gasket extrusion.

• Replacement of the converter plate gasket P/N LW-13388 at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS since the last replacement of the gasket.

• As terminating action to the repetitive gasket replacement specified in this AD, replacement of the oil filter converter plate gasket or the oil filter converter plate with a converter plate kit, in accordance with Part II and Part III of Textron Lycoming Supplement 1 to MSB 543A, dated October 4, 2000.

Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required, notice and opportunity for prior public comment thereon were impracticable and contrary to the public interest, and good cause existed to make the AD effective immediately on September 5, 2000 to all known U.S. owners and operators of the affected Textron Lycoming reciprocating engines. These conditions still exist, and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to Section 39.13 of part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to make it effective to all persons.

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 2000-NE-36-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 .

There have been 22 reported spur gearshaft (bull gear) rim separations and 25 HSP assembly failures in Honeywell TPE331-11 and -12 series turboprop engines. These failures caused a prop gear train disconnection from the power group and most resulted in in-flight shutdowns. Three of the six bull gear separations in TPE331-11U series engines occurred after the bull gears had previously been operated in TPE331-12UA, -12UA, or -12UHR series engines. There have been 10 incidents of gear fragments penetrating the gearbox housing in 16 of the bull gear rim separation events in TPE331-12UA, -12UA, or -12UHR series engines. Similarly, there have been three reported incidents of gear fragments penetrating the gearbox housing in six of the bull gear rim separation events in TPE331-11U series engines. In one case in a TPE331-11U series engine and in two cases in TPE331-12 series engines, oil was ingested through the inlet after the uncontained gear fragmentation that resulted in surge, uncommanded engine shutdown, and secondary engine damage. In addition, there have been five incidents of gearbox debris or uncontained bull gear fragments being ejected from the engine's inlet which were then struck by the propeller and redirected against the aircraft fuselage. In one of these incidents, a bull gear fragment from a TPE331-12UAR series engine penetrated the cabin.

The FAA has determined that high loading between the bull gear and HSP gears, bull gear tooth profile, and distortion of the intermediate gearbox housings cause abnormal gear wear and subsequent failures of the bull gear and HSP. Even though the gearbox in the TPE331-12 series engine is similar to the TPE331-11U series engine, the TPE331-12 series engines, which have experienced more failures than TPE331-11U series engines, have accumulated more time at higher load than in the TPE331-11U series engine. In addition, coatings used for vibration dampening, and surface finish may influence bull gear tooth wear. This condition, if not corrected, could result in separation of the bull gear and uncontainment of low energy fragments that can damage the engine or the aircraft and may injure passengers. Also, engine surge or uncontained rotor overspeed due to oil ingestion through the engine inlet may occur. The FAA has determined that abnormal gear wear can be detected using Spectrometric Oil Analysis Program (SOAP) sampling and SOAP trend assessment.

The FAA has determined that Honeywell's automated trend assessment program is the best method to predict the premature failure of the bull gear. Honeywell's trend assessment program dictates a particular format for data from each SOAP test sample. That format is used by Honeywell's approved SOAP labs and the labs have met all the testing procedures, standards, reporting requirements established by the FAA. In addition, the Honeywell approved SOAP labs have demonstrated the necessary speed and efficiency in determining the sample's acceptance, and in transferring data to Honeywell's automated trend assessment program. Therefore, the FAA is requiring that operators use Honeywell's approved SOAP labs in order to allow the use of Honeywell's trend assessment program, thereby increasing the likelihood that a premature failure of a bull gear will be identified before failure.

Due to the continued operation of gears that are misaligned, high-cycle fatigue damage of the bull gear, HSP, and the torque shaft assembly with its nut and pin may occur and may be undetectable. The FAA has determined that these components will never be serviceable for continued aircraft use. However, bull gears and HSP's that are removed as unserviceable during subsequent recurrent inspections after improved gearbox alignment may be retained as matched sets for possible future aircraft use. After the publication of this AD, the FAA might in the future, permit gears removed during recurrent and unscheduled inspections to be returned to service after appropriate inspections. However, Honeywell has informed the FAA that they will not provide acceptance criteria for returning these parts to service.

The FAA has reviewed and approved the technical contents of the following Honeywell International Inc. Alert Service Bulletins (ASB):

• TPE331-A79-0034, Revision 3, dated October 2, 2001 or Revision 4 dated April 5, 2002 describes procedures for a repetitive engine oil and filter SOAP sampling and assessment and lists Honeywell's Authorized SOAP Labs.

• TPE331-A72-2087 dated October 10, 2001 and Revision 1 dated November 16, 2001; TPE331-A72-2088 dated October 10, 2001, Revision 1 dated November 16, 2001, and Revision 2, dated February 20, 2002; TPE331-A72-2092 dated October 10, 2001 and Revision 1 dated November 16, 2001; and TPE331-A72-2093 dated October 10, 2001 and Revision 1 dated November 16, 2001 describe procedures for the inspection and replacement of gearbox components.

• TPE331-72-2090RWK dated October 10, 2001, TPE331-72-2091RWK dated October 10, 2001; TPE331-72-2094RWK dated October 10, 2001; and TPE331-72-2095RWK dated October 10, 2001, describe procedures for the rework of gearbox components.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other Honeywell International Inc. (formerly AlliedSignal Inc. and Garrett Turbine Engine Company) TPE331-11U, -12B, -12JR, -12UA, -12UAR, and -12UHR series turboprop engines of the same type design, this AD is being issued to prevent bull gear rim separations and HSP assembly failures from abnormal gear wear, which could result in uncontained gearbox fragmentation, in-flight shutdowns, and engine rotor overspeed events by requiring:

• Repetitive SOAP and filter analyses combined with special trend assessments, and

• Repetitive inspections of certain gearbox components, replacement of specific gears, and if necessary, the rework of gearbox components.

These actions must be done in accordance with the service bulletins 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. 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-39-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.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30 airplanes was published as a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on March 21, 2002 (67 FR 13111). That action proposed to require installation of two arcing protection brackets below and behind the circuit breakers located in the generator control rack in the electrical/electronics compartment.

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.

After careful review of the available data, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed by the supplemental NPRM.

There are approximately 26 Model MD-90-30 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 13 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $200 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $4,160, or $320 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 .

The collections of information contained in these regulations have been previously reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number 1545-1685.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.

Books and records relating to a 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.

This document amends 26 CFR parts 1 and 301 to provide modified rules relating to the disclosure of reportable transactions by certain individuals, trusts, partnerships, S corporations, and other corporations on their Federal income tax returns under section 6011 and the registration of confidential corporate tax shelters under section 6111.

On February 28, 2000, the IRS issued temporary and proposed regulations regarding section 6011 (TD 8877, REG-103735-00), section 6111 (TD 8876, REG-110311-98), and section 6112 (TD 8875, REG-103736-00)(collectively, the February regulations). The February regulations were published in the Federal Register (65 FR 11205, 65 FR 11215, 65 FR 11211) on March 2, 2000. On August 11, 2000, the IRS issued temporary and proposed regulations regarding sections 6011, 6111, and 6112 (TD 8896, REG-103735-00, REG-110311-98, REG-103736-00) (collectively, the August 2000 regulations). The August 2000 regulations were published in the Federal Register (65 FR 49909) on August 16, 2000, modifying the February regulations. On August 2, 2001, the IRS issued temporary and proposed regulations regarding sections 6011, 6111, and 6112 (TD 8961, REG-103735-00, REG-110311-98, REG-103736-00) (collectively, the August 2001 regulations). The August 2001 regulations were published in the Federal Register (66 FR 41133) on August 7, 2001, further modifying the February 2000 regulations.

