The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is one of the largest Federal agencies in the nation. Its programs affect millions of people, from farmers to residents of rural communities to school children. It operates one of the most complex and decentralized civil rights structures in the Federal Government. Numerous agencies and staff nationwide are involved in carrying out its civil rights program. One of the primary responsibilities of the USDA's Office of Civil Rights (CR) is to ensure compliance with civil rights laws, regulations, and policies.

Since 1971, CR has been responsible for providing leadership, guidance, coordination, and direction to all USDA agencies, offices, and staff engaged in civil rights enforcement and voluntary civil rights compliance. Through the years, CR has undergone reorganizations, name changes, and realignments in an effort to ensure compliance with all civil rights laws and regulations throughout USDA.

In an effort to further strengthen civil rights compliance and enforcement within USDA, Congress, in passing the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171, authorized the position of the Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights (ASCR). The Secretary established that position on March 7, 2003.

The ASCR conducted a review of the Department's civil rights programs, including the Delegations of Authority for processing complaints of discrimination in employment, as well as, those for federally assisted and federally conducted programs. Current regulations require a legal sufficiency review by the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) of the following:

• Determinations that program complaint investigations performed under 7 CFR 15.6 establish a proper basis for findings of discrimination, and that actions taken to correct such findings are adequate;

• Final determinations on both the merits and required corrective actions as to complaints filed under 7 CFR part 15d;

• Final Agency Decisions on Equal Employment Opportunity complaints by employees or applicants for employment;

• Final Agency Decisions on program discrimination complaints; and

• Final determinations or settlement agreements on discrimination complaints in conducted programs subject to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

It has been determined that the requirements for mandatory review by OGC of all decisions, corrective actions, and settlement agreements falling within these categories will be removed, and the ASCR and officials of CR will be permitted to seek legal review, whenever warranted, on a case-by-case basis.

Therefore, the Delegations of Authority from the Secretary to the ASCR, and from the ASCR to the Director of CR, are revised to remove the mandatory requirements of OGC's legal sufficiency reviews. The delegation from the ASCR to the Director of CR is further revised to clarify that the ASCR serves as the Department's Director of Equal Employment Opportunity and the Director of CR provides support to the ASCR in that capacity.

By Secretary's Memorandum 1020-53 issued on August 1, 2003, the Secretary transferred the Office of Outreach and the Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center, Office of Human Resources Management, from the Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA) to the ASCR. This rule revises the published delegations of authority to reflect that transfer.

The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) is responsible for conducting studies of worldwide agricultural production, trade, and other factors affecting exports and imports of U.S. agricultural commodities. As part of this function, FAS acts as the Departmental liaison with U.S. space programs undertaking remote sensing activities, and coordinates all agency satellite imagery data needs. This rule will revise currently obsolete delegations from the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services pertaining to satellite imagery and place these functions within the FAS.

Principal responsibility for the implementation of Executive Order 13175, including consultation and collaboration with tribal officials, and coordination of USDA programs involving assistance to American Indians and Alaska Natives is transferred from the Assistant Secretary for Administration to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, and further redelegated to the Director, Office of Intergovernmental Relations.

Responsibility for USDA implementation of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. , Executive Order 11593, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 559, and regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR part 800, including the authority to name the Secretary's designee to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, is transferred from the ASA to the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment.

Finally, on December 18, 2001, President Bush signed Executive Order 13241 (66 FR 66258 (December 21, 2001)) which revised the order of succession of officials to act as Secretary of Agriculture during any period in which both the Secretary and Deputy Secretary have died, resigned, or are otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the Office of the Secretary. The delegations of authority at 7 CFR 2.5 are revised to reflect the provisions of Executive Order 13241, as amended by Executive Order 13261 issued on March 19, 2002 (67 FR 13243 (March 21, 2002)).

This rule relates to internal agency management. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for comment are not required, and this rule may be made effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Further, since this rule relates to internal agency management, it is exempt from the provisions of Executive Order No. 12291. Finally, this action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354, and, thus, is exempt from the provisions of that Act.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 2000-15-14, amendment 39-11846 (65 FR 48362, August 23, 2000), which is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on April 1, 2004 (69 FR 17082). The action proposed to require repetitive inspections to verify operation of the remote control circuit breakers (RCCB) of the alternating current (AC) cabin bus switch, and replacement of any discrepant RCCB with a new RCCB.

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 197 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 81 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The actions that are currently required by AD 2000-15-14 take 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 actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $5,265, or $65 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The new actions that are required in this AD action will take approximately 1 or 2 work hours per airplane (depending on airplane configuration) to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $65 or $130 per airplane (depending on airplane configuration), per inspection cycle.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Manufacturer warranty remedies may be available for labor costs associated with this AD. As a result, the costs attributable to the AD may be less than stated above.

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 .

What events have caused this AD? Reports from the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, that the safety margins established into the design of the fuselage may not have been sufficient to sustain limit loads during certain maneuvers and during flight at certain speeds caused us to issue AD 2003-19-14, Amendment 39-13317 (68 FR 56152, September 30, 2003). AD 2003-19-14 requires the following:

AD 2003-19-14 was issued as an interim action until the manufacturer completed further investigations into the effects of certain flight conditions on the fuselage structure and the development of corrective procedures.

What has happened since AD 2003-19-14 to initiate this AD action? The manufacturer conducted further static strength tests to verify the safety margin of the fuselage on the affected sailplanes. The results of these tests verified the following:

For Model G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes:

For Model G103 TWIN II sailplanes:

For Model G103A TWIN II ACRO (aerobatic category) sailplanes:

For Model G103C TWIN III ACRO sailplanes:

The manufacturer has also developed a modification for Models G103A TWIN II ACRO (aerobatic category) and G103C TWIN III ACRO sailplanes (aerobatic category). When this modification is incorporated, full acrobatic status is restored to these sailplanes.

What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? If not prevented, damage to the fuselage during limit load flight could result in reduced structural integrity. This condition could lead to loss of control of the sailplane.

Has FAA taken any action to this point? We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain GROB Models G103 TWIN ASTIR, G103A TWIN II ACRO, and G103C TWIN III ACRO sailplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on May 5, 2004 (69 FR 11111). The NPRM proposed to retain all the actions in AD 2003-19-14 for all Model G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes, remove Model G103 TWIN II from the applicability, and retain the aerobatic maneuver restriction for Model G103C TWIN III ACRO sailplanes. The NPRM also proposed to require you to revise the modification to airspeed indicators, install a revised flight speed reduction placard, and revise the flight and maintenance manual for certain Models G103A TWIN II ACRO, and G103C TWIN III ACRO sailplanes. Simple Aerobatic maneuvers were also proposed to be re-approved for Model G103A TWIN II ACRO sailplanes. An option for modifying the rear fuselage for Models G103A TWIN II ACRO and G103C TWIN III ACRO sailplanes that terminates the flight limitation restrictions for aerobatic maneuvers was also included in the NPRM.

Was the public invited to comment? We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on the determination of the cost to the public.

What is FAA's final determination on this issue? We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:

How does the revision to 14 CFR part 39 affect this AD? On July 10, 2002, the FAA published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's AD system. This regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. This material previously was included in each individual AD. Since this material is included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD actions.

How many sailplanes does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD affects 94 sailplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of the affected sailplanes? We estimate the following costs to accomplish the modifications to the airspeed indicators, flight limitations placards, and revising the flight and maintenance manual:

On September 15, 1999, HUD published a final rule (64 FR 50140) that revised and consolidated the Department's lead-based paint regulations. The revisions implemented sections 1012 and 1013 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4851 et seq. ). The September 15, 1999, rule became effective on September 15, 2000, and is found at 24 CFR part 35. Other parts of title 24 were amended to conform to and cite the consolidated regulations in part 35. The purpose of 24 CFR part 35 is to ensure to the extent practicable that housing receiving Federal assistance or being sold by the Federal Government does not have lead-based paint hazards that could cause lead poisoning in young children residing in such housing. As a result of HUD's experience with the rule since its issuance, and to conform HUD's regulations to EPA's rule on Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead (66 FR 1205, January 5, 2001) under section 403 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2683), this rule makes several clarifications to 24 CFR part 35 and related provisions at 24 CFR parts 200, 291, 598, 891, 982, and 983. The clarifications of this final rule are as follows:

The existing title of subpart H of 24 CFR part 35 is “Project-Based Rental Assistance.” The existing title is misleading, because some housing assistance programs covered by this subpart provide only an interest rate subsidy and do not provide financial assistance to pay rent. Therefore, this rule removes the word “Rental” from the title of subpart H in the list of subparts and sections at the beginning of part 35 as well as in the text of the rule.

