The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register , 73 FR 5460 (Jan. 30, 2008), proposing to exempt portions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements. The system of records is the ICE Pattern Analysis and Information Collection (ICEPIC). The ICEPIC system of records notice (SORN) was published concurrently in the Federal Register , 73 FR 5577 (Jan. 30, 2008), and comments were invited on both the proposed rule and SORN. Six comments were received. All commenters were generally in favor of implementation of the rule as proposed. Accordingly, the Department is adopting the proposed rule as final. Concurrently in this issue of the Federal Register , ICE is re-publishing the SORN for ICEPIC to address comments received through the Federal Register comment procedure. Given no changes were made to the rule or the SORN, Privacy Impact Assessment for ICEPIC dated January 30, 2008, remains accurate and is posted on the Department's privacy Web site. (See http://www.dhs.gov/privacy and follow the link to “Privacy Impact Assessments”).

Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, DHS certifies that these regulations will not significantly affect a substantial number of small entities. The final rule imposes no duties or obligations on small entities. Further, in accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, DHS has determined that this final rule would not impose new record keeping, application, reporting, or other types of information collection requirements.

ICE received and considered the public comments, which are discussed further below, and concluded that no substantive changes to the rule are warranted at this time. While all comments were in favor of the proposed rule, two commenters also raised specific concerns related to this system of records, which are addressed below.

One commenter expressed concern that individuals would be unable to ensure their personal information in ICEPIC is accurate unless they are permitted access to their records. Other means exist to verify the accuracy of ICEPIC data and ensure that incorrect data is not used to prejudice that individual. ICEPIC users are trained to verify information obtained from ICEPIC before including it in analytical reports that will be used during investigations or shared with government personnel outside of ICE. Verification procedures include direct queries to the source databases from which ICEPIC originally obtained the information, queries of commercial or other government databases, and ICE agent interviews with individuals or others who are in a position to confirm the ICEPIC data. These procedures mitigate the risk posed by inaccurate data in the system and raise the probability that such data will be identified and corrected before any action is taken that would prejudice an individual. In addition, the source systems from which ICEPIC obtains information may, themselves, have mechanisms in place to ensure the accuracy of the data prior to the information being accessed through ICEPIC.

Another commenter, while in favor of the system, expressed these concerns as follows:

“By limiting access to a small number of people, power and responsibility may be monopolized in the hands of some who are never given a system of checks and balances over their power. The only other concern that I have is that, as domestic and international security policies and concerns shift over time, this proposed rule change will be stagnant. I would propose then that this rule be revisited in the coming years as security threats continue to fluctuate.”

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several analyses. In conducting these analyses, DHS has determined:

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (as amended). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Nevertheless, DHS has reviewed this rulemaking, and concluded that there will not be any significant economic impact.

Pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), DHS certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule would impose no duties or obligations on small entities. Further, the exemptions to the Privacy Act apply to individuals, and individuals are not covered entities under the RFA.

This rulemaking will not constitute a barrier to international trade. The exemptions relate to criminal investigations and agency documentation and, therefore, do not create any new costs or barriers to trade.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48), requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of certain regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. This rulemaking will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) requires that DHS consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public and, under the provisions of PRA section 3507(d), obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information it conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations. DHS has determined that there are no current or new information collection requirements associated with this rule.

This action 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, and therefore will not have federalism implications.

DHS has reviewed this action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has determined that this action will not have a significant effect on the human environment.

The energy impact of this action has been assessed in accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Public Law 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362). This rulemaking is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce, including minimum safety standards for aircraft engines. This rule is within the scope of that authority because it updates the existing regulations for type certification standards for OEI ratings for rotorcraft turbine engines.

On May 4, 2007, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Airworthiness Standards: Rotorcraft Turbine Engines One-Engine-Inoperative (OEI) Ratings, Type Certification Standards” (72 FR 25207). The comment period for the NPRM closed on August 2, 2007.

The OEI power ratings provide rotorcraft with higher than takeoff and maximum continuous power ratings needed when one engine of a multi-engine rotorcraft fails or is shut down during flight, such as during takeoff, cruise, or landing. These OEI power rating powers enable the rotorcraft to continue safe flight until it reaches a suitable landing site. Part 33 prescribes airworthiness standards for 30-second OEI, 2-minute OEI, 2 1/2 -minute OEI, 30-minute OEI, and continuous OEI ratings for the issuance of type certificates for rotorcraft turbine engines. All OEI ratings are optional ratings that engine manufacturers may select from those specified in § 33.7.