The rules under sections 6011, 6111, and 6112 are designed to provide the IRS and Treasury with information needed to evaluate potentially abusive transactions. The IRS and Treasury have considered and evaluated compliance with the disclosure, registration, and list maintenance requirements under sections 6011, 6111, and 6112 and have determined that certain additional changes to the temporary and proposed regulations are necessary to improve compliance with the regulations and to carry out the purposes of sections 6011, 6111, and 6112. The IRS and Treasury continue to evaluate all the comments and recommendations received. Moreover, the IRS and Treasury intend to make substantial additional changes to the rules under sections 6011, 6111, and 6112 in order to establish a more effective disclosure regime and to improve compliance as announced in Treasury's Plan to Combat Abusive Tax Avoidance Transactions (PO-2018), released on March 20, 2002. See http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/ po2018.htm .

Section 1.6011-4T generally provides that certain corporate taxpayers must disclose their participation in listed and other reportable transactions that meet the projected tax effect test by attaching a written statement to their Federal income tax returns. It has been determined that a number of these transactions are entered into by noncorporate taxpayers. Accordingly, in order to obtain information regarding potentially abusive transactions entered into by noncorporate taxpayers, the requirement to disclose under § 1.6011-4T is extended to individuals, trusts, partnerships, and S corporations that participate, directly or indirectly, in listed transactions. Thus, if a partnership or an S corporation participates in a listed transaction, that partnership or S corporation must disclose its participation under § 1.6011-4T and the partners and shareholders of the partnership or S corporation, respectively, also must disclose their participation under § 1.6011-4T. The IRS and Treasury plan to extend in future guidance the requirement to disclose under § 1.6011-4T to other reportable transactions entered into by individuals, trusts, partnerships, and S corporations.

Section 1.6011-4T makes reference to taxpayers who participate directly or indirectly in reportable transactions. In order to obtain information about potentially abusive transactions entered into by taxpayers, the IRS and Treasury have provided clarification regarding indirect participation in a reportable transaction. A taxpayer will have indirectly participated in a reportable transaction if the taxpayer knows or has reason to know that the tax benefits claimed from the taxpayer's transaction are derived from a reportable transaction. However, this clarification does not imply that a taxpayer's participation in a transaction did not otherwise qualify as indirect participation in a reportable transaction for purposes of § 1.6011-4T, as in effect prior to June 14, 2002.

For example, Notice 95-53 (1995-2 C.B. 334), describes a lease stripping transaction in which one party (the transferor) assigns the right to receive future payments under a lease of tangible property and receives consideration which the transferor treats as current income. The transferor later transfers the property subject to the lease in a transaction intended to qualify as a substituted basis transaction, for example, a transaction described in section 351. In return, the transferor receives stock (with low value and high basis) from the transferee corporation. The transferee corporation claims the deductions associated with the high basis property subject to the lease. The transferor and transferee corporation have directly participated in the listed transaction. If the transferor subsequently transfers the high basis/low value stock to a taxpayer in another transaction intended to qualify as a substituted basis transaction and the taxpayer uses the stock to generate a loss, and if the taxpayer knows or has reason to know that the tax loss claimed was derived from the lease stripping transaction, then the taxpayer is indirectly participating in a reportable transaction. Accordingly, the taxpayer must disclose the reportable transaction and the manner of the taxpayer's indirect participation in the reportable transaction under the provisions of § 1.6011-4T.

Sections 1.6011-4T and 301.6111-2T make reference to substantially similar transactions. Some taxpayers and promoters have applied the substantially similar standard in an overly narrow manner to avoid disclosure. For instance, some taxpayers and promoters have made subtle and insignificant changes to a listed transaction in order to claim that their transactions are not subject to disclosure. Others have taken the position that their transaction is not substantially similar to a listed transaction because they have an opinion concluding that their transaction is proper. The IRS and Treasury believe that these interpretations are improper. Accordingly, the regulations are modified in § 1.6011-4T and § 301.6111-2T to clarify that the term substantially similar includes any transaction that is expected to obtain the same or similar types of tax benefits and that is either factually similar or based on the same or similar tax strategy. Further, the term substantially similar must be broadly construed in favor of disclosure. This modification does not imply that a transaction was not otherwise the same as or substantially similar to a listed transaction prior to this modification.

For example, Notice 2000-44 (2000-2 C.B. 255), sets forth a listed transaction involving offsetting options transferred to a partnership where the taxpayer claims basis in the partnership for the cost of the purchased options but does not reduce basis under section 752 as a result of the partnership's assumption of the taxpayer's obligation with respect to the options. Transactions using short sales, futures, derivatives or any other type of offsetting obligations to inflate basis in a partnership interest would be the same as or substantially similar to the transaction described in Notice 2000-44. Moreover, use of the inflated basis in the partnership interest to diminish gain that would otherwise be recognized on the transfer of a partnership asset would also be the same as or substantially similar to the transaction described in Notice 2000-44.

As another example, Notice 2001-16 (2001-1 C.B. 730), sets forth a listed transaction involving a seller (X) who desires to sell stock of a corporation (T), an intermediary corporation (M), and a buyer (Y) who desires to purchase the assets (and not the stock) of T. M agrees to facilitate the sale to prevent the recognition of the gain that T would otherwise report. Notice 2001-16 describes M as a member of a consolidated group that has a loss within the group or as a party not subject to tax. Transactions utilizing different intermediaries to prevent the recognition of gain would be the same as or substantially similar to the transaction described in Notice 2001-16. An example is a transaction in which M is a corporation that does not file a consolidated return but which buys T stock, liquidates T, sells assets of T to Y, and offsets the gain recognized on the sale of those assets with currently generated losses.

Section 1.6011-4T provides that a reportable transaction is a transaction that meets the projected tax effect test and is either a listed transaction or a transaction that has at least two of five specified characteristics. Under § 1.6011-4T, the projected tax effect test for listed transactions is met if the taxpayer reasonably estimates that the transaction will reduce the taxpayer's Federal income tax liability by more than $1 million in any single taxable year or by a total of more than $2 million for any combination of taxable years in which the transaction is expected to have the effect of reducing the taxpayer's Federal income tax liability. The IRS and Treasury have determined that the projected tax effect test for listed transactions results in inadequate disclosure. Accordingly, the projected tax effect test will no longer apply to listed transactions. Thus, any individual, trust, partnership, S corporation, or other corporation that participates in a listed transaction must report it under the provisions of § 1.6011-4T.

In general, the disclosure statement for a reportable transaction must be attached to the taxpayer's Federal income tax return for each taxable year for which the taxpayer's Federal income tax liability is affected by the taxpayer's participation in the transaction. In the case of a taxpayer that is a partnership or an S corporation, the disclosure statement for a listed transaction must be attached to the taxpayer's Federal income tax return for each taxable year ending with or within the taxable year of any partner or shareholder whose income tax liability is affected or is reasonably expected to be affected by the partnership's or the S corporation's participation in the transaction. In addition, at the same time that the disclosure statement is first attached to the taxpayer's Federal income tax return, the taxpayer must file a copy of that disclosure statement with the Office of Tax Shelter Analysis.