The regulations at 24 CFR part 35 have several references to the Comprehensive Improvement Loan Program (CILP). This program is no longer funded, so no new rehabilitation projects will begin. All funding of CILP projects ceased before September 15, 2000, the effective date of the final rule ( see 64 FR 50140). Therefore, this final rule removes all references to this program, including those in §§ 35.110, 35.910, 35.915, 35.920, 35.930, and 35.935.

HUD's final rule established temporary standards for dust-lead and soil-lead hazards pending promulgation of EPA's related standards pursuant to section 403 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2683). Federal law requires that EPA set the legal standards for dust-lead and soil-lead hazards ( see 15 U.S.C. 2683). On January 5, 2001, the EPA published the standards in its final rule, Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead (66 FR 1206), creating subpart D of 40 CFR part 745 and amending subparts L and O. These EPA standards, effective March 6, 2001, are available from the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/lead/leadhaz.htm. Therefore, this rule incorporates the new EPA standards at 24 CFR part 35, which are HUD's final dust-lead and soil-lead standards. The clarifications are in the definitions as well as in the standards. These refinements were made to maximize the consistency of language used in the HUD and EPA regulations and to comply with 15 U.S.C. 2683.

1. Clarification of definition of “dust-lead hazard” in § 35.110. This rule replaces the general reference in § 35.110 to “section 403 of the Toxic Substances Control Act” with a more direct citation of the EPA regulation at “40 CFR 745.65.” This rule also replaces the word “at” with “equal to” to use language identical to the EPA regulation and makes other minor editorial clarifications.

2. Clarification of definition of “soil-lead hazard” in § 35.110. This rule replaces the general reference in § 35.110 to “section 403 of the Toxic Substances Control Act” with a more direct citation of the EPA regulation at “40 CFR 745.65.” This rule also removes the actual numerical levels from this definition and makes other minor editorial clarifications. Numerical standards are provided at § 35.1320.

3. Clarification of § 35.1320 to include reference to the new EPA provision on determinations. The EPA added a new paragraph to its regulations that restates the standards and conditions under which a lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor determines the presence of lead-based paint or a paint-lead hazard, dust-lead hazard, or soil-lead hazard. (40 CFR 745.227(h)). Therefore, this final rule adds references to the new paragraph (h) of 40 CFR 745.227 in § 35.1320(a) and (b).

4. Clarification of standards for dust-lead hazards in § 35.1320(b)(2). The EPA rule at 40 CFR 745.227(h) sets the standards for dust-lead and soil-lead hazards. The HUD standards listed in 24 CFR part 35 differ from EPA's final rule. This rule clarifies and conforms the HUD standards at § 35.1320(b) to the EPA standards, as required by both the HUD regulation and Title X of the 1992 Housing and Community Development Act (42 U.S.C. 4851 et seq. ). The differences reflected in clarifications of this rule are (i) the new EPA standard for dust-lead in window troughs at the time of clearance examinations is 400 micrograms per square feet (μg/ft  2 ), whereas the previous HUD standard was 800 μg/ft  2 ; (ii) for composite dust samples during clearance examinations, the new EPA rule requires that the relevant single-sample standard ( i.e. , for floors, interior window sills, or window troughs) must be divided by one-half the number of subsamples, allowing from two to four subsamples, whereas the previous HUD standards had no such requirement; and (iii) the new EPA rule at 40 CFR 745.227(h)(3)(i) states that a dust-lead hazard is present “when the weighted arithmetic mean lead loading for all single surface or composite samples” is equal to or greater than the standard for floors or interior window sills, whereas the previous HUD standards did not have a similar provision.

5. Clarification of soil-lead standards for non-play areas in § 35.1320(b)(2)(ii)(B). The new EPA hazard standard for bare soil in non-play areas is 1,200 parts per million (ppm) (40 CFR 745.65(c)). The previous HUD standard was 2,000 ppm. In HUD's definitions of “soil-lead hazard” and “dust-lead hazard”, the regulation states that the HUD standard is “* * * equal to or exceeding levels promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or if such levels are not in effect, the following * * *.” Because the new EPA standards became effective in 2001, this final rule conforms the HUD standards to the new EPA standard, as required by Title X of the 1992 Housing and Community Development Act. Therefore, HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 35.1320(b)(2)(ii)(B) is refined as follows: “For the rest of the yard, a soil-lead hazard is bare soil that totals more than 9 square feet (0.8 square meters) per property with lead equal to or exceeding 1,200 parts per million (micrograms per gram).”

6. Clarification regarding teeth marks as evidence of chewable surface. The new EPA regulation located at 40 CFR 745.65(a)(3) states that a paint-lead hazard includes “any chewable lead-painted surface on which there is evidence of teeth marks.” The previous HUD rule did not use the particular term “teeth marks” as evidence of chewing, but currently states at 24 CFR 35.1330(d)(1) that “chewable surfaces are required to be treated only if there is evidence that a child of less than 6 years of age has chewed on the painted surface, * * *.” Therefore, to maximize consistency between EPA and HUD regulations, this final rule inserts “of teeth marks, indicating” after “evidence” in the immediately preceding quoted text.

7. Clarification of standard for replacement soil. The new EPA regulation of January 5, 2001 (66 FR 1205), states at 40 CFR 745.227(e)(7)(i)(A) that if soil is removed to abate a soil-lead hazard “the soil shall be replaced by soil with a lead concentration as close to local background as practicable, but no greater than 400 ppm.” The previous HUD regulation at 24 CFR 35.1330(f), which pertained to interim control treatments of soil-lead hazards, set a standard of 200 μg/g for impermanent surface covering material. To maximize consistency between EPA and HUD regulations, this final rule substitutes “400 μg/g” for “400 ppm” in 24 CFR 35.1330(f)(3)(i)(C). HUD recommends, but does not require, that replacement soil have a lead content no more than 200 ppm to incorporate a reasonable margin of safety.

8. Clarification of effective date of the EPA certification rule in § 35.165. The EPA rule of August 6, 1999 (64 FR 42849), extended the effective dates under section 402 of the Toxic Substances Control Act for certification of individuals and firms and use of work practice standards (see 15 U.S.C. 2682). To avoid possible confusion HUD amended its rule on January 21, 2000 (65 FR 3386), citing, “the date specified in 40 CFR 745.239(b),” rather than list a specific date which had not yet arrived. The EPA regulation has since gone into effect and thus, the specific effective date, March 1, 2000, is inserted into the HUD rule to give it greater clarity. (§§ 35.165(a)(1),(2); (b)(2)(3); and (d)(1)(2)).

Several parties asked HUD whether after a visual assessment for deteriorated paint, when such a visual assessment is the only evaluative activity that is required and conducted, a notice of evaluation must be provided to occupants in accordance with § 35.125. HUD's regulations require that a visual assessment to identify deteriorated paint be conducted in housing receiving certain types of assistance. HUD requires that either occupants be notified of the results of an evaluation conducted in housing in which they live, or if a landlord or property owner elects to assume that lead exists and the regulation requires an evaluation, the occupants be notified that a presumption of the existence of lead-based paint hazards was made in place of testing.

HUD does not require that a notice of evaluation or presumption be provided after conducting only a visual assessment for deteriorated paint, because a visual assessment only produces information that most people could obtain by themselves by simply looking at painted surfaces.

Section 35.1010(a) states that, “A visual assessment is not considered an evaluation for purposes of this part,” and § 35.1210(a) states that, “A visual assessment is not an evaluation.” The term “evaluation” means only procedures that include the measurement of the amount of lead in paint, dust, or soil. Also, the definition of “evaluation” in § 35.110 does not include mention of a visual assessment. Nevertheless, because HUD has received numerous questions as to whether a notice of evaluation or presumption is required after a visual assessment, this rule inserts additional statements of the meaning in several appropriate places in the rule—the definition of “visual assessment” in §§ 35.110, 35.125(a), 35.615(a), 35.710(a), 35.810(a), 35.910(a), and 35.1110(a). Also, the relevant statement at § 35.1210(a) is edited to be identical to such statements in other subparts. The statement repeated in the sections listed in the prior two sentences is, “A visual assessment alone is not considered an evaluation for the purposes of this part.” In addition, at § 35.125(a), this document adds the following statement: “If only a visual assessment alone is required by this part, and no evaluation is performed, a notice of evaluation or presumption is not required.”

Section 35.125(a) describes, among other things, the required content of notices to occupants of the results of evaluations. The list of information to be included in notices of evaluation does not include the date of the evaluation, an obvious omission. The date of a risk assessment is important to occupants because risk assessments go out of date, typically in 12 months ( see § 35.165(b)(1)). Requiring inclusion of the date of the evaluation in notices to occupants is not a burden to owners because it is readily available information—it must be on the evaluation report—in accordance with EPA regulations at 40 CFR 745.227(b), (c), and (d). This rule corrects this omission by adding “dates” to § 35.125(a)(1)(i) so that it reads, “A summary of the nature, dates, scope, and results of the evaluation.” This rule does not make a similar correction to the list of information that must be in a notice of presumption because the owner made the presumption, and the date the owner did so, as distinguished from the date of the notice, is not necessarily a matter of record.

