On March 16, 2001, OPM published proposed regulations implementing provisions of Public Law 106-398. OPM is making them final with no changes. These provisions: Remove the restriction of this incentive to professional, technical, or administrative personnel; remove the limitation of this incentive to employees covered under General Schedule pay rates; broaden the types of loans which qualify under this part under the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Public Health Service Act; require agencies to report annually to OPM on their use of this incentive; and require OPM to report annually to Congress on agencies' use of this incentive. These regulations reflect the amendments to 5 U.S.C. 5379.

The repayment authority is one of several flexibilities made available to agencies when trying to attract individuals to the Federal service, or retain highly qualified personnel.

These final regulations amend the following: Purpose, Definition of Employee, Definition of Student Loan, and Records and Reports.

OPM received comments from 3 agencies and 6 individuals.

One agency commented that the $40,000 payment limitation is not clear, and that the final regulations should provide greater clarity as to what this limitation represents. OPM did not adopt this suggestion because we believe the language in the regulation at 5 CFR 537.106(c)(2), which reads, “a total of $40,000 per employee”, is sufficiently clear. The $40,000 limitation is the maximum an agency may pay to any one employee. The same agency also suggested that the final regulations state whether this benefit is subject to the aggregate limitation on pay. OPM did not adopt this suggestion because that issue is outside the scope of these regulations. However, OPM is amending the questions and answers on student loan repayments on the OPM Web site to clarify that these payments are not subject to that aggregate limitation.

Another agency suggested that OPM serve as a resource for information pertaining to tax withholding and payroll related issues associated with the use of this benefit. OPM does not agree with this suggestion because we have no authority to provide guidance on tax related issues. OPM defers to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on tax related matters. However OPM, with input from the IRS, provides information pertaining to the tax related aspects of this benefit in our Questions and Answers. This agency also commented that the annual reporting requirements do not impose an undue burden on agencies.

A third agency suggested that the annual reporting requirement be conducted on a fiscal year basis to coincide with agency reports for other recruitment, retention, and relocation incentives. OPM agrees with this suggestion and will adopt a fiscal year reporting requirement. We will address reporting timeframes in our Questions and Answers.

One individual commented that more guidelines are needed to ensure appropriate implementation of this program and to safeguard against abuses of the program. OPM did not address this suggestion in the final regulations because we have issued accompanying Questions and Answers guidance to assist agencies with their implementation of this program.

Another individual suggested the final regulations clarify what is expected of employees after they receive this benefit. OPM has already addressed this in 5 CFR 537.107 (service agreements) and in 5 CFR 537.108 (loss of eligibility for loan repayment benefits).

Another individual suggested that OPM define the term, “highly qualified personnel” in the final regulations. OPM did not adopt this suggestion. A standard definition of “highly qualified personnel” may limit agencies in their use of this authority, as there are many ways in which an individual may be deemed highly qualified in relation to the duties they perform or the skills they possess. OPM reminds agencies that they can define the term in their agency plans for using this authority.

Finally, one individual noted the difficulties in showing that an employee would be likely to leave for employment outside the Federal service. The individual commented that proof of an offer of employment is too unrealistic and difficult to obtain, and that private sector employers are not likely to provide such proof. OPM believes the final regulations give agencies wide latitude in how they determine whether an employee may be likely to leave for employment outside the Federal service. The final regulations do not specify that proof from a private sector employer is required in order for this benefit to be used as a retention incentive.

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

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects only certain Federal employees.

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement Nos. 124 and 85, and Marketing Order Nos. 916 and 917 (7 CFR parts 916 and 917) regulating the handling of nectarines and peaches grown in California, respectively, hereinafter referred to as the “orders.” The marketing agreements and orders are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, the Secretary would rule in the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This rule modifies the reporting requirements under the orders' rules and regulations by establishing an exemption from filing mandatory monthly destination reports for handlers who handle less than 50,000 containers or container equivalents for nectarines, peaches, and plums. While nectarines and peaches are regulated under the Federal marketing orders, plums are regulated under a California state marketing order. Most handlers, however, handle and report on a combination of these fruit.

Under this modification, handlers who shipped less than 50,000 containers or container equivalents of any combination of nectarines, peaches, and plums in the 2000 season will be exempted from filing monthly destination reports in subsequent seasons, provided their shipments continue to total less than 50,000 containers or container equivalents of these fruit in the previous season.

Handlers who begin operation during or after the 2001 season will also be exempt from filing monthly destination reports during their first year of operation. These handlers will continue to be exempt from such reporting requirements as long as their shipments of these tree fruit total less than 50,000 containers or container equivalents, in the previous season.

Handlers who are not exempt, but in some subsequent year ship less than 50,000 containers or container equivalents, will be exempt the following season and will be exempt in subsequent seasons, provided their shipments continue to total less than 50,000.

Under the orders, reporting requirements are established in §§ 916.60 and 917.50 for fresh shipments of California nectarines and peaches, respectively. Such reports are to be filed with the committees. The information authorized includes: (1) The name of the shipper and the shipping point; (2) the car or truck license number (or name of the trucker), and identification of the carrier; (3) the date and time of departure; (4) the number and type of containers in the shipment; (5) the quantities shipped, showing separately the variety, grade, and size of the fruit; (6) the destination; and (7) the identification of the inspection certificate or waiver pursuant to which the fruit was handled. Other information may be requested by the committees, with the approval of the Secretary, to enable the committees to carry out their duties.

Sections 916.160 and 917.178 of the orders' rules and regulations specify the reporting procedures for handlers of nectarines and peaches, which include the requirements related to destination reports.

Information from destination reports is utilized by the NAC and PCC to determine the quantities of nectarines and peaches shipped to various markets. Such information permits the committees to target marketing research and promotion efforts more effectively, giving the committees the flexibility to direct their limited marketing funds to open new markets or expand existing markets.

The more accurate the information obtained from handlers, the more precisely the committees can address their marketing research and promotion efforts. However, this information collection comes at a cost to the committees and to handlers, especially smaller handlers who generally lack the staff to prepare such reports.

The NAC and PCC, which are responsible for local administration of the orders, met on May 3, 2001, and unanimously recommended that these reporting requirements be revised, beginning with the 2001 season, which began April 1. However, because the season has already begun, the relaxation in report requirements will be implemented as of the effective date of this rule.

At three subcommittee meetings prior to the May 3, 2001, committee meetings, discussions on the merits of the exemption were held. The Management Services Committee met on January 18, 2001, and discussed a request from a small handler to review the destination report requirements. It was reported that destination information from small handlers is not always accurate since the reporting handlers do not necessarily know the final destination of their fruit sold at terminal markets. It was also noted that the burden of filing destination reports is often a complaint of small handlers.

The Management Services Committee then directed the committee staff to review the destination report requirements and procedures, and make recommendations based upon their review at the following Management Services Committee meeting.

The Management Services Committee met again on March 6, 2001, and discussed the destination report information provided by the committee staff. The members also discussed changes to the destination report requirements, as well as the effect of the revision on handlers in the industry and on information gathering conducted by the committees.

A review of destination report records by the staff revealed that approximately 160 handlers shipped less than 50,000 containers of all three-tree fruit during the 2000 season. As a percentage of total shipments, these handlers represent approximately 3 percent of all shipments of nectarines, peaches, and plums. The committees' staff spends a portion of their time administering the collection of this relatively small amount of additional information. The committees believe that exempting information from handlers who represent approximately 3 percent of all tree fruit shipments would not have a significant effect on overall destination information, and may actually improve the accuracy of destination information. These handlers are small entities, and such a relaxation will reduce the reporting burden on them. In addition, the committees' administrative costs associated with destination reports may be reduced.

Finally, the Management Services Committee met on April 18, 2001, to review destination report summaries from the 2000 season. Based on all the information considered, the members voted unanimously to recommend to the NAC and PCC that handlers who ship less than 50,000 containers or container equivalents of tree fruit (including nectarines, peaches, and plums) should be exempted from filing monthly destination reports.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.

There are approximately 300 California nectarine and peach handlers subject to regulation under the orders covering nectarines and peaches grown in California, and about 1,800 producers of these fruits in California. Small agricultural service firms, which includes handlers, are defined by the Small Business Administration [13 CFR 121.201] as those whose annual receipts are less than $5,000,000. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration as those having annual receipts of less than $500,000. A majority of these handlers and producers may be classified as small entities, excluding receipts from other sources.

The committees' staff has estimated that there are less than 20 handlers of nectarines and peaches in the industry who could be defined as other than small entities. In the 2000 season, the average handler price received was $9.00 per container or container equivalent of nectarines or peaches. A handler would have to ship at least 555,556 containers of nectarines and peaches to have annual receipts of $5,000,000. Given data on shipments maintained by the committees' staff and the average handler price received during the previous season, the committees' staff estimates that small handlers of nectarines and peaches represent approximately 94 percent of the handlers within the industry.

The committees' staff has also estimated that approximately 22 percent of the nectarine and peach producers in the industry could be defined as other than small entities. In the 2000 season, the average producer price received was $5.50 per container or container equivalent for nectarines, and $5.25 per container or container equivalent for peaches. A producer would have to produce at least 90,910 containers of nectarines and 95,239 containers of peaches to have annual receipts of $500,000. Given data maintained by the committees' staff and the average producer price received during the 2000 season, the committees' staff estimates that small producers represent approximately 78 percent of the nectarine and peach producers within the industry.

This rule will revise §§ 916.160 and 917.178 of the orders' administrative rules and regulations to relax the requirement that all handlers file monthly destination reports. Under this rule, handlers who shipped less than 50,000 containers or container equivalents of tree fruit during the 2000 season will be exempted from filing monthly destination reports in subsequent seasons, as long as their shipments total less than 50,000 containers or container equivalents of tree fruit in the previous season.

Handlers who begin operations during or after the 2001 season will also be exempt from filing monthly destination reports during their first season of operation. Such handlers will continue to be exempt in subsequent seasons as long as their shipments total less than 50,000 containers or container equivalents of tree fruit in the previous season.

The NAC and PCC met on May 3, 2001, and unanimously recommended these changes to the reporting requirements for the 2001 season, which began April 1. This action was recommended to the committees by a subcommittee charged with review and discussion of the changes.

The Management Services Committee met on January 18, 2001, to discuss a request from a small handler concerning destination report requirements. At that time, the members reviewed the request and directed the staff to research the destination report requirements and procedures. At the March 6, 2001, meeting, the Management Services Committee reviewed a staff recommendation to relax the destination reporting requirements for small handlers. The members also considered two alternatives to this action at that meeting.

First, the committee considered not establishing any exemption for small handlers. This alternative was rejected because the members felt that small handlers should be provided an exemption from the destination reporting requirements. Second, they considered establishing a filing exemption for handlers who shipped less than 10,000 containers of tree fruit during the 2000 season. The committee estimated that this exemption would affect approximately 100 handlers only and one percent of total shipments. The Management Services Committee rejected that alternative because they believed that more handlers should be exempted from the requirement for filing destination reports. After some discussion, it was determined and recommended by the Management Services Committee that handlers who ship less than 50,000 containers or container equivalents of tree fruit should be exempted from filing monthly destination reports.

At a subsequent Management Services Committee meeting on April 18, 2001, the members reviewed destination report summaries from the 2000 season and voted unanimously to recommend to the NAC and PCC that handlers who ship less than 50,000 containers or container equivalents of tree fruit be exempted from filing monthly destination reports.

The committees make recommendations regarding all the revisions in reporting requirements after considering all available information, including comments of persons at committee and subcommittee meetings, and comments received in writing or verbally by committee staff. Such subcommittees include the Management Services Committee.

At the meetings, the impact of and alternatives to these recommendations are deliberated. These subcommittees, like the committees themselves, frequently consist of individual producers (and handlers, where authorized) with many years' experience in the industry, who are familiar with industry practices. Like all committee meetings, subcommittee meetings are open to the public and comments are widely solicited.

This relaxation is expected to have an impact on small handlers by reducing the time and related costs of filing monthly destination reports. The committees estimate that approximately 160 peach and nectarine handlers would be exempt from filing destination reports. Each handler files an average of four reports each season. The time each handler spends preparing the monthly report has been estimated at 45 minutes. Therefore, in terms of reporting burden time, each qualified respondent handler will save an average of three hours each season as a result of this exemption. In total, this exemption could save the qualified industry respondents approximately 480 hours annually each for peach handlers and nectarine handlers.

This rule is also expected to have an impact on the committees by decreasing hours of staff time currently utilized to collect, reconcile, and assimilate destination report data received from small handlers.