If a transaction becomes a reportable transaction (e.g., the transaction subsequently becomes one identified in published guidance as a listed transaction described in § 1.6011-4T(b)(2), or there is a change in facts affecting the expected Federal income tax effect of the transaction) on or after the date the taxpayer has filed the return for the first taxable year for which the transaction affected the taxpayer's or a partner's or a shareholder's Federal income tax liability, the disclosure statement must be filed as an attachment to the taxpayer's Federal income tax return next filed after the date the transaction becomes a reportable transaction (whether or not the transaction affects the taxpayer's or any partner's or shareholder's Federal income tax liability for that year) and at that time a copy of that disclosure statement must be filed with the Office of Tax Shelter Analysis. Notwithstanding the effective date of these regulations, for purposes of § 1.6011-4T, as in effect prior to June 14, 2002, a corporate taxpayer was required to disclose a transaction that later became reportable on the corporation's next filed Federal income tax return even if the transaction did not affect the corporation's Federal income tax liability for that year.

Regardless of whether the taxpayer plans to disclose the transaction under other published guidance, for example, Rev. Proc. 94-69 (1994-2 C.B. 804), the taxpayer also must disclose the transaction in the time and manner provided for under the provisions of this regulation. Notwithstanding the effective date of these regulations, a corporate taxpayer was required to disclose a transaction in the time and manner provided for in § 1.6011-4T in effect prior to June 14, 2002, regardless of whether the taxpayer planned to disclose the transaction under other published guidance.

The regulations are applicable June 14, 2002.

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. It is hereby certified that the collection of information in these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based upon the fact that the time required to prepare or retain the disclosure is minimal and will not have a significant impact on those small entities that are required to provide disclosure. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, these regulations will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

The principal authors of these regulations are Danielle M. Grimm and Tara P. Volungis, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. This rule consists only of corrections and editorial and conforming amendments to title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These changes will have no substantive effect on the public; therefore, it is not necessary for us to publish an NPRM and providing an opportunity for public comment. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that, for the same reasons, good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

Each year title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations is recodified on July 1. This rule makes editorial changes throughout the title, corrects organization names and addresses, and makes other technical and editorial corrections to be included in the recodification. It does not change any substantive requirements of existing regulations. Some editorial changes are discussed individually in the following three paragraphs.

Sections 3.25-10 and 3.25-20. These sections are amended to reflect an administrative change in the boundaries between the two marine inspection and captain of the port zones defined in these sections.

Sections 110.236 and 110.237. These sections are amended to convert geographic coordinates from Old Hawaiian Datum (OHD) to North American Datum 1983 (NAD83). Current charts reference NAD83 and NAD83 is used by the Global Positioning System (GPS).

Section 117.1041. This section is revised to reflect a name change in a bridge.

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). We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. As this rule involves internal agency practices and procedures and non-substantive changes, it will not impose any costs on the public.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(a) and (b) of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. These regulations are editorial or procedural and concern internal agency functions and organization. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM, and, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Information was made available to the Coast Guard in insufficient time to publish a NPRM or for publication in the Federal Register 30 days prior to the event. Publishing an NPRM and delaying its effective date would be contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to protect vessels and mariners from the hazards associated with a fireworks display.

The Captain of the Port Huntington, is establishing a safety zone between miles 269.0 and 270.0 of the Ohio River, extending the entire width of the river. This safety zone is needed to protect spectators and vessels from the potential safety hazards associated with a fireworks display. All vessels are prohibited from transiting within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Huntington or his designated representative.

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).

The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This regulation will only be in effect for a short period of time and notifications to the marine community will be made through broadcast notice to mariners. The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit portions of the Ohio River from miles 269.0 to 270.0, from 10 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2002. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because this rule will be in effect for only a short period of time and mariners will be notified in advance of the zone through broadcast notice to mariners.

If you are a small business entity and are significantly affected by this regulation please contact Chief Petty Officer Rick Leffler, Marine Safety Office Huntington at (304) 529-5524.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM, and, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Information was made available to the Coast Guard in insufficient time to publish an NPRM or for publication in the Federal Register 30 days prior to the event. Publishing an NPRM and delaying its effective date would be contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to protect vessels and mariners from the hazards associated with a fireworks display.

The Captain of the Port Huntington is establishing a safety zone between miles 252.0 and 253.0 of the Ohio River, extending the entire width of the river. This safety zone is needed to protect spectators and vessels from the potential safety hazards associated with a fireworks display. All vessels and persons are prohibited from transiting within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Huntington or his designated representative.

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).

The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This regulation will only be in effect for a short period of time and notifications to the marine community will be made through broadcast notice to mariners. The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit portions of the Ohio River from miles 252.0 to 253.0, from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2002. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because this rule will be in effect for only a short period of time and mariners will be notified in advance of the zone through broadcast notice to mariners.

If you are a small business entity and are significantly affected by this regulation please contact Chief Petty Officer Rick Leffler, Marine Safety Office Huntington at (304) 529-5524.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

Due to the terrorist attacks of September 2001, and continued warnings from national security and intelligence officials that future terrorist attacks are possible, there is an increased risk that subversive activity could be launched by vessels or persons against the United States. In September 2001, the Commander, Naval Station Norfolk requested vessel speed limits for certain vessels operating in the vicinity of Naval Station Norfolk to ensure the safety and security of naval vessels in that area.

On October 24, 2001, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule entitled, “Regulated Navigation Area; Chesapeake Bay Entrance and Hampton Roads, VA and Adjacent Waters,” in the Federal Register (66 FR 53712). The temporary rule added vessel speed limits for certain vessels operating in the vicinity of Naval Station Norfolk, to the existing regulated navigation area for the Chesapeake Bay entrance and Hampton Roads, VA and adjacent waters.

We are extending the effective period of the temporary final rule so that we can complete a rulemaking to permanently change the regulated navigation area at the entrance to Chesapeake Bay and Hampton Roads, VA. Extending the effective date of the temporary rule until December 15, 2002, should provide us enough time to complete the rulemaking.

Due to the increased awareness that future terrorist attacks are possible, the Coast Guard, as lead federal agency for maritime homeland security, has determined that the District Commander must have the means to be aware of, deter, detect, intercept, and respond to asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by terrorists on the American homeland while still maintaining our freedoms and sustaining the flow of commerce. A regulated navigation area is a tool available to the Coast Guard that may be used to control vessel traffic by specifying times of vessel entry, movement, or departure to, from, within, or through ports, harbors, or other waters.

On December 27, 2001, we published a temporary final rule entitled, “Regulated Navigation Area; Chesapeake Bay Entrance and Hampton Roads, VA and Adjacent Waters,” in the Federal Register (66 FR 66753). The temporary rule expanded the geographic definition of the Hampton Roads regulated navigation area to include the waters of the 12 nautical mile territorial sea off the Coast of Virginia and added new port security measures.

