A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on October 14, 2003 (68 FR 59136). That action proposed to require a one-time general visual inspection of the left and right sides of the pedestal side cover adjacent to the rudder pedal on the cockpit floor for proper installation of the attachment bracket, and corrective actions if necessary.

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

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

We estimate that 76 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspections, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $4,940, or $65 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Dassault Model Falcon 2000 and 900EX, and Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 900 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on November 13, 2003 (68 FR 64286). That action proposed to require measuring the paint thickness on the upper and lower surfaces of the left and right sides of the horizontal stabilizer, performing corrective actions if necessary, and installing maintenance caution placards on the upper surface of the left and right sides of the horizontal stabilizer.

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.

We estimate that 29 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

It will take approximately 16 work hours per airplane to measure the paint thickness, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact on U.S. operators for measuring the paint thickness is estimated to be $30,160, or $1,040 per airplane.

It will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour, to install the placards. Required parts will be provided to operators at no cost. Based on these figures, the cost impact on U.S. operators for the installation of the placards is estimated to be $5,655, or $195 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 2000-20-05, amendment 39-11916 (65 FR 59708, October 6, 2000), which is applicable to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-120 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2003 (68 FR 56801). That action proposed to require revising the airplane flight manual (AFM), and either installing hydraulic tube assemblies incorporating a check valve, or visually inspecting the check valve if already installed and performing corrective actions if necessary. The action also proposed to add airplanes to the applicability of the existing AD.

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.

We have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

We estimate that 219 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. This AD adds no new requirements, but only adds airplanes to the applicability of the existing AD. This AD adds no new economic burden on affected operators, but since issuance of AD 2000-20-05, the estimated labor rate has increased from $60 to $65 per work hour, and the estimated cost for required parts has increased from $2,021 to $2,129. The current costs associated with this AD are otherwise reiterated in their entirety as follows for the convenience of affected operators:

The AFM revision that is currently required by AD 2000-20-05, and retained in this AD, takes approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required AFM revision on U.S. operators is estimated to be $14,235, or $65 per airplane.

The general visual inspection that is currently required by AD 2000-20-05, and retained in this AD, takes approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required general visual inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $14,235, or $65 per airplane.

The installation of hydraulic tube assemblies that include check valves that is currently required by AD 2000-20-05, and retained in this AD, takes approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts cost approximately $2,129 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $494,921, or $2,259 per airplane.

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

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by revising AD 97-24-02, amendment 39-10209 (62 FR 61436, November 18, 1997), which is applicable to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11, -2A12, and -2B16 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2003 (68 FR 60047). The action proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections to find cracks of a certain bulkhead web of the fuselage at certain locations, and repair if necessary. The action also provides an optional terminating modification for certain airplanes.

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

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

There are about 237 airplanes of U.S. registry that will be affected by this AD.

The inspections that are required by AD 97-24-02 take about 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions is estimated to be $130 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

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

The optional terminating modification, if done, would take between 125 and 300 work hours per airplane, depending on the airplane configuration, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts would be provided by the manufacturer at no cost to operators. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the modification to be between $8,125 and $19,500 per airplane.

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 98-01-12, amendment 39-10275 (63 FR 1905, January 13, 1998), which is applicable to certain Airbus Model A320 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2003 (68 FR 62405). The action proposed to continue to require an inspection to detect moisture and migrated bushings of the guide fittings of the safety locking pins of the passenger doors, removal of any moisture, application of grease, and reinstallation of any migrated bushing. That action also proposed to continue to require installation of a greasing nipple on the guide fitting of the locking pin and on three telescopic rods on the passenger doors. The new action proposed to add a requirement for modification of the upper guide fitting of the locking pin, and expand the applicability in the existing AD.

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

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

There are approximately 168 airplanes of U.S. registry that will be affected by this AD.

The actions that are currently required by AD 98-01-12 take about 4 work hours per airplane (1 work hour per door) to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions is estimated to be $260 per airplane.

The new modification that is required by this AD action will take about 8 work hours per airplane (2 work hours per door) to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts costs will be minimal. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the modification required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $87,360, or $520 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2003 (68 FR 40834). That action proposed to require modification of the aft pitch load fitting of the diagonal brace of the nacelle strut of each wing.

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 requests that the proposed compliance time for the modification be extended from 18 months to “18 months or the first 4C check, whichever is later.” The commenter states that this extended compliance time would allow the modification to be accomplished during the time of a regularly scheduled heavy maintenance visit. The commenter considers that the proposed compliance time of 18 months would require operators to take each airplane out of service for four to seven days to accomplish the required modification, which would impose a major disruption on the commenter's operations.

The FAA partially agrees with the commenter's request to extend the compliance time for the modification. We cannot use indefinite or non-specific intervals, such as “first 4C check.” Since maintenance schedules vary from operator to operator, there can be no assurance that the action will be accomplished within the time frame for safe operation of the airplane. However, we do agree to extend the compliance time from 18 months to 24 months. Our original intent was to allow the modification to be accomplished at a regularly scheduled heavy maintenance visit. Extending the compliance time by six months will not adversely affect safety, and will allow the modification to be performed during the regularly scheduled heavy maintenance visits. Paragraph (a) of the final rule has been revised to specify a compliance time of 24 months.

One commenter requests that the proposed AD indicate whether alternate sealants (alternate specifications) are allowed, per Section 51-20-05, Figure 8, dated August 15, 2002, of the Boeing 767-200, 767-300, and 767-300F Structural Repair Manuals. The commenter's intent is to prevent future requests for alternative methods of compliance (AMOC).

We infer that the operator would like to use an alternate sealant when accomplishing the required modification. We agree with the commenter's request. We have changed the final rule to allow alternate sealants.

One commenter requests that the proposed AD contain instructions to operators for measuring the inside diameter of an affected bushing to ensure that it is oversized and requires replacement.

We infer that the commenter does not wish to replace a bushing unless it is necessary. The manufacturer has informed us that 100% of airplanes affected by this AD were manufactured with the wrong bushing internal diameter due to an error on the production drawing. Therefore, all bushings are oversized and measurement instructions are unnecessary. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

One commenter requests that the proposed AD be revised to incorporate two information notices (IN) that have been released relating to the proposed action since the original release of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-54A0102, dated November 8, 2001, (which is referenced in the proposed AD as the appropriate source of service information for the required actions). The commenter states that the FAA has not yet reviewed and approved these Information Notices.

We concur with the commenter's request to revise the final rule as it relates to the two INs. We have reviewed and approved the two notices: Boeing Information Notice 767-54A0102 IN 01, dated July 18, 2002, which clarifies how to gain access to the affected area; and Boeing Information Notice 767-54A0102 IN 02, dated August 29, 2002, which clarifies the existing part number of the aft pitch load fitting prior to performing the required modification. Neither of these INs increases or decreases the scope of the work required by the AD. However, if the INs are incorporated into a new revision of the service bulletin we will consider approving the bulletin as an AMOC. We have changed the final rule to incorporate the two INs.

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.

We have reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $60 per work hour to $65 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.