This rule does not impose any additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements on either small or large handlers. In fact, as noted previously, this rule will reduce reporting and recordkeeping requirements on qualified handlers, as well as on the committees themselves. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection requirements that are contained in this rule have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB No. 0581-0189. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies, such as effectuated by this rule.

The Department has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

In addition, the committees' meetings are widely publicized throughout the nectarine and peach industries and all interested parties are encouraged to attend and participate in committee deliberations on all issues. The committees routinely schedule meetings bi-annually during the last week of November or first week of December, and the last week of April or first week of May. Like all committee meetings, the May 3, 2001, meetings were public meetings, and all entities, large and small, were encouraged to express views on these issues.

In addition, the committees have a number of appointed subcommittees to review certain issues and make recommendations to the NAC and PCC. For this action, three subcommittee meetings were held prior to the May 3, 2001, meeting at which these regulations were reviewed and discussed.

Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at the following website: http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

This rule invites comments on revisions of the handling requirements regarding destination reporting currently prescribed under the marketing orders for California fresh nectarines and peaches. Any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

After consideration of all relevant matters presented, the information and recommendations submitted by the committees, and other information, it is found that this interim final rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined, upon good cause, that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The shipping season for California nectarines and peaches is currently underway and handlers should be allowed to utilize this exemption as soon as possible; (2) this rule relaxes reporting requirements for some handlers of nectarines and peaches; (3) the committees unanimously recommended these changes at public meetings and interested persons had an opportunity to provide input; and (4) the rule provides a 60-day comment period, and any written comments timely received will be considered prior to any finalization of this interim final rule.

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 930, both as amended (7 CFR part 930), regulating the handling of tart cherries grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The marketing agreement and order are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

The order authorizes the use of volume regulation. In years when volume regulation is implemented to stabilize supplies, a certain percentage of the cherry crop is required to be set aside as restricted tonnage, and the balance may be marketed freely as free tonnage. The restricted tonnage is required to be maintained in handler-owned inventory reserve pools. Under § 930.59, Handler diversion privilege, handlers in regulated districts may fulfill any restricted percentage requirements by diverting cherries or cherry products in programs approved by the Board. One form of diversion which the Board may authorize is the use of cherries for exempt purposes under § 930.62. That section states that the Board, with the approval of the Secretary, may exempt from various requirements of the order (such as assessments, and reserve pool obligation) cherries used for certain purposes such as experimental use or new market development. Section 930.162 of the regulations under the order contains various approved forms of exemption and the procedure for applying for, and obtaining, exempt use approval from the Board as well as diversion credit. One of the exempt uses authorized by regulation is the use of cherries or cherry products in the development of export markets (other than Canada and Mexico) provided that such products do not include juice or juice concentrate. When recommending provisions of the order, the industry considered Canada and Mexico to be premium markets for tart cherries, not outlets for which exemptions and diversion certificates should be given. The industry also was concerned about transshipments of lower priced cherries because of their close proximity to the United States and the primary domestic market. Thus, Canada and Mexico are excluded as eligible countries for the development of export markets.

The Board held a meeting on March 20, 2001, and unanimously recommended that the provision prohibiting handlers from receiving diversion credit through use of juice and juice concentrate be suspended from the order. However, the Board recommended that the suspension be only applicable to exports.

During the order promulgation process, producers and handlers from Oregon and Washington (Northwest), expressed concern that juice and/or juice concentrate could be established by the Board as a use eligible for diversion credit. Some handlers in the Northwest processed all or the majority of their cherries into juice/juice concentrate. At that time, this was the Northwest's primary product and handlers in the Northwest would not be subject to volume regulation. Northwest producers and handlers were concerned that the juicing and concentrating of surplus or restricted cherries by handlers in regulated districts (Michigan, New York, and Utah) would oversupply the Northwest's juice market with low-quality, low-priced product. Record testimony indicated that cherries produced in the Northwest have a high brix (sugar content) level desirable for juice/juice concentrate which produces a high quality product. Because of these concerns, the provision preventing the issuance of diversion credit for tart cherry juice and juice concentrate were included in the order in 1996 to protect the juice market for tart cherry producers and handlers in the Northwest.

However, use of juice and juice concentrate for export was allowed under the exemption provisions for the 1997-1998 season. The 1997-1998 season was the first season of operation for this order and its provisions were new to the industry and complex to administer. Handlers new to the order provision had shipped or contracted to ship tart cherry juice or juice concentrate to eligible countries with the intention of applying for diversion certificates. If those handlers had been prohibited from receiving diversion certificates for those sales, the handlers would have incurred severe financial difficulties. Thus, the provision against exports of juice and juice concentrate was suspended for the 1997-1998 season.

The Northwest tart cherry industry, specifically in Washington, is changing. Washington handlers are now producing 5 + 1 cherries (25 pounds of cherries to 5 pounds of sugar) in addition to packing juice and juice concentrate. According to the industry, the situation facing compliance with volume regulations, if necessary, for the 2001-2002 season is of significant concern for all regulated handlers and Washington handlers in particular. It is quite likely that the primary inventory reserve will be full at the onset of the harvest for the 2001-2002 crop year. The primary inventory reserve has a maximum limit of 50 million pounds of restricted cherries. If this reserve is full, the only reserve option for regulated handlers is a secondary reserve. A secondary reserve is an option for a handler when the primary reserve is above the 50 million pound limit. However, from a practical standpoint, a secondary reserve is not a reasonable option. Handlers establishing secondary reserves are responsible for all costs of that reserve, including inspection costs. This could prove costly for handlers establishing secondary reserves as no cherries can be released from the secondary reserve until all cherries in the primary reserve have been released. Handlers, in order to meet restricted percentage requirements, would have to consider options other than using inventory reserves. Diversion options are available to handlers. In-orchard diversion of cherries takes place when cherries are not harvested and left in the orchard. At-plant diversion of cherries takes place at the handler's facility prior to placing cherries into the processing line. This is to ensure that the cherries diverted were not simply an undesirable or unmarketable product of processing. According to the Board, export diversion would probably be the most preferred of the options. However, this option would not be available to handlers if the current limitation on exports of juice and/or juice concentrate continues. Products that sell in the export markets are mostly hot-pack (canned), dried, IQF (Individually Quick Frozen), juice or concentrate. Five plus one (5 + 1) cherries do not generally sell in export markets. This type of processed product contains sugar and is subject to increased tariffs when exported.

Tart cherry handlers in Washington produce only a few products. As previously mentioned, they produce juice and juice concentrate and 5 + 1 products. Without the ability to export juice and/or juice concentrate for diversion credit, Washington handlers could have difficulty in meeting their restricted percentage requirements. The suspension of the provision in § 930.59 of the order that prevent handlers from receiving diversion credit for juice and juice concentrate will allow Washington handlers as well as other handlers in volume regulated districts to receive diversion credit for such shipments. This will enable handlers to increase sales to new markets and fulfill their restricted reserve obligation for the 2001-2002 crop year.

The Board recommended that the proviso in § 930.59 concerning the exclusion of juice and concentrate products be suspended insofar as it applies to exports. In order to accomplish the intent of the Board's recommendation, the whole proviso needs to be suspended. Diversion credit may be granted for uses which fall under the exemptions in § 930.62 of the order. The regulations in § 930.162 implement the authority in the order concerning exempt uses and contain the terms and conditions under which diversion credit may be approved. Consistent with the Board's recommendation, the regulation will be amended to reflect the intent that exempt use approval, and diversion credit in the case of juice and juice concentrate will only be allowed for exports to countries other than Canada and Mexico.

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities and has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) would allow AMS to certify that regulations do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, as a matter of general policy, AMS' Fruit and Vegetable Programs (Programs) no longer opts for such certification, but rather performs regulatory flexibility analyses for any rulemaking that would generate the interest of a significant number of small entities. Performing such analyses shifts the Programs' efforts from determining whether regulatory flexibility analyses are required to the consideration of regulatory options and economic or regulatory impacts.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.

There are approximately 900 producers of tart cherries in the production area and approximately 40 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers have been defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts less than $500,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $5,000,000. The majority of tart cherry producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.

Data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) states that for 1999, tart cherry utilization for juice, wine, or brined uses was 34.5 million pounds for all districts covered under the order. The total processed amount for 1999 was 252.3 million pounds. Juice, wine, and brined tart cherries represented about 14 percent of the total processed crop, and about 10 percent over the last three seasons (1997 through 1999).

This rule suspends a provision in the order to allow handlers to receive diversion credit for exporting tart cherry juice and juice concentrate to certain eligible countries. The Board met on March 20, 2001, and unanimously recommended that the provision prohibiting handlers from receiving diversion credit through use of juice and juice concentrate be suspended from the order. However, the Board recommended that the suspension be only applicable to exports.

During the order promulgation process, producers and handlers from Oregon and Washington (Northwest), expressed concern that juice and/or juice concentrate could be established by the Board as a use eligible for diversion credit. Some handlers in the Northwest processed all or the majority of their cherries into juice/juice concentrate. At that time, this was the Northwest's primary product and handlers in the Northwest would not be subject to volume regulation. Northwest producers and handlers were concerned that the juicing and concentrating of surplus or restricted cherries by handlers in regulated districts (Michigan, New York, and Utah) would oversupply the Northwest's juice market with low-quality, low-priced product. Record testimony indicated that cherries produced in the Northwest have a high brix (sugar content) level desirable for juice/juice concentrate which produces a high quality product. Because of these concerns, the provision preventing the issuance of diversion credit for tart cherry juice and juice concentrate were included in the order in 1996 to protect the juice market for tart cherry producers and handlers in the Northwest. In the long run, it is anticipated that all businesses, whether large or small, will benefit from this suspension action because market growth will be increased for tart cherry products, grower returns will be improved, and less fruit will be abandoned in-orchard or at-plant by producers and handlers. Moreover, all regulated handlers will be allowed to participate in export markets and have access to diversion credits.

According to the industry, the situation facing compliance with volume regulations, if necessary, for the 2001-2002 season is of significant concern for all regulated handlers and Washington handlers in particular. It is quite likely that the primary inventory reserve will be full at the onset of the harvest for the 2001-2002 crop year. The primary inventory reserve has a maximum limit of 50 million pounds of restricted cherries. If this reserve is full, the only reserve option for regulated handlers is a secondary reserve. A secondary reserve is an option for a handler when the primary reserve is above the 50 million pound limit. However, from a practical standpoint, a secondary reserve is not a reasonable option. Handlers establishing secondary reserves are responsible for all costs of that reserve, including inspection costs. This could prove costly for handlers establishing secondary reserves as no cherries can be released from the secondary reserve until all cherries in the primary reserve have been released. Handlers, in order to meet restricted percentage requirements, would have to consider options other than using inventory reserves. Diversion options are available to handlers. In-orchard diversion of cherries takes place when cherries are not harvested and left in the orchard. At-plant diversion of cherries takes place at the handler's facility prior to placing cherries into the processing line. This is to ensure that the cherries diverted were not simply an undesirable or unmarketable product of processing. According to the Board, export diversion would probably be the most preferred of the options. However, this option would not be available to handlers if the current limitation on exports of juice and/or juice concentrate continues. The suspension of the order provision that prevents handlers from receiving diversion credit for juice and juice concentrate will allow Washington handlers as well as other handlers in volume regulated districts to receive diversion credit for such shipments. To be consistent with the Board's intent, the regulation would prevent the use of juice or juice concentrate for exempt use or diversion credit in the domestic market. This will enable handlers to increase sales to new markets and fulfill their restricted reserve obligation for the 2001-2002 crop year. Industry estimates are that in Washington State alone, this suspension would affect up to 4,200 tons of juice/juice concentrate products, with an estimated value of $1.5 to $2.5 million dollars.

One alternative to this relaxation would be to continue the status quo. However, this would not be favorable to cherry producers and handlers as they would be forced to either destroy tons of cherries in-orchard or at-plant, or incur costly storage fees for maintaining a secondary reserve.

This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large tart cherry handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, the Department has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

In compliance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations (5 CFR Part 1320) which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements imposed by this order have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB Number 0581-0177.

The Board's meeting was publicized and all Board members and alternate Board members, representing both large and small entities, were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Board deliberations. The Board itself is composed of 18 members, of which 17 members are growers and handlers and one represents the public. Also, the Board has a number of appointed committees to review certain issues and make recommendations.

Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at the following website: http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

This rule invites comments on suspending language in the provisions in the order to allow handlers to receive diversion credit for exporting juice and juice concentrate to countries other than Canada and Mexico. All comments received will be considered in finalizing this interim final rule.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Board and other available information, it is hereby found that the provision suspended does not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act, while the additional regulatory amendments are necessary to implement the suspension, and, therefore, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The 2001-2002 crop year begins July 1, 2001, and this rule needs to be effective as soon as possible in order to allow the industry to take advantage of the export opportunity; (2) the Board unanimously recommended this change at a public meeting and interested persons had an opportunity to provide input; and (3) this interim final rule provides a 30-day comment period, and all comments timely received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule. In view of the above, a thirty day comment period is deemed appropriate.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) was published in the Federal Register on March 19, 2001 (66 FR 15365). The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 98-15-51, amendment 39-10678 (63 FR 40805, July 31, 1998). AD 98-15-51 is applicable to all Airbus Model A300 B2, A300 B4, A310, A319, A320, A321, A330, and A340 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, A300 B4-600R, and A300 F4-600R (collectively called A300-600) series airplanes. The NPRM proposed to require, for certain airplanes, inspecting and/or replacing the cover of the braking dual distribution valve (BDDV) with an improved cover. For all other airplanes, that action proposed to provide for optional termination of the repetitive checks. That action also proposed to revise the applicability of the existing AD.

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

One commenter (the manufacturer) requests that the applicability of the proposed AD be revised to remove certain airplanes. The commenter notes that accomplishment of the modification specified by paragraph (d) of the proposed AD would terminate all actions for Model A300, A300-600, A310, A330, and A340 series airplanes. Therefore, the commenter suggests that the proposed AD would not be applicable for those airplanes on which the modification has already been accomplished.

The FAA concurs, for the reasons provided by the commenter. The applicability of the final rule has been revised accordingly.

This same commenter requests that Note 6 of the proposed AD be revised to identify all related French airworthiness directives.

The FAA concurs. Some of the references were inadvertently omitted from the proposed AD. The final rule has been revised accordingly.

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

Approximately 367 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. Of these, approximately 311 are Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes.

The repetitive operational checks that are currently required by AD 98-15-51 and retained in this AD take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the repetitive checks is estimated to be $60 per airplane, per check.

The new inspection required for certain Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the new inspection is estimated to be $60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The new BDDV cover replacement required by this AD for Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will be provided by the manufacturer at no cost to operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact on U.S. operators of the replacement is estimated to be $55,980, or $180 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to Airbus Model A300 B2; A300 B4; A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R (collectively called A300-600); A310; A319; A320; A321; A330; and A340 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2001 (66 FR 21697). That action proposed to require replacement of Labinal actuators in certain powered cockpit seats with new improved actuators.

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

One commenter generally concurs with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) but suggests that the AD be applicable to SOGERMA cockpit seats rather than to the airplane models, because the AD addresses a problem associated with the cockpit seats.

The FAA does not concur and notes that its general policy, when an unsafe condition results from an appliance or other item that is installed on multiple airplane models, is that the AD is issued so that it is applicable to those airplane models, rather than to the item. The reason for this is simple: Making the AD applicable to the airplane models on which the appliance or other item is installed ensures that operators of those airplanes will be notified directly of the unsafe condition and the action required to correct it. While it is assumed that an operator will know the models of airplanes that it operates, there is a potential that the operator will not know or be aware of specific items that are installed on its airplanes. Therefore, calling out the airplane model as the subject of the AD prevents “unknowing non-compliance” on the part of the operator.

Another comment was submitted by the Air Transport Association, on behalf of one of its member airlines. That comment states that a compliance period of 6 months will not be adequate to complete the required replacement of actuators in the cockpit seats, that the member airline has had no reported failures of the actuators in the last 7 years, and that the replacement should be accomplished during the regularly scheduled “C-check.” The ATA requests that the compliance period be extended to 18 months.

The FAA does not concur with this comment. One reason is that the Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, has issued airworthiness directive 2000-524(B), dated December 27, 2000, which specifies a compliance time of 6 months to replace the LABINAL actuators. Another reason is that the airplane manufacturer has reported 2 recent instances of uncommanded movement of the cockpit seats during flight. In consonance with the DGAC and considering the magnitude of the risk involved, the FAA considers 6 months to be an appropriate compliance period. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

The FAA estimates that 548 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required replacement, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will be provided at no cost to the operator. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $131,520, or $240 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 97-19-15, amendment 39-10136 (62 FR 48754, September 17, 1997), which is applicable to all Boeing Model 767 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2000 (65 FR 50166). The action proposed to continue to require revising the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to include procedures that will ensure that the center tank fuel pumps are not operated with less than 1,000 pounds of fuel in the center tank. The action proposed to require a further revision of the AFM to specify conditions for minimum fuel weight requirements and procedures for ground transfer of fuel for certain airplanes, repetitive inspections to detect discrepancies of the center tank override/jettison fuel pumps, and replacement of any discrepant pump with a new or serviceable pump. The action also proposed to require that any override/jettison pump that incorporates a configuration without a diffuser be restored to a configuration that incorporates a diffuser. Additionally, the action proposed to require installation of a new configuration center tank fuel pump, which would terminate the AFM revisions regarding fuel system operating procedures and repetitive inspection requirements.

Paragraph (i) of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposed to require installation of “modified center tank override and jettison fuel pumps that are not subject to the unsafe condition,” in accordance with a method approved by the FAA. Since the issuance of the proposed rule, the FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Service Bulletins 767-28-0062 and 767-28-0063, both dated December 20, 2000. Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28-0062 provides procedures for accomplishment of the modification of the override and override/jettison fuel pumps. Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28-0063 provides procedures for installing a placard for the wing fueling station to advise that use of JP-4 or Jet B fuel in the center fuel tank is prohibited. The FAA has approved incorporation of these service bulletins as an acceptable means of compliance with paragraph (i) of this AD, and has added a new note, Note 5, to this final rule to acknowledge this means of compliance.

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

One commenter supports the proposed rule.

One commenter states that the applicability of the proposed rule should be restricted to Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes with line numbers up to 797, and should not apply to any Model 767-400ER series airplanes. The commenter justifies its request on the fact that Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes with line numbers 798 and higher are delivered with new override or override/jettison fuel pumps with cast-in diffusers, such as are required to be installed by paragraph (i) of this AD. The commenter states that the pump configuration with a cast-in diffuser is the only approved configuration for Model 767-400ER series airplanes. The commenter requests that the FAA revise the applicability of this AD to apply to airplanes on which an override or override/jettison fuel pump, as applicable, having a specific part number, is installed.

The FAA partially concurs with the commenter's request. The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request to list the applicability of the AD in terms of airplanes equipped with certain part numbers. Also, while the FAA acknowledges that airplanes with line numbers 798 and above were delivered with the new configuration override or override/jettison fuel pump, as applicable, the FAA is concerned that another pump configuration could be removed from an airplane with a line number before 798 and installed during line maintenance on a Model 767-200, -300, or -300F series airplane with a line number of 798 or above. Thus, the FAA finds it necessary to make this AD applicable to all Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes.

However, the FAA does concur that the only approved pump configuration for Model 767-400ER series airplanes is the new configuration pump with a cast-in diffuser, and the maintenance documentation for these airplanes correctly reflects this configuration without potential for confusion. Thus, the applicability of this AD has been revised to exclude all Model 767-400ER series airplanes.

Two commenters request that the FAA provide relief from the requirement to install a modified override or override/jettison pump per paragraph (i) of the proposed AD for airplanes on which the center fuel tanks are deactivated as described by paragraph (f) of the proposed AD. One commenter points out that airplanes with center fuel tanks that have been deactivated have certain motor winding circuits open for the override or override/jettison fuel pumps, and'with no power available to operate the pumps'there is no chance of sparks being generated within the center fuel tank.

The FAA concurs with the commenters' request. The FAA has revised paragraph (f) of this final rule to specify that, for airplanes equipped with a center tank scavenge system on which the center fuel tank is deactivated, the pump replacement specified by paragraph (i) of this AD is not required.

Several commenters request that the compliance time for the installation of new configuration override or override/ jettison fuel pumps be extended beyond the 24 months specified in paragraph (i) of the proposed rule. Several commenters request an increase in the compliance time to 60 months, while one commenter suggests a compliance time of 48 months. The commenters state that replacement of the center tank override or override/jettison fuel pumps within 24 months after the effective date of this AD is not reasonable nor practical. The commenters' reasons include the facts that a sufficient quantity of replacement parts will not be available in the proposed 24-month compliance period, and overhaul facilities will be unable to complete the work on the affected fleet of airplanes within that timeframe. Related to the request to extend the compliance time for the requirements of paragraph (i) of the proposed AD, one additional commenter asks that, if the compliance time for paragraph (i) cannot be extended beyond 24 months, the requirement be removed from this AD and issued as a separate action. An additional commenter simply asks for the supply plan for the modified override or override/jettison fuel pumps, so that it can better understand the availability of the new configuration override or override/jettison fuel pumps.

The FAA partially concurs with the commenters' requests to extend the compliance time. Based on discussions with the airplane manufacturer and the manufacturer of the override and override/jettison fuel pumps, the FAA has determined that a compliance time of 36 months after the effective date of this AD for the replacement of the affected override or override/jettison fuel pumps with new configuration pumps is sufficient for an adequate quantity of new configuration parts to be available and for overhaul facilities to be able to schedule modification of the affected fleet of airplanes. At the same time, the FAA has determined that the combination of inspections and revised flight crew procedures required by this AD will be adequate to ensure an acceptable level of safety for the affected airplanes during the 36-month compliance time. The FAA has revised paragraph (i) of this AD accordingly.

Further, the FAA finds that similar rationale supports an extension of the compliance time for paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD. A 36-month compliance time for those paragraphs will allow new configuration override or override/jettison fuel pumps to be installed to achieve compliance with these paragraphs. Therefore, the FAA has also revised paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD accordingly.

With regard to one commenter's request to remove the requirements of paragraph (i) from this AD and issue a separate AD to require the actions in that paragraph, the FAA finds that to further delay implementation of the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD in that way would be inappropriate. The FAA has determined that 36 months is the maximum interval allowable wherein the affected airplanes can continue to operate without incorporation of the new configuration override or override/jettison fuel pumps. No change is necessary in this regard.

Specifically with regard to one commenter's request to provide a supply plan for the replacement override or override/jettison fuel pumps, the FAA interprets this request as an expression of concern about the compliance time. Based on information received from the manufacturer, the FAA has determined that a sufficient quantity of replacement parts will be available within the 36-month compliance time for paragraph (i) of this final rule. However, if the commenter wants more information on the supply plan, the pump manufacturer may be able to provide this information. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

Several commenters request changes in various technical terms and correction of typographical errors in the proposed rule, as follows:

• One commenter requests that the proposed rule be revised to reference not just override pumps but also override/jettison pumps throughout the AD, where applicable. The commenter notes that the proposed rule pertains to both the override and override/jettison fuel boost pumps on Model 767 series airplanes.

• Two commenters request that the terminology “metal-to-metal contact” in the statement of unsafe condition in various places in the proposed AD be changed to “steel-to-steel contact.” The commenters state that this change will provide clarification.

• One commenter requests that the statement of what prompted the proposed rule be revised in the summary to refer to other, more likely, failure modes instead of only cracks in the diffuser assembly.

• Two commenters request correction of a typographical error in Note 2 of the proposed rule, so that the note refers to paragraph (e) rather than paragraph (d). The commenters correctly note that paragraph (d) doesn't specify an inspection.

• One commenter requests that the heading that precedes paragraph (i) of the proposed rule be changed from “Installation of Modified Pumps” to “Installation of New Configuration Pumps.”

The FAA concurs with the commenters” requests as stated above, and has revised the appropriate sections of this final rule accordingly.

One commenter made two additional requests for clarification. The commenter asks the FAA to revise the last line in the “Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule” section of the proposed rule, to delete the reference to Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28-0052, dated May 20, 1999, as being relevant to inspection and replacement of override and override/jettison fuel pumps with machined diffusers installed. The commenter points out that the instructions in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28-0052 are only for installing an override or override/jettison pump that did not incorporate a diffuser. The same commenter also asks that the FAA revise the same section to state that the proposed rule proposes elimination of override or override/jettison pumps that do not incorporate diffusers, and that paragraph (i) requires installation of a new override or override/jettison pump that is no longer subject to the unsafe condition.

While the FAA concurs with these comments in principle and acknowledges that a typographical error resulted in a reference to Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28-0052 instead of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0057, this final rule does not restate the section of the proposed rule wherein the commenter has requested changes. Therefore, no change to the final rule has been made in this regard.

Two commenters request that the FAA make various changes to the information contained in the cost impact section.