We are also extending the effective period of this temporary final rule so that we can complete a rulemaking to permanently change the regulated navigation area at the entrance to Chesapeake Bay and Hampton Roads, VA. Extending the effective date of the temporary rule until December 15, 2002, should provide us enough time to complete the rulemaking.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this rule and it is being made effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . When we promulgated these rules on October 24, 2001, and December 27, 2001, we intended to either allow them to expire on June 15, 2002, or to cancel them if we made permanent changes before this date. We are now preparing an NPRM to make permanent changes to the regulated navigation area. That rulemaking will follow the normal notice and comment procedures, and a final rule should be published before December 15, 2002. Continuing the temporary rule in effect while the permanent rulemaking is in progress will help to ensure the security of the Chesapeake Bay and the Port of Hampton Roads during that period. Therefore, the Coast Guard finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3) for why a notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for comment is not required and why this rule will be made effective fewer than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This temporary rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget 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).

This temporary final rule will affect only those vessels in excess of 300 GT that enter and depart the Port of Hampton Roads. The speed limit restrictions are only in effect for less than 4 miles, and typical vessel speed in 10 knots, so the actual delay for each vessel will be less than 6 minutes in each direction. Therefore, the delay caused by the two-knot reduction in speed will be minimal. Furthermore, we have received no comments to date from affected parties. In sum, we expect the economic impact of this temporary final rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this temporary rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. “Small entities” include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This rule was not preceded by a general notice of proposed rulemaking and, therefore, is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Although this rule is exempt, we have reviewed it for potential economic impact on small entities.

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. section 605(b) that this temporary rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you believe that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this temporary rule will have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) explaining why you believe it qualifies and in what way and to what degree this temporary rule will economically affect it.

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

This temporary rule does not provide for a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on state or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this temporary 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 temporary rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this temporary rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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

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

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

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

To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes, we published a notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 36361, July 11, 2001) requesting comments on how to best carry out the Order. We invite your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the Order.

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

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this temporary final rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this temporary final rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This temporary rule seeks to continue to modify a well-established regulated navigation area, and will be in effect for another 6 months. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

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, which would incorporate a comment period before a final rule could be issued, would be contrary to the public interest since the Captain of the Port of Jacksonville has determined that immediate action is needed to protect the public, ports and waterways of the United States.

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 .

On September 12, 2001, one day after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Coast Guard established a temporary rule establishing security zones around tank vessels, passenger vessels, and military pre-positioned ships until October 3, 2001 (published on September 26, 2001, 66 FR 49104). Following these attacks by well-trained and clandestine terrorists, national security and intelligence officials have warned that future terrorists attacks are likely. As a result, on October 17, 2001, the Coast Guard published a second temporary rule in the Federal Register continuing these zones through 11:59 p.m. June 15, 2002 (66 FR 52689). This third temporary rule will continue the zones through noon on November 15, 2002 so the Coast Guard can publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to receive public comment on making this temporary rule final.

This temporary rule creates 100-yard security zones around all tank vessels, cruise ships, and military pre-positioned ships when these vessels enter, depart or moor within the Ports of Jacksonville and Canaveral. No person or vessel may enter these zones without the permission of the Captain of the Port of Jacksonville. These moving security zones are activated when the subject vessels pass the St. Johns River Sea Buoy, at approximate position 30° 23″ 35′ N, 81° 19″ 08′ West, when entering the Port of Jacksonville, or pass Port Canaveral Channel Entrance Buoys # 3 or # 4, at respective approximate positions 28° 22.7 N, 80° 31.8 W, and 28° 23.7 N, 80° 29.2 W, when entering Port Canaveral. Temporary fixed security zones are established 100 yards around all tank vessels, cruise ships, and military pre-positioned ships docked in the Ports of Jacksonville and Canaveral, Florida.

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 the impact of this rule on commercial and recreational vessel navigation is minimal because most vessels will be able to transit around these zone and the Captain of the Port may permit entry into the zone on a case by case basis.

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 transit around these zones and 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 Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

This rule calls for no new collection of information 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. Alhough 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 create 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.

On January 9, 2002, we published a temporary final rule for Port Hueneme Harbor entitled “Security Zone; Port Hueneme Harbor, Ventura County, California” in the Federal Register (67 FR 1097) under § 165.T11-060. The effective period for this rule was from December 21, 2001, through June 15, 2002.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Due to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and the warnings given by national security and intelligence officials, there is an increased risk that further subversive or terrorist activity may be launched against the United States. A heightened level of security has been established around naval facilities. The original TFR was urgently required to prevent possible terrorist strikes against the United States and more specifically the people, waterways, and properties in Port Hueneme Harbor and the Naval Base Ventura County. It was anticipated that we would assess the security environment at the end of the effective period to determine whether continuing security precautions were required and, if so, propose regulations responsive to existing conditions. We have determined the need for continued security regulations exists.

The Coast Guard has determined that designation of a restricted area by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) under 33 CFR 334 is a more appropriate regulation in this case. A formal request has been submitted by the U.S. Navy to ACOE in order to begin public notice. The ACOE will utilize the extended effective period of this TFR to engage in notice and comment rulemaking to develop permanent regulations tailored to the present and foreseeable security environment. This TFR preserves the status quo within the harbor while permanent rules are developed.

For the reasons stated in the paragraphs above under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard also finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

On September 11, 2001, terrorists launched attacks on commercial and public structures—the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia—killing large numbers of people and damaging properties of national significance. There is an increased risk that further subversive or terrorist activity may be launched against the United States based on warnings given by national security and intelligence officials. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has issued warnings on October 11, 2001 and February 11, 2002 concerning the potential for additional terrorist attacks within the United States. In addition, the ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan have made it prudent for important facilities and vessels to be on a higher state of alert because Osama Bin Ladin and his Al Qaeda organization, and other similar organizations, have publicly declared an ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide.

These heightened security concerns, together with the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against a Naval Facility would have to the public interest, makes these security zones prudent on the navigable waterways of the United States. To mitigate the risk of terrorist actions, the Coast Guard has increased safety and security measures on the navigable waterways of U.S. ports and waterways as further attacks may be launched from vessels within the area of Port Hueneme Harbor and the Naval Base Ventura County.

In response to these terrorist acts, to prevent similar occurrences, and to protect the Naval Facilities at Port Hueneme Harbor and the Naval Base Ventura County, the Coast Guard will extend the period of this security zone in all waters within Port Hueneme Harbor. This security zone is necessary to prevent damage or injury to any vessel or waterfront facility, and to safeguard ports, harbors, or waters of the United States in Port Hueneme Harbor, Ventura County CA.

As of today, the need for a security zone in Port Hueneme Harbor still exists. This temporary final rule will extend the Port Hueneme security zone issued December 21, 2001 to June 15, 2003. This will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to utilize the extended effective period of this TFR to engage in notice and comment rulemaking to develop permanent regulations tailored to the present and foreseeable security environment. This revision preserves the status quo within the Port Hueneme Harbor while permanent rules are developed.

This regulation that is extending the current security zone, prohibits all vessels from entering Port Hueneme Harbor, beyond the COLREGS demarcation line set forth in Subpart 80.1120 of Part 80 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, without first filing a proper Advance Notification of Arrival as required by part 160 of title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations as well as obtaining clearance from Commanding Officer, Naval Base Ventura County “Control 1”.