There are approximately 59 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 32 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 39 work hours per wing to accomplish the required actions (includes access and close-up), and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $5,256 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the actions required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $330,432, or $10,326 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2003 (68 FR 4737). That action proposed to require a one-time inspection of the dust covers for the flight data recorder (FDR) and cockpit voice recorder (CVR) equipment for the presence of markings that indicate the presence of a chemical-resistant coating, and corrective actions if necessary.

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

The proposed AD specified an inspection within 18 months after the effective date of the AD, and rework or replacement of discrepant dust covers before further flight. One commenter expresses concern for the potential grounding of airplanes awaiting replacement parts and requests that the proposed AD be revised to require replacement of noncompliant dust covers within 6 months after discovery, but not later than 18 months after the effective date of the AD. The commenter adds that it would be impossible to schedule inspections for a relatively large fleet of airplanes without having a supply of potentially unnecessary spare dust covers on hand. The commenter suggests that allowing replacement of the noncompliant covers within a specified period of time after discovery would be a more reasonable approach from a logistics and cost standpoint.

The FAA concurs with the request and agrees with the commenter's rationale. Paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) have been revised accordingly in this final rule.

One commenter questions the characterization of the unsafe condition addressed in the proposed AD. The proposed AD acknowledges that the loss of paint or markings on functionally sound FDR and CVR equipment does not put the airplane in an unsafe condition. The commenter goes on to interpret the unsafe condition as the “potential inability to locate the equipment after a potential accident or incident that was potentially caused by an unsafe condition, due to the potential loss of paint or markings on the equipment” (emphasis omitted). The commenter suggests that compliance with the proposed AD would do nothing to prevent the unsafe condition in an accident or incident involving an unscheduled water landing, because an underwater locating device (ULD), required to be attached to each FDR and CVR, could also be used to identify the FDR/CVR. The commenter adds that compliance with the AD would not protect against a fire intense enough to damage the paint or markings on the FDR/CVR. The commenter adds that the FDR/CVR equipment can be identified by means other than paint and markings. The commenter suggests that recovery personnel should be informed that a ULD can be used to identify an FDR or CVR.

The FAA disagrees. The timely recovery, after an accident, of the CVR and FDR is critical to the investigation and determination of probable cause. We recognize that there is more than one way ( i.e. , the color of the boxes) to identify these pieces of equipment. It is by the use of these multiple methods of identification that the timeliness of recovery can be maximized given the conditions at an accident site. A delay in the recovery of these pieces of equipment and subsequent data analysis could prevent the timely correction of a critical safety issue affecting other airplanes of the same type design. It is in the interest of safety to ensure that all necessary methods of identification remain available to investigators.

This same commenter finds the proposed one-time inspection insufficient to prevent damage to the paint and markings on the recording components. The commenter notes that there is no method available to prevent an unprotected component from being later installed in a formerly compliant airplane. The commenter adds that, since the component is not tracked for compliance with an AD, operators would have difficulty determining whether the paint and markings have been protected (in accordance with the AD) before the component is installed in an already compliant airplane. The commenter adds that components undamaged at the time of the inspection may be installed in an airplane, yet not be protected, and the proposed AD provides no means to prevent damage after compliance with the AD. The commenter asserts that the potential for the identified unsafe condition has not been reduced. The commenter requests that the proposed AD be revised to address affected components instead of airplanes and require a part number change as a means to track compliance with the AD.

The FAA does not agree. There would be clear distinction between the old and new parts even though the part numbers remain unchanged. The new parts would be marked with “CLR CTD” on the rear panel of the dust cover and as part of the new chemical resistant protection scheme would be unaffected by hydraulic fluid mist. Maintenance personnel will be able to readily identify whether or not the new parts are installed on an airplane. The proposed AD also included a prohibition against installing parts that had not been reworked in accordance with the service bulletin. Again, this would be readily identifiable by the presence of the marking “CLR CTD” on the rear panel of the dust cover.

The identity of the affected airplanes has been changed to “Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes” to match the identification on the type certificate.

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 described previously. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

We have reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $60 per work hour to $65 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.

The FAA estimates that 220 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $14,300, or $65 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Hamburger Flugzeugbau G.m.b.H. Model HFB 320 HANSA airplanes was published in the Federal Register on November 13, 2003 (68 FR 64282). That action proposed to require replacement of the elevator trim control cable assemblies with new assemblies.

The public had the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been submitted on the proposed AD or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

The FAA estimates that 6 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 20 work hours to accomplish the replacement, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $500 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $10,800, or $1,800 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and -145 series airplanes was published as a supplemental NPRM in the Federal Register on September 8, 2003 (68 FR 52865). The supplemental NPRM proposed to require operators to inspect the pitot-true air temperature (TAT) relays and the full authority digital engine control (FADEC) electronic interface resistor modules to detect contamination. The supplemental NPRM also proposed to require operators to perform corrective action if necessary, clean the relay/connector pins and sockets, modify the seal between the cockpit console panels and the storm window, and/or install a new protective frame (protective sheets) at the cockpit relay supports.

The supplemental NPRM identified Change 03 of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0032 as the appropriate source of service information for the inspection and modification. EMBRAER has since revised the service bulletin; however, Change 04, issued August 11, 2003, adds no new actions. The Departmento de Aviacao Civil (DAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, approved Change 04 of the service bulletin.

Paragraph (d) of the supplemental NPRM proposed to give credit for the protective sheet installation if already done in accordance with Change 06 of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-25-0211. EMBRAER has since revised this service bulletin; however, Change 07, issued August 11, 2003, adds no new actions. In fact, EMBRAER considers that all versions, through Change 07, of this service bulletin accomplish the same work; i.e. , subsequent versions to date have introduced no new actions. The DAC has approved all revisions of this service bulletin through Change 07.

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

One commenter requests that paragraphs (c) and (d) of the supplemental NPRM be revised to include the recently issued Change 04 of Service Bulletin 145-30-0032 as a compliance option.

The FAA agrees, and considers Change 04 the primary source of service information for those requirements in this final rule. So that all operators are subject to the same, current requirements, paragraphs (c) and (d) of this AD require Change 04 of Service Bulletin 145-30-0032. In addition, paragraph (a) has been revised in this final rule to require Change 04 of this service bulletin. And new paragraph (e) has been added to this final rule to credit the prior accomplishment of actions done in accordance with earlier service bulletin versions.

This same commenter requests that all versions of Service Bulletin 145-25-0211, through Change 06, be allowed for credit for paragraphs (c) and (d) of the supplemental NPRM. The commenter states that all of its airplanes have been modified in accordance with earlier revision levels of that service bulletin.

We agree with the request. As stated earlier, there are no essential differences among the revisions of this service bulletin. New paragraph (e) in this final rule provides credit accordingly. Change 07, issued since we received the comment, is also included.

The commenter notes that, when an AD cites a service bulletin that is later revised, an operator must request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to take credit for having used an earlier version or to use a later version of the specified service bulletin. The commenter therefore requests that paragraphs (a) and (c) of the supplemental NPRM be revised to allow the original issue of Service Bulletin 145-30-0032, dated January 26, 2001, as well as any future revisions that have only minor changes. The commenter suggests that such a provision would reduce the requests for AMOCs.