One commenter requests that the FAA update its estimates for the number of airplanes affected by this AD. The commenter states that the total number of affected airplanes in the worldwide fleet is 784, and the total number of these affected airplanes on the U.S. registry is 325. The FAA concurs with the commenter's request and has revised the cost impact section accordingly.

Another commenter makes several requests pertaining to the portion of the Cost Impact section that discusses the modification of the override or override/jettison fuel pumps. When the proposed rule was issued, the manufacturer had not yet developed a modification of the override or override/jettison fuel pumps, and the Cost Impact section of the proposed rule reflected this fact. The commenter requests that the FAA make various revisions to the Cost Impact information to reflect the manufacturer's issuance of service information that provides information for accomplishing the modification of override or override/jettison pumps.

The FAA concurs with the commenters' requests. As stated previously, incorporation of both Boeing Service Bulletins 767-28-0062 and 767-28-0063 is approved as a method of compliance with paragraph (i) of this AD. The FAA has revised the Cost Impact section of this final rule to include information from those service bulletins.

The second commenter also requests that the FAA revise the cost information for the installation of an override or override/jettison pump with an inlet diffuser as required by this AD, to remove the statement that required parts will be provided at no cost to operators. The commenter states that the cost, terms, and conditions associated with installation of any new parts required by this AD will be addressed separately from this AD. The FAA concurs with the commenter's request, and has revised the Cost Impact section of this final rule accordingly.

One commenter requests that, for clarification, the FAA revise the proposed rule to include a statement that certain paragraphs of this AD do not apply to airplanes with new configuration override or override/jettison fuel pumps (i.e., pumps incorporating a cast-in diffuser). The FAA infers that the commenter is referring to paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD.

The FAA concurs that airplanes with the new configuration override or override/jettison fuel pumps are not subject to these requirements. However, the FAA finds that further clarification can be made. Credit for actions in an AD that have already been accomplished is always provided by means of the statement in the “Compliance” section of every AD, “Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously.” In this AD, this statement gives credit for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes on which a new configuration override or override/jettison fuel pump with a cast-in diffuser has been installed during manufacture or by accomplishment of Boeing Service Bulletins 767-28-0062 and 767-28-0063 (described previously). No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that the FAA allow credit for inspections according to paragraph (e) of the proposed AD that have been accomplished previously.

The FAA concurs with the commenter's request but notes that no change to the final rule is necessary to provide for such credit. Credit is always given for actions accomplished before the effective date of an AD by means of the phrase in the “Compliance” statement of the AD: “Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously.”

One commenter requests that the FAA remove the statement “For airplanes equipped with a center tank scavenge system” from paragraph (f) of the proposed rule. The commenter states that removing this statement will clarify this requirement because if a fuel tank is deactivated, it doesn't matter if the airplane has a center tank scavenge transfer system with respect to doing the inspections in paragraph (e) of this AD.

The FAA partially concurs with the commenter. The FAA acknowledges that the center tank may only be deactivated if the airplane is equipped with a center tank scavenge system, so the reference in paragraph (f) may seem redundant. However, the FAA finds that there is no technical inaccuracy in paragraph (f), nor is the requirement unclear; thus, no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that the compliance time for paragraph (a) of the proposed AD be revised from 14 days after October 2, 1997 (the effective date of AD 97-19-15), to 14 days after the effective date of this AD. The commenter states that it is confusing to have a compliance time of 14 days after October 2, 1997, because that date has passed. The commenter notes that this is especially confusing in light of the addition of paragraph (c) to this AD.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The purpose of carrying over the compliance time for the requirements of AD 97-19-15 is to ensure that the requirement for revising the AFM is continued without interruption. Paragraph (c) of this AD simply adds alternative wording for the AFM revision previously required by paragraph (b) of AD 97-19-15, but paragraph (b) is still acceptable for compliance. Referring to the October 2, 1997, effective date of AD 97-19-15 also ensures that any airplanes already in compliance with that AD do not have to comply again with paragraph (b) or (c) of this AD. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that paragraph (c)(1) be revised to read, “If the center tank fuel pumps are to be used for takeoff, there must be at least 5,000 pounds (2,267 kilograms) of fuel in the center tank prior to initial engine start.” The commenter suggests that the reference to the poundage of fuel in the center tank “when the entry doors are closed with the airplane readied for initial taxi” may cause confusion for the flight crew in any operational scenario involving reopening an entry door after the airplane is readied for initial taxi.

The FAA neither agrees nor disagrees with the commenter. Paragraph (a) of this AD allows accomplishment of either paragraph (b) or (c) of the AD, and paragraph (b) differs from paragraph (c) of this AD in that (b)(1) contains essentially the same wording as suggested by the commenter. However, if the commenter finds it necessary to use words other than those given in paragraph (b) or (c), it may submit a request for approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under paragraph (n) of this AD. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

In a related issue, another commenter requests that the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of the proposed rule be stated only once. The commenter states that the two paragraphs have identical wording and there is no distinction as to differences in the airplane models to which each paragraph applies.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The wording of the AFM revisions specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(1) are slightly different, as discussed above. Paragraph (c)(1) was added in this AD to allow operators an alternative to revising the AFM with the wording in paragraph (b)(1). No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that the compliance time for the initial inspection of the override or override/ jettison fuel pumps in paragraph (e) of the proposed rule be extended from 60 days to 120 days after the effective date of this AD. The commenter states that such a compliance time would permit both the initial and repetitive inspections required by paragraph (e) to be performed during regular scheduled maintenance visits, thus allowing operators to avoid operational difficulties associated with unscheduled maintenance visits.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request to extend the compliance time for the inspection required by paragraph (e) of this AD. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the identified unsafe condition, but also the manufacturer's recommendation of a 60-day compliance time, and the practical aspects of performing the inspections at intervals that parallel regular scheduled maintenance for the majority of affected operators. The FAA finds that there is no technical justification for an extension of this compliance time; thus no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter recommends that the repetitive interval for the proposed inspection in paragraph (e) be extended from 1,000 flight hours to 1,300 flight hours. The commenter bases its request on the fact that it has not found any discrepancies since it started the repetitive inspections two years ago. The commenter states that extension of the repetitive interval to 1,300 flight hours would reduce the amount of down-time for subject airplanes, and will allow the inspection to be done on the override or override/jettison fuel pump on the left side of the airplane at one “A” check, and on the pump on the right side of the airplane at the following “A” check. The commenter notes that inspecting one side per “A” check will reduce the chance for “dual sided mistakes.” The commenter also states that extending the repetitive interval will reduce the potential for damage to the fuel pumps, O-rings, and other parts due to being subjected to repetitive inspections.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request to extend the interval for the repetitive inspections in paragraph (e) of this AD. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the identified unsafe condition, but also the manufacturer's recommendation for a repetitive interval, and the practical aspects of performing the inspections at intervals that parallel regular scheduled maintenance for the majority of affected operators. In addition, in response to some of the operator's descriptions of its current procedures, the FAA notes that O-rings must be replaced with new parts each time an override or override/jettison pump is installed.

After considering the factors mentioned above, the FAA has determined that 1,000 flight hours is an adequate repetitive interval to ensure the safety of the affected airplanes. Should the operator wish to gain approval for use of an alternate inspection schedule that provides an equivalent level of safety, the operator may submit a request for approval of an AMOC under paragraph (n) of this AD. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that, for clarification, the FAA revise the proposed rule to include the serial numbers of the override or override/jettison fuel pumps on which the inlet diffuser was found cracked. The same commenter asks that the statement in the Summary section of the proposed rule, “The proposed AD would also require installation of a new configuration center tank fuel pump, which would terminate”' be revised to specifically state that the new configuration center tank override or override/jettison fuel pump incorporates a cast-in diffuser and two-window shutoff sleeve.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's requests to include these pieces of information in this AD. The FAA does not find any merit in referring to the specific serial numbers of the override or override/jettison pumps that failed and finds no technical justification for supplying this information. In addition, the FAA notes that details are minimized in the summary of AD actions, thus the FAA does not consider it necessary to incorporate this level of detail in the summary of this AD. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

Paragraph (d) of the proposed rule applied the actions in that paragraph to certain Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes. The FAA inadvertently omitted a reference to Model 767-300F series airplanes in that paragraph. Therefore, for clarification, the FAA has revised paragraph (d) of this final rule to state that the paragraph applies to certain Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes.

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

There are approximately 784 Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 325 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The AFM revisions that are currently required by AD 97-19-15, and retained in this AD, take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $60 per airplane.

The new AFM revisions will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the new AFM revisions required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $19,500, or $60 per airplane.

The inspection required by this AD will take approximately 3 or 6 work hours per airplane to accomplish (3 hours for airplanes not equipped with override/jettison fuel pumps, 6 hours for airplanes equipped with override/jettison fuel pumps), at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $180 or $360 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

Should an operator be required to install a center tank override or override/jettison fuel pump equipped with an inlet diffuser (as required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD) separately from a new-configuration override or override/jettison fuel pump (as required by paragraph (i) of this AD), it will take approximately 5 work hours per pump to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $11,901 per pump. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this pump installation is estimated to be $12,201 per pump. (There may be up to four pumps per airplane, depending on whether override/jettison fuel pumps are installed.)

Paragraph (i) of this AD requires installing new configuration center tank override or override/jettison fuel pumps per a method approved by the FAA. As stated previously, since the issuance of the NPRM, the FAA has approved incorporation of Boeing Service Bulletins 767-28-0062 and 767-28-0063 as an acceptable means of accomplishing this action. Based on the information contained in those service bulletins, the installation of a new configuration center tank override or override/jettison fuel pump will take approximately 8 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost between $22,182 and $44,364 per airplane, depending on the number of pumps that are installed on the airplane ($11,091 per pump). Based on these figures, the cost impact of this installation on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $22,662 and $44,844 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2001 (66 FR 20952). That action proposed to require performing a general visual inspection of the outer handle flap mechanisms of the passenger doors for the presence of corrosion inhibitor and for correct operation; cleaning, if necessary; and greasing.

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

The commenter generally supports the proposed rule, but requests changing an incorrect reference cited in the proposed AD for the All-Operator Telex (AOT). The FAA concurs with this request and has changed paragraph (a) of this AD to cite AOT A320-52A1106, instead of AOT A320-54A1106.

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

The FAA estimates that 63 Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,780, or $60 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 2000-18-01, amendment 39-11886 (65 FR 53161, September 1, 2000), which is applicable to certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes powered by Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7 series engines, was published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2001 (66 FR 15814). The action proposed to continue to require detailed visual inspections of the lugs on the bulkhead fitting of the rear engine mount, and corrective action, if necessary. The action also proposed to require ultrasonic inspections (which were provided as an option in the existing AD) and, for certain airplanes, rework of the bulkhead fitting of the rear engine mount.

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

One commenter requests that the FAA clarify the unsafe condition as stated in the SUMMARY and “Discussion” sections of the proposed AD. The commenter requests that the unsafe condition state that bushing migration, corrosion, or cracking of the lugs on the bulkhead fitting of the rear engine mount could result in fracture of the lugs, which could result in separation of the engine from the airplane.

The FAA concurs with the commenter's request and has made this change in the SUMMARY section of this final rule. The “Discussion” section of the proposed AD is not restated in this final rule, so no change to that section is needed.

One commenter requests that the FAA revise the cost impact information in the proposed AD to include the time needed for gaining access and closing up for the proposed ultrasonic inspection. The commenter notes that, due to the 9-month compliance time, it may be necessary for operators to do this inspection at a time other than a normal scheduled heavy maintenance visit.

The FAA concurs with the commenter's request. We note that the cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions typically does not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Because incidental costs may vary significantly from operator to operator, they are almost impossible to calculate. However, we acknowledge that it may or may not be possible to accomplish the ultrasonic inspection required by this AD during a normal scheduled maintenance visit due to the compliance times for the initial and repetitive inspections. Therefore, we have revised the cost impact information for the ultrasonic inspections in this final rule from 4 to 36 work hours to include the work hours necessary for gaining access and closing up.

One commenter requests that the FAA revise paragraph (d) of the proposed AD to refer to Part 2 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2200, dated July 7, 2000; or Revision 1, dated February 15, 2001. The commenter does not state a reason for its request.

The FAA infers that the commenter's request is to make paragraph (d) consistent with other paragraphs of the AD. The FAA concurs and has revised paragraph (d) of this final rule accordingly. Also, the same change has been made to paragraph (a) of this AD.

One commenter requests that the FAA revise paragraph (c) of the proposed AD to provide a third compliance time option for airplanes inspected per the ultrasonic method provided as an option in AD 2000-18-01. The commenter states that operators who did the ultrasonic inspection per AD 2000-18-01 would be required to repeat this inspection within 9 months after the effective date of this AD. The commenter emphasizes that such a requirement would impose undue economic and scheduling burdens on affected operators.