This final rule harmonizes with the corresponding airworthiness standards for OEI ratings of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) without reducing the existing level of safety.

Three commenters, including a turbine engine manufacturer, General Electric (GE); a foreign aviation authority, Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); and an industry association, Aerospace Industries Association (AIA); responded to the NPRM request for comments. The GE and AIA comments are identical. TCCA had a number of comments. All of the commenters generally supported the proposed changes. All comments included suggested changes, as discussed in the discussion of the final rule below.

The FAA received comments on the following general areas of the proposal:

Below is a more detailed discussion of the rule as it relates to the comments on the proposal.

We revised § 33.29(c) to specify that the applicant must provide a means or a provision for a means to satisfy the requirements for the use of the defined 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings. The applicant, for example an engine manufacturer, may satisfy “a means” by providing a recorder to record entry into the OEI power bands. Alternatively, the applicant may fulfill “a provision for a means” by specifying that the installer provide a recorder to record entry into the OEI power bands. We also added a new § 33.29(c)(4) to specify the requirements for verification of the proper operation of indicating, recording, and retrieval systems.

The TCCA commented that existing § 33.29(c) should not be changed because full compliance to crew interface would be difficult to achieve at engine certification. The TCCA claimed the proposed changes to § 33.29(c) are redundant to the requirements of §§ 27.1305 and 29.1305.

We believe the requirement for the engine to have either a means or a provision for a means is engine specific and can be met at engine certification. Advisory circulars will provide further guidance. The FAA harmonized this change with EASA's rule. Section 33.29(c) is adopted without change.

We also proposed to add § 33.29(d) which limits resetting the recordings required by paragraph (c) to only while on the ground.

The TCCA believes that compliance to proposed § 33.29(d) can only be found at rotorcraft, not engine, certification and this section, therefore, should not be part of engine requirements.

The FAA partially agrees with this comment. We determined that § 33.29(d) should apply to § 33.29(c)(2) and (c)(3) but not to § 33.29(c)(1) and (c)(4). Specifically, we found that in-flight resetting of the pilot alert required under (c)(1) and the routine verification required under (c)(4) should not be addressed by engine regulations. We retained the § 33.29(d) requirement that recordings under (c)(2) and (c)(3) should not be reset in-flight because we find these requirements should be met at engine certification. We, therefore, modified § 33.29(d) in the final rule to refer only to § 33.29(c)(2) and (c)(3).

We proposed a revision to § 33.67(d) to clarify the intent of “automatic control” of the 30-second OEI power is to control the engine operating conditions, which should not exceed the engine's operating limits. We clarified in the preamble of the NPRM that the applicant's design, however, should not limit the time interval at which OEI power is used. This design feature enables the pilot to exceed OEI time limits to safely land the rotorcraft in an in-flight emergency as permitted by § 91.3(b).

GE requested clarification that the OEI power limit can be exceeded in the event of an emergency under the requirements of § 33.67(d).

The intent of § 33.67(d) is that use of 30-second OEI power should be subject to automatic control and should not be exceeded. This automatic control requirement is intended to avoid the need for the pilot to monitor engine parameters, such as output shaft torque or power, output shaft speed, gas producer speed, and gas path temperature during OEI operation. Once the automatic control system is activated, it automatically controls the 30-second OEI power and prevents the engine from exceeding its specified operating limits. Section 33.67(d) is adopted as proposed.

The amended § 33.87 reduces test complexity and adds test flexibility under the revisions to § 33.87(a); harmonizes the test schedule under § 33.87(c) with that of the Certification Specifications for Engines (CS-E); and clarifies the test schedule and test sequence under § 33.87(f).

We proposed to revise § 33.87(a)(5) so the maximum air bleed for engine and aircraft services under § 33.87(a)(5) need not be used for the final 120-minute test required under § 33.87(f)(1) through (f)(8) if the applicant can show by testing, or analysis based on testing, that the validity of the endurance test is preserved. This proposed revision was intended to reduce test complexity and improve the flexibility needed to attain the key parameters (speed, temperature and torque) during the tests.