This security zone is established pursuant to the authority of the Magnuson Act regulations promulgated by the President under 50 U.S.C. 191, including subparts 6.01 and 6.04 of part 6 of title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Vessels or persons violating this section are subject to the penalties set forth in 50 U.S.C. 192: seizure and forfeiture of the vessel, a monetary penalty of not more than $10,000, and imprisonment for not more than 10 years.

This rule will be enforced by the Captain of the Port Los Angeles-Long Beach, who may also enlist the aid and cooperation of any Federal, State, county, municipal, and private agencies to assist in the enforcement of this rule. Commanding Officer, Naval Base Ventura County “Control 1” will control vessel traffic entering Port Hueneme Harbor.

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 this zone will encompass a small portion of the waterway.

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

For the same reasons stated in the section above, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could 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 Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation because we are establishing a security zone. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

Pursuant to Section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 31 U.S.C. 3701 note, (“DCIA”), each Federal agency is required to issue regulations adjusting for inflation the maximum civil monetary penalties that can be imposed pursuant to such agency's statutes. The purpose of these adjustments is to maintain the deterrent effect of CMPs and to further the policy goals of the laws. The DCIA requires adjustments to be made at least once every four years following the initial adjustment. The EPA's initial adjustment to each CMP was published in the Federal Register on December 31, 1996, at 61 FR 69360 and became effective on January 30, 1997.

This direct final rule adjusts the amount for each type of CMP that EPA has jurisdiction to impose in accordance with these statutory requirements. It does so by revising the table contained in 40 CFR 19.4. The table identifies the statutes that provide EPA with CMP authority and sets out the inflation-adjusted maximum penalty that EPA may impose pursuant to each statutory provision. This direct final rule also revises the effective date provisions of 40 CFR 19.2 to make the penalty amounts set forth set forth in 40 CFR 19.4 apply to all violations under the applicable statutes and regulations which occur after August 19, 2002 without further notice unless we receive adverse comment.

The DCIA requires that the adjustment reflect the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index between June of the calendar year preceding the adjustment and June of the calendar year in which the amount was last set or adjusted. The DCIA defines the Consumer Price Index as the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers published by the Department of Labor (“CPI-U”). As the initial adjustment was made and published on December 31, 1996, the inflation adjustment for the CMPs was calculated by comparing the CPI-U for June 1996 (156.7) with the CPI-U for June 2001 (178), resulting in an inflation adjustment of 13.6 percent. In addition, the DCIA's rounding rules require that an increase be rounded to the nearest multiple of: $10 in the case of penalties less than or equal to $100; $100 in the case of penalties greater than $100 but less than or equal to $1,000; $1,000 in the case of penalties greater than $1,000 but less than or equal to $10,000; $5,000 in the case of penalties greater than $10,000 but less than or equal to $100,000; $10,000 in the case of penalties greater than $100,000 but less than or equal to $200,000; and $25,000 in the case of penalties greater than $200,000.

The amount of each CMP was multiplied by 13.6 percent (the inflation adjustment) and the resulting increase amount was rounded up or down according to the rounding requirements of the statute. The increase amount is rounded using a rounding rule based on the amount of the increase. For example, for a CMP of $27,500, the increase of $3,740 would be rounded to the nearest multiple of $1000 resulting in a total increase of $4000. The table below shows the inflation-adjusted CMPs and includes only the CMPs as of the effective date of this rule. EPA intends to readjust these amounts in the year 2005 and every four years thereafter, assuming there are no further changes to the mandate imposed by the DCIA.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comment. This rule incorporates requirements specifically set forth in the DCIA requiring EPA to issue a regulation implementing inflation adjustments for all its civil penalty provisions. These technical changes, required by law, do not substantively alter the existing regulatory framework nor in any way affect the terms under which civil penalties are assessed by EPA. In addition, EPA has made minor conforming changes to the regulations to reflect the effective date of the new rates prescribed by Congress which have no substantive effect.

The formula for the amount of the penalty adjustment is prescribed by Congress in the DCIA and these changes are not subject to the exercise of discretion by EPA. However the rounding requirement of the statute is subject to different interpretations and EPA has rounded based on the amount of the increase resulting from the CPI percentage calculation. This approach achieves the intent of the DCIA because a rounding rule based on the amount of the increase will result in increase amounts that more closely track the changes in the CPI and would steadily increase the amount of the CMPs over time in line with increases in the CPI. Calculations based on other interpretations of the rounding requirement could result in CMP adjustments that are either several times the CPI percentage or in no increase at all even with increases in the CPI.

In the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to adjust EPA's civil monetary penalties for inflation if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on August 19, 2002 without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by July 18, 2002. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51,735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to 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:

It has been determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866, and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

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 because the rule implements mandate(s) specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 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.” As this direct final rule 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, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as (1) a small business; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. This action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: EPA is required by the DCIA to adjust civil monetary penalties for inflation. The formula for the amount of the penalty adjustment is prescribed by Congress and is not subject to the exercise of discretion by EPA. EPA's action implements this statutory mandate and does not substantively alter the existing regulatory framework. This rule does not affect mechanisms already in place, including statutory provisions and EPA policies, that address the special circumstances of small entities when assessing penalties in enforcement actions. EPA's media penalty policies generally take into account an entity's “ability to pay” in determining the amount of a penalty. In addition, entities may be affected by this rule only if the federal government finds them in violation and seeks monetary penalties. This would constitute a very small fraction of the universe of regulated facilities. Additionally, the final amount of any civil penalty assessed against a violator remains committed to the discretion of the Federal Judge or Administrative Law Judge hearing a particular case. Accordingly, although EPA cannot predict the precise impact on individual cases, the adjustment is likely to result in at most a relatively minor change to the actual penalties in cases affecting a small fraction of regulated entities. 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.

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental health Risks and Safety Risks (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. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. Because this action does not involve technical standards, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) because it does not require persons to obtain, maintain, retain, report, or publicly disclose information to or for a Federal agency. Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

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). For the reasons outlined above, however, this action will take effect August 19, 2002.

NHTSA issued a final rule on August 18, 1995, amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, to require passenger cars, and trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, to provide head protection during a crash when an occupant's head strikes the upper interior, i.e., the roof pillars, side rails, headers, and the roof itself of the vehicle. (60 FR 430341) The final rule responded to the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 (sections 2500-2509 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (“ISTEA”), Pub. L. 102-240). ISTEA required NHTSA to address several vehicle safety matters through rulemaking. One of these matters, set forth in section 2503(5), is improved head impact protection from interior components (i.e., roof rails, pillars, and front headers) of passenger cars.

The final rule, which mandated compliance with the new requirements beginning on September 1, 1998, significantly expanded the scope of Standard 201. Previously, the standard applied to the instrument panel, seat backs, interior compartment doors, arm rests and sun visors. To determine compliance with the upper interior impact requirements, the final rule added procedures for a new in-vehicle component test in which a Free Motion Headform (FMH) is fired at certain target locations on the upper interior of a vehicle at an impact speed of up to and including 24 km/h (15 mph). Data collected from a FMH impact are translated into a value known as a Head Injury Criterion (HIC) score. The resultant HIC must not exceed 1000.