The FAA does not concur. Credit for inspections accomplished prior to the effective date of the AD is always provided in an AD by means of the statement at the beginning of the “Compliance” section of each AD: “Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously.” No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that the FAA revise paragraph (f) to remove the requirement to perform detailed visual and non-destructive test inspections for damage of the upper engine mount during accomplishment of the rework of the lugs on the bulkhead fitting of the rear engine mount. The commenter states that these inspections should be necessary only if there is insufficient clearance between the migrated end of the outer lug plain bushing and the adjacent lug of the aft upper engine mount.

The FAA does not concur. We infer that the commenter assumes that there will be no damage to the upper engine mount if sufficient clearance is maintained between the migrated end of the outer lug plain bushing and the adjacent lug of the aft upper engine mount. However, we have determined that the bushing may migrate in either direction. For example, the bushing may have migrated to a position of no positive clearance and caused damage, but then subsequently may have migrated inward to a position where there is sufficient clearance. Thus, we find it necessary to require the inspections during the rework according to the service bulletin. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that the FAA revise the proposed AD to reference a specific alternative method of compliance (AMOC) that was approved previously for AD 2000-18-01. The commenter states that the AMOC addresses conditions of no positive clearance, which may be found during the rework according to Part 4 of the service bulletin.

The FAA does not concur with the request. Paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD allows the use of previously approved AMOCs for AD 2000-18-01 for compliance with corresponding actions in the proposed AD. Listing references for specific AMOCs would unnecessarily complicate this final rule. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that the FAA revise the proposed AD to make the use of specific tooling identified in the service bulletin optional for compliance with the proposed AD. The commenter refers to a specific boring fixture called out in the service bulletin, and states that use of this specific tooling should be optional. The commenter states that other tooling capable of producing the desired dimensions and finishes specified in the service bulletin should be acceptable for compliance. The commenter notes that inspection requirements and dimensional checks contained in the service bulletin are sufficient to ensure that lugs are properly reworked and free of damage.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. We find that the tooling used to bore the lugs may affect the unsafe condition addressed by this AD and, therefore, it is inappropriate not to specify the tooling to be used. However, operators may request approval of an AMOC under paragraph (h)(1) of this AD if they can show that tooling other than that identified in the service bulletin will provide an acceptable level of safety. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

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

There are approximately 200 Model 747 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 47 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The detailed visual inspections that are currently required by AD 2000-18-01 take approximately 8 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $22,560, or $480 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The new inspections required by this AD will take approximately 36 work hours per airplane to accomplish (including time for gaining access and closing up), at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the new requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $101,520, or $2,160 per airplane, 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. However, for the new inspections required by this AD, the time for gaining access and closing up has been included in the figures above because it may not be possible for operators to accomplish these inspections during normal scheduled maintenance due to the compliance times associated with these inspections.

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2001 (66 FR 17127). That action proposed to require repetitive inspections of the metallic vapor seals in the center fuel tank to detect holes, tears, or a change in shape; corrective action, if such damage is detected; and follow-up tests for leaks.

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

The commenter requests that the FAA revise the proposed rule to include a terminating action. The commenter notes that Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A310-28-2146, dated March 27, 2001. That service bulletin states that, once the actions therein are accomplished, it cancels the inspection requirements of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2138, dated June 28, 2000. (The proposed rule refers to that service bulletin as the appropriate source of service information.)

The FAA concurs. The Direction Ge ne rale de l'Aviation Civile (which is the airworthiness authority for France) has approved, and Airbus has recommended accomplishment of, Service Bulletin A310-28-2146, which describes procedures for replacement of metallic vapor seal panels with new, thicker metallic vapor seal panels. Such replacement raises the current fatigue life limitation on the metallic vapor seals and eliminates the need for the inspections required by this AD. Therefore, the FAA has revised this final rule to add a new paragraph (c) (and reorder subsequent paragraphs accordingly) to give operators the option to do the actions in that service bulletin as terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD. Also, the FAA has added a new paragraph to the Cost Impact section in the preamble of this final rule to provide an estimate of the cost of this terminating action should an operator elect to do it.

The commenter requests that the FAA remove the reporting requirement that is specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2138, dated June 28, 2000. The commenter states that the airplane manufacturer should already have adequate sampling data to understand the condition of the fleet, and, therefore, the reporting requirement is an unnecessary burden to the operator.

The FAA concurs with the intent of the commenter's request. However, the reporting requirement to which the commenter refers is not included in this AD, and the FAA cannot revise the referenced service bulletin. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

The commenter requests that the FAA extend the repetitive interval for the repetitive inspections in paragraph (a) of the proposed AD from 600 to 750 flight hours. The commenter notes that its “B”-check interval is 350 flight hours, and the proposed 600-flight-hour interval would not allow for the proposed inspections to be done at a “2B”-check. Thus, it would not be able to do the inspections at a normal scheduled maintenance visit, which would negatively affect scheduling and increase the cost of the requirements of the proposed AD for the operator.

The FAA does not concur. The repetitive interval of 600 flight hours is based on in-service experience. Analysis has shown that damage of the vapor seal is related to vibration fatigue, probably caused by “drum beating” of the seal during operation of the airplane. A damaged vapor seal may no longer prevent fuels and vapors from coming into contact with hot parts of the air-conditioning packs, which could create a fire hazard. In view of these data, and the fact that the operator provides no technical data to show that a 750-flight-hour repetitive interval provides an acceptable level of safety, the FAA cannot extend the repetitive interval. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

The commenter requests that the FAA revise the proposed AD to allow operators to use equivalent and alternative parts and materials that are approved by the airplane manufacturer for repairs per this AD. The commenter states that this will eliminate the need for an operator to request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) each time it needs to use materials other than those identified in the service bulletin.

The FAA does not concur. The referenced service bulletin refers to the Structural Repair Manual (SRM) as an additional source of service information for accomplishing certain requirements of this AD. Any alternative part or material beyond what is allowed by the SRM must be considered on a case-by-case basis; therefore, approval of an AMOC would be appropriate. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

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

The FAA estimates that 47 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 8 work hours per airplane to accomplish each inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the detailed visual inspections required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $22,560, or $480 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

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

Should an operator elect to accomplish the replacement of metallic vapor seal panels that is provided as an optional terminating action in this AD, it would take approximately 25 work hours to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. The cost of required parts would be approximately $7,720 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the optional terminating action would be $9,220 per airplane.

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

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

The FAA has received reports of erroneous Mode C and Mode S random transponder transmissions from aircraft equipped with Gillham encoded altitude sources and certain Rockwell Collins CTL-92 transponder control panels. Rockwell Collins introduced new A6 circuit cards for these transponder control panels in September 2000.

These circuit cards exhibit reduced ground integrity in the area of the Gillham input processing. This results in noise generation within the CTL-92 transponder control panels that the transponder can interpret and transmit as a random altitude. Air traffic control (ATC) and traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS)-equipped aircraft can then interpret these erroneous random altitudes as valid altitudes.

The following Rockwell Collins CTL-92 control unit part numbers are affected: 622-6523-204, 622-6523-205, 622-6523-206, 622-6523-207, and 622-6523-208.

These Rockwell Collins CTL-92 transponder control panels could be installed on, but not limited to, the following aircraft:

Such erroneous altitude interpretations could result in reduced vertical separation or unsafe TCAS resolution advisories.

Rockwell Collins has issued Service Bulletin 33 (CTL-92-34-33), dated April 5, 2001. This service bulletin includes:

The FAA has reviewed all available information, including the service information referenced above, and determined that:

This AD requires you to modify the altitude encoder inputs of the CTL-92 transponder control panels. Rockwell Collins Service Bulletin 33 (CTL-92-34-33), dated April 5, 2001, specifies the exact part numbers and serial numbers that are affected and includes procedures on how to modify these transponder control panels.

Because the unsafe condition described in this document could result in reduced vertical separation or unsafe TCAS resolution advisories, FAA finds that notice and opportunity for public prior comment are impracticable. Therefore, good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by notice and opportunity for public comment, we invite your comments on the rule. You may submit whatever written data, views, or arguments you choose. You need to include the rule's docket number and submit your comments in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. We will consider all comments received on or before the closing date specified above. We may amend this rule in light of comments received. Factual information that supports your ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether we need to take additional rulemaking action.

The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. You may examine all comments we receive before and after the closing date of the rule in the Rules Docket. We will file a report in the Rules Docket that summarizes each FAA contact with the public that concerns the substantive parts of this AD.

We are reviewing the writing style we currently use in regulatory documents, in response to the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998. That memorandum requires federal agencies to communicate more clearly with the public. We are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document is clear, and any other suggestions you might have to improve the clarity of FAA communications that affect you. You can get more information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain language initiative at http://www.plainlanguage.gov.

If you want us to acknowledge the receipt of your comments, you must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. On the postcard, write “Comments to Docket No. 2001-CE-22-AD.” We will date stamp and mail the postcard back to you.

These regulations 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, FAA has determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that is applicable to Pratt & Whitney JT8D series turbofan engines was published in the Federal Register on December 12, 2000 (65 FR 77530). That action proposed to require removing certain 2nd stage compressor disks, specified by P/N and SN, from service in accordance with PW JT8D Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) JT8D A6336, Revision 1, dated June 29, 1999, that lists the SN's of certain 2nd stage compressor disks, P/N 745902, P/N 790832, and P/N 807502, and describes procedures replacing the disk if it is listed by SN in the ASB.

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

Two commenters request that the AD be limited to only those later or upper engine models specified by the JT8D Illustrated Parts Catalog, P/N 481675, referenced in the P&W Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) A6336, Revision 1, dated June 29, 1999. The affected 2nd stage compressor disk P/N's 745902, 790832 and 807502 are applicable only to engine models JT8D -9, -9A, -11, -15, -15A, -17A, -17R and -17AR. The FAA agrees and will limit applicability of the amendment to these specific engine models.

The manufacturer requests that the Cost Impact Statement reflect that PW has provided a support program for the disk replacement, and that the program is identified in the PW ASB A6336, Revision 1, dated June 29, 1999. The FAA agrees. The cost statement reflects the costs of compliance with the AD without considering any original equipment manufacturer (OEM) industry support program. The cost statement also states that the OEM may offset some of those costs.

Two commenters agree with the AD as written.

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

There are approximately 110 engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 60 engines, installed on airplanes of U.S. registry, would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 48 work hours per engine to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. The prorated average cost of the unusable life of a 2nd stage disk is $30,000. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,972,800. The manufacturer has informed the FAA that it may pay the cost of the disk, which may lower the cost to operators.

This final rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this final rule.

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 the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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 by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

The Greenwood-Leflore Airport lies within Class D airspace. The Greenwood Airport Traffic Control Tower is a part time facility. When the control tower closes, Memphis ARTCC provides approach control service for the Greenwood-Leflore Airport. Since the Memphis ARTCC provides approach control service and the proper classification of airspace to accommodate aircraft conducting standard instrument approach procedures is not available, flight safety interests may be affected. Accordingly, immediate corrective action is taken herein, in the interest of flight safety, to establish Class E2 airspace in the vicinity of Greenwood-Leflore Airport. Therefore, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Designations for Class E are published in FAA Order 7400.9H, dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) establishes Class E2 airspace at Greenwood, MS.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (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) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The DV Program is provided for in sections 201(a)(3), 201(e), and 203(c) and 204(a)(1)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. The Department's regulations are found at 22 CFR 42.33. The Department is amending § 42.33 by revising paragraph (a)(1), revising paragraph (e) redesignating the following paragraphs, and adding a new paragraph (g) to provide further clarification of the statute regarding allocation of visa numbers and validity of the petition. The amendments make clear that under no circumstances may a consular officer issue a visa to an alien after the end of the fiscal year for which the alien was registered, and further that at the end of that fiscal year the petition is automatically revoked.

For all cases registered for a Diversity Visa Program after the date of this announcement, the Department of Labor's O*Net OnLine will be used to determine qualifying work experience rather than the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). For those cases registered for a Diversity Visa Program before the date of this announcement, the O*Net OnLine will also be used; however, if the O*Net OnLine-based determination differs from the DOT-based determination, and the applicant would be disadvantaged by the use of the O*Net OnLine determination, then the consular officer may use the DOT to make the determination. The O*Net OnLine can be accessed at http://online.onetcenter.org.