We also proposed to revise § 33.87(a)(6) to allow the applicant to run the final 120-minute test under §§ 33.87(f)(1) through (f)(8) without loading the accessory drives and mounting attachments if the applicant can substantiate that the durability of any accessory drive or engine component is not significantly affected.

The TCCA commented that § 33.87(a)(5) should not require the maximum air bleed and § 33.87(a)(6) should not require loading of accessory drive and mounting attachments to be part of the test configuration for § 33.87(f) test sequences. The TCCA recommended changes to § 33.87(a)(5) and (a)(6) that do not mention “120-minute,” which is the minimum time duration of the test required under paragraph (f).

We have revised § 33.87(a)(5) and (a)(6) in the final rule by removing references to “120-minute.” These changes clarify the exceptions specified in § 33.87(a)(5) and (a)(6) are for the entire test duration performed under § 33.87(f).

GE recommended changes to § 33.87 it believes would ensure FAA requirements are not more severe than EASA's for the endurance test requirements under § 33.87(a)(3) and (a)(7).

We find that GE's recommendation would substantially affect § 33.87 requirements for all non-OEI engine ratings. Such a change is beyond the scope of this rule.

We proposed to revise § 33.88(a) to clarify that these requirements apply to all engine ratings, including all OEI ratings other than the 30-second and 2-minute OEI ratings, regardless of whether the engine is equipped with an automatic temperature control.

The TCCA disagreed with our proposed change to § 33.88(a) because it claimed the proposed new language could result in more tests being performed than is intended by the proposal.

We agree that the proposed language in § 33.88(a) could be interpreted to also apply to 30-second and 2-minute OEI ratings and result in unintended testing. We are, therefore, withdrawing the proposed change to § 33.88(a). We have, however, revised § 33.88(b) in the final rule to clarify that testing under § 33.88(a) applies to all engine ratings, except for 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings.

The TCCA commented that §§ 33.88(b) and 33.93(b)(2) should refer to “mandatory inspections and maintenance actions.”

We find that § 33.4 and Appendix A to Part 33 adequately reference mandatory inspections and maintenance actions.

We are revising Appendix A, Section A33.4, Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), by adding a new paragraph for rotorcraft engines having 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings. For these engines, we require the applicant to prescribe mandatory post-flight inspection and maintenance actions in the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness following the use of these ratings. In order to harmonize with CS-E 25, we are requiring the applicant to create a mandatory in-service engine evaluation program to ensure continued adequacy of the airworthiness instructions for the engines.

The 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings allow for limited use in service followed by mandatory inspection and maintenance. These ratings assume some engine parts or components may not be suitable for further use and will need to be replaced after the application of these ratings. The mandatory inspections and maintenance actions following the use of 30-second OEI or 2-minute OEI ratings must (1) identify and correct any component distress that could significantly reduce subsequent engine reliability or prevent the engine from achieving 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI power ratings; and (2) maintain the engine in condition for safe OEI flight. The applicant must validate the adequacy of the required inspections and maintenance actions.

The TCCA commented that the requirements for validation of inspection and maintenance actions should not be included in paragraph (b)(1) of A33.4 but under § 33.90.

The FAA partially agrees. We find the requirement for validation of inspection and maintenance actions is more appropriate in the ALS. Section 33.90 establishes when the initial maintenance inspection is required. We revised proposed paragraphs in A33.4(b) to separate the ALS content requirements from the validation requirements. We revised A33.4(b) into these separate requirements: Paragraph (b)(1) specifies the content of the ALS and paragraph (b)(2) specifies the validation requirements. We redesignated proposed (b)(2) as (b)(3) and revised (b)(3) to reference (b)(1) for the requirements related to the instructions for mandatory post-flight inspection and maintenance actions.

The TCCA also commented that it is inappropriate to place an in-service engine evaluation program in the airworthiness requirements of A33.4 as this would become an “open issue” at engine type certification. The TCCA recommends instead that this program be described in an advisory circular as an acceptable means of compliance.

We intend that the applicant should submit an in-service engine evaluation program at engine certification, and that this program should have provisions for the applicant to continue its evaluation throughout the service life of the engine. We note that this requirement harmonizes with CS-E 25 and is unlikely to become a certification issue.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined there is no current or new requirement for information collection associated with this amendment.

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified no differences with these regulations.

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.

Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows:

This final rule codifies existing certification practices while maintaining the existing level of safety. The existing certification practices reflect the ratings' use and lessons learned from completed engine certifications and service experience.

The final rule also harmonizes the FAA standards with those of EASA. Presently, engine manufacturers must satisfy both United States and European requirements to certify and market part 33 engines in both the United States and in Europe. Meeting two sets of certification requirements raises the cost of development often with no increase in safety. In the interest of fostering international trade, lowering the cost of development, and making the certification process more efficient, the FAA, EASA, and manufacturers have worked to create to the maximum possible extent a single set of certification requirements accepted in both the United States and Europe.

This final rule harmonizes FAA type certification standards for OEI ratings with the requirements already in existence in Europe, thus simplifying airworthiness approvals for import and export. The FAA has not attempted to quantify the cost savings that may accrue due to harmonization of this rule, beyond noting that they will contribute to certification and validation savings. There is also potential for increased safety by having clearer and more explicit regulations. In addition, safety after an engine failure or shutdown under the requirements contained in this final rule will be at least equivalent to safety under the previous requirements and certification practices. We received no comments regarding our initial minimal cost determination in the NPRM, and arrive at the same minimal cost determination for this final rule.

Currently, manufacturers that hold OEI ratings are: General Electric Aircraft Engines, Rolls-Royce Corporation (Indiana), Light Helicopter Turbine Engine Company (LHTEC), and Honeywell International, Inc. These manufacturers also seek validation in Europe. For example, the General Electric CT7-8 series turbine engine was validated in Europe in November 2004. Because all existing manufacturers with OEI ratings also seek validation in Europe, where the requirements of this final rule are already in place, it codifies common industry business practice.

Because this final rule codifies existing certification practices while maintaining the existing level of safety, we have determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The benefits of this final rule justify the costs and the existing level of safety will be preserved.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.

However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

In the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination, we found that there would not be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There were no comments on our initial regulatory flexibility determination.

Using the Small Business Administration Size Standards, we find that there are no small business manufacturers who hold OEI ratings. In addition, this rule reduces certification costs. Because this rule reduces costs and no small businesses are affected, our final regulatory flexibility determination is that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Therefore, as the Acting FAA Administrator, I certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

This final rule considers and incorporates an international standard as the basis of an FAA regulation. Thus this final rule complies with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 and does not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100 million.

The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.

The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the Internet by—

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal ( http://www.regulations.gov );

2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ ; or

3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html

You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.

Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov .

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/ .

On July 24, 2008, the FAA published a final rule that extends the duration of the FAA airman medical certificates for certain pilots under the age of 40 at the time of their last medical examination (73 FR 43059). First-class medical certificates, required for airline transport pilot operations, are now valid for 1 year instead of 6 months; third-class medical certificates, required for private pilot operations, are now valid for 5 years instead of 3 years.

In the final rule, the FAA intended to revise § 61.23(d) in its entirety, but inadvertently categorized it only as a revision to paragraph (d)(1).

This correction makes no changes to the substance of the original final rule. It corrects the amendatory language by revising the entire paragraph (d) of § 61.23, as intended, instead of only paragraph (d)(1). It also corrects the regulatory text by removing (1) of the introductory text to paragraph (d). Moreover, the correction brings paragraph designations under (d) in conformance with the proper format requirements. Consequently, the paragraphs in the first column that were previously designated as (i), (ii), and (iii) are now designated as (1), (2), and (3). The paragraphs in the second column that were previously designated with capital letters ((A), (B), (C), etc.) are now designated with roman numerals ((i), (ii), (iii), etc.). The text of the entire table remains the same.

In the Federal Register of July 3, 2008 (73 FR 38110), FDA published an order prohibiting the extralabel use of cephalosporin antimicrobial drugs in food-producing animals, with a 60-day comment period and a 90-day effective date for the final rule.

The agency has received requests for a 60-day extension of the comment period for the order of prohibition. The requests conveyed concern that the current 60-day comment period does not allow sufficient time to examine the available evidence, consider the impact of the ruling, and provide constructive comment.

FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period for the order for 60 days, until November 1, 2008. Accordingly, FDA is also delaying the effective date of the final rule 60 days, until November 30, 2008. The agency believes that a 60-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying implementation of the final rule.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only through FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov .

On October 19, 2007, the State of Tennessee submitted a revision to the Nashville/Davidson County portion of the Tennessee SIP, which included a revision to the Metropolitan Public Health Department, Pollution Control Division's Regulation Number 8, “Inspection and Maintenance of Light-Duty Motor Vehicles.” This revision was promulgated by the Davidson County Metropolitan Health Department, which is the local agency overseeing implementation of air pollution control regulations for Davidson County, including Early Action Compact (EAC) related obligations. The SIP revision currently at issue amends Regulation Number 8 by reducing the emissions inspection fee for light-duty motor vehicles from $10.00 to $9.00 per inspection. The revision also updates the “Definitions” section by clarifying the definition of ‘Carbon Monoxide,’ adding the term ‘Catalytic Converter,’ and clarifying the definition of ‘Heavy-Duty Motor Vehicle.’ Specifically, the definitions will be changed to the following:

Carbon Monoxide —means a compound consisting of the chemical formula (CO).

Catalytic Converter —means a pollution control device containing a catalyst for converting automobile exhaust into mostly harmless products.

Heavy-Duty Motor Vehicle —means any motor vehicle having a combined manufacturer vehicle and maximum loading rate (GVWR) to be carried thereon in excess of 10,500 pounds (4773 kilograms or more).

EPA has reviewed the submittal and determined that is consistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's Policy. Therefore, EPA is approving the aforementioned change to the SIP. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective October 17, 2008 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by September 17, 2008.

If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on October 17, 2008 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• 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);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of voluntary consensus standards would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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 action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 17, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See, section 307(b)(2).)

The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. ; unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However, some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the Federal Register .

FEMA previously identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

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

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below of the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified BFEs have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director of FEMA resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

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

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

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

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

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

These modified BFEs are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

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

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132, Federalism.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Assistant Administrator of the Mitigation Directorate has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

National Environmental Policy Act . This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act . As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

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

Executive Order 13132, Federalism . This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform . This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

Background

In 1983, the Department of Health and Human Services published regulations which addressed the method by which the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Department, and its employees in their official capacities may be served with legal process. The current regulations provide that the service of a summons and complaint on the Department or on any Department official in his official capacity shall be accomplished by regular mail. Service of subpoenas and other process, if not authorized by law to be served by mail, should be hand-delivered to the staff of the correspondence control unit of the Office of the General Counsel. The regulations currently provide that, in the absence of that staff, process should be delivered to any Deputy General Counsel or secretary to any Deputy General Counsel of the Department.

This amendment is designed to make full use of limited personnel resources available to the Immediate Office of the General Counsel when the staff of the General Counsel's Office of Legal Resources (formerly the correspondence control unit) is not available to accept service of process. By expanding those who may accept service of process to either the staff of the Office of Legal Resources within the Office of the General Counsel or to any staff member of or individual assigned to the Immediate Office of the General Counsel in the absence of the Office of Legal Resources staff, resources within the Office of the General Counsel will be channeled more appropriately.

We are also adding a new section to the regulations to address the service of Congressional subpoenas on the Department or the Secretary. Under the amended regulations, the staff in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation is authorized to accept Congressional subpoenas on behalf of the Department. As the official liaison between the Department and Congress, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation is best suited to accept service of Congressional subpoenas, coordinate the Department's response to Congressional investigations and prepare witnesses and testimony for Congressional hearings.

This rule is published as a final rule. It is exempt from public comment, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) as a rule of “agency organization, procedure, or practice.”

This regulation is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act because it deals solely with internal rules governing Department of Health and Human Services personnel.

In accordance with Executive Order 12866, the Secretary has determined that this rule will not constitute a “significant regulatory action” as defined in Executive Order 12866 in that it will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more a year or adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal governments or communities. This rule is therefore not subject to the regulatory impact and analysis requirements of the Order.

This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33112, Insurer reports and information , NHTSA requires certain passenger motor vehicle insurers to file an annual report with the agency. Each insurer's report includes information about thefts and recoveries of motor vehicles, the rating rules used by the insurer to establish premiums for comprehensive coverage, the actions taken by the insurer to reduce such premiums, and the actions taken by the insurer to reduce or deter theft. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section 33112(f), the following insurers are subject to the reporting requirements:

(1) Issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose total premiums account for 1 percent or more of the total premiums of motor vehicle insurance issued within the United States;

(2) Issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose premiums account for 10 percent or more of total premiums written within any one state; and

(3) Rental and leasing companies with a fleet of 20 or more vehicles not covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers of motor vehicles, other than any governmental entity.