We do not agree with the request. We find that the procedures specified in the original issue and Revision 01 of Service Bulletin 145-30-0032 may not adequately address the identified unsafe condition. In addition, allowing “later FAA-approved revisions” of a service bulletin in addition to an AD's specified version, would violate Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations for approving materials that are incorporated by reference. We must either publish the contents of the service bulletin as part of the text of the AD; or submit the service bulletin to the OFR for approval as “referenced” material, allowing us to simply refer to such material in the AD. To allow operators to use a revision issued after the AD was published, either we must revise the AD to refer to the specific revision, or, as the commenter notes, an operator must request an AMOC to use a later revision.

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

We estimate that 365 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. The following table provides the cost estimates for each requirement.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD for the specified ECF model helicopters was published in the Federal Register on September 18, 2003 (68 FR 54688). That action proposed to require temporarily revising the Limitations section of the RFM to prohibit use of the landing light except for landing and takeoff by making pen and ink changes or adding a copy of the AD to the RFM. Also proposed was, within 6 months, or before the next instrument flight rule (IFR) flight, whichever occurs first, replacing nontemperature compensated 40-amp contactors 10P1 and 10P2 with temperature compensated 50-amp circuit breakers.

The Direction Generale De L'Aviation Civile (DGAC), the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on the specified ECF model helicopters. The DGAC advises of three reports of complete electrical power failure, except direct battery power, that occurred during flights with high outside air temperature (above 25 degrees Celsius) and use of the landing light for more than 1 hour. The failures were due to the disengagement of 40-ampere (amp) contactors (trip switches MP 1648) in the electrical power systems below their nominal threshold. These trip switches are not temperature compensated and accordingly may trip based on the internal temperature of the electrical master boxes.

Eurocopter has issued Service Telex No. 25.00.63, dated August 2, 2000 (Telex), specifying to not use the landing light outside the landing and takeoff phases and Alert Service Bulletin AS 355, No. 24.00.14, dated November 28, 2002, specifying an upgrade of the electrical master boxes on or before August 1, 2003. The DGAC classified these service bulletins as mandatory and issued AD Nos. 2000-339-060(A), dated August 23, 2000; 2000-339-060(A) R1, dated September 6, 2000; and 2000-339-060(A) R2, dated December 24, 2002, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in France.

These helicopter models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of these type designs that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

The FAA estimates that this AD will:

• Affect 442 helicopters of U.S. registry,

• Take 1/2 work hour per helicopter to add information to the Limitations section of the RFM, and

• Take 4 hours to upgrade the electrical boxes.

The average labor rate is $65 per work hour. The required parts will cost approximately $1707. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $883,779.

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 Direction Generale De L'Aviation Civile (DGAC), the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on Eurocopter Model EC130B4 helicopters with fittings, part number (P/N) 350A25-0405-00, -01, -02, -03, -04, and -05, installed. The DGAC advises that there have been cases of cracks and failures of fittings.

Eurocopter France has issued Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 53A004, dated September 11, 2003, which specifies inspecting the fittings for cracks and replacing failed fittings or those with more than 2 cracks or 1 crack that exceeds 10 mm in length. The alert service bulletin permits operators to stop-drill up to two cracks provided that no crack exceeds 10 mm in length and that the fitting is inspected every 20 flying hours, at the lastest. The DGAC classified this alert service bulletin as mandatory and issued AD 2003-358(A), dated October 15, 2003, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in France.

This helicopter model is manufactured in France and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to the applicable bilateral agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

This unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design registered in the United States. Therefore, this AD is being issued to prevent failure of a forward fitting, an excess load on the other fittings, which could cause them to crack and break, which could result in loss of the air intake cowling in flight, and subsequent damage or loss of control of the helicopter, or both. This AD requires:

• For helicopters with less than 100 hours TIS, inspecting the forward fittings no later than 110 hours TIS, then at intervals not to exceed 110 hours TIS;

• For helicopters with 100 or more hours TIS, inspecting the forward fittings within the next 10 hours TIS, then at intervals not to exceed 110 hours TIS;

• If one or two forward fittings are broken or cracked, inspecting the center and aft fittings for breaks or cracks before further flight;

• If any fitting is broken, has a crack that exceeds 10 mm in length, or has more than 2 cracks, replacing the fitting with an airworthy fitting before further flight; and

• For helicopters with one or more cracked fitting with no more than two cracks on each fitting, and each crack length is less than or equal to 10mm, stop-drilling the cracks and inspecting the fitting at intervals not to exceed 20 hours TIS.

The actions must be done in accordance with the alert service bulletin described previously. The unsafe condition must be corrected in a very short time period because loss of an air intake cowling in flight can adversely affect the controllability or structural integrity of the helicopter. Therefore, the previously described actions are required, and this AD must be issued immediately. This AD is an interim action; Eurocopter is investigating to determine the cause of the cracked and failed fittings. Upon completion of that investigation, we may issue another AD with terminating action for the requirements of this AD.

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.

The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 28 helicopters and will take approximately 1 work hour to inspect the two forward fittings. If cracked or broken fittings are found, an additional 2 work hours will be required to inspect the center and aft fittings, and an additional 0.5 work hour will be required to replace each cracked or broken fitting. We estimate that the average labor rate will be $65 per work hour. We estimate that forward fittings cost $240 each and center and aft fittings cost $225 each. The estimated total cost of the AD for each year will be approximately $11,995, assuming that (1) The entire fleet is inspected 5 times per year, (2) cracked forward fittings are found on two helicopters during 2 inspections, (3) 2 forward and 2 center fittings are replaced on one helicopter, and (4) 2 forward, 2 center, and 2 aft fittings are replaced on the other helicopter.

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 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 mailed comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2003-SW-41-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

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

Ridley Block Operations, Inc., 424 North Riverfront Dr., P.O. Box 8500, Mankato, MN 56002-8500, filed NADA 141-187 that provides for use of BOVATEC 68 (lasalocid) Type A medicated article to manufacture CRYSTALYX IONO-LYX, free-choice Type C medicated protein feed blocks containing 300 grams lasalocid per ton. The free-choice medicated feed protein block is used for increased rate of weight gain in pasture cattle (slaughter, stocker, feeder cattle, and dairy and beef replacement heifers). The NADA is approved as of December 12, 2003, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 558.311 to reflect the approval. The basis of approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary.

In addition, Ridley Block Operations, Inc., has not been previously listed in the animal drug regulations as a sponsor of an approved application. At this time, 21 CFR 510.600(c) is being amended to add entries for the firm.

In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(ii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(ii)), this approval qualifies for 3 years of marketing exclusivity beginning.

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(6) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

In this document, the Bureau changes the addresses of the Chief Operating Officer and the Board of Directors of Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (also known as UNICOR), to correct and update them. The current addresses were published on July 26, 1990 (55 FR 30668) and, in the intervening ten years, both offices have since been relocated within the same buildings. We make this rule change to correct an obsolete room number. We do, however, want to assure the public that any mail sent to the addresses in the current regulation has been and will continue to be routed to the currently correct rooms.