The Department is redesignating paragraphs in paragraph (b) and adding a new paragraph (b)(2) addressing the applicant's signature on the entry. As in the past, applicants registering for the DV-2003 program, must personally sign the entry. However, beginning with registration for the 2003 DV Program, for anti-fraud purposes, the signature must be the applicant's usual and customary signature in his or her native alphabet. An initialed signature or block printing of the applicant's name will not be accepted and will result in the disqualification of the entry. If an applicant signs his or her name in the Roman alphabet, and that is not his or her native alphabet, the applicant must also sign in his or her native alphabet.

A new paragraph (b)(3) is also added to address photographs. Beginning with the DV 2003 registration, the entry must include recent photographs of the applicant, his or her spouse and each child (natural children as well as legally-adopted children and stepchildren). Each family member must have a separate photograph. Group or family photos will not be accepted. Photographs must be submitted even though the spouse or child no longer resides with the applicant and whether or not the dependent will accompany or follow to join the applicant in the United States. The name and date of birth of each family member must be printed on the back of his or her photograph.

During the processing of the immigrant visa applications of aliens selected to compete for immigrant visas in earlier years, several consular offices encountered cases in which the visa applicant was proven, or strongly suspected, to be an impostor—that is, not the individual who had submitted the petition which had been selected. Thus, in order to provide additional deterrents to such abuses, the Department proposes to amend its regulations.

The new requirements are applicable to petitions which will be submitted early in Calendar Year 2001 by aliens seeking consideration to compete for visa issuance under the Diversity Immigrant Program during Fiscal Year 2003 (October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2003) and will be applicable in all subsequent years.

The Department's implementation of this regulation as an interim rule is based upon the “good cause” exceptions found at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3). The publication of this rule as an interim rule will allow sufficient time for interested persons to comment on the regulatory changes and allows for timely registration for the DV-2003 scheduled for the end of July or early August of 2001.

The Department of State, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

The Department of State does not consider this rule, to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Therefore, in accordance with the letter to the Department of State of February 4, 1994 from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, it does not require review by the Office of Management and Budget.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

This rule does not impose any new reporting or record-keeping requirements. The information collection requirement, Form DS-156, (OMB 1405-0018), contained by reference in this rule was previously approved for use by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

On January 4, 2000, a temporary regulation (TD 8854) relating to disclosure of return information to the Department of Agriculture was published in the Federal Register (65 FR 215). A notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-116704-99) cross-referencing the temporary regulation was published in the Federal Register for the same day (65 FR 215). No public hearing was requested or held. No written or electronic comments responding to the notice of proposed rulemaking were received. Accordingly, the regulation proposed by REG-116704-99 is adopted by this Treasury decision without revision, and the corresponding temporary regulation is removed.

This regulation allows the IRS to disclose return information to the Department of Agriculture for purposes of the Census of Agriculture.

The disclosure of the specific items of return information identified in this regulation is necessary in order for the Department of Agriculture to accurately identify, locate, and classify, as well as properly process, information from agricultural businesses to be surveyed for the statutorily mandated Census of Agriculture.

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to this regulation.

It is hereby certified that this regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based upon the fact that this regulation concerns the disclosure of return information by the IRS to the Department of Agriculture for purposes of the Census of Agriculture and does not require any action by or otherwise affect small entities. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required.

Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the temporary regulation and the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding this regulation were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small businesses.

The principal author of this regulation is Jennifer S. McGinty, formerly of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administration), Disclosure & Privacy Law Division, IRS. However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in its development.

On May 16, 1988, the Secretary of the Interior approved the Navajo plan. You can find general background information on the Navajo plan, including the Secretary's findings and the disposition of comments, in the May 16, 1988, Federal Register (53 FR 17186). You can also find later actions concerning the Navajo Nation's plan and plan amendments at 30 CFR 756.14.

By letters dated March 2 and March 8, 2001, the Navajo Nation sent us a proposed amendment to its plan (NA-004-FOR, administrative record numbers NA-255 and NA-256) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ). The Navajo Nation sent the amendment at its own initiative.

We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the March 28, 2001, Federal Register (66 FR 16893; administrative record number NA-259). In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the amendment's adequacy. We did not hold a public hearing or meeting because no one requested either one. The public comment period ended on April 27, 2001.

Following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 884.14 and 884.15. We are approving the amendment.

The Navajo Nation proposed the following minor editorial and codification change:

The heading “Subsection P. RESERVED” is removed and replaced with the heading “O. NONCOAL RECLAMATION AFTER CERTIFICATION.”

Because the change to this rule is minor, we find that it meets the requirements of the Federal regulations and is consistent with the corresponding provision of SMCRA.

The Navajo Nation proposed revisions to the following rules in its plan containing language that is the same as, or similar to, the corresponding sections of the Federal regulations and or SMCRA (which are shown in parentheses):

Section II, subsection O.1: Applies subsection O to reclamation projects that restore lands and water adversely affected by past mineral mining; projects involving the protection, repair, replacement, construction, or enhancement of utilities (such as those relating to water supply, roads, and such other facilities serving the public adversely affected by mineral mining and processing practices); and the construction of public facilities in communities impacted by coal and other mineral mining and processing practices (30 CFR 875.15(a));

Section II, subsections O.2 through (2)(c): Establish objectives and priorities for expenditures of money for the projects described in new subsection O.1. These paragraphs replace almost identical existing provisions at former subsection M.2 that the Navajo Nation proposes to remove (subsections 411(c), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 875.15(b), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3));

Section II, subsection O.3: Allows enhancement of facilities or utilities (that were adversely affected by past mining and processing) to include upgrading to meet public health and safety requirements, but not to include any service area expansion unless needed to address a specific abandoned mine land problem (30 CFR 875.15(c));

Section II, subsectionsO.5 through (5)(g): Describes the information that must be included in grant applications that request funds for projects proposed under new subsection O.3 (30 CFR 875.15(e) and (e)(1) through (e)(7));

Section II, subsection O.7: Applies existing provisions of the Navajo Reclamation Plan for land acquisition and right of entry to noncoal reclamation authorized under subsection O (30 CFR 875.17);

Section II, subsection O.8: Applies existing provisions of the Navajo Reclamation Plan for liens to noncoal reclamation authorized under subsection O (30 CFR 875.18); and

Section II, subsection O.10: Requires bidders to be eligible to receive a permit to conduct surface coal mining operations as a prerequisite to being awarded an AML contract (30 CFR 874.20).

The Navajo Nation proposes a new provision as subsection O.4 in section II of its reclamation plan. This provision will authorize it to apply for funding to undertake activities or construction of specific public facilities related to the coal or minerals industry on Navajo Nation lands impacted by coal or mineral development based on a determination of need for such activities or construction made by “* * * the President of the Navajo Nation, subject to applicable laws * * *.”

The counterpart provision in section 411(f) of SMCRA requires that the determination of need for activities or construction of specific public facilities be made by “* * * the Governor of a State or the head of a governing body of an Indian tribe * * *.” Counterpart 30 CFR 875.15(e) requires the determination of need to be made by “* * * the Governor of a State or the equivalent head of an Indian tribe * * *.” The qualifying phrase “subject to applicable laws” as proposed in the Navajo Nation's rule has no counterpart in SMCRA or the Federal regulations.

Designating the President to determine the need for public facilities projects is consistent with SMCRA and the counterpart Federal regulation. The qualifying phrase “subject to applicable laws” requires the Navajo President to abide by Navajo law when determining the need for projects under this provision. We fully expect the Navajo Nation and its President to comply with applicable Navajo and/or other law in making these determinations under the approved Tribal AML program just as we expect a State and its Governor to comply with State and/or other law in the administration of an approved State AML program. Moreover, the proposed rule will protect the Navajo Nation's grant funds by ensuring that projects are selected and funded in accordance with applicable law while retaining the Nation's exclusive authority and responsibility to administer its approved program.

Also, in proposed subsection O.4, the phrase “* * * determines there is a need for activities or construction of public facilities related to the coal or minerals industry on Navajo Nation lands impacted by coal or mineral development * * *,” the word “mineral” preceding the word “development” does not end with an “s.” The counterpart term in the corresponding Federal regulation at 30 CFR 875.15(d) is “minerals.” We interpret the Navajo Nation's use of the word “mineral” and the phrase “mineral development” in the context of proposed subsection O.4 to have the same meaning as the word “minerals” and the phrase “mineral development” in the Federal regulation.

Based on the reasoning described above, we find that the Navajo Nation's proposed rule, considered together with other statutes and rules, compares, all together, with applicable requirements of the Federal regulations and SMCRA sufficient to ensure that the Navajo Nation's plan, as a whole, meets all applicable Federal requirements.

The Navajo Nation proposes to remove its existing, previously approved rule that excludes certain noncoal sites from reclamation at subsection O.1 from its plan and replace it with an identical provision at new subsection O.6.

Proposed subsection O.6 is similar to counterpart 30 CFR 875.16. The primary difference is the Navajo Nation's provision that “Funds will not be used * * *” to reclaim sites and areas designated for remedial action under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA; 42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq. ) or that have been listed for remedial action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA; 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. ) In comparison, the counterpart Federal regulation says, “Money from the Fund shall not be used * * *” for such reclamation. The source of the “Funds” referred to in proposed subsection O.6 is not identified in the Navajo Nation's rules. However, the corresponding provision at section 411(d) of the Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Code of 1987 provides that such remedial action “* * * shall not be eligible for expenditures from the Fund under this section.” Section 401(a) of the Navajo Code created “* * * on the books of the Treasury of the Navajo Nation a trust fund known as the Navajo Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund (hereinafter referred to as the “fund”) * * *.” Section 401(c) of the Navajo Code describes how money in the fund may be used, including reclamation of coal and noncoal abandoned mines under subsections 401(c)(1) and (c)(2), respectively.

Federal statutory and regulatory provisions define the term “fund” similarly. As defined at 30 CFR 870.5, “Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund or Fund means a special fund established on the books of the U.S. Treasury for the purpose of accumulating revenues designated for reclamation of abandoned mine lands and other activities authorized by Title IV of the Act.” Section 401(a) of SMCRA states that “There is created on the books of the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund (hereinafter referred to as the “fund”) * * *.” It goes on to say at section 401(c) what the money in the fund may be used for, including abandoned coal and noncoal mine reclamation under subsections 401(c)(1) and (3), respectively. Those subsections of SMCRA are the Federal counterparts to subsections 401(c)(1) and (c)(2) of the Navajo Code, respectively.

New subsection O.6 in the Navajo Nation's plan is proposed in the context of subsection O of the plan, which provides for reclamation of noncoal projects after certification. It also is proposed as the Navajo rules' counterpart to section 401(d) of the Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Code and to 30 CFR 875.16. Though proposed subsection O.6 is worded differently than the counterpart provisions in the Navajo Code, SMCRA, and the Federal regulations, we interpret the proposed rule to mean that the Navajo Nation will not use money from the Navajo Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to reclaim sites designated for remedial action under UMTRCA or listed for remedial action under CERCLA, as opposed to meaning no money from any source whatsoever may be used to reclaim them. Removal of the existing provision at subsection O.1 is appropriate in view of the proposed rule replacing it at subsection O.6.

Other differences in wording between the proposed Navajo rule and the counterpart Federal regulation are minor. We interpret the word “will” in the proposed Navajo rule to have the same meaning as the term “shall” in the Federal regulation. Also, we interpret use of the word “which” in the proposed Navajo rule to have the same meaning as the corresponding word “that” in the Federal regulation.

For these reasons, we find that proposed subsection O.6, considered together with the Navajo Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Code, compares, all together, with applicable requirements of the Federal regulations and SMCRA sufficient to ensure that the Navajo Nation's plan, as a whole, meets all Federal requirements.

The Navajo Nation proposes a limited liability provision at section II, subsection O.9 of its plan for noncoal reclamation after certification. The proposed rule states that the Navajo Nation will not be liable under any provision of Federal, State, or Tribal law for any costs or damages resulting from actions taken or omitted in the course of carrying out its plan, except those resulting from gross negligence or intentional misconduct. It defines gross negligence or intentional misconduct as reckless, willful, or wanton misconduct.

Proposed subsection O.9 reads much like the counterpart Federal provisions. Section 405(l) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 874.15 provide that no State [or Indian tribe, as provided by section 405(k) of SMCRA] shall be liable under “any provision of Federal law”, except as discussed above. The proposed rule asserts greater immunity than SMCRA and the Federal regulations do, by asserting that the Navajo Nation will not be liable under State and Tribal law, as well as Federal law.