Similarly, the list of information to be included in a notice of hazard reduction activity, which is provided at § 35.125(b)(1)(i), does not include the dates associated with the performance of the hazard reduction activity. These dates also are readily available to the owner because they must be on an abatement report, in accordance with EPA regulations at 40 CFR 745.227(e)(10)(i). Further, the dates must be on a report of hazard reduction activities other than abatement, in accordance with HUD regulations at § 35.1340(c)(2)(i), which require the date or dates of the clearance examination. This rule corrects the omission by adding “dates,” to § 35.125(a)(1)(i) so that it reads, “A summary of the nature, dates, scope, and results (including clearance) of the hazard reduction activities.”

The list of information to be included in a notice of evaluation or presumption is provided at §§ 35.125(a)(1) and (2) and includes, among other things, the date of the notice itself. However, the list of information to be included in a notice of hazard reduction activity, which is provided at § 35.125(b)(1), does not include the date of the notice. This rule corrects this obvious omission by adding a new paragraph (b)(1)(iv) to § 35.125 that reads, “The date of the notice.”

HUD's regulation states, at § 35.1340(g), that “Clearance is not required if maintenance or hazard reduction activities in the worksite do not disturb painted surfaces of a total area more than that set forth in § 35.1350(d).” The surface areas stated at § 35.1350(d) are known as the “de minimis” areas, which are small areas of paint, which, if disturbed, are not expected to generate enough dust to create a significant risk of human exposure to lead. It follows that a notice to occupants of the results of hazard reduction activity should not be required if a clearance examination is not required, because there is no information about the presence or absence of risk to transmit to occupants. This rule, therefore, incorporates such a statement in a new paragraph (3) of § 35.125(b) that reads, “Provision of a notice of hazard reduction is not required if a clearance examination is not required.”

This rule clarifies the instructions at 24 CFR 35.915 on the method of calculating the amount of Federal rehabilitation assistance, an amount used in subpart J. This calculation must be done correctly to determine which of three sets of lead-based paint requirements a rehabilitation project must comply with, i.e. , those for projects receiving no more than $5,000, $5,001 to $25,000, or more than $25,000 in Federal rehabilitation assistance.

HUD considers all the Federal funds that make a rehabilitation project possible to be Federal rehabilitation assistance, regardless of the use of such funds. For example, under the Community Development Block Grant program or the Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) program, if program funds are used to acquire a property for rehabilitation, those acquisition funds are considered to be rehabilitation assistance, as well as any Federal funds used for construction activities. However, the statute indicates that the stringency of the requirements should bear some relationship to whether the extent of improvements being provided to the property is “substantial.” The concept of “substantial” rehabilitation implies a major amount of construction that is measured in part by so-called “hard” costs, i.e. , labor, materials, equipment and the like, as opposed to administrative or design costs.

Thus, there are two concepts of what constitutes Federal funds for rehabilitation projects for the purposes of implementing the statute: total Federal funds flowing to the project and the hard costs of rehabilitation. The statute is not precise on which concept should apply. The statute calls for “reduction of lead-based paint hazards in the course of rehabilitation projects receiving less than $25,000 per unit in Federal funds” or “abatement of lead-based paint hazards in the course of substantial rehabilitation projects receiving more than $25,000 per unit in Federal funds” (emphasis added). ( See generally, 42 U.S.C. 4822.)

HUD, in writing its regulation, was aware of possible results of selecting one concept of “Federal funds” or the other. If HUD chose to count only Federal funds being used for the hard costs of rehabilitation, grantees might allocate as much of the Federal funds as possible to acquisition or some other non-construction purpose. On the other hand, if HUD chose to count all Federal assistance, regardless of the use of the funds, the result might be that many projects that would not reasonably be considered to be “substantial rehabilitation” would be classified in the “more than $25,000” category.

To resolve the issue, the Department decided to use a dual threshold method to determine the amount of Federal assistance. The grantee would calculate both the total Federal assistance per dwelling unit (regardless of the use of the funds) and the per unit hard costs of rehabilitation (regardless of the source of funds). The level of regulatory assistance for determining the lead-based paint hazard reduction requirements would be the lesser of the two numbers.

HUD provided, at § 35.925, examples of how grantees must consider both the total per unit amount of Federal assistance and the hard costs of rehabilitation in determining the applicable requirements. However, the dual threshold approach was not clearly reflected in the instructions in § 35.915 on the method of calculating the level of Federal rehabilitation assistance for a given project. This rule corrects this shortcoming in subpart J. The correction includes a change to the title of § 35.915 as well as changes to the text. The section title is also changed in the list of sections at the beginning of 24 CFR part 35. This rule also amends the example of the calculation at § 35.915(c)(2) and moves it to § 35.925, which is the section that provides examples of determinations of applicable requirements. These changes make the two sections of the rule clearer and more internally consistent.

HUD requires, at §§ 35.930(c) and (d), that there be hazard reduction of “all lead-based paint hazards identified by the paint testing or risk assessment” and of “any lead-based paint hazards created as a result of the rehabilitation work” in housing receiving Federal rehabilitation assistance of more than $5,000 per unit. Section 35.930(c) requires that hazards be reduced by interim controls, at a minimum, and § 35.930(d) requires that hazards be abated. After receiving many questions on the meaning and implications of the phrase, “any lead-based paint hazards created as a result of the rehabilitation work,” HUD has concluded that this provision is unnecessarily confusing, and therefore is clarifying it.

It is clear how a grantee or other recipient of Federal rehabilitation assistance will determine what lead-based paint hazards are identified by the paint testing and the risk assessment, because the risk assessor must provide a report identifying the hazards and listing acceptable methods of controlling such hazards. The risk assessment is to be conducted before the rehabilitation work begins, so the grantee can program the hazard reduction work with the rehabilitation. It is not clear, however, how a grantee or other recipient is to determine whether additional lead-based paint hazards, not identified by the risk assessment, are being created during the course of the rehabilitation work and, if they are being created, what should be done to control or abate such hazards. The Department has provided guidance and training to state and local program managers and rehabilitation contractors and workers on the use of lead-safe work practices during rehabilitation, but it has not provided definitions or guidance on identifying lead-based paint hazards created by rehabilitation that must be abated. At what point, for example, does a cut in a wall that is painted with lead-based paint become a lead-based paint hazard that must be abated, and what exactly must be abated?

HUD's objective in including the questionable phrase in the regulation was to implement the statute and assure that rehabilitation be conducted using lead-safe work practices, which are required in association with both interim controls and abatement. However, the wording is ambiguous, and it is necessary to replace the phrase with a clear statement that lead-safe work practices must be used throughout rehabilitation work covered by the rule. Therefore, this rule removes from §§ 35.930(c) and (d) the requirement of reduction of lead-based paint hazards created by the rehabilitation work and inserts a statement requiring safe work practices. There is no change in the burden on owners, and the tenants are protected in the same manner as before, because clearance is performed.

HUD's regulation at § 35.1015(c) requires that, for properties subject to subpart K, “The grantee or participating jurisdiction shall incorporate ongoing lead-based paint maintenance activities into regular building operations, in accordance with § 35.1355(a).” This provision has generated two questions: (1) Under what conditions does this requirement apply? and (2) If the grantee or participating jurisdiction is not the owner or operator of the property, as is often the case, can the grantee or participating jurisdiction assign the responsibilities of ongoing lead-based maintenance to the owner or operator of the property?

With regard to the first question, the preamble to HUD's final rule (at 64 FR 50175) states that ongoing lead-based paint maintenance would be required in subpart K “where there is a continuing and active financial relationship with the property,” but this policy is not stated in the regulation. Affected parties have asked whether mortgage insurance is a continuing and active financial relationship. On that question, the rule states at § 35.1000(a), that programs covered by this subpart “do not include mortgage insurance, sale of federally owned housing, project-based or tenant-based rental assistance, rehabilitation assistance, or assistance to public housing. For requirements pertaining to those activities or types of assistance, see the applicable subpart of this part.” Since subpart K does not cover mortgage insurance, it is not covered by the requirements of § 35.1015(c). To clarify this issue, this rule inserts language at the end of § 35.1015(c) that provides if the dwelling unit or residential property has a continuing, active, financial relationship with a Federal housing assistance program, except that mortgage insurance or loan guarantees are not considered to constitute an active programmatic relationship for the purposes of this subpart.

With regard to the second question, the rule states at § 35.1000(b) that, for properties subject to subpart K, “The grantee or participating jurisdiction may assign to a subrecipient or other entity the responsibilities set forth in this subpart.” Therefore, no change is necessary to clarify the policy regarding whether the grantee or participating jurisdiction can make another party responsible for ongoing lead-based paint maintenance.