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 553) allows exceptions to notice-and-comment rulemaking “when the agency for good cause finds * * * that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

This rulemaking is exempt from normal notice-and-comment procedures because it merely updates addresses. This rulemaking makes no change to any rights or responsibilities of the agency or any regulated entities. Because this minor change is of a practical nature, normal notice-and-comment rulemaking is unnecessary. The public may, however, comment on this rule change because it is an interim final rule.

This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review”, section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. The Director, Bureau of Prisons has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, under Executive Order 13132, we determine that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons reviewed this regulation under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) and certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule pertains to the correctional management of offenders committed to the custody of the Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and its economic impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by § 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

The Selective Service considers this rule (32 CFR part 1665) to be a procedural rule which is exempt from the notice-and-comment under 5 U.S.C. 533 (b)(3)(A). This rule is not a significant rule for the purpose of Executive Order 12866 and has not bee reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, SSS certifies that these regulatory amendments will not have a significant impact on small business entities.

On October 10, 2003, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Biscayne Bay, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Miami River, Miami-Dade County, Florida, in the Federal Register (68 FR 197). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

The Miami Marathon Director requested that the Coast Guard temporarily change the existing regulations governing the operation of the east and west spans of the Venetian Causeway bridges, and the Brickell Avenue and Miami Avenue bridges, to allow them to remain in the closed position during the running of the Miami Tropical Marathon on February 1, 2004. The marathon route passes over these four bridges, and any bridge opening would disrupt the race. Based on the limited amount of time the bridges will be closed, the rule will still provide for the reasonable needs of navigation on the day of the event.

The east and west spans of the Venetian Causeway bridges are located between Miami and Miami Beach. The current regulation governing the operation of the east span of the Venetian Causeway bridge is published in 33 CFR 117.269 and requires the bridge to open on signal; except that, from November 1 through April 30 from 7:15 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. and from 4:45 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. Monday through Friday, the draw need not open. However, the draw shall open at 7:45 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 5:15 p.m., and 5:45 p.m., if any vessel is waiting to pass. The draw shall open on signal on Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, New Year's Day and Washington's Birthday. Moreover, the bridge must open for public vessels of the United States, tugs with tows, regularly scheduled cruise vessels, and vessels in distress.

The regulation governing the west span of the Venetian Causeway bridge is published in 33 CFR 117.5 and requires the bridge to open on signal.

The operating schedule of the Brickell Avenue and Miami Avenue bridges is published in 33 CFR 117.305 and requires each bridge to open on signal; except that, from 7:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the draws need not open for the passage of vessels. Public vessels of the United States and vessels in an emergency involving danger to life or property are allowed to pass at any time.

This temporary rule will not adversely affect the reasonable needs of navigation due to the limited time, six hours, the bridges will be in the closed position.

The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the operating regulations of the east and west spans of the Venetian Causeway bridges, and the Brickell Avenue and Miami Avenue bridges, on February 1, 2004. This temporary rule will allow the east span of the Venetian Causeway bridge to remain closed from 6:05 a.m. to 8:40 a.m. on February 1, 2004. The temporary rule will allow the west span of the Venetian Causeway to remain closed from 6:15 a.m. to 9:20 a.m. on February 1, 2004. The Brickell Avenue bridge will remain closed from 7:10 a.m. to 11:59 a.m. on February 1, 2004. The Miami Avenue bridge will remain closed from 6:25 a.m. to 10 a.m. on February 1, 2004. Public vessels of the United States and vessels in distress shall be passed at anytime.

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 Homeland Security (DHS). The temporary rule will only affect a small percentage of vessel traffic through these bridges during these times. The east and west spans of the Venetian Causeway bridges and the Miami Avenue bridge will be closed on a Sunday for about three hours from approximately 6 a.m. in the morning, when vessel traffic is minimal. The Brickell Avenue Bridge will be closed for slightly longer, for five hours, but the day, time and location of the bridge indicate that vessel traffic will be minimal as well when this rule is in effect. Overall, the temporary rule, will affect only a small percentage of vessel traffic through these bridges during these time frames.

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.

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. The small entities affected will be marine traffic requiring passage through these bridges during the Sunday morning hours of February 1, 2004. These vessels will not be able to pass through these bridges during the effective times of this rule. However, no public comments were received on this, or any other subject, with regard to the rule. Due to the limited effective times of the rule and the nominal amount of marine traffic affected, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the want 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 this temporary rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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 would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in the 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 would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 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 analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM and for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The Coast Guard was unaware of the need for this security zone in time to publish an NPRM followed by a temporary final rule before the effective date. Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of individuals at the North American International Auto Show.

This security zone is necessary to protect the participants at the North American International Auto Show, as well as the public, facilities, and the surrounding area from possible sabotage or other subversive acts. All persons other than those approved by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his authorized representative, are prohibited from entering or moving within this security zone. The Captain of the Port Detroit may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 for further instructions before transiting through the restricted area. The Captain of the Port Detroit's on-scene representative will be the Patrol Commander. In addition to this publication of the rule in the Federal Register , the public will be made aware of the existence of this security zone, exact location and the restrictions involved, via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

This regulation establishes a temporary security zone commencing on the shore-side of Cobo Hall, at 42°19′26.6″ N, 083°03′06.6″ W; then extending offshore at 160°T to the Third St. junction buoy at 42°19′24.2″ N, 83°03′4.7″ W; then northeast at 073°T to the Griswold St. junction buoy at 42°19′31″ N, 83°02′34.1″ W; then northeast at 071°T to 42°19′40″ N, 083°02′00″ W; then north at 000°T to a point on land at 42°19′46.3″ N, 083°02′00″ W (near Atwater Customs station); then southeast following the shoreline back to the point of origin. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). This security zone will be enforced from 12 a.m. (noon) on January 9, 2004, until 8 p.m. on January 19, 2004.

This temporary final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted it from review under that order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security. The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this temporary final 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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This temporary security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will not obstruct the regular flow of commercial traffic and will allow vessel traffic to pass around the security zone. In the event that a commercial vessel desires to transit the area, they may request permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit to transit the area. Commercial vessels may only transit the area after receiving permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the office listed in ADDRESSES in this preamble. 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 final rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

We have analyzed this temporary final rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.

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

This temporary final rule would 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 final 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 final rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This temporary final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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 temporary final 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.

We have considered the environmental impact of this temporary final 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.

On December 3, 2003, President Bush signed into law the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) to reduce the threat of destructive wildfires while upholding environmental standards and encouraging early public input during planning processes. The legislation helps further the President's Healthy Forests Initiative pledge to care for America's forests and rangelands, reduce the risk of catastrophic fire to communities, help save the lives of firefighters and citizens, and protect threatened and endangered species.