We find that this subsection is consistent with Federal requirements to the extent that it addresses the Navajo Nation's liability under Federal law. However, resolution of Tribal liability issues under State laws or laws of another Tribe is outside the scope of SMCRA. Thus, while we are approving this provision as satisfying the minimum requirements of SMCRA, we do not intend either to limit the Navajo Nation's liability beyond what is provided under SMCRA or to affect the ability of any person to resolve liability issues outside the scope of SMCRA.

Other differences between the wording of the proposed Navajo rule and the counterpart Federal regulation are minor and do not affect whether the proposed rule meets applicable Federal requirements. References to the “Navajo Nation” and “this plan” in the Tribal amendment are program-specific and are analogous to references to the “State or Indian Tribe” and to “an approved State or Indian tribe abandoned mine reclamation plan” in the Federal regulation, respectively.

The Navajo Nation proposes to add a requirement at section II, subsection O.5(h) that its applications for public facility project funding show that the project “ * * * meets the requirements of the procedures/criteria for Public Facility Projects used by Navajo Nation.” This proposed new rule has no counterpart in SMCRA or the Federal regulations.

Projects funded under subsections O.4 and O.5 of the Navajo plan will compete for grant funding with the Navajo Nation's abandoned mine reclamation projects. SMCRA and the Federal regulations do not suggest how to determine the need for public facilities projects or how to select such projects when more than one is needed. The Navajo Nation will have to choose from among many competing needs, so proposing a rule requiring applications for public facilities projects to show how such projects meet the Nation's process and criteria for funding them is a reasonable approach to making those choices. The fact that SMCRA and the Federal regulations do not require a process for selecting public facilities projects does not preclude the Navajo Nation from developing a process and criteria that will ensure its funding is put to the best use in addressing its greatest needs. This approach is not unlike that involving the objectives and priorities for coal and noncoal reclamation projects in sections 403 and 411 of SMCRA and 30 CFR 874.13 and 875.15. Applying those objectives and priorities to potential AML projects provides States and Tribes with a process by which to fund their most pressing problems first and which problems to consider funding later. The Navajo Nation's proposed rule would do essentially the same thing for public facilities projects.

Based on this reasoning, we find proposed subsection O.5(h) meets all applicable Federal requirements when considered together with SMCRA and the Federal regulations.

We asked for public comments on the amendment in the March 28, 2001, Federal Register (66 FR 16893; administrative record number NA-259). We also asked for comments in letters dated March 12, 2001, that we sent out to a number of interested parties (administrative record NA-257).

The New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer (NMSHPO) responded to our request for comments in a note dated April 20, 2001 (administrative record number NA-260). NMSHPO thanked us for our invitation to comment but advised us that, under 36 CFR 800.3, we are to consult with the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer in lieu of NMSHPO for undertakings on Tribal land and for effects on Tribal lands. We requested comments from the Navajo Nation's Historic Preservation Officer in a letter dated March 12, 2001 (administrative record number NA-257), but did not receive a response.

We did not receive any other public comments.

Under 30 CFR 884.14(a)(2) and 884.15(a), we requested comments on the amendment in letters dated March 12, 2001 (administrative record number NA-257) from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Navajo plan.

In a response dated March 15, 2001, the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture said it reviewed the proposed Navajo amendment and had no comments.

We did not receive comments from any other Federal agencies.

Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment the Navajo Nation sent to us on March 2 and 8, 2001.

We approve, as discussed in Finding number III.A: Section II, subsection O, new subsection heading; in Finding number III.B: Section II, subsection O.1, applying subsection O to projects that restore lands and water adversely affected by past mineral mining, that involve protection, repair, replacement, construction, or enhancement of utilities, and that involve the construction of public facilities in communities impacted by coal and other mineral mining and processing practices; section II, subsections O.2 and O.2(c), establishing objectives and priorities for expenditures of money for projects described in new subsection O.1, and the removal of existing provisions at subsection M.2; section II, subsection O.3, allowing enhancement of facilities or utilities to include upgrading to meet public health and safety requirements, but not to include any service area expansion unless needed to address a specific abandoned mine land problem; section II, subsections O.5 through O.5(g), describing information that must be in grant applications that request funds for projects proposed under new subsection O.3; section II, subsection O.7, applying existing provisions of the Navajo Plan for land acquisition and right of entry to noncoal reclamation authorized under subsection O; section II, subsection O.8, applying existing provisions of the Navajo Plan for liens to noncoal reclamation authorized under subsection O; and section II, subsection O.10, requiring bidders to be eligible to receive a permit to conduct surface coal mining operations as a prerequisite to being awarded an AML contract; in Finding III.C.1, section II, subsection O.4, a provision authorizing the Navajo Nation President to make the determination of need for activities or construction of specific public facilities projects, subject to applicable laws; in Finding III.C.2, section II, subsection O.6, prohibiting use of money from the fund to pay for reclamation of certain noncoal sites, and removal of the existing, previously approved rule at former subsection O.1; in Finding III.C.3, section II, subsection O.9, establishing a limited liability provision applicable to the Navajo Nation's noncoal program after certification; and in Finding III.D, section II, subsection O.5(h), requiring the Navajo Nation's grant applications for public facility project funding to show that such projects meet the requirements of the Nation's procedures and criteria for public facility projects.

We approve the rules that the Navajo Nation proposed with the provision that the Navajo Nation fully promulgate them in identical form to the rules it sent to us and that the public and we reviewed.

To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 756.14, which codify decisions concerning the Navajo plan. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule effective immediately. Sections 405(a) of SMCRA required the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate and publish regulations covering the implementation of an abandoned mine reclamation program. Sections 405(d) and (k) requires the Secretary to approve a tribal reclamation plan when it is in compliance with the procedures, guidelines and requirements established under section 405(a). Making this regulation effectively immediately will expedite that process. Further, the amendment submitted by the Navajo Nation is based on regulations issued by the Secretary which were published in the Federal Register and which took effect only after a 30 day waiting period. Before any project made eligible under this rulemaking can be undertaken, extensive public outreach is required by our regulations at 30 CFR 875.15(e). An immediate effective date will not violate any principles of fundamental fairness, because no affected persons will require time to prepare for this effective date. For these reasons, therefore, requiring another 30 day waiting period before the effective date of this rule is not seen to be in the public interest.

This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart federal regulations.

This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review).

The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of Tribal AMLR plans and plan amendments since each such program is drafted and promulgated by a specific Tribe, not by OSM. Decisions on proposed Tribal AMLR plans and revisions thereof submitted by a Tribe are based on a determination of whether the submittal meets the requirements of Title IV of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231-1243) and the applicable Federal regulations at 30 CFR Subchapter R.

This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because agency decisions on proposed Tribal AMLR plans and plan revisions are categorically excluded from compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4332) by the Department of the Interior's NEPA compliance manual at 516 DM 6, appendix 8, paragraph 8.4B(29).

This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq. ).

The Department of the Interior has determined 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. ). The Tribal submittal that is the subject of this rule is based on counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that the Navajo Nation will implement existing requirements that OSM previously promulgated. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based on the fact that the Tribal submittal which is the subject of this rule is based on counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule.

OSM determined and certifies under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq. ) that this rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on any local, State, or Tribal governments or private entities.

On March 30, 2001, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, Cape May Canal” in the Federal Register (66 FR 17377). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.

The Cape May Canal Railroad Bridge is a swing bridge owned by New Jersey Transit Rail Operations (NJTRO). Under an agreement with NJTRO and Cape May Seashore Lines, Inc. (CSML), CSML is responsible for the reactivation of the rail service, maintenance of the accessories of the bridge and its operation of the swing span. From 1983 until June 1999, train service was deactivated and bridge tender service discontinued. The swing span was placed in the full open position for vessels in accordance with 33 CFR 117.41. Upon reactivation of bridge tender service in 1999, the draw was required to return to opening on signal at all times. This requirement is included in the general operation regulations at 33 CFR 117.5.

CMSL is currently providing passenger rail service on the 27-mile long rail lines between Tuckahoe and Cape May, New Jersey. There is no train service in the winter so the bridge is unmanned and placed in the full open position. Tourist train service is provided on weekends only in the spring and fall and seven days a week from mid-June until Labor Day. Train service starts at 10 a.m. and ends at 7:30 p.m. After train hours, the bridge is unmanned and placed in the full open position. During train service hours, the bridge is kept in the full open position for vessels and closes only when a train is scheduled to cross.

This final rule formalizes the current operation of the bridge. The final rule will have less impact on navigation than the general operating regulations.

The Coast Guard received no comments on the NPRM. Since no comments were received and we believe the change is warranted to formalize the current operation of the bridge, the final rule is being implemented without change.

This final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).

We expect the economic impact of this final rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

We reached this conclusion based on the determination that the final rule will provide for greater flow of vessel traffic than the general requirements for the use and operation of drawbridges. Under the general requirements, the drawbridge is required to open promptly upon signal. This permits the bridge to remain closed and open only after a proper signal. The final rule will require the bridge to remain in the open position, permitting vessels to pass freely. The bridge will close only for the train crossings and bridge maintenance. This final rule will provide for the reasonable needs of navigation, while reducing the burden on the operator.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this final rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels that desire to transit the waterway and homeowners associations representing property owners upstream of the drawbridge.

This final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The final rule will provide for the bridge to remain in the open position, allowing the free flow of vessel traffic. The bridge will close only for the passage of trains and maintenance of the bridge. This final rule will provide for the reasonable needs of navigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lC, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This final rule only deals with the operating schedule of an existing drawbridge and will have no impact on the environment. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM and for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Publishing a NPRM would be contrary to public interest since immediate action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators gathering in the vicinity of the fireworks launching area. Due to uncertainties related to planning, the event sponsor, the Astoria Fireworks Committee, was unable to provide the Coast Guard with notice of the final details until less than 30 days prior to the date of the event. If normal notice and comment procedures were followed, this rule would not become effective until after the date of the event. For this reason, following normal rulemaking procedures in this case would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Although this has not been an annual event, the location of this fireworks display is a locally accepted standard and safety zones have been adopted at this site as recently as July 4, 2001 with no negative public comment.

The Coast Guard is promulgating a temporary safety zone regulation to allow a safe fireworks display. The fireworks display is scheduled to start at 10 p.m. (PDT) on August 12, 2001. This event will result in a number of vessels congregating near the fireworks launching area. The safety zone is needed to provide for the safety of spectators and their watercraft from the inherent safety hazards associated with the fireworks display. Without providing for an adequate safety zone, the public could be exposed to falling burning debris or stray within blast range should a catastrophic accident occur on the launching barge. This safety zone will be enforced by representatives of the Captain of the Port, Portland, Oregon. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal agencies and local agencies.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under that Order. This rule is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures act of DOT is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the fact that the regulated area established by the proposed regulation would encompass less than one mile of the Columbia for a period of only two hours.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit a portion of the Columbia River from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on August 12, 2001. This safety zone will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only 2 hours in the evening when vessel traffic is low. The safety zone will not apply to the entire width of the river, and traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Coast Guard patrol commander. Because the impacts of this proposal are expected to be so minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

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

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

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those unfunded mandate costs. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.

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 concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

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

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

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A Categorical Exclusion is provided for temporary safety zones of less than one week in duration. This rule establishes a safety zone with a duration of two hours.

This final rule was proposed in a notice of proposed rulemaking published at 66 FR 23642 on May 9, 2001. This rule adjusts our fees in accordance with the applicable provisions of title 35, United States Code, as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2000 (which incorporated the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999) (Pub. L. 106-113). This final rule also adjusts, by a corresponding amount, a few patent fees (37 CFR 1.17(e), (r), (s), and (t)) that track statutory fees (either 37 CFR 1.16(a) or 1.17(m)). The proposal to adjust a trademark fee has been withdrawn; trademark fees are not affected by this final rule.

In addition, this final rule changes the maintenance fee correspondence address. The address change for maintenance fee payments benefits our customers by allowing the payments to be processed within 24 hours of receipt, rather than the current time frame of three to five days. Likewise, the funds are deposited more quickly with the United States Treasury. The address change for correspondence related to maintenance fees other than payments of maintenance fees in patents permits us to respond in a timelier manner. Maintenance fee correspondence received at the “Box M Fee” address will be forwarded to the appropriate address in § 1.1(d).

Patent fees are authorized by 35 U.S.C. 41 and 35 U.S.C. 376. For fees paid under 35 U.S.C. 41(a) and (b), independent inventors, small business concerns, and nonprofit organizations who meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 41(h)(1) are entitled to a fifty-percent reduction.

Subsection 41(f) of title 35, United States Code, provides that fees established under 35 U.S.C. 41(a) and (b) may be adjusted on October 1, 1992, and every year thereafter, to reflect fluctuations in the CPI over the previous twelve months.