HUD's regulation states at § 35.1215(b) that owners of housing receiving tenant-based rental assistance covered by this section must complete paint stabilization of any deteriorated paint found by the visual assessment conducted by the administering agency (usually a local public housing agency (PHA)) within a specified period of being notified of the results of the visual assessment. The completion of the paint stabilization is required for the unit to meet Housing Quality Standards (HQS) ( see 24 CFR part 982, Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance: Housing Choice Voucher Program, especially §§ 982.401(a)(3) and (j)). The unit remains in non-compliance with the HQS until the paint stabilization is completed or this unit is no longer covered by this subpart because the unit is no longer under a housing assistance payment (HAP) contract with the housing agency. Once the unit leaves the program, the process starts anew if and when another family is requesting the unit.

While this is explicitly noted in the case of a child with an environmental intervention blood lead level (§§ 35.1225(a) and (c)), it was omitted from § 35.1215(b). Therefore, this rule adds a new sentence to the end of § 35.1215(b): “If the owner does not complete the hazard reduction required by this section, the dwelling unit is in violation of HQS until the hazard reduction is completed or the unit is no longer covered by this subpart because the unit is no longer under a HAP contract with the housing agency.”

HUD's regulation at § 35.1215(b) states that owners of housing receiving tenant-based rental assistance must complete paint stabilization of any deteriorated paint found by the visual assessment conducted by the administering agency (usually a local PHA) within 30 days of being notified of the results of the visual assessment. No provision is made for an extension of this 30-day period by the agency administering the program (except for the delay when weather conditions are unsuitable for conventional construction activities for exterior surfaces, § 35.115(a)(12)). PHAs have authority to grant reasonable time extensions to owners for corrections of other violations of the housing quality standards for the Housing Choice Voucher Program. It is reasonable that such authority be available for the correction of deteriorated paint. Accordingly, this document adds a new § 35.1215(d): “The designated party may grant the owner an extension of time to complete paint stabilization and clearance for reasonable cause, but such an extension shall not extend beyond 90 days after the date of notification of the owner of the results of the visual assessment.”

HUD's regulation at § 35.1220 requires the owner of a property receiving tenant-based rental assistance to incorporate ongoing lead-based paint maintenance activities into regular building operations in accordance with § 35.1355(a). HUD was asked whether the PHA is responsible for this ongoing activity when the Federal housing program is the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. The question is based on the identification in § 35.1200(b)(2)(ii) of the PHA as the designated party for purposes of that program, and the general requirement of § 35.1355(a)(7) that the designated party “shall * * * stabilize the deteriorated paint or repair the encapsulation or enclosure * * * .”

HUD's rationale for stating in § 35.1220 that the owner must comply with ongoing lead-based maintenance requirements is that in all HUD tenant-based rental assistance programs, it is the owner who is responsible for keeping the assisted property in compliance with HQS or other similar standards. While the role of the designated party is to be “responsible for complying with applicable requirements” ( see definition of designated party in § 35.110), HUD views that responsibility to be broad. In subpart L, as in subparts J and K, the rule specifically authorizes the designated party to “assign to a subrecipient or other entity the responsibilities of the designated party in this subpart,” and the assignee can be the owner ( see § 35.1200(b)(7)). Nevertheless, HUD is clarifying this identification to remove potential uncertainty by adding the phrase, “Notwithstanding the designation of the PHA, grantee, participating jurisdiction or IHBG recipient as the designated party for this subpart,” to the beginning of § 35.1220.

HUD's regulation at § 35.110 defines “paint testing” as “the process of determining, by a certified lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor, the presence or the absence of lead-based paint on deteriorated paint surfaces or painted surfaces to be disturbed or replaced.” HUD has received several questions as to whether paint testing can be done by someone other than a certified lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor. This rule adds “paint testing” to the title of § 35.1320(a) and adds a statement in the same paragraph that “paint testing to determine the presence or absence of lead-based paint on deteriorated paint surfaces or surfaces to be disturbed or replaced shall be performed by a certified lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor.”

The HUD standards include dust-lead standards for lead-hazard screens at § 35.1320(b)(2), but there is no mention of this in the title of § 35.1320(b) or in the introductory text of § 35.1320(b)(1). Therefore, to clarify the rule, this rule adds “lead hazard screens” to the title of § 35.1320(b) and inserts “and lead hazard screens” after “Risk assessments” in § 35.1320(b)(1) to make the terminology in the title and introductory section consistent.

Section 35.1320(c) of HUD's regulations recommends, but does not require, “that lead-based paint inspectors and risk assessors provide a summary of the results suitable for posting or distribution to occupants * * *.” The purpose of this recommendation is to assist property owners in complying with the requirement to provide notices to occupants regarding the results of hazard evaluations or the clearance examination following hazard reductions ( see §§ 35.125(b) and (c)). For consistency among the several lead- hazard evaluation disciplines, this rule adds “sampling technicians” to the list of individuals who could prepare the summary recommended by paragraph (c) of § 35.1320. The function of the summary is being clarified to indicate that it is to be written in plain language suitable for comprehension by lay people. (Additional information may be attached to the plain-language summary.) As a result, in paragraph (c) of § 35.1320, this rule adds the phrase “plain-language” before “summary of the results” to describe the summary.

Safe work practices and clearance are not required if the area of paint being disturbed is within the de minimis amounts specified at § 35.1350(d). It follows, but it is not stated in the regulation, that persons performing interim controls should not be required to be trained in safe work practices if they are disturbing paint areas less than the de minimis levels. To correct this omission, this rule inserts the following prior to the colon in the first sentence of § 35.1330(a)(4): “except that this supervision or lead-safe work practices training requirement does not apply if the interim controls do not disturb painted surfaces more than the de minimis limits of § 35.1350(d).”

HUD's regulation at § 35.1330(a)(4) states the qualifications required of persons performing interim controls. The provision begins by stating, “A person performing interim controls must be trained in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.59 and * * * .” This is a reference to the hazard communication standard of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Some training providers have interpreted the reference as a call for training on the entire OSHA lead-in-construction standard, which is not HUD's intent. Therefore, this rule inserts a clarifying phrase before the citation of 29 CFR 1926.59 to reference the hazard communication standard for the construction industry issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor.

HUD's regulation at § 35.1330(a)(4) lists certain training courses that satisfy the lead-safe work practices training requirements for interim controls workers and also states that other courses may be approved by HUD after consultation with EPA. HUD's requirement for lead-safe work practices training is separate from OSHA's hazard communication requirement. The list of lead-safe work practices courses in the rule is out of date, because, in accordance with § 35.1330(a)(4)(v), HUD has approved several courses since the publication of the rule. Rather than attempt to keep the list of courses in the rule up to date by continual amendments, this rule removes references to the two named courses from the list in the rule—the ones prepared by the National Environmental Training Association (NETA) and by HUD and the National Association of the Remodeling Industry (HUD/NARI)—and adds the following statement to the end of paragraph (v): “A current list of approved courses is available on the Internet at http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead or from the HUD Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control by calling (202) 755-1785, extension 104 (this is not a toll-free number).” The list as of today includes both the NETA and the HUD/NARI courses mentioned above.

The regulations use terminology for persons who are trained to perform clearance examinations under specified conditions and controls, which is outdated. Such persons are identified as “clearance technicians” in the regulations, but the term now being used is “sampling technician” (see, for example, the House Appropriations Committee Report for H.R. 106-286, in regard to the HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control). Therefore, §§ 35.1340(b)(1)(iii) and (iv) are revised to replace, in two instances in each paragraph, the term “clearance technician” with “sampling technician.”

HUD has received questions about the protocol for clearance examinations in exterior areas. One common question is whether soil sampling is necessary. The answer is no, in conformance with EPA regulations at 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(v)(C); for clearance following exterior abatement, § 35.1340(a) applies; and for exterior activities other than abatement, § 35.1340(b) applies. Another common question is whether interior clearance is required if only exterior work has been conducted. The answer is no, if all building openings (windows, doors, vents) in the vicinity of the worksite were sealed during the work to keep dust from the worksite from traveling into interior spaces. In such a case, a visual assessment is required only for visible dust and debris at the work site and on the outdoor living area closet to the treated surface, and for paint chips on the dripline or next to the foundation below any exterior surface where work was performed. This rule amends § 35.1340(b)(2)(i) by adding a new sentence, which reads, “Soil sampling is not required.” ( Note that replacement surface covering material used for interim controls under § 35.1330(f)(3)(i)(C), which must contain no more than 400 parts per million of lead, is typically sampled or otherwise evaluated before installation.) Another new sentence is added to read, “If clearance is being performed after lead-based paint hazard reduction, paint stabilization, maintenance, or rehabilitation that affected exterior surfaces but did not disturb interior painted surfaces or involve elimination of an interior dust-lead hazard, interior clearance is not required if affected window, door, ventilation and other openings are sealed during the exterior work.”