The standard, as further amended on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16718), provides manufacturers with four alternate phase-in schedules for complying with the upper interior impact requirements. First, as set forth in S6.1.1, manufacturers may comply by having the following percentages of their production meet the upper interior impact requirements: 10 percent of production on or after September 1, 1998 and before September 1, 1999; 25 percent of production on or after September 1, 1999 and before September 1, 2000, 40 percent of production on or after September 1, 2000 and before September 1, 2001, 70 percent of production on or after September 1, 2001 and before September 1, 2002, and 100 percent of production after September 1, 2002.

Second, an alternative schedule set forth in S6.1.2 provides that manufacturers may comply by meeting the following phase-in schedule: 7 percent of the vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and before September 1, 1999; 31 percent of vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1999 and before September 1, 2000; 40 percent of vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2000 and before September 1, 2001; 70 percent of vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2001 and before September 1, 2002; and 100 percent of all vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2002.

Third, under the phase-in schedule set forth in S6.1.3, manufacturers need not produce any complying vehicles before September 1, 1999. However, all vehicles produced on or after that date must comply. Fourth, S6.1.4 of the April 8, 1997 final rule provided that multi-stage vehicles produced after September 1, 2002, were required to comply.

The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) filed a petition for rulemaking on October 4, 2001 requesting that the agency modify Standard No. 201 to exclude conversion vans and motor homes with gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, from the application of the upper interior head protection requirements of the Standard. The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) filed a petition for rulemaking on November 27, 2001 seeking similar relief. Both petitions requested that NHTSA extend the existing phase-in for manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles (i.e., the fourth one described above) from September 1, 2002 to March 1, 2004. By letters dated March 28 and April 5, 2002, NHTSA indicated it was granting the petitions. The agency is currently embarking on a rulemaking proceeding to address the issues raised in the petitions.

The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) is a trade association representing manufacturers of conversion vehicles (CVs) and motor homes. RVIA states that its member companies, which produced approximately 60,000 vehicles with a GVWR under 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) in 2001, produce over 90 percent of all CVs and 99 percent of all motor homes sold in the United States. RVIA submitted a petition for rulemaking on October 4, 2001 requesting the NHTSA consider rulemaking to amend Standard No. 201 so that CVs and motor homes would not be required to meet the upper interior head protection requirements of the Standard. The petition further requested that the compliance date for multi-stage vehicles be modified from September 1, 2002 to March 1, 2004.

RVIA's petition contends that the characteristics of the manufacturers producing CVs, the unique nature of CVs, and the methods used to produce these vehicles indicate that NHTSA should not require CVs to meet the upper interior head protection requirements of Standard No. 201. The RVIA petition states that producers of CVs and motor homes are almost exclusively small businesses with fewer than 500 employees. These small businesses produce CVs and motor homes by purchasing incomplete vehicles from major manufacturers and installing unique interiors, seats and accessories. Many of these manufacturers modify the vehicle structure by adding windows and raising or replacing the original roof. According to RVIA, each of these manufacturers offers a wide variety of interior configurations and designs in order to attract customers who might otherwise purchase a conventional vehicle or a CV or motor home built by a competitor.

RVIA's petition emphasizes that the CV and motor home manufacturers serve a niche market where buyers are seeking unique designs and capabilities. This, according to RVIA, has several effects that make compliance with the upper interior head protection requirements difficult for its members.

This demand for unique vehicles, in RVIA's view, precludes the use of standardized components across the industry or even within the product lines of a single manufacturer. The limited sales volume of CVs and small motor homes reduces the opportunity to spread development and testing costs over a large number of vehicles. The result, according to RVIA, is that compliance with the upper interior head impact protection requirements would force individual companies to spend excessive amounts on development and testing of wide variety of components while being forced to add these development and testing costs to the price of a very small number of vehicles. RVIA contends that the resulting increases in costs and prices for individual vehicles would be so great that consumers would no longer purchase CVs and motor homes. Finally, RVIA's petition indicates that the major manufacturers providing incomplete vehicles for conversion into CVs and motor homes had not, at the time of its petition, begun to provide any vehicles that complied with Standard 201's upper interior requirements for those portions of the vehicles completed by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Moreover, these manufacturers will not, according to RVIA, be doing so until September 1, 2002. RVIA says that this timing would make it extremely difficult for RVIA members to use these vehicles as base vehicles for their own production until well after the September 1, 2002 compliance date.

RVIA's petition also outlines efforts made by the CV and motor home industry to comply with the upper interior head protection requirements by September 1, 2002. The petition indicates that RVIA members attempted to devise common components that could be used to meet the Standard. However, according to RVIA, the common component concept was unsatisfactory in terms of performance and, due to the need for individual manufacturers to use unique components, ill-suited to the industry. Similarly, because of the variations between vehicles built by different manufacturers, cooperative-testing arrangements that might be used for compliance with other standards could not be used to determine compliance with the upper interior head protection requirements of Standard No. 201. Therefore, RVIA contends that the only means for its member companies to meet the upper interior head protection requirements is for each manufacturer to develop individual components for each of its model lines.

Finally, RVIA's petition contends that applying the upper interior head protection requirements to CVs and motor homes would not be economically practicable. RVIA estimated that compliance costs for CVs would be at least $2,401 per vehicle. For a motor home, RVIA estimated that the per vehicle compliance costs would be not less than $4,748. In RVIA's view, these costs are excessive, particularly because it believes that the safety benefits gained from compliance would be minimal. According to RVIA, the fatality rate for van-based motor homes is 0.00039 per 100,000 annual vehicle miles. Based on this rate, RVIA estimates that the safety benefit of having van-based motor homes comply with the upper interior head protection requirements would be negligible—less than one fatality per year. Although RVIA did not provide a similar analysis for CVs, it argued that the safety benefits in the case of CVs would also be quite low.

The NTEA describes itself as the nation's only trade association representing distributors and manufacturers of multi-stage produced work-related trucks, truck bodies and equipment. NTEA describes its average member company as a small business employing less than 300 people that either manufactures specialized truck bodies and installs them on incomplete vehicles or installs truck bodies built by others onto incomplete vehicles. According to the NTEA petition, its member companies produce fire trucks, ambulances, utility company vehicles, aerial bucket trucks, delivery trucks and a variety of other specialized vehicles for commercial or vocational use. As is the case with manufacturers of CVs and motor homes, these manufacturers use incomplete vehicles provided by major manufacturers and either build or assemble a completed vehicle for a specified use using the chassis provided by another company.

NTEA's petition indicates that its member companies produce approximately 377,000 vehicles annually that are subject to the upper interior head protection requirements of Standard No. 201. The petition further states that these vehicles are produced in at least 1,200 identified configurations. NTEA contends that the variety of these different configurations precludes certification to the upper interior head protection requirements because it is impossible to identify a representative “generic” vehicle interior configuration for this great variety of vehicles. Further, NTEA believes that a “generic” configuration is ill-suited to Standard No. 201 as minor differences in a vehicle interior can affect compliance with the upper interior requirements. Other methods that NTEA members use to meet their certification responsibilities, such as relying on the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's certification, are of little value in regard to the upper interior as the areas originally certified by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer are either insufficient or would be negated by necessary modifications. Therefore, according to NTEA, its member companies bear a heavy burden—each final stage manufacturer must devote significant resources in an effort to develop compliant vehicles.

