The FOIA requires Federal agencies to publish in the Federal Register regulations describing how the public may obtain information from the agency (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1)). Part 510 of Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, is issued in accordance with the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture at 7 CFR part 1, subpart A, implementing FOIA.

Pursuant to the Electronic FOIA Amendments of 1996, Public Law 104-231, § 510.2 is updated to address the availability of “reading room” material by electronic telecommunication means. Also § 510.4 is revised to address multitrack processing of requests. As a result, former §§ 510.4 and 510.5 are renumbered and § 510.6 added.

This rule also amends part 510 to inform the public of the change in the location and telephone number of the FOIA Coordinator for ARS and to provide a TTY number for access for hearing impaired individuals.

This rule will become effective 30 days after this publication pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Further, this rule has been reviewed to ensure accordance with Executive Orders 12988 and 12866. This rule will not cause a significant economic impact or other substantial effect on small entities. Therefore, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. , do not apply.

The FOIA requires Federal agencies to publish in the Federal Register regulations describing how the public may obtain information from the agency (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1)). Part 3404 of Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, is issued in accordance with the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture at 7 CFR part 1, subpart A, implementing FOIA.

Pursuant to the Electronic FOIA Amendments of 1996, Public Law 104-231, § 3404.2 is updated to address the availability of “reading room” material by electronic telecommunication means. Also § 3404.4 is revised to address multitrack processing of requests. As a result, §§ 3404.4 and 3404.5 are renumbered and § 3404.6 added.

This rule also amends part 3404 to inform the public of the change in the location and telephone number of the FOIA Coordinator for CSREES and to provide a TTY number for access for hearing impaired individuals.

This rule will become effective 30 days after this publication pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Further, this rule has been reviewed to ensure accordance with Executive Orders 12988 and 12866. This rule will not cause a significant economic impact or other substantial effect on small entities. Therefore, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. , do not apply.

The FOIA requires Federal agencies to publish in the Federal Register regulations describing how the public may obtain information from the agency (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1)). Part 3601 of Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, is issued in accordance with the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture at 7 CFR part 1, subpart A, implementing FOIA.

Pursuant to the Electronic FOIA Amendments of 1996, Public Law 104-231, § 3601.2 is updated to address the availability of “reading room” material by electronic telecommunication means. Also § 3601.4 is revised to address multitrack processing of requests. Former § 3601.6 is updated to provide current information on obtaining NASS's published data and reports, including online access. As a result, former §§ 3601.4, 3601.5, and 3601.6 are renumbered and § 3601.7 added.

This rule also amends part 3601 to inform the public of the change in the location and telephone number of the FOIA Coordinator for NASS and to provide a TTY number for access for hearing impaired individuals.

This rule will become effective 30 days after this publication pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Further, this rule has been reviewed to ensure accordance with Executive Orders 12988 and 12866. This rule will not cause a significant economic impact or other substantial effect on small entities. Therefore, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. , do not apply.

The FOIA requires Federal agencies to publish in the Federal Register regulations describing how the public may obtain information from the agency (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1)). Part 3701 of Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, is issued in accordance with the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture at 7 CFR part 1, subpart A, implementing FOIA.

Pursuant to the Electronic FOIA Amendments of 1996, Public Law 104-231, § 3701.2 is updated to address the availability of “reading room” material by electronic telecommunication means. Also § 3701.4 is revised to address multitrack processing of requests. Former § 3701.6 is updated to provide current information on obtaining ERS published data and reports. As a result, former §§ 3701.4, 3701.5, and 3701.6 are renumbered and § 3701.7 added.

This rule also amends part 3701 to inform the public of the change in the location and telephone number of the FOIA Coordinator for ERS and to provide a TTY number for access for hearing impaired individuals.

This rule will become effective 30 days after this publication pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Further, this rule has been reviewed to ensure accordance with Executive Orders 12988 and 12866. This rule will not cause a significant economic impact or other substantial effect on small entities. Therefore, the requirements of this Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. , do not apply.

DOE received requests from several manufacturers of wine coolers, including Danby Products, Ltd. and the Witt Company, seeking exemptions from the refrigerator energy efficiency standards for wine coolers. These products are configured with special storage racks for wine bottles and in general do not attain as low a storage temperature as a standard refrigerator. These characteristics make them unsuitable for general long-term storage of perishable foods. Wine coolers also have glass front doors which makes them less energy efficient than standard refrigerators.

On July 13, 1999, DOE published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the definition of the term “electric refrigerator.” 64 FR 37706. The Department proposed to amend the definition of electric refrigerator at 10 CFR 430.2 to exclude wine coolers from coverage by the energy efficiency regulations. Sales of these products are small and excluding them from coverage would not have any significant impacts.