HUD has received questions as to whether the clearance examination must extend to the entire dwelling unit or common area if the hazard reduction work was conducted in only a part of the unit or area. Generally, unit-wide or common-area-wide clearance is the best practice. However, in conformance with the EPA regulation at 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(v)(A), pertaining to clearance after abatement with containment between abated and unabated areas, HUD allows clearance of only the worksite or the containment area following interim controls and other non-abatement activities, provided dust generated during the work has been contained to the area being cleared. This policy is implied in HUD's regulation at § 35.1340(g), but is not explicit because that provision could be interpreted as applying only to rehabilitation with no more than $5,000 of Federal assistance per unit or ongoing lead-based paint maintenance. Therefore, this rule adds the following two new sentences to the beginning of § 35.1340(g) to address rehabilitation, interim controls, standard treatments, and ongoing maintenance, respectively: “Clearance of only the worksite is permitted after work covered by §§ 35.930, 35.1330, 35.1335, or 35.1355, when containment is used to ensure that dust and debris generated by the work is kept within the worksite. Otherwise, clearance must be of the entire dwelling unit, common area or outbuilding, as applicable.”

The procedure for worksite clearance after non-abatement work is modeled after the abatement clearance procedure. The procedure is never more stringent because non-abatement work is no more capable of generating dust and debris than abatement. When non-abatement work is uncontained, clearance includes taking floor and window dust wipe samples in four room equivalents. When the work is contained, clearance includes taking floor and window dust wipe samples in at least four contained room equivalents, and a dust wipe from a nearby floor outside the containment area, preferably along the path where most dust and debris were removed from the contained area. When fewer than four room equivalents are present, all are sampled. Therefore, this rule revises § 35.1340(g) to include a sentence that reads: “When clearance is of an interior worksite which is not an entire dwelling unit, common area, or outbuilding, dust samples shall be taken for paragraph (b) of this section as follows: (1) Sample, from each of at least four rooms, hallways, stairwells, or common areas within the dust containment area: (i) The floor (one sample); and (ii) windows (one interior sill sample and one trough sample, if present); and (2) sample the floor in a room, hallway, stairwell, or common area connected to the dust containment area, within five feet outside the area (one sample).”

Finally, this rule moves the last sentence of § 35.1340(g) to the end of paragraph (b) of § 35.1340, to clarify that clearance is not required after any de minimis level work.

HUD has received questions about how workers are to know how to perform occupant protection, worksite preparation, and specialized cleaning in cases where the workers have not received training in safe work practices. Such training is required for workers performing interim controls, paint stabilization, ongoing lead-based paint maintenance, or abatement. (For the occupant protection and worksite preparation, supervision by a lead-based paint abatement supervisor can replace training, as provided in § 35.1330(a)(4).) This inconsistency regarding the lack of lead-safe work practices training (or qualified supervision) arises only for rehabilitation under $5,000 of Federal assistance per unit (see § 35.930(b)(2)), when work of the same scope does require training (or qualified supervision) under the other subparts of the rule. Therefore, this rule adds the following sentence to the end of § 35.1350(b), “A person performing this work shall be trained on hazards and either be supervised or have successfully completed one of the specified courses, in accordance with § 35.1330(a)(4).”

This rule clarifies the statement in § 35.1355(a)(1) regarding properties that are exempt from the requirements of ongoing lead-based paint maintenance. Section 35.1355(a)(1) states that the lead-based paint maintenance activities required by § 35.1355(a) need not be conducted if both of the following conditions exist: (1) The property is lead-based paint free, as determined by a lead-based paint inspection, or as a result of removal of all lead-based paint; and (2) if a risk assessment is required by the applicable subpart of the rule, and a current risk assessment indicates that there are no dust-lead or soil-lead hazards present. This two-part standard for an exemption from ongoing lead-based paint maintenance is not consistent with the general exemptions, stated in §§ 35.115(a)(4) and (5), that the regulation does not apply to a property found by a lead-based paint inspection to be free of lead-based paint or in which all lead-based paint has been removed, as determined by a lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor. A property that meets the exemption provisions of § 35.115(a)(4) or (5) is exempt from all requirements of the rule. No additional provisions can be established. Therefore, this rule revises § 35.1355(a)(1) and removes §§ 35.1355(a)(1)(i) and (ii) pertaining to a risk assessment and lead-based paint hazards.

The third word from the end of § 35.1355(b)(1)(iii) is misspelled. The word should be spelled “enclosures” instead of “inclosures.” This rule corrects the spelling to read “enclosures.”

This rule corrects an error pertaining to Indian housing activities contained in the September 15, 1999, final rule. The September 15, 1999, final rule revised HUD's mortgage insurance regulations at 24 CFR part 200, subpart O (see 64 FR 50224, amendatory instruction number 14). In so doing, HUD included a provision at § 200.810(a)(2), stating that the section “is also applicable to single family mortgage insurance on Indian reservations (12 U.S.C. 1715z-13) and loan guarantees for Indian housing (25 U.S.C. 4191).” That statement was in error. If HUD guarantees notes or other obligations of an Indian Tribe and the proceeds are used to buy housing, such housing would be subject to 24 CFR part 35, subpart K, not part 200, subpart O. Therefore, this rule removes § 200.810(a)(2) in its entirety.

Between the fifth and sixth words from the end of § 291.430, the word “to” was omitted. This rule corrects the omission so that the last phrase of the section reads, “apply to activities covered by this subpart.”

This rule corrects an error regarding the Urban Empowerment Zones (EZ) program. HUD has received questions regarding the lead hazard control requirements for that program's rehabilitation, acquisition, leasing, support services, or operation activities. For rehabilitation, subpart J applies (as do supporting subparts A, B, and R); for acquisition, leasing, support services, or operation activities, subpart K applies (as do subparts A, B, and R). In the preamble to the final rule, the Department noted that it had “launched a major restructuring to meet the changing housing and development needs of communities across the country” (64 FR 50142). The EZ program was within the scope of that restructuring, having had at that time recent rulemaking for its Round II (63 FR 19155, April 16, 1998, and 63 FR 53262, October 2, 1998). The September 15, 1999, final Lead-Safe Housing rule did not, however, explicitly describe the EZ program coverage. Under the EZ program for both Rounds II and III, which are governed by regulations at 24 CFR part 598, the community describes its goals and identifies its methods and commitments to achieve them in its strategic plan. HUD funds have been made available to be used in conjunction with economic development activities consistent with the strategic plan for each EZ in Round II. The implementation of the strategic plan for an EZ in Round II may include rehabilitation of pre-1978 target housing; for such housing, the Lead-Safe Housing rule applies to the rehabilitation. The Lead-Safe Housing rule also applies to any other EZ that receives HUD funding under this program. This rule requires that an implementation plan that includes rehabilitation of pre-1978 target housing incorporate the applicable portions of the September 15, 1999, Lead-Safe Housing final rule. Therefore, this rule corrects part 598, subpart E, Post-Designation Requirements, by adding § 598.408, “Lead-based paint requirements. The Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 4821-4846), the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4851-4856), and the lead-based paint requirements set forth at part 35, subparts A, B, J, K, and R of this title apply to the activities funded by HUD under this program.”

Part 891 of HUD's regulations (24 CFR part 891) pertains to Supportive Housing for the Elderly and Persons With Disabilities under Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1708) and Section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013). These programs provide a Federal capital advance and project-based rental assistance. The capital advance can be used for rehabilitation. Therefore, subpart J, which provides the requirements for housing receiving Federal rehabilitation assistance, should apply to these programs. ( Note , however, that § 35.115(a)(3) exempts housing designated for the elderly, or a residential property designated exclusively for persons with disabilities, except where a child less than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in the dwelling unit.) Sections 891.155 and 891.325 list the lead-based paint regulations that apply to these programs, but do not list subpart J as being applicable. Therefore, this rule adds subpart J of 24 CFR part 35 to the list of applicable lead-based paint regulations in 24 CFR 891.155 and 24 CFR 891.325.

The September 15, 1999, final rule (at 64 FR 50229) at amendatory instruction 88, revised the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program rule on PHA approval of assisted tenancy at § 982.305(b)(3) to require disclosure of information on lead-based paint to the tenant before the lease term, in accordance with the Lead Disclosure rule, 24 CFR part 35, subpart A. The current HCV rule places this regulatory reference at § 982.305(b)(1)(ii). The numbering of the Lead Disclosure rule paragraph cited, § 35.92(b)(2), was changed in the 1999 final rule (at 64 FR 50201, at amendatory instruction 2) to § 35.13(b)(2), and restored to its original numbering on January 21, 2000 (at 65 FR 3386, at amendatory instruction 2). The HCV rule uses the Lead Disclosure rule numbering as changed in 1999, rather than the current numbering. Therefore, this rule corrects § 982.305(b)(1)(ii) to use the current Lead Disclosure rule paragraph numbering, namely, § 35.92(b)(2).