In NTEA's view, the burden of complying with the upper interior head impact requirements is simply too great. The organization states that its members—as small businesses—do not have the required technical expertise and resources. Moreover, the NTEA petition indicates that compliance testing for a typical vehicle produced by one of its member companies would cost between $14,000 and $17,000. As these costs are simply compliance test costs, and not development or prototype testing, NTEA believes that the actual costs of compliance would be much greater. Since its members do not produce large numbers of identical vehicles, NTEA contends that it would not be possible for its members to absorb the costs of countermeasure development and compliance testing without raising the price of each finished vehicle to a point higher than the market will bear.

NTEA's petition indicates that there are a number of practical obstacles to compliance with the upper interior head protection requirements of Standard No. 201. As a large number of the vehicles produced by NTEA members are work trucks, work vans, emergency vehicles, or police vehicles, many of them are produced with bulkheads or dividers needed to ensure that objects or people that must remain in the rear of the vehicle actually do so. Installation of these bulkheads, according to NTEA, is likely to require relocation of target areas originally certified by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, adding to the burden of the NTEA member. Further, NTEA submits that, as a practical matter, it would be physically impossible for all of its member companies to even have the opportunity to perform compliance testing. According to the NTEA petition, only two independent test labs are available in the United States to perform the required compliance tests. At their current capacity, NTEA estimates that these facilities could not complete compliance testing for the 2003 model year vehicles produced by NTEA members in less than 64 years.

The member companies of RVIA and NTEA are manufacturers who produce vehicles in two or more stages. These multi-stage manufacturers purchase incomplete vehicles from major manufacturers to serve as the basis for specialty vehicles to meet certain uses and markets. For example, an NTEA member company may purchase incomplete pickup trucks from a major manufacturer and add a specialty body in place of the standard bed. Rather than purchase a complete truck and discard the original bed, the manufacturer of the specialty vehicle, i.e., the final stage manufacturer, purchases trucks that are complete except for the bed. In more complicated conversions, the final stage manufacturer may purchase a “cutaway,” a van chassis where the body terminates just behind the B-pillar, and add a specialized cargo body or a body designed to transport occupants such as an ambulance. The processes employed by RVIA members in producing motor homes and conversion vans are substantially similar. Incomplete vehicles are purchased from larger companies and the original vehicle is completed and/or modified for a specialty use or market.

In many cases, the final stage manufacturer is able to “pass-through,” i.e., rely, on the original manufacturer's certification that the incomplete vehicle meets certain standards. For example, a final stage manufacturer purchasing a cutaway or pickup truck with a complete cab will ordinarily rely on the original manufacturer's certification that the cab meets the requirements of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. The degree to which a final stage manufacturer may “pass through” the original manufacturer's certification is dependent on a number of factors, including whether the original manufacturer certified the original vehicle to a particular standard, the degree to which the final stage manufacturer's completion of the vehicle affects that original certification, and the complexity of the particular standard involved.

In the case of the upper interior head protection requirements of Standard No. 201, the agency's August 18, 1995 final rule establishing those requirements contained a number of provisions intended to address the particular circumstances of multi-stage manufacturers and their products. As indicated above, S6.1 of Standard No. 201 contains four different schedules under which compliance with the upper interior head protection requirements is “phased-in.” NHTSA adopted these phase-in schedules to afford manufacturers sufficient leadtime to bring their vehicles into compliance with the new upper interior head protection requirements. In the case of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, S6.1.4 did not require multi-stage vehicles to comply until the final year of the phase-in. By doing so, the agency intended to prevent the possibility that final stage manufacturers would be dependent on a source of incomplete vehicles that had not yet been brought into compliance with the upper interior impact requirements (60 FR 43049).

In addition to creating a separate phase-in schedule for multi-stage manufacturers, the August 1995 final rule also contained an exclusion for all targets in walk-in vans and restricted application of the upper interior head protection requirements in ambulances and motor homes to those target areas forward of a transverse vertical plane located 600 millimeters (24 inches) rearward of the seating reference point of the driver's seating position. Acting in response to petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16718) that further restricted application of the upper interior head protection requirements to vehicles likely to be built in two or more stages. In response to petitions for reconsideration questioning the ability of school bus manufacturers to bring smaller school buses into compliance with the upper interior head protection requirements, the agency excluded small buses with a GVWR above 3,860 kilograms (8,500 pounds) from the upper interior requirements. This decision was based on the fact that fatality rates for these vehicles were extremely low while the compliance costs for meeting the upper interior requirements were relatively high (62 FR 16720).

NHTSA has, however, previously considered the question of exempting vehicles built in two or more stages from the upper interior head protection requirements of Standard No. 201. Comments submitted prior to issuance of the August 1995 final rule by RVIA and NTEA raised many of the issues now outlined in their recent petitions for rulemaking. At that time, the agency determined that there was no compelling reason not to require vehicles manufactured by NTEA and RVIA members to meet the new head protection requirements. This determination was based on the belief that these manufacturers could rely on the certification of the incomplete vehicle manufacturers for some of the target areas involved. For the remainder of the target areas involved, NHTSA believed that multi-stage manufacturers could develop cooperative tests to reduce test burdens for individual manufacturers and that these individual manufacturers could reduce testing costs by testing individual components prior to their inclusion in a completed vehicle. Therefore, the agency's Final Economic Assessment (FEA) for the August 1995 final rule concluded that the compliance test costs would be between $2000 and $4000 per model. Because final stage manufacturers could rely on the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's certification and had means available to design and test countermeasures for the remaining target areas, the August 1995 final rule did not establish any special exemptions for multi-stage manufacturers other than to exclude walk-in vans and the rear areas of motor homes and ambulances.

The amendments extending the phase-in for vehicles built in two or more stages are being published as an interim final rule. Accordingly, the revised compliance date is fully in effect 30 days after the date of this document's publication. No further regulatory action by the agency is necessary to make these regulations effective.

These amendments have been published as an interim final rule as insufficient time is available to provide for prior notice and opportunity for comment. Under the phase-in schedule in effect prior to the issuance of this rule, manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages would have to comply with the upper interior head protection requirements on or before September 1, 2002. If the agency were to engage in notice and comment rulemaking, the final rule would likely be issued within weeks of that date. Both the RVIA and NTEA petitions indicate that manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles have, in their efforts to bring vehicles into compliance with these requirements, discovered that substantial obstacles prevent their members from doing so. Moreover, RVIA and NTEA allege that prior agency estimates of development and compliance costs were dramatically understated while the availability of “pass through” certification was overstated. Because the agency has granted the petitions submitted by NTEA and RVIA and will be studying the issues raised in those petitions, the agency believes that the best course is to postpone the compliance date until the issues raised by the petitions are resolved. Accordingly, this interim final rule delays the date on which vehicles manufactured in two or more stages must comply with the upper interior head protection requirements to September 1, 2003.

NHTSA is aware that delaying the compliance date could arguably result in a decrease in safety if multi-stage manufacturers would otherwise have the capability to meet the upper interior head protection requirements. Preliminary estimates indicate that the safety benefit of requiring one year's production of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages to meet the upper interior head protection requirements is approximately 18-24 equivalent lives saved each year for the front seats and one equivalent life saved each year for the rear seats. If multi-stage vehicle manufacturers were able to produce vehicles meeting the upper interior head protection requirements, these benefits will be lost during the period of the extension. However, it also appears that NHTSA may have underestimated the difficulties faced by final stage manufacturers in meeting upper interior head protection requirements. If, as alleged by NTEA and RVIA, the compliance costs and test burdens imposed by the upper interior head protection requirements are so great that final stage manufacturers cannot bear them and remain in operation, continued maintenance of the September 1, 2002 compliance date would not produce any safety benefit and would have serious and undesirable economic effects.