One of the provisions of the act, (sec. 105) requires that the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) issue an interim final rule within 30 days of enactment to establish a predecisional administrative review process for hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized by the HFRA. This interim final satisfies this requirement to establish a predecisional administrative review process. Another provision of the act required the Secretary to provide a reasonable time for public comment. The Secretary is providing a 90-day comment period on the interim final rule. This 90-day provision satisfies the reasonable time requirement in the act.

Prior to passage of the HFRA, public notice and comment for hazardous fuel reduction project proposals, and procedures for appeal of decisions implementing those projects, would have been conducted according to the procedures set out at 36 CFR part 215. This interim final rule amends part 215 to exempt hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized by the HFRA from the notice, comment, and appeal procedures set out at part 215 and establishes separate review and objection procedures specifically for hazardous fuel reduction projects, pursuant to HFRA at the new part 218, subpart A.

Paragraphs (a) and (b) are amended to clarify that the notice and comment provisions of part 215 do not apply to proposed hazardous fuel reduction projects conducted pursuant to the HFRA.

Paragraph (f) is added to identify that proposed hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized by the HFRA are not subject to the notice and comment provisions of part 215.

Paragraph (i) is added to clarify that proposed hazardous fuel reduction projects conducted under the provisions of the HFRA are not subject to appeal procedures in part 215 and that they are subject to the administrative review process found in part 218, subpart A.

This section establishes a predecisional administrative review (hereinafter “objection”) process for those proposed hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized by the HFRA.

This section defines some of the commonly used terms and phrases in the interim final rule.

This section describes projects subject to the objection process.

This section describes the method to be used when giving notice that an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for a proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project is available for administrative review and how the proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project must be described in this notice.

Paragraph (a) requires that the Responsible Official must mail the final environmental impact statement or the environmental assessment to those who have submitted specific written comments related to the proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project during the opportunity for public comment provided during preparation of the environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Paragraph (b) states that the Responsible Official must announce through notice in a previously designated newspaper of record when an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is available for administrative review, except for proposals of the Chief where Federal Register publication is provided in addition to publication in the newspaper of record for the unit where the proposed hazardous fuel reduction project is undertaken. The legal notice begins the 30-day objection-filing period for a proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project.

Paragraph (b) further outlines the format and content of the legal notice, including a statement that incorporation of documents by reference is not allowed. This provision ensures that the contents of an objection, including all attachments, are readily available to the Reviewing Officer for timely completion of the objection process. Similarly, objectors cannot meet the requirements of this process by attempting to incorporate substantive materials and arguments from other objectors. The Federal courts have taken a similar view of such procedural maneuvers; see Swanson v. U.S. Forest Service, 87 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 1996).

Paragraph (c) requires annual publication in the Federal Register of the newspapers to be used for giving legal notice of proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects subject to this rule. The annual publication of the newspapers to be used for giving legal notice of proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects subject to this rule may occur in tandem with the annual publication requirement found in part 215.

This section provides the Reviewing Officer with the authority to make all procedural determinations not specifically explained in this subpart, including those procedures necessary to ensure compatibility, to the extent practicable, with the administrative review processes of other Federal agencies when undertaking a joint proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project. The section also provides that such procedural determinations are not subject to further review.

This section of the rule identifies the qualifying requirements for who may file an objection under this subpart.

Paragraph (a) provides that those individuals and organizations who have submitted specific written comments related to the proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project during the opportunity for public comment provided during preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for the proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project, as characterized in section 104(g) of the HFRA are eligible to file an objection. Paragraph (a) further states that for a proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project described in an environmental impact statement, the requirements of section 104(g) would be satisfied during the formal comment process for draft environmental impact statements set forth in 40 CFR 1506.10. For proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects described in an environmental assessment, the requirements at section 104(g) will be satisfied by submission of specific written comment related to the proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project during scoping and other public involvement opportunities as environmental assessments are not circulated for public comment in draft form.

Paragraph (b) states that when an organization submits comments, eligibility is conferred on that organization only, not on individual members of that organization. The Department believes an organization is its own entity for purposes of submitting comments and that it is appropriate to accord an organization eligibility to file objections as an organization when it submits comments. However, the Department does not believe it is appropriate to allow individual members in that organization eligibility to file individual objections by virtue of membership in an organization that submitted comments. Nothing in this section prohibits an individual member of an organization from submitting comments on his or her own behalf.

Paragraph (c) clarifies that if an objection is submitted on behalf of a number of named individuals or organizations, each individual or organization listed must meet the eligibility requirement of having submitted comments during scoping or the other opportunity to comment as prescribed by HFRA.

Paragraph (d) states that Federal agencies are not allowed to file an objection. Other avenues are available to Federal agencies for working through concerns regarding a proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project. It is expected that the various Federal agencies will work cooperatively during project development.

Paragraph (e) allows Federal employees to file objections as individuals in a manner consistent with Federal conflict of interest requirements.

This section provides information on how to file an objection.

Paragraph (a) provides for an objection to be filed with the Reviewing Officer in writing.

Paragraph (b) describes the objector's responsibility.

Paragraph (c) provides that incorporation of documents by reference shall not be allowed. The reasons for not permitting documents by reference are addressed in the discussion in preceding section 218.4(b).

Paragraph (d) provides a detailed list of information that must be included in an objection. The list is comparable to the Department's requirements in appeal regulations for land and resource management plans (part 217) and projects implementing land and resource management plans (part 215).

This section sets out the conditions under which objections shall not be reviewed.

Paragraph (a) specifies when the Reviewing Officer must set aside an objection without review or response on the concerns raised, including when an objection is not filed within the objection period; when the proposed project is not subject to the provisions of the HFRA and, therefore, is not subject to the objections process; when the objector did not submit specific written comments related to the proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project during the opportunity for public comment provided during preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for the proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project; and when there is insufficient information to review and respond.

Paragraph (b) states that when an objection is set aside and not processed, the Reviewing Officer shall give written notice to the objector and Responsible Official.

This section describes the various time periods involved in the objection process. One of the purposes of the HFRA is to reduce the threat of destructive wildfires while upholding environmental standards and encouraging early public input during review and planning processes. The time periods established in this section are predicated on that statutory purpose.

Paragraph (a) specifies that the objection-filing period is 30 days following publication of the legal notice.

Paragraph (b) describes how time periods are computed.

Paragraph (c) describes how evidence of timely filing is determined.

Paragraph (d) states that time extensions are not permitted.

Paragraph (e) states that a written response to the objection shall be issued within 30 days following the end of the objection-filing period.

This section describes the objection resolution process.

Paragraph (a) allows for either the Reviewing Officer or the objector to request a meeting to discuss the objection and attempt resolution.

Paragraph (b) provides for a written response to the objection. The Reviewing Officer may issue a single response to multiple objections of the same proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project. Paragraph (b) also states that there is no higher level review of the Reviewing Officer's written response to the objection.

This section describes when a Responsible Official may make a final decision regarding a proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project pursuant to the HFRA.

Paragraph (a) allows decisions to be made on proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects when the objection period has ended and when responses have been made to all objections.