The September 15, 1999, final rule (at 64 FR 50230) at amendatory instruction 94, stated incorrectly at 24 CFR 983.203(d) that PHAs, in administering the Section 8 Project-Based Certificate program, must provide families with “a copy of the lead hazard information pamphlet, as required by part 35, subpart A of this title.” Under subpart A, the lead disclosure rule (24 CFR part 35), it is the responsibility of the lessor of the housing (typically the owner), not the PHA, to provide the pamphlet. This rule revises the requirement so that the public housing agency must provide the pamphlet unless it can demonstrate that the pamphlet has already been provided, using the same conditions as in § 35.130 regarding previous provision of the pamphlet. Therefore, this rule replaces “the PHA must provide * * * a copy of the lead hazard information pamphlet as required by part 35, subpart A of this title” with “the PHA must provide * * * a copy of the lead hazard information pamphlet described in § 35.130 of this title, except that the PHA need not provide the pamphlet if the PHA can demonstrate that the pamphlet has already been provided in accordance with § 35.130 of this title.”

In general, HUD publishes a rule for public comment before issuing a rule for effect, in accordance with its own regulations on rulemaking at 24 CFR part 10. Part 10, however, provides for exceptions from that general rule where HUD finds good cause to omit advance notice and public participation. The good cause requirement is satisfied when the prior public procedure is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” (24 CFR part 10).

HUD finds that good cause exists to publish this final rule for effect without first soliciting public comment, in that prior public procedure is unnecessary. The reason for HUD's determination is that this rule merely makes conforming and clarifying amendments to certain regulations in 24 CFR parts 35, 200, 291, 598, 891, 982 and 983. No substantive changes to the regulations are made by this rule. This rule merely gives clarity and facilitates understanding and, therefore, public comment is unnecessary.

A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment for this rule has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321(2)(C)). The Finding of No Significant Impact is available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 10276, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-0500.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This final rule does not impose a Federal mandate on any State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector within the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

The Secretary, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this rule before publication and by approving it certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are no anti-competitive discriminatory aspects of the rule with regard to small entities, and there are no unusual procedures that would need to be complied with by small entities.

Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive Order.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers are 14.157, 14.244, 14.311, 14.871, and 14.900.

The Coast Guard did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. The Coast Guard has not received any complaints or negative comments previously with regard to this event.

A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones and the explosive hazard of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined fireworks launches in close proximity to watercraft pose significant risks to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreational vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the locations of the launch platforms will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risk.

The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Detroit River within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks launch platform in approximate position 42°19′35″ N, 083°02′25″ W (off of the Renaissance Center). The geographic coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). The size of this zone was determined using the National Fire Prevention Association guidelines and local knowledge concerning wind, waves, and currents.

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

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the safety zone.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast Guard considered whether this rule would have a significant 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 for the following reasons: This safety zone is only in effect from 10 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. the day of the event and allows vessel traffic to pass outside of the safety zone. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the Detroit River by the Ninth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information Broadcasts. Facsimile broadcasts may also be made.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment ( see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), small entities may be assisted in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects and participate in the rulemaking process. If this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction or if you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Marine Safety Office Detroit ( see ADDRESSES .)

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 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. The Coast Guard analyzed this rule under that Order and has determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides their compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and has concluded that there are no factors in this rule that 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 (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus.

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

The Coast Guard did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the necessary effective date. Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. The Coast Guard has not received any complaints or negative comments previously with regard to this event.

Temporary safety zones are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from the hazards associated with a fireworks display. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones and the explosive hazard of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined fireworks launches in close proximity to watercraft pose significant risks to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreational vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing safety zones to control vessel movement around the launch platforms will help ensure the safety of persons and property at the events and help minimize the associated risks.

The safety zones will encompass all waters of the Saginaw River within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks barges, the first in approximate position 43°35′55″ N, 083°53′40″ W (off Veterans Park) and the second in approximate position 43°35′55″ N, 083°53′30″ W (off Wenonah Park). The geographic coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). The size of these zones were determined using the National Fire Prevention Association guidelines and local knowledge concerning wind, waves, and currents.

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

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the safety zone.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast Guard considered whether this rule would have a significant 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 for the following reasons: This safety zone will only be enforced from 10:05 p.m. until 10:55 p.m. on the days of the event and allows vessel traffic to pass outside of the safety zone. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the Saginaw River by the Ninth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information Broadcasts. Facsimile broadcasts may also be made.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment ( see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), small entities may be assisted in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction or if you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Marine Safety Office Detroit ( see ADDRESSES ).

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 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. The Coast Guard analyzed this rule under that Order and has determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides their compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and has concluded that there are no factors in this rule 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 (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g. , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus.

The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, and has 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.

On September 21, 2001, we issued a temporary final rule under docket COTP San Francisco Bay 01-009, and published that rule in the Federal Register (66 FR 54663, Oct. 30, 2001). That rule (codified as 33 CFR 165.T11-095) established a security zone extending 1800 yards seaward from the Oakland airport shoreline and a security zone extending 2000 yards seaward from the San Francisco airport shoreline. Upon further reflection, and after discussion with airport officials and members of the public, we issued a new temporary rule in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. That rule (67 FR 5482, Feb. 6, 2002, codified as 33 CFR 165.T11-097) reduced the size of the security zones to 1000 yards seaward from both the Oakland and San Francisco airport shorelines.

We received several written comments about the 1000-yard security zones established by that rule (33 CFR 165.T11-097). Virtually all of those comments urged a reduction in size of the security zones in order to allow increased public access to San Francisco Bay for fishing, windsurfing and similar uses. As a result, we issued a new temporary rule (67 FR 44566, July 3, 2002) that further reduced the size of the security zones to 200 yards seaward from both the Oakland and San Francisco airport shorelines. That rule (codified as 33 CFR 165.T11-086) expired on December 21, 2002.

Since the time that the security zones were allowed to expire, there were several security incursions involving personnel gaining access to the airports from boats. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security in consultation with the Homeland Security Council, raised the national threat level on December 21, 2003, and since then, from an Elevated to High risk of terrorist attack based on intelligence indicating that Al-Qaeda was poised to launch terrorist attacks against U.S. interests. To address these security concerns and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against one of these airports would have on the public interest, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Security Zones; San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA and Oakland, CA” in the Federal Register (69 FR 2320, January 15, 2004) proposing to establish permanent security zones extending approximately 200 yards seaward around the Oakland and San Francisco airports. We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.

Vessels or persons violating this security zone will be subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1232, any violation of the security zone described herein, is punishable by civil penalties (not to exceed $27,500 per violation, where each day of a continuing violation is a separate violation), criminal penalties (imprisonment up to 6 years and a maximum fine of $250,000), and in rem liability against the offending vessel. Any person who violates this section, using a dangerous weapon, or who engages in conduct that causes bodily injury or fear of imminent bodily injury to any officer authorized to enforce this regulation, also faces imprisonment up to 12 years. Vessels or persons violating this section are also subject to the penalties set forth in 50 U.S.C. 192: seizure and forfeiture of the vessel to the United States, a maximum criminal fine of $10,000, and imprisonment up to 10 years.

The Captain of the Port would enforce these zones and may enlist the aid and cooperation of any Federal, State, county, municipal, and private agency to assist in the enforcement of the regulation.

Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and Flight 93, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has issued several warnings concerning the potential for additional terrorist attacks within the United States. In addition, the ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq have made it prudent for U.S. ports to be on a higher state of alert because Al-Qaeda and other organizations have declared an ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide.

In its effort to thwart terrorist activity, the Coast Guard has increased safety and security measures on U.S. ports and waterways. As part of the Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-399), Congress amended section 7 of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA), 33 U.S.C. 1226, to allow the Coast Guard to take actions, including the establishment of security and safety zones, to prevent or respond to acts of terrorism against individuals, vessels, or public or commercial structures. The Coast Guard also has authority to establish security zones pursuant to the Act of June 15, 1917, as amended by the Magnuson Act of August 9, 1950 (50 U.S.C. 191 et seq. ), and implementing regulations promulgated by the President in subparts 6.01 and 6.04 of part 6 of title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

In this particular rulemaking, to address the aforementioned security concerns and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against these airports would have on the public, the Coast Guard is establishing two fixed security zones within the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay extending approximately 200 yards seaward from the shorelines of the Oakland International Airport and the San Francisco International Airport. The two security zones are designed to provide increased security for the airports, while minimizing the impact to vessel traffic, fishing, windsurfing and other activities upon San Francisco Bay. Two hundred yards from the shoreline is estimated to be an adequate zone size to provide increased security for each airport by providing a standoff distance for blast and collision, a surveillance and detection perimeter, and a margin of response time for security personnel. Buoys will be installed by the respective airports to indicate the perimeter of each of the security zones.