Pursuant to its statutory exemption authority, the agency exempted certain passenger motor vehicle insurers from the reporting requirements.

Section 33112(f)(2) provides that the agency shall exempt small insurers of passenger motor vehicles if NHTSA finds that such exemptions will not significantly affect the validity or usefulness of the information in the reports, either nationally or on a state-by-state basis. The term “small insurer” is defined, in Section 33112(f)(1)(A) and (B), as an insurer whose premiums for motor vehicle insurance issued directly or through an affiliate, including pooling arrangements established under state law or regulation for the issuance of motor vehicle insurance, account for less than 1 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the United States. However, that section also stipulates that if an insurance company satisfies this definition of a “small insurer,” but accounts for 10 percent or more of the total premiums for all motor vehicle insurance issued in a particular state, the insurer must report about its operations in that state.

In the final rule establishing the insurer reports requirement (49 CFR part 544; 52 FR 59, January 2, 1987), NHTSA exercised its exemption authority by listing in Appendix A each insurer that must report because it had at least 1 percent of the motor vehicle insurance premiums nationally. Listing the insurers subject to reporting, instead of each insurer exempted from reporting because it had less than 1 percent of the premiums nationally, is administratively simpler, since the former group is much smaller than the latter. In Appendix B, NHTSA lists those insurers required to report for particular states because each insurer had a 10 percent or greater market share of motor vehicle premiums in those states. In the January 1987 final rule, the agency stated that it would update Appendices A and B annually. NHTSA updates the appendices based on data voluntarily provided by insurance companies to A.M. Best, which A.M. Best  1 publishes in its State/Line Report each spring. The agency uses the data to determine the insurers' market shares nationally and in each state.

In addition, upon making certain determinations, NHTSA grants exemptions to self-insurers, i.e. , any person who has a fleet of 20 or more motor vehicles (other than any governmental entity) used for rental or lease whose vehicles are not covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers of passenger motor vehicles, 49 U.S.C. 33112(b)(1) and (f). Under 49 U.S.C. 33112(e)(1) and (2), NHTSA may exempt a self-insurer from reporting, if the agency determines:

(1) The cost of preparing and furnishing such reports is excessive in relation to the size of the business of the insurer;

(2) The insurer's report will not significantly contribute to carrying out the purposes of Chapter 331.

In a final rule published June 22, 1990 (55 FR 25606), the agency granted a class exemption to all companies that rent or lease fewer than 50,000 vehicles, because it believed that the largest companies' reports sufficiently represent the theft experience of rental and leasing companies. NHTSA concluded that smaller rental and leasing companies' reports do not significantly contribute to carrying out NHTSA's statutory obligations and that exempting such companies will relieve an unnecessary burden on them. As a result of the June 1990 final rule, the agency added Appendix C, consisting of an annually updated list of the self-insurers subject to part 544. Following the same approach as in Appendix A, NHTSA included, in Appendix C, each of the self-insurers subject to reporting instead of the self-insurers which are exempted. NHTSA updates Appendix C based primarily on information from Automotive Fleet Magazine and Auto Rental News . 2

Under part 544, as long as an insurer is listed, it must file reports on or before October 25 of each year. Thus, any insurer listed in the appendices must file a report before October 25, 2008, and by each succeeding October 25, absent an amendment removing the insurer's name from the appendices.

On May 6, 2008, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to update the list of insurers in Appendices A, B, and, C required to file reports (73 FR 24906).

Appendix A lists insurers that must report because each had 1 percent of the motor vehicle insurance premiums on a national basis. The list was last amended in a final rule published on August 30, 2007 (72 FR 50077). Based on the 2005 calendar year market share data from A.M. Best, NHTSA proposed to remove CNA Insurance Companies and add Auto Club Southern California Group and California State Auto Group to Appendix A.

Appendix B lists insurers required to report because each insurer had a 10 percent or greater market share of motor vehicle premiums in a particular State. Based on the 2005 calendar year data for market shares from A.M. Best, we proposed to make no changes to Appendix B.

Appendix C lists rental and leasing companies required to file reports. Since Enterprise Fleet Services (EFS) did not meet the criteria the agency uses to determine that an insurer should be included in Appendix C, NHTSA proposed to remove Enterprise Fleet Services.