To provide reasonable assurance that objections are received before decisionmaking, paragraph (b) states that a decision can be made on a proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project on the 5th business day following the close of the filing period when no timely objections are filed. For all environmental impact statements, there must be a minimum of 30 days between notice of the final environmental impact statement and issuance of a Record of Decision.

Paragraph (a) details the Secretary's authority.

Paragraph (b) exempts authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects proposed by the Secretary or Under Secretary of Agriculture from the provisions of this rule. Nothing in the HFRA alters the Secretary's long-established authority to make decisions affecting the Forest Service. The Department's position has always been that Secretarial decisions are not subject to an administrative review or appeal process under any of the Forest Service's administrative review systems and there is no indication that Congress intended to make such a change through the HFRA.

Section 218.13 reflects the Department's interpretation and implementation of section 105 of the HRFA. Statutory and judicial exhaustion requirements ensure that an agency is able to develop full factual records, to apply technical and managerial expertise to identified problems, to exercise its judgment and discretion, and to correct its own mistakes. Exhaustion requirements are credited with promoting accuracy, efficiency, public participation, agency autonomy, and judicial economy.

Generally, statutory exhaustion requirements are jurisdictional and cannot be waived by courts. The HFRA does permit plaintiffs to undertake the burden of demonstrating that a “futility or inadequacy” exception should be invoked as to a specific plaintiff or claim. The Department understands these provisions are to be read together, narrowly construed, and invoked only in rare instances such as where information becomes available only after the conclusion of the administrative process.

Congress stated that National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents are to be in complete or final form when made available for objection. The objection process is, therefore, not a second comment period on a draft document, but rather a final opportunity to ensure full understanding of public concerns shortly preceding a decision.

Congress's view on the purpose or intent for the objection process likewise narrows the operation of the futility exemption to those situations where information, which dramatically changes the picture with regard to environmental effects, or the need for the project, comes to light after the NEPA document has been completed.

A contrary reading would be inconsistent with Congress's expectation that the exception provisions are not applicable to information which has not been brought to the attention of the agency. The objection process protects against the possibility of a “futile” appeal due to delay because final decisions on authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects cannot be issued prior to conclusion of the objection process and any issue relevant to the proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project can be assessed during the objection process. Similarly, predecisional review of each proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project avoids the criticism sometimes leveled against postdecisional appeals that reviewers are unfairly disposed to a particular or predetermined outcome. Instances of futility or inadequacy should be rare indeed as the administrative review is conducted through a process Congress created specifically for this class of actions and occurs prior to the agency's final decision. Moreover, the participatory requirements for these high-priority projects are predicated on Congress's determination, expressed through the statutory scheme, that predecisional collaboration is vital to avoiding potential disputes and that the land managers are in the optimal position to identify and correct any errors and to fine-tune the design of proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects if they are made aware of concerns before final decisions are made. Sweeping exceptions to the participatory requirements are at odds with Congress's intent.

This section explains that the rule contains information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 by specifying the information that objectors must supply in an objection. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number for this information collection will be included in the final rule.

This section sets out the effective date of this interim final rule and provides that all proposed hazardous fuel reduction projects subject to the provisions of the HFRA, for which scoping begins on or after the effective date of this interim final rule, are subject to its provisions.

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA), signed by President Bush on December 3, 2003, directs that within 30 days of enactment the Secretary of Agriculture promulgate a special administrative review process to serve as the sole means by which the public can seek administrative review regarding proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects. The HFRA directs that the interim final rule shall be effective upon publication in the Federal Register . Circulation of the interim final rule for public comment prior to the effective date is impractical given the statutory 30-day deadline; furthermore, a 90-day comment period on the interim final rule is provided, and comments will be considered for the subsequent development of the final rule.

This interim final rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. It has been determined that this is not a significant rule. This interim final rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy nor adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, nor State or local governments. This interim final rule will not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency nor raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this action will not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs.

Moreover, this interim final rule has been considered in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), and it has been determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by that act. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this interim final rule.

This interim final rule establishes a predecisional administrative review process for authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects on National Forest System lands pursuant to section 105 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. Section 31.1b of Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43168; September 18, 1992) excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or impact statement “rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program processes, or instruction.” This interim final rule clearly falls within this category of actions and no extraordinary circumstances exist which would require preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

This interim final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.” It has been determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the Executive order.

This interim final rule represents a new information requirement as defined in 5 CFR Part 1320, Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public. In accordance with those rules and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ), the Forest Service has requested emergency approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for this new information collection. The information to be collected from those who choose to participate in the predecisional administrative review process for hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) is the minimum needed for the Reviewing Officer to make an informed decision on an objection filed under the HFRA.

Title: Predecisional Administrative Review Process for Hazardous Fuel Reduction Projects Authorized Under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.

OMB Number: 0596-0172.

Expiration Date of Approval: June 30, 2004.

Type of Request: The following collection requirements are new and have not previously received approval by the Office of Management and Budget.

Abstract: The information collected is needed for a citizen or organization to explain the nature of the objection being made to a proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project undertaken under the authority of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, and the reason(s) why the individual or organization objects. Specifically, an objector must provide:

1. A name, mailing address, and if possible, telephone number;

2. Signature or other verification of authorship upon request;

3. The name of the proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project, the name and title of the Responsible Official, the National Forest(s) and/or Ranger District(s) on which the proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project will be implemented; and

4. Any specific changes that the objector seeks and the rationale for those changes.

Estimate of Burden: The public reporting burden to provide information when filing an objection to a proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project is estimated to average 8 hours per response.

Respondents: Individuals, businesses, not-for-profit institutions, State, local or Tribal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 121.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1 response per year.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 968 hours.

Comments are Invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of this agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Use of Comments: All comments received in response to this information collection will be summarized and included in the request for final OMB approval. All comments, including names and addresses when provided will become a matter of public record.

The agency has considered this interim final rule under the requirements of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and Executive Order 12875, Government Partnerships. The agency has made a preliminary assessment that the interim final rule conforms with the federalism principles set out in these Executive orders; would not impose any compliance costs on the States; and would 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. Based on comments received on this interim final rule, the agency will consider if any additional consultation will be needed with State and local governments prior to adopting a final rule.

This interim final rule does not have tribal implications as defined in Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and, therefore, advance consultation with tribes is not required.

This interim final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630. It has been determined that the interim final rule does not pose the risk of a taking of private property.

This interim final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. After adoption of this interim final rule, (1) all State and local laws and regulations that conflict with this interim final rule or that impede its full implementation will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this interim final rule; and (3) it will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its provisions.

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, the agency has assessed the effects of this interim final rule on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This interim final rule does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or tribal governments or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the act is not required.

EPA published a SIP revision for Iowa for Polk County Board of Health Rules and Regulations Air Pollution Chapter V, on June 13, 1995 (60 FR 31084). Section 52.820(c), Polk County, included a statement that Article VIII and Article XIII of the Polk County rules are not a part of the SIP. This clarification was inadvertently omitted in the prior rule. Therefore, in this correction notice we are reinserting this information into the table.