This rule, for security reasons, will prohibit entry of any vessel or person inside the security zone without specific authorization from the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. Due to heightened security concerns, and the catastrophic impact a terrorist attack on one of these airports would have on the public, the transportation system, and surrounding areas and communities, security zones are prudent for these airports.

We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held. The only change made in this final rule is a minor correction to the last geographical coordinate used to describe the security zone around the San Francisco International Airport. A more accurate charting program than was originally used revealed that the latitude and longitude used in the NPRM indicates a position slightly offshore from the intended on-shore position. This change is not considered significant, and the general description of the security zones is not effected.

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).

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although this regulation restricts access to the zones, the effect of this regulation is not significant because: (i) These security zones are established in an area of the San Francisco Bay that is seldom used, (ii) the zones encompass only a small portion of the waterway; (iii) vessels are able to pass safely around the zones; and (iii) vessels may be allowed to enter these zones on a case-by-case basis with permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

The size of the security zones is the minimum necessary to provide adequate protection for the San Francisco International Airport and the Oakland International Airport. The entities most likely to be affected are small recreational vessel traffic engaged in fishing or sightseeing activities.

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 for several reasons: these security zones do not occupy an area of the San Francisco Bay that is frequently transited, small vessel traffic is able to pass safely around the area, and vessels engaged in recreational activities, sightseeing and commercial fishing have ample space outside of the security zone to engage in these activities. Buoys are being installed to mark the perimeter of the security zone at each airport and small entities and the maritime public will be advised of these security zones via public notice to mariners.

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 rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal Regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Cast Guard, call 1-800-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that 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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it 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.lD, 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 (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because we are establishing a security zone. An “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a draft “Categorical Exclusion Determination” (CED) will be available in the docket where located under ADDRESSES .

The Office recently published a final rule revising the patent term extension and patent term adjustment provisions of the rules of practice in title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). See Revision of Patent Term Extension and Patent Term Adjustment Provisions , 69 FR 21704 (Apr. 22, 2004), 1282 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 100 (May 18, 2004) (final rule). The primary purpose of this final rule was to revise the rules of practice in patent cases to indicate that under certain circumstances a panel remand by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences shall be considered “a decision in the review reversing an adverse determination of patentability” for purposes of patent term extension or patent term adjustment. See 69 FR at 21704, 1282 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office at 100.

This final rule, however, also adopted other miscellaneous changes to the patent term adjustment regulations. See 69 FR at 21704, 1282 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office at 100. One such miscellaneous change was a slight revision to 37 CFR 1.703(f) so that its language would more closely track the corresponding language of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(A). The explanatory text concerning 37 CFR 1.703(f) indicated that:

35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(A) provides that: “[t]o the extent that periods of delay attributable to grounds specified in paragraph (1) [ i.e. , 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)] overlap, the period of any adjustment granted under this subsection shall not exceed the actual number of days the issuance of the patent was delayed.” See 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(A). The Office revised 37 CFR 1.703(f) in this final rule to read “[t]o the extent that periods of delay attributable to the grounds specified in § 1.702 overlap, the period of adjustment granted under this section shall not exceed the actual number of days the issuance of the patent was delayed.” See 69 FR at 21711, 1282 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office at 106. Therefore, the change to 37 CFR 1.703(f) in this final rule makes its language track the language of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(A).

The change to 37 CFR 1.703(f) in this final rule and the accompanying explanatory text in the supplementary information section of this final rule was not a substantive change to 37 CFR 1.703(f) or a change to the Office's interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(A). This change was simply a restatement of the position taken by the Office when implementing the patent term adjustment provisions of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) 2 in 2000. Specifically, the Office has consistently taken the position that if an application is entitled to an adjustment under the three-year pendency provision of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B), the entire period during which the application was pending before the Office (except for periods excluded under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)(i)-(iii)), and not just the period beginning three years after the actual filing date of the application, is the relevant period under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B) in determining whether periods of delay “overlap” under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(A).

The position set forth in the supplementary information section of this final rule is also consistent with the section-by-section analysis  3 of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(A)). The section-by-section analysis of 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(A) indicates that periods of delay overlap where there are multiple grounds for extending the term of a patent that exist simultaneously. 4

The position set forth in the supplementary information section of this final rule has been the Office's position since the implementation of the AIPA, as shown (for example) by the numerous Office presentations on the AIPA in 2001 which included an example  5 illustrating this position. Specifically, this example demonstrates that a two-month delay in issuing a first Office action (35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)(i)) and a two-month delay in issuing the patent (35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)) were considered overlapping delays, even though the two-month delay in issuing the first Office action occurred prior to three years (thirty-six months) after the application's filing date. This is because if the Office does not issue a patent until three years and two months (thirty-eight months) after its filing date, the relevant period in determining the Office delay in issuing the patent is not just the period between three years (thirty-six months) after the application's filing date and the date the patent issues (at thirty-eight months after the application's filing date), but is the entire period between the application's filing date and the date the patent issues.

Furthermore, delays resulting in the Office's failure to meet the time frames specified in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A) (the “fourteen-four-four-four-” provisions) are not always overlapping with a delay resulting in the Office's failure to issue a patent within the three-year time frame specified in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B) because not all application pendency time is counted toward this three-year period. See 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)(i)-(iii). This situation is illustrated by an example in which: (1) The Office meets the “fourteen-four-four-four” time frames specified in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A) but does not mail a final rejection until thirty-seven months after the application's filing date  6 ; (2) a RCE  7 (with a reply to the final rejection) is filed at forty months after the application's filing date; (3) the Office issues a notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 at forty-four months after the application's filing date; (4) the issue fee is paid at forty-seven months after the application's filing date; and (5) the Office issues the patent at fifty-three months after the application's filing date. 8 In this example, the applicant would be entitled to a patent term adjustment of four months due to the Office's failure to issue a patent within three years, 9 plus a patent term adjustment of two months due to the Office's failure to issue a patent within four months after the issue fee has been paid and all outstanding requirements have been met, for a total patent term adjustment of six months. The delay due to the Office's failure to issue a patent after the issue fee has been paid and all outstanding requirements have been met within the four-month time frame specified in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)(iv) does not “overlap” with the three-year time frame specified in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B) because the period subsequent to the filing of the RCE is not included in the three-year time frame specified in 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B). See 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)(i). Thus, the Office does not interpret 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(A) as permitting either patent term adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)(i)-(iv), or patent term adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B), but not as permitting patent term adjustment under both 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)(i)-(iv) and 154(b)(1)(B).

This document involves information collection requirements which are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). The collection of information involved in this notice has been reviewed and previously approved by OMB under OMB control number 0651-0020. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is not resubmitting an information collection package to OMB for its review and approval because this document does not affect the information collection requirements associated with the information collection under OMB control number 0651-0020.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The SIP is a living document which the State can revise as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the State. From time to time, therefore, EPA must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference federally-approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and OFR. The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997, Federal Register document. On December 7, 1998 (63 FR 67407), EPA published a document in the Federal Register beginning the new IBR procedure for Delaware. In this action, EPA is doing the following:

1. Announcing the first update to the IBR material.

2. Adding § 52.420(e) which summarizes the non-regulatory actions that EPA has taken on the Delaware SIP.

3. Making corrections to the charts listed in § 52.420(c), as described below:

a. Regulation 1 (Definitions and Administrative Principles), Section 2—Definitions (second entry)—The entry in the “EPA Approval Date” column is revised by adding the Federal Register page citation ( 64 FR 48961) after the publication date (9/9/99).

b. Regulation 4 (Particulate Emissions from Fuel Burning Equipment), Section 1 (General Provisions) and Section 2 (Emission Limits)—The entries in the “EPA Approval Date” column are revised by adding the publication date (3/23/76) after the Federal Register page citation ( 41 FR 12010).

c. Regulation 5 (Particulate Emissions from Industrial Process Operations), Section 5 (Restrictions on Petroleum Refining Operations)—The text in the “Comments” column is removed.

d. Regulation 9 (Emissions of Sulfur Compounds from Industrial Operations) Section 2 (Restrictions on Sulfuric Acid Manufacturing Operations)—The text in the “Comments” column is revised.

e. Regulation 11 (Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Industrial Process Operations—New Castle County)—The text in the “Comments” column (“Citation revised 3/23/76, 41 FR 12010”) is moved from the Section 1 entry (General Provisions) to the Section 2 entry (Restrictions on Petroleum Refining Operations).

f. Regulation 17 (Source Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting)—The existing text in the “Comments” column is removed and replaced with the following text: “Former SIP Sections 1 through 5 respectively; citation revised 2/28/96, 62 FR 7453.”

g. Regulation 17, Section 4 (Performance Specifications) and Section 6 (Data Reduction)—The entry in the “EPA Approval Date” column is revised by adding the Federal Register page citation ( 64 FR 48961) after the publication date (9/9/99).

h. Regulation 24 (Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions), Section 2 (Definitions)—The text in the “Comments” column is removed.

i. Regulation 31 (Low Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program), Sections 4, 10, 11, 12, and Appendices 1(d), 3(a)(7), 3(c)(2), 4(a), 5(a), 6(a)(5), 7(a) and 8(a)—The entry in the “EPA Approval Date” column is revised by adding the Federal Register page citation ( 64 FR 52657) after the publication date (9/30/99).

j. Regulation 39 (Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ) Budget Trading Program)—The text in the “Comments” column is removed. The Federal Register publication date and citation (5/17/01, 66 FR 27462) are added in the “EPA approval date” column to each entry, beginning with Section 2, listed under Regulation 39.

k. Regulation 40 (National Low Emission Vehicle Program)—EPA approved this regulation as a revision to the Delaware SIP on December 28, 1999 (64 FR 72564), and therefore added an entry to the table in § 52.420(c) to read as follows:

4. In the tables found in §§ 52.420(c) and 52.420(d), renaming the column heading entitled “Comments” to “Additional Explanation.”