The RVIA and NTEA petitions raise a number of points regarding NHTSA's earlier estimates of the costs that the upper interior head protection requirements would impose on multi-stage manufacturers. NHTSA believes that some of these arguments could have merit. The agency's belief that cooperative testing could lower the compliance costs of the upper interior head protection requirements of Standard No. 201 may have discounted the degree to which competition between final stage manufacturers of conversion vans and motorhomes prevented sharing of information regarding vehicle interiors. Insofar as conversion vans are concerned, each manufacturer strives to provide interior designs and features that differentiate their products from those of their competitors. As the uniqueness of the interior and the features incorporated into that interior are primary concerns of conversion van buyers, competitors are not likely to share their designs or the materials used in those designs with their competitors.

NHTSA also believed that final stage manufacturers could control compliance costs by testing components individually rather than completing a full prototype vehicle and then performing compliance tests. Unfortunately, experience in testing to the upper interior head protection requirements has revealed that such component testing is not entirely practical. As the upper interior head protection requirements specify that impacts be made into specific target areas of a vehicle, the target areas must be located. While incomplete vehicle manufacturers may precisely locate these target areas through computer-aided design before a vehicle is complete, final stage manufacturers must locate the target areas on the vehicle provided to them. Due to variations in target location, component testing may not be an adequate predictor of compliance. For similar reasons, final stage manufacturer modifications, such as raising or replacing the original roof, will, in most cases, result in relocation of specified target areas. Once relocated, the new target area must meet the requirements of the Standard. Given the degree to which final stage manufacturers modify their products in order to meet consumer demand or other requirements, these manufacturers may not be able to rely on the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's certification for any of the designated target areas inside the vehicle. Even in those instances in which an area of the vehicle is not modified by an intermediate or final stage manufacturer, incomplete vehicle manufacturer certifications appear to be encompassing smaller areas of the upper interior of the vehicles than was anticipated. Thus the unique characteristics of the upper interior head protection requirements of Standard No. 201, where both compliance and the test burden of ensuring compliance may be markedly changed by any modifications to the shape of the vehicle or its interior, may preclude final stage manufacturers from relying on a pass-through certification from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to evaluate the potential impacts of their proposed and final rules. When NHTSA issued the final rule establishing the upper interior head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 201 in August 1995, the agency determined that the new requirements would impose a burden on small manufacturers, but that this burden would not result in a significant economic impact.

The petitions filed by RVIA and NTEA dispute this finding and submit information gained from efforts to meet the upper interior requirements that suggests that NHTSA's prior estimates may have been incorrect. As NHTSA has granted the NTEA and RVIA petitions, the agency is now engaged in a rulemaking action. The agency's consideration of the issues raised by NTEA and RVIA cannot be concluded in sufficient time to maintain the original September 1, 2002 compliance date.

NHTSA has not yet resolved these issues, so this interim final rule extends the compliance date to September 1, 2003 to afford the agency time to take further action. Although RVIA and NTEA requested that the agency extend the compliance date to March 1, 2004, NHTSA does not believe that such an extension is either necessary or desirable. Future rulemaking can, if needed, further modify the deadline established by this interim final rule.

As indicated above, the agency believes that there is good cause to find that providing notice and comment in connection with this rulemaking action is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.

The agency requests written comments on extending the phase-in for vehicles manufactured for two or more stages. All comments submitted in response to this document will be considered by the agency. Following the close of the comment period, the agency will publish a document in the Federal Register responding to the comments and, if appropriate, will make further amendments to the extension of the phase-in requirements amended by this interim final rule.

Interested persons are invited to comment on this interim final rule. It is requested, but not required, that two copies be submitted to the Office of Docket Management, Room PL-401, Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

All comments must be limited to 15 pages in length. Necessary attachments may be appended to those submissions without regard to the 15-page limit (49 CFR 553.21). This limitation is intended to encourage commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.

Written comments to the public docket must be received by July 18, 2002.

All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. However, the rulemaking action may proceed at any time after that date.

NHTSA will continue to file relevant material in the docket as it becomes available after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons continue to examine the docket for new material.

Those persons who wish to be notified upon receipt of their comments in the docket should enclose, in the envelope with their comments, a self-addressed stamped postcard. Upon receiving the comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

Copies of all comments will be placed in the Docket for this interim final rule in the Office of Docket Management, Room PL-401, Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

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

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

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

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

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

This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It is not significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It does not impose any burden on manufacturers and extends the compliance date for existing regulatory requirements for a period of one year. The agency believes that this impact does not warrant the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.

We have not conducted an evaluation of the impacts of this final rule under the National Environmental Policy Act. This rulemaking action extends the date by which manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages must comply with the upper interior head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 201. It does not impose any change that would have any environmental impacts. Accordingly, no environmental assessment is required.

This interim final rule, which extends the date by which manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages must comply with the upper interior head protection requirements of Standard No. 201, does not have “a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy,” as defined by Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. At this point, therefore, this action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211 and no “Statement of Energy Effects” is required.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the agency has considered the impact this rulemaking will have on small entities. As this action will provide a short term benefit for small entities by delaying the compliance date, it will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the context of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354) requires each agency to evaluate the potential effects of a rule on small businesses. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has set size standards for determining if a business within a specific industrial classification is a small business. The Standard Industrial Classification code used by the SBA for Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car Bodies (3711) defines a small manufacturer as one having 1,000 employees or fewer.

Most of the intermediate and final stage manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages have 1,000 or fewer employees. This interim final rule extends the date by which these manufacturers must produce vehicles that meet the upper interior head protection requirements of Standard No. 201. Although this action does not modify those requirements, it provides these small businesses additional time to meet them. In the agency's view, issuance of this interim final rule is necessary to prevent adverse effects that may have been underestimated in a prior rulemaking establishing the requirements at issue. For this reason, this interim final rule regarding the compliance date will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The agency has performed a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and placed a copy in the docket.

E.O. 13132 requires NHTSA 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.” E.O. 13132 defines the term “Policies that have federalism implications” to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under E.O. 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implication, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This interim final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as specified in E.O. 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. This action, which extends the compliance date by which manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages must meet the upper interior head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 201, will not result in additional expenditures by state, local or tribal governments or by any members of the private sector. Therefore, the agency has not prepared an economic assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

There are no information collection requirements in this rule.

The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we 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 us.

This rulemaking does not have a disproportionate effect on children. The primary effect of this rulemaking is to extend the compliance date by which manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages must meet the upper interior head protection requirements of Standard No. 201. The interim final rule may have an impact on the safety of multi-stage vehicles. However, this impact is likely to be evenly distributed across the population of users of these vehicles, including users of work and transport trucks.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical. In meeting that requirement, we are required to consult with voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies. Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.

We are not aware of any available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, i.e., ones regarding the performance of vehicle interior components in protecting against head impacts. Therefore, this rule is not based on any voluntary consensus standards.