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that there is such good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because we are merely reinserting an explanation which was included in a previous action. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely corrects a table consistent with a prior EPA action, and imposes no additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule merely reinserts clarifying language included in a previous action, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), for the reasons stated above, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act (CAA). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

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

The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 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. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement. As stated previously, we made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore and established an effective date of January 9, 2004. We will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This correction to the Iowa SIP table is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 et seq (2).

The fishery for shrimp in the Gulf EEZ is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Council, approved by NMFS, and implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

On August 14, 2003, NMFS announced the availability of Amendment 10 and requested comments on it (68 FR 48592). NMFS published the proposed rule to implement Amendment 10 and requested comments on the proposed rule through November 14, 2003 (68 FR 56252, September 30, 2003). NMFS partially approved Amendment 10 on November 2, 2003; the bycatch reporting methodology was disapproved based on inconsistency with national standard 2. The rationale for the measures in Amendment 10 is provided in Amendment 10 and in the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here.

NMFS received five comment letters during the public comment periods on the amendment and the proposed rule. The comments and NMFS' responses follow.

Comment 1: National standard 9 (NS9) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act requires that fishery management plans include conservation and management measures that shall, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch and to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch. Implementing bycatch reduction device (BRD) requirements for the eastern Gulf of Mexico would contribute to meeting that requirement.

Response: In partially approving the Council's Generic Sustainable Fisheries Act Amendment in 1999, NMFS concluded that bycatch was not reduced to the extent practicable for the entire Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery because no bycatch reduction methods had been proposed for the eastern Gulf of Mexico. NMFS urged the Council to develop management actions to reduce bycatch in the shrimp fishery in the eastern Gulf of Mexico to be in compliance with NS9. NMFS partially approved Amendment 10 on November 2, 2003, including approval of the proposed action to require BRDs in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Promulgation of this final rule gives effect to that decision.

Comment 2: The bycatch reporting methodology proposes to use fishery independent data, where data are collected using single nets equipped without turtle excluder devices (TEDs) or BRDs. This bi-annual fishery-independent survey does not include sampling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Recent studies have demonstrated that current shrimp fishing effort data do not appear to have the spatial accuracy necessary for the estimation of bycatch. More accurate estimates of bycatch in the shrimp fishery could be generated by the use of logbooks, an observer program, and a better approach to measure shrimp fishery effort in the Gulf of Mexico.

Response: NMFS partially approved Amendment 10 on November 2, 2003. In a letter explaining its rationale for the partial approval of the actions in the amendment, NMFS informed the Council that the proposed bycatch reporting methodology ignored the large database of catch and bycatch in the fishery that has been documented by observers since the 1980s, and, thus, any estimates derived from the Council's proposed methodology would not be based on the best available scientific information. NMFS has recommended to the Council that the most scientifically valid estimates of bycatch catch-per-unit-effort in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery would be generated by using a combination of the fishery-independent (SEAMAP survey) and fishery dependent (observer) data, NMFS' best available estimates of shrimp fishing effort, and any other relevant data sources that might become available. The Council is already considering alternative methods of assessing bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery for inclusion in Amendment 13 to the FMP, which is currently under development and consideration.

Comment 3: The reduced revenues being reported by shrimp vessel owners are inaccurate. No one verifies those income figures. Therefore, the economic concerns of the fishery in regards to the proposed actions should be discounted.

Response: Economic impacts to the shrimp fishery and estimated per-vessel revenues, in regards to the proposed actions, are not based on any declaration of income by the shrimp vessel owners. Per-vessel revenues are based on the number of vessels known to be operating in the area and the quantity and value of the shrimp products landed that were reported to be caught in the affected area. Economic impacts of the proposed action are then calculated from, among other things, the purchase and installation costs of the BRDs and the potential for shrimp loss attributable to the use of the BRDs in the affected area.

Comment 4: One respondent suggested that the economic impact analysis conducted for the rule contained a discrepancy between the estimated revenue loss and the estimates of shrimp loss due to BRDs, presented questionable estimates of current performance for the average shrimp trawler and estimates of average annual revenue loss within the fishery, and over-estimated gear-up costs of approximately $200 per vessel. It is intuitively discordant to accept that any small or family business would operate for any length of time at a loss. NMFS should report net cash flow from shrimping operations to vessel owners in order to draw proper conclusions, including any going-out-of-business projections or statements, regarding what the true economic consequences would be to those vessel owners from implementation of the proposed rule. In summary, it appears that the costs to the industry were nominal compared to the benefits that would be derived from reducing finfish bycatch in the fishery.

Response: NMFS prepared a “Supplemental Economic Analysis for Amendment 10 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, U.S. Waters,” (SEA). The SEA acknowledges that there will be substantial reductions in bycatch, and that the ecosystem and societal benefits of the rule justify its implementation; nevertheless, NMFS is obligated to identify the adverse impacts that participants in the shrimp trawl fishery are likely to experience. To assess those impacts the SEA utilized the General Bioeconomic Simulation Model of the Gulf shrimp fishery (GBFSM). The GBFSM is a nationally recognized and extensively reviewed model of the fishery and, as such, represents the best available analytical model for the determination of the expected impacts of proposed actions for this fishery.

Footnote “ i ” of the SEA notes that the model utilizes a more complex and dynamic procedure that captures the interactions of shrimp harvest—in both abundance and size—according to species, area, depth and vessel class for estimating revenue loss rather than simply reducing harvest by a fixed percent. This results in revenue losses that exceed shrimp loss and provides a more accurate assessment of expected shrimp revenue losses. With regards to the estimates of current performance of shrimp trawlers, NMFS believes that the assessment accurately portrays the fleet and is consistent with the conclusion that many participants will leave the fishery as a result of the poor economic conditions. It should be clear, however, that the statements refer to the average shrimp trawler, and the assessment does not conclude that all entities are equally unprofitable. In regard to a “net cash flow” approach, the GBFSM does not consider depreciation, and, in fact, estimates profits (losses) in a manner very similar to the suggested “net cash flow” approach. Finally, NMFS disagrees that gear-up costs are over-stated. Available data suggest that the current average cost per BRD is approximately $50. Total nets for a vessel would be expected to range from 2 nets for a small vessel with no spares to 8 nets for a large vessel with a complete set of spares (4 nets and 4 spares). The assessment assumes average gear-up costs at $200 per vessel, when, in fact, costs could be as high as $400 for the large shrimp trawls. The assumption of lower average gear-up costs would imply no spares and/or an unrealistically low price per BRD. The figures reported in the assessment and the assumption that multiple BRDs are necessary are, therefore, concluded to more realistically capture expectations.

Comment 5: Two respondents made suggestions for additional management measures that should be considered to reduce bycatch in the shrimp fishery and improve bycatch estimations. One respondent supported the establishment of marine protected areas and reduced quotas for all fisheries. One respondent suggested that the Council reconsider alternatives that were considered but rejected in the amendment, such as closed areas, closed seasons, and bycatch quotas, and address research needs to better establish bycatch estimates.