EPA has determined that today's rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation; and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). Today's rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved state programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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

EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Delaware SIP compilations had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for these “Identification of plan” reorganization update actions for Delaware.

The Act affords EPA a 45-day period to review, and object to as appropriate, operating permits proposed by State permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator within 60 days after the expiration of this review period to object to State operating permits if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the State, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.

On April 11, 2002, the EPA received a petition from NYPIRG, requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the title V operating permit for Sirmos. The petition raises issues regarding the permit application, the permit issuance process, and the permit itself. NYPIRG asserts that: (1) The permit was issued without adequate opportunity for public comment through a public hearing; (2) the permit is based on an inadequate permit application; (3) the permit lacks an adequate statement of basis; (4) the permit distorts the annual certification requirements; (5) the permit does not require prompt reporting of all deviations; (6) the permit's startup/shutdown, malfunction, maintenance, and upset provision violates part 70; (7) the emergency defense provision is in violation of 40 CFR 70.6(g); (8) the permit lacks federally enforceable conditions that govern the procedures for permit renewal; and (9) the permit lacks monitoring that is sufficient to assure the facility's compliance with all applicable requirements and many individual permit conditions are not practicably enforceable. On May 24, 2004, the Administrator issued an order partially granting and partially denying the petition on Sirmos. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion that the NYSDEC must reopen the permit to: (1) Include adequate monitoring to assure compliance with the facility's opacity limits; (2) include periodic monitoring to assure compliance with the VOC handling, storage and disposal requirements of 6 NYCRR section 228.10; and (3) indicate the environmental rating for each air contaminant from each emission source as required under 6 NYCRR section 212.2. The order also explains the reasons for denying NYPIRG's remaining claims.

On May 16, 2002, the EPA received a petition from NYPIRG, requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the title V operating permit for the NYCTA's East New York Bus Depot facility. NYPIRG raises 8 of the 9 issues raised in the Sirmos petition (all except for issue 7, above). On May 24, 2004, the Administrator issued an order partially granting and partially denying the petition. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion that the NYSDEC must reopen the permit to: (1) hold permittee responsible for complying with the sulfur-in-fuel limit; (2) require daily inspection of solvent storage containers to ensure compliance with 6 NYCRR section 226; (3) require periodic monitoring for opacity during operation of the spray paint booths to assure compliance with 6 NYCRR section 228; (4) require periodic testing for VOC content of surface coating materials to assure compliance with 6 NYCRR section 228; and (5) address an old PM emission limit that applies to any oil fired stationary combustion installation. The order also explains the reasons for denying NYPIRG's remaining claims.

On October 4, 2002, the EPA received a petition from NYPIRG, requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the title V operating permit for the NYOFCO's sludge pelletization facility. NYPIRG raises 7 of the 9 issues raised in the Sirmos petition (issues 2 through 6, 8, and 9, above). In addition, NYPIRG raises four additional issues in the petition for NYOFCO: (1) NYSDEC violated the public participation and record requirements; (2) the permit incorrectly states that the facility is not subject to new source review; (3) the permit fails to include an adequate compliance schedule; and (4) the final permit contains errors that were noted in a document presented by NYPIRG and local community groups to NYSDEC Region 2. On May 24, 2004, the Administrator issued an order partially granting and partially denying the petition. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion that the NYSDEC must reopen the permit to: (1) add to the “federal-side” of the permit the SIP-approved “excuse” provision of 6 NYCRR section 201.5(e); (2) add opacity requirements pursuant to 6 NYCRR section 212.6 or explain why NYOFCO is not subject to this requirement; (3) add particulate matter requirements pursuant to 6 NYCRR section 212.4(b) or explain why NYOFCO is not subject to this requirement; (4) for the sulfur-in-fuel provision, correct the citation to the SIP-approved requirement, explain that certain requirements came from the previously issued State permit to construct and certificate to operate, and add monitoring based on fuel supplier reports; and (5) revise the mercury provision to specify the emission limitation and the required periodic monitoring. The order also explains the reasons for denying NYPIRG's remaining claims.

The General Services Administration (GSA) is in the process of revising the Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR) and transferring most of the content into a new, streamlined Federal Management Regulation (FMR). Part 101-37 of the FPMR (41 CFR part 101-37) contained rules for both the management of Government aircraft and the management of travel on Government aircraft.

The rules in 41 CFR part 101-37 that pertained to Government aircraft management were transferred to the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) as part 102-33 (41 CFR part 102-33) on November 6, 2002 (67 FR 67742) and a cross-reference was added to 41 CFR part 101-37.

This final rule moves the remaining rules in 41 CFR part 101-37, those pertaining to management of travel on Government aircraft, to the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR)(41 CFR chapters 300-304). It also amends part 101-37 by providing a cross-reference to both the FMR and the FTR.

The rules pertaining to Government aircraft are based on direction contained in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-126, “Improving the Management and Use of Government Aircraft,“ revised May 1992. OMB Circular A-126 directs the Department of Defense (DoD) (and the military services) and the Department of State to publish rules regulating travel on Government aircraft by uniformed military members and by members of the foreign service, respectively. OMB Circular A-126 also directs GSA to publish in the FTR the rules for civilian employees who travel on Government aircraft. In compliance with this direction, GSA has developed these new provisions of the FTR in plain language, question-and-answer format to clarify and simplify the content.

In correspondence dated January 13, 2002, OMB states that they expect “agencies to treat their contractors like employees with regard to being passengers on Federal aircraft...” even though OMB Circular A-126 does not state this policy explicitly. In line with OMB's intent, the rules and definitions in revised FTR parts 300-3, 301-10, and 301-70 treat employees and Government contractors similarly.

This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

This final rule is not required to be published in the Federal Register for notice and comment; therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. , does not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the FTR do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

This final rule is also exempt from congressional review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to agency management and personnel.

MARAD is updating its regulations under 46 CFR parts 221, 315, and 355 to conform to 46 App. U.S.C. 802, which was amended by the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998, section 421 of Pub. L. 105-383. The changes eliminate references to company or entity presidents and instead include such individuals under the category of “chief executive officer, by whatever title.”

This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This final rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. It also is not considered a major rule for purposes of Congressional review under Pub. L. 104-121. This final rule is also not significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). The costs and overall economic impact of this rulemaking are so minimal that no further analysis is necessary.

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) provides an exception to notice and comment procedures when they are unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. MARAD finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), good cause exists for not providing notice and comment since this final rule only implements minor technical changes to the wording of existing regulations under 46 CFR parts 221, 315, and 355, which have no substantive effect on the regulated public. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), MARAD finds that, for the same reasons, good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

We analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”) and have determined that it does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations have no substantial effects on the States, the current Federal-State relationship, or the current distribution of power and responsibilities among various local officials. Therefore, consultation with State and local officials was not necessary.

MARAD does not believe that this final rule will significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments when analyzed under the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments). Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of this Executive Order do not apply.

The Maritime Administrator certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule only makes minor technical changes to terms and definitions in title 46 of the CFR, which have no substantive effect on the regulated public.

We have analyzed this final rule for purposes of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and have concluded that under the categorical exclusions provision in section 4.05 of Maritime Administrative Order (MAO) 600-1, “Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts,” 50 FR 11606 (March 22, 1985), neither the preparation of an Environmental Assessment, an Environmental Impact Statement, nor a Finding of No Significant Impact is required for this rulemaking. This rulemaking has no environmental impact.

This rulemaking contains no new or amended information collection or recordkeeping requirements that have been approved or require approval by the Office of Management and Budget.

This final rule will not impose an unfunded mandate under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It will not result in costs of $100 million or more, in the aggregate, to any of the following: State, local, or Native American tribal governments, or the private sector. This final rule is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of U.S. policy.