Subsection 41(d) of title 35, United States Code, authorizes the Director to establish fees for all other processing, services, or materials related to patents to recover the average cost of providing these services or materials, except for the fees for recording a document affecting title, for each photocopy, for each black and white copy of a patent, and for library services.

Section 376 of title 35, United States Code, authorizes the Director to set fees for patent applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).

Subsection 41(g) of title 35, United States Code, provides that new fee amounts established by the Director under section 41 may take effect thirty days after notice in the Federal Register and the Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

The patent statutory fees established by 35 U.S.C. 41(a) and (b) will be adjusted on October 1, 2001, to reflect any fluctuations occurring during the previous twelve months in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U). In calculating these fluctuations, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that we should use CPI-U data as determined by the Secretary of Labor. In accordance with previous fee-setting methodology, we use the Administration's projected CPI-U for the twelve-month period ending September 30, 2001, which is 3.6 percent. Based on this projection, patent statutory fees will be adjusted by 3.6 percent.

Certain patent processing fees established under 35 U.S.C. 41(d), 119, 120, 132(b), 376, and Public Law 103-465 (the Uruguay Round Agreements Act) will be adjusted to reflect fluctuations in the CPI.

The fee amounts were rounded by applying standard arithmetic rules so that the amounts rounded will be convenient to the user. Fees of $100 or more for other than a small entity were rounded to the nearest $10. Fees of less than $100 were rounded to an even number so that any comparable small entity fee will be a whole number.

Any fee amount that is paid on or after the effective date of the fee increase will be subject to the new fees then in effect. The amount of the fee to be paid will be determined by the time of filing. The time of filing will be determined either according to the date of receipt in our office or the date reflected on a proper Certificate of Mailing or Transmission, where such a certificate is authorized under 37 CFR 1.8. Use of a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission is not authorized for items that are specifically excluded from the provisions of § 1.8. Items for which a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission under § 1.8 are not authorized include, for example, for filing of Continued Prosecution Applications (CPAs) under § 1.53(d) and other national and international applications for patents. See 37 CFR 1.8(a)(2).

Under 37 CFR 1.10(a), any correspondence delivered by the “Express Mail Post Office to Addressee” service of the United States Postal Service (USPS) is considered filed or received in our office on the date of deposit with the USPS. The date of deposit with the USPS is shown by the “date-in” on the “Express Mail” mailing label or other official USPS notation.

To ensure clarity in the implementation of the new fees, a discussion of specific sections is set forth below.

Section 1.1, paragraphs (a) and (d), are revised to change the maintenance fee correspondence address.

Section 1.16, paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (f) through (i), and (k), are revised to adjust fees established therein to reflect fluctuations in the CPI.

Section 1.17, paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(5), (b) through (e), (m), and (r) through (t), are revised to adjust fees established therein to reflect fluctuations in the CPI.

Section 1.18, paragraphs (a) through (c), are revised to adjust fees established therein to reflect fluctuations in the CPI.

Section 1.20, paragraphs (e) through (g), are revised to adjust fees established therein to reflect fluctuations in the CPI.

Section 1.21, paragraph (o), is revised to reflect current business practice. We no longer use or provide access to the Automated Patent System.

Section 1.492, paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3), (a)(5), (b), and (d), are revised to adjust fees established therein to reflect fluctuations in the CPI.

We received several comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking published at 66 FR 23642 on May 9, 2001. The comments and our responses to the comments follow:

Comment: One comment suggested that patentees would likely be unaware of the change of address for mailing maintenance fee payments, which would result in the patent expiring and the patentee incurring a surcharge to reinstate the patent.

Response: The address change for maintenance fee payments will permit the payments to be processed without delay, and the funds to be deposited more quickly. Maintenance fee payments received at the old mailing address (“Box M Fee”) will be forwarded to the new mailing address in § 1.1(d)(1) for processing. Therefore, the patentee will not be adversely affected by the address change.

Comment: One comment recommended that § 1.1(d) be changed so that maintenance fee payments receive the date of actual receipt in our office or the date reflected on a proper Certificate of Mailing or Transmission when sent to the old mailing address (“Box M Fee”). In addition, it was also recommended that the address in § 1.1(d)(2) be clarified.

Response: Maintenance fee payments sent inadvertently to the old mailing address will receive the date of actual receipt in our office or the date reflected on a proper Certificate of Mailing or Transmission when forwarded by the office to the new mailing address in § 1.1(d)(1) for processing. For example, if we receive a paper that does not include a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission on September 28, 2001, in Box M Fee, the paper will be accorded a date of receipt of September 28, 2001. The paper, after we forward it to the new mailing address in § 1.1(d)(1) for processing, will continue to be accorded the September 28, 2001, date of receipt for processing of the maintenance fee. Again, the patentee will not be adversely affected by the address change. Section 1.1(d)(2) has been clarified to indicate that correspondence related to maintenance fees other than payments of maintenance fees in patents must be sent to the Washington, D.C. address.

Comment: Two comments stated that we should not increase fees for fiscal year 2002, since millions of dollars are being diverted to fund other Federal Government operations and are not being used to improve our performance, services, or facilities.

Response: Our budget for fiscal year 2002 is comprised of the expected fiscal year 2002 fee revenue (less a designated carryover amount) added to carryover amounts from prior fiscal years. If fees are not adjusted by CPI, the anticipated fee revenue for fiscal year 2002 would be lower; this in turn would reduce the available funding and have a negative impact on our operations. Therefore, adjusting our fees by CPI is critical to ensure adequate funding is available.

This final rule contains no information collection requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This final rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (August 4, 1999).

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, that the final rule change will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The final rule change increases fees to reflect the change in the CPI as authorized by 35 U.S.C. 41(f). Further, the principal impact of the major patent fees has already been taken into account in 35 U.S.C. 41(h)(1), which provides small entities with a fifty-percent reduction in the major patent fees. We received roughly 92,000 patent applications last year from small entities. Since the average small entity fee will increase by less than $14.00, with a minimum increase of $2.00 and a maximum increase of $55.00, there will not be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities due to this final rule change.

Inspection of Public Comments: Comments received timely will be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, call telephone number (410) 786-7197.

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) announced on June 14, 2001, the new name for the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA): The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). We are, therefore, revising the references to “Health Care Financing Administration” and “HCFA” in chapters I, IV and, V of title 42 and subtitle A and chapters II and III of title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

In 42 CFR chapters I, IV, and V and in 45 CFR subtitle A and chapters II and III, all references to “Health Care Financing Administration” are revised to read “Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.” All references to “HCFA” are revised to read “CMS.” All references to the possessive “Health Care Financing Administration's” are revised to read “Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services'.” All references to the possessive “HCFA's” are revised to read “CMS's.”

In additioin, we are making the following conforming changes in § 400.200 (General definitions): We are revising the definition of “Administrator,” removing the definition of “HCFA,” and adding the definition of “CMS.” In § 1000.10 (General definitions), we are revising the definition of “Administrator,” removing the definition of “HCFA,” and adding a definition of “CMS.” In § 1003.101 (Definitions), we are removing the definition of “HCFA” and adding the definition of “CMS.”

Because of the large number of items of correspondence we normally receive on Federal Register documents published for comment, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document.

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule such as this take effect. We note that such a notice is not required when applied to rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. As this rule merely reflects the nomenclature change of the agency, which pertains to the agency organization, no notice is required. We can also waive this procedure if we find good cause that a notice and comment procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest and incorporate a statement of the finding and its reasons in the rule issued.

We believe it is unnecessary to undertake notice and comment rulemaking as the changes made by this regulation are technical in nature and update certain existing regulations without substantive change. There is also no impact on program costs. Therefore, for good cause, we waive prior notice and comment procedures. As indicated previously, we are, however, providing a 60-day comment period for public comment.

This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

We have examined the impacts of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), Public Law 96-354. Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for rules that constitute significant regulatory action, including rules that have an economic effect of $100 million or more annually (major rules). We have reviewed this rule and have determined that it is not a major rule. Therefore, we are not required to perform an assessment of the costs and savings.

The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses in issuing a proposed rule and a final rule that has been preceded by a proposed rule. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $5 million or less annually. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. We are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because we have determined, and we certify, that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a proposed rule or a final rule preceded by a proposed rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined, and we certify, that this rule will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any proposed rule and a final rule preceded by a proposed rule that may result in expenditure in any one year by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $110 million or more. This rule will have no consequential effect on the governments mentioned or on the private sector.

Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. We have reviewed this final rule with comment period and have determined that it will not have a substantial effect on State or local governments.

We have reviewed this rule and determined that, under the provisions of Public Law 104-121, the Contract with America Act, it is not a major rule.

In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 00-240, adopted July 24, 2001, and released July 26, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, adopted July 11, 2001, and released July 20, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC. 20036, (202) 857-3800, facsimile (202) 857-3805.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-14, adopted July 11, 2001, and released July 20, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC. 20036, (202) 857-3800, facsimile (202) 857-3805.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's consolidated Report and Order, MM Docket Nos. 98-9 and 98-13, adopted July 11, 2001, and released July 20, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Channel 229C3 can be allotted to Topeka in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements at the Shawnee Broadcasting's requested site, located at North Latitude 30°01′12″ and West Longitude 95°41′25″, 3.5 kilometers from Station KWIC(FM)'s current transmitter site. Channel 268A can be allotted to Iola as a substitute for Channel 257A in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements at the current transmitter site for Station KIKS(FM) located at North Latitude 37°54′04″ and West Longitude 95°24′04″. Channel 241A can be allotted to Emporia as a substitute for Channel 258A at Station KRWV(FM) in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements at the current transmitter site for Station KWRV(FM) located at North Latitude 38°24′21″ and West Longitude 96°14′13″. Channel 229C3 can be allotted to Pleasanton at a site restricted to 22.1 kilometers (13.7 miles) west of Pleasanton at at North Latitude 38°14′39″ and West Longitude 94°57′14″.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order in MM Docket No. 97-178, adopted July 11, 2001, and released July 20, 2001. The full text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-91, adopted July 11, 2001, and released July 20, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.

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

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket Nos. 01-59 and 01-60, adopted July 11, 2001, and released July 20, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

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

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98-162, adopted July 11, 2001, and released July 20, 2001. The full text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

On December 14, 2000, the Commission adopted a Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order (“Fifth MO&O”) (FCC 00-439) to address seven petitions for reconsideration and one comment, all directed to the rules established by the Commission's Second Report and Order (Second R&O) in this proceeding, a summary of the Fifth MO&O was published in the Federal Register . See 66 FR 8899 (February 5, 2001). We stated that the Part 90 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Part 90, is amended effective March 7, 2001, except for §§ 90.35(b)(2)(iii) and 90.175(b)(1) which contains information collections that are not effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget. We also stated that the Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date for those sections. This statement requires further action by the Commission to establish the effective date, notwithstanding the preceding statement in the summary that the rule change would become effective upon OMB approval. In order to resolve this matter in a manner that most appropriately provides interested parties with proper notice, the rule changes adopted in the Order shall become effective July 31, 2001. The information collection was approved by OMB on July 13, 2001. See OMB No. 3060-0984.

An interim rule was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 12897-12902) on March 1, 2001, providing for a 60 day comment period. The following is the single comment received and the Agency disposition of the comment:

Comment: Are contractors holding contracts that bar them from providing ERRS work also prohibited from performing work in these circumstances as well?

Response: Section 1516.603-2(d) of this rule requires that “* * * all actual or potential conflict of interest or other contracting issues are resolved prior to NTP issuance.” Therefore, the same conflict of interest rules would apply to the circumstances outlined in your comment.

This is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866; therefore, no review is required by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because this rule does not contain information collection requirements that require the approval of OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

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

For purposes of assessing the impact of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that meets the definition of a small business found in the Small Business Act and codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. Based on a review of EPA's historical experience, over the last three fiscal years EPA entered into only two letter contracts for the type of work contemplated by this interim rule, each of less than $10,000.00. Consequently, because of the emergency nature of an NTP, and the strict conditions on its use, and based on its limited historical utilization, it is believed that the authority provided by this interim rule will be used on a very limited basis so that it will have little, if any, impact on small businesses. This rule, therefore, will have no adverse and no significant impact on small entities.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. This interim rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in one year. Any private sector costs for this action relate to paperwork requirements and associated expenditures that are far below the level established for UMRA applicability. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because it does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks.

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

Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

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

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian Tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by Tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected Tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of Indian Tribal government “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.”

Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

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

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering use of any voluntary consensus standards. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the interim rulemaking, and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.

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