Response: NMFS and the Council have established numerous closed areas in the Gulf of Mexico. These areas have been determined to be especially sensitive to the impacts of fishing or are especially important to various marine resources ( e.g. spawning area closures). In Amendment 10, the GMFMC rejected alternatives to seasonally or permanently close additional areas, concluding that the use of BRDs in all areas all year would provide greater biological benefits. Previous evaluations of the benefits of seasonal area closures indicate that effort is not reduced; effort is transferred to areas that remain open. Thus, overall impacts to bycatch are not substantially altered. As noted in the response to Comment 2, the Council is currently considering additional alternatives to address bycatch reporting, such as bycatch quotas, in developing Amendment 14. In regards to quota reductions, the shrimp fishery is not managed by quotas, and reducing quotas on all fisheries is beyond the scope of the proposed actions. NMFS and the Council carefully monitor the status of the stocks in each fishery and establish quotas based on the status of each stock. These quotas allow continued harvest without overfishing the available resource.

The Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, determined that the approved measures of Amendment 10 are necessary for the conservation and management of the Gulf shrimp fishery and that the approved measures are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

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

NMFS prepared a FRFA, based on the RIR, for this final rule. A summary of the FRFA follows:

The objective of this rule is to further reduce bycatch in the Gulf shrimp fishery to the extent practicable. The rule will require the use of BRDs in all NMFS statistical areas (areas 1 through 8) of the eastern Gulf of Mexico EEZ. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended, provides the statutory basis for the rule.

No changes were made in the final rule as a result of public comments.

No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. The rule will not require any reporting or record-keeping or other compliance requirements other than the requirement to use BRDs. The use and maintenance of BRDs will not require professional skills that materially differ from the skills required to operate a shrimp trawl vessel.

In 2001, approximately 946 shrimp trawl fishing craft were known to operate in statistical areas 1 through 8 off the west coast of Florida and will be affected by the rule. Within this group of affected entities, 460 operate in statistical areas 1 through 3, 283 operate in statistical areas 4 and 5, and 592 operate in statistical areas 6 through 8. Of these 946 shrimp trawlers, 736 craft are Coast Guard-registered vessels and 210 are state-registered boats; 474 are considered large vessels, while 472 are considered small vessels/boats; 868 (91.8 percent) shrimp trawlers landed shrimp in Florida, 102 landed shrimp in Alabama, 4 landed shrimp in Mississippi, and 31 landed shrimp in Texas; 49 landed in both Florida and Alabama, 7 landed in both Florida and Texas, and 1 each landed in Mississippi/Florida and Alabama/Texas.

Overall, average gross revenue per shrimp trawler from areas 1 through 8 is $26,440. Average total costs per shrimp trawler are $38,991, resulting in an average annual loss of $12,551. The average number of crew is 2.3 for small shrimp trawlers and 3.5 for large shrimp trawlers, resulting in an overall average of 2.9 crew per trawler. Each small trawler is assumed to use two nets, each large trawler is assumed to use 4 nets and, in each case, each trawler is assumed to have at least one spare set of nets. A commercial fishing business is considered a small entity if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation, has annual gross revenues less than or equal to $3.5 million. Based on the information provided above, all harvesting operations within this fishery are determined to be small entities.

In addition to commercial shrimp trawlers, 61 shrimp dealers will be affected by the rule. Average Gulf shrimp purchases per dealer is $2,029,221, with an average of $692,622 coming from harvests in areas 1 through 8. Employment data within the dealer sector are sparse. However, for 12 of the affected shrimp dealers, the number of employees ranges from 1 to 168, with an average of 37 employees. Further, only the single, largest shrimp processor in the Gulf employed more than 500 workers on average per year. Since shrimp dealers are typically smaller operations than shrimp processors in terms of volume and employment, it can be assumed that all dealers affected by the rule employ less than 500 workers per year on average. A dealer is considered a small business entity if it employs less than or equal to 500 employees. All of the 61 shrimp dealers are, therefore, assumed to be small entities.

Since all shrimp harvest and dealer operations affected by the rule are determined to be small entities, the issue of disproportional effects between small and large entities does not arise.

As previously stated, the average gross revenue per shrimp trawler is estimated to be $26,440, and the average annual profit is negative, estimated to be a loss of $12,511. Under the rule, the average reduction in revenue and profits per shrimp trawler is estimated to be $1,444 and $1,112, or reductions of 5.5 percent and 8.9 percent, respectively. Detailed break-outs of impacts by vessel size category, area of fishing, and state of landing are provided in the FRFA and are generally representative of the results presented in this summary. However, for shrimp trawlers that operate primarily in lower Florida, particularly large shrimp trawlers, the percentage increase in annual losses due to the rule likely ranges from 9.2 percent to as much as 23.4 percent.

In order for a firm to continue operating, in the short-run, revenues must at least cover variable costs where variable costs are those costs that change with the amount of fishing activity. Due to the large losses throughout the west Florida shrimp fishery, many shrimp trawlers cannot currently cover their variable costs. Additional costs stemming from new regulatory burdens would accelerate the rate at which these vessels are forced to shut down. It is not possible, however, to accurately determine how many operations, if any, will, in fact, shut down as a result of the rule.

In terms of the value of shrimp purchases, the loss per dealer is estimated to be $22,393, which represents an average of 1.1 percent for all dealers, but 2 percent for dealers in Florida. Since profitability is unknown for this sector, the significance of such losses cannot be determined with certainty. However, given that the number of dealers purchasing shrimp from the west Florida fishery declined from 84 in 1998 to 61 in 2001, and the poor economic health of the harvesting sector, it seems likely that losses are being incurred in the dealer sector. Dealers in Key West, Ft. Myers Beach, Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Tarpon Springs, FL will likely be most susceptible to potential impacts of the rule.

Significant alternatives to the rule include area closures, seasonal closures, and modifications to BRD requirements. The rule will retain the status quo area and seasonal closures and, thus, impose no additional adverse economic impacts on small entities associated with these types of management measures. With regards to BRD requirements, two alternatives would require BRDs over the identical geographic range, statistical areas 1 through 8, and would not reduce the expected negative economic impacts. Two alternatives would limit the BRD requirement to statistical areas 4 through 8 and would significantly reduce the negative economic impacts attributable to the rule. Two other alternatives, the status quo, which would not require BRDs, and an alternative that would limit the requirement to statistical areas 6 through 8, would further reduce the negative economic impacts of the rule. However, none of these alternatives would satisfy the requirement and the Council's intent to minimize bycatch “to the extent practicable.” Of the various alternatives that require BRDs, the rule would accomplish the greatest total bycatch reduction since BRDs will be required over a greater geographic range. Requiring BRDs over statistical areas 1-8 will result in the bycatch reduction of approximately 4.006 million lb (1.817 million kg), whereas requiring BRDs in only statistical areas 4-8 would result in the bycatch reduction of approximately 1.91 million lb (0.87 million kg).

Copies of the FRFA and RIR are available upon request ( see ADDRESSES ).