The agency received no comments in response to the NPRM. Therefore, this final rule adopts the proposed changes to Appendix A and C. Accordingly, NHTSA has determined that each of the 19 insurers listed in Appendix A, each of the nine insurers listed in Appendix B and each of seven companies listed in Appendix C are required to submit an insurer report on its experience for calendar year 2005 no later than October 25, 2008, and set forth the information required by part 544. As long as these insurers and companies remain listed, they would be required to submit reports before each subsequent October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before.

Passenger motor vehicle insurers listed in the appendices can forward their theft loss reports to the agency in several ways:

a. Mail: Rosalind Proctor, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, Department of Transportation, NHTSA, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., NVS-131, Room W43-302, Washington, DC 20590;

b. E-mail: rosalind.proctor@dot.gov; or

c. Fax: (202) 493-0073.

Theft loss reports may also be submitted to the docket electronically [identified by Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0055] by:

d. Logging onto the Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the online instructions for filing the document electronically.

This notice has not been reviewed under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. NHTSA has considered the impact of this final rule and determined that the action is not “significant” within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This final rule implements the agency's policy of ensuring that all insurance companies that are statutorily eligible for exemption from the insurer reporting requirements are in fact exempted from those requirements. Only those companies that are not statutorily eligible for an exemption are required to file reports.

NHTSA does not believe that this rule, reflecting current data, affects the impacts described in the final regulatory evaluation prepared for the final rule establishing part 544 (52 FR 59; January 2, 1987). Accordingly, a separate regulatory evaluation has not been prepared for this rulemaking action. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for 2006 ( see http://www.bls.gov/cpi ), the cost estimates in the 1987 final regulatory evaluation were adjusted for inflation. The agency estimates that the cost of compliance is $103,671 for any insurer added to Appendix A, $41,468 for any insurer added to Appendix B, and $11,964 for any insurer added to Appendix C. This final rule will remove one company and add two companies to Appendix A, and remove one company from Appendix C. Therefore, the net effect of this final rule is an increased cost of $91,707 to insurers as a group.

Interested persons may wish to examine the 1987 final regulatory evaluation. Copies of that evaluation were placed in Docket No. T86-01; Notice 2. Any interested person may obtain a copy of this evaluation by writing to NHTSA, Technical Reference Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., East Building (Ground Floor), Room E12-100, Washington, DC 20590, or by calling (202) 366-2588.

The information collection requirements in this final rule were submitted and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). The existing information collection indicates that the number of respondents for this collection is thirty-five, however, the actual number of respondents fluctuate from year to year. Therefore, because the number of respondents required to report for this final rule does not exceed the number of respondents indicated in the existing information collection, the agency does not believe that an amendment to the existing information collection is necessary. This collection of information is assigned OMB Control Number 2127-0547 (“Insurer Reporting Requirements”) and is approved for use through August 31, 2009, and the agency will seek to extend the approval afterwards.

The agency also considered the effects of this rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). I certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale for the certification is that none of the companies listed on Appendices A or C are construed to be a small entity within the definition of the RFA. “Small insurer” is defined, in part under 49 U.S.C. 33112, as any insurer whose premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance account for less than 1 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the United States, or any insurer whose premiums within any State, account for less than 10 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the State. This notice exempts all insurers meeting those criteria. Any insurer too large to meet those criteria is not a small entity. In addition, in this rulemaking, the agency exempts all “self insured rental and leasing companies” that have fleets of fewer than 50,000 vehicles. Any self-insured rental and leasing company too large to meet that criterion is not a small entity.

This action has been analyzed according to the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined that the final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, NHTSA has considered the environmental impacts of this final rule and determined that it would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

This final rule does not have any retroactive effect, and it does not preempt any State law, 49 U.S.C. 33117 provides that judicial review of this rule may be obtained pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32909, and section 32909 does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

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

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

• Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?

• Are the requirements in the proposal clearly stated?

• Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?

• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?

• Would more (but shorter) sections be better?

• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?

• What else could we do to make the proposal easier to understand?

If you have any responses to these questions, you can forward them to me several ways:

a. Mail: Rosalind Proctor, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., NVS-131, Room W43-302, Washington, DC 20590.

b. E-mail: rosalind.proctor@dot.gov ; or Fax: (202) 493-0073.