DOE proposed to exclude wine coolers by including an upper temperature limit in the definition of electric refrigerator. The refrigerator definition contains the phrase “designed for the refrigerated storage of food at temperatures above 32° F.” Clearly, not all temperatures above 32° F would be suitable for the refrigerated storage of food. What is lacking in the definition is a temperature range suitable for food storage for a reasonable length of time. The “American National Standard—Household Refrigerators/Household Freezers,” ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-1988, Section 7.6.5.1, “Recommended Level of Performance” states: “It is recommended that in the fresh food compartment of household refrigerators, an average temperature within the range of 34° F and 41° F be attainable between the coldest and warmest settings of the controls. * * *” Also, from the same paragraph, “Refrigerator-freezer design and development engineers believe 41° F to be a very practical but not absolute upper limit.”

Accordingly, the Department proposed to change the definition of a refrigerator to include the 41° F upper limit, and to exclude refrigerators containing special storage racks only. By the proposed definition, appliances which, at the coldest setting of the controls, could not attain a fresh food compartment temperature below 41° F, and contained only special-purpose storage racks, would not be considered a refrigerator and, therefore, not a covered product. The definition proposed by the Department was:

“ Electric refrigerator means a cabinet designed for the refrigerated storage of food at temperatures above 32° F and below 41° F, configured for general refrigerated food storage, and having a source of refrigeration requiring single phase, alternating current electric energy input only. An electric refrigerator may include a compartment for the freezing and storage of food at temperatures below 32° F, but does not provide a separate low temperature compartment designed for the freezing and storage of food at temperatures below 8° F.”

In response to the July 13, 1999, NOPR, the Department received two comments. The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) supported the proposed rule, but recommended that the upper temperature limit be lowered from 41° F to 38° F. AHAM stated “this revision is necessary to accommodate the temperatures needed for champagne and other sparkling wines and to avoid unnecessary government imposed limits on technological and commercial development. 38° F also is the rating point for an “all-refrigerator” and, therefore, using that limit sets the appropriate divider.” The Sub-Zero Freezer Company also recommended lowering the upper temperature limit from 41° F to 38° F.

As AHAM and Sub-Zero stated, 38° F is the rating point for the all-refrigerator in the DOE test procedure. It is also the rating point for variable defrost control refrigerators. The purpose of the revised definition of an electric refrigerator is to exclude wine coolers, not all-refrigerators or variable defrost control refrigerators. For this reason, the Department does not want to set the upper limit temperature at 38° F. In order to accommodate concerns about temperatures for the storage of champagne and sparkling wines, we have decided to lower the defined upper temperature limit from 41° F to 39° F. The Department today revises the definition of an electric refrigerator (10 CFR Part 430.2 Definitions), as follows: Electric refrigerator means a cabinet designed for the refrigerated storage of food at temperatures above 32° F and below 39° F, configured for general refrigerated food storage, and having a source of refrigeration requiring single phase, alternating current electric energy input only. An electric refrigerator may include a compartment for the freezing and storage of food at temperatures below 32° F, but does not provide a separate low temperature compartment designed for the freezing and storage of food at temperatures below 8° F.

The Department has reviewed this rule under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, the Department's regulations for compliance with NEPA, 10 CFR part 1021, and the Secretarial Policy on the National Environmental Policy Act (June 1994). DOE has concluded that this rule is covered under the Categorical Exclusion in paragraph A5 to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021, which applies to rulemakings that interpret or amend an existing regulation without changing the environmental effect of the regulation. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This regulatory action has been determined not to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601, requires an assessment of the impact of regulations on small businesses. Small businesses are those firms within an industry that are privately owned and less dominant in the market and that meet the size standards for small concerns promulgated by the Small Business Administration. A regulatory flexibility analysis examines the impact of the rule on small entities and considers alternative ways of reducing negative impacts. The regulatory flexibility analysis requirement does not apply if the head of an agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605. Today's final rule redefines the term “electric refrigerator” to exclude wine coolers. This change to the definition was requested by small manufacturers of wine coolers for their benefit, and no negative impact on any small manufacturer is foreseen. Accordingly, DOE certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

No new information or record keeping requirements are imposed by this rulemaking. Accordingly, no Office of Management and Budget clearance is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, Section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE reviewed today's final rule under the standards of section 3 of the Executive Order and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the final regulations meet the relevant standards.

DOE has determined pursuant to Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 52 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Executive Order 13132 “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. Agencies also must have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. DOE published its intergovernmental consultation policy on March 14, 2000. (65 FR 13735). Today's final rule only changes the definition of an electric refrigerator and 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.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-4 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”) requires that the Department prepare an assessment of costs and benefits before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. The written assessment must include: (i) Identification of the Federal law under which the rule is promulgated; (ii) a qualitative and quantitative assessment of anticipated costs and benefits of the Federal mandate and an analysis of the extent to which such costs to state, local, and tribal governments may be paid with Federal financial assistance; (iii) if feasible, estimates of the future compliance costs and of any disproportionate budgetary effects the mandate has on particular regions, communities, non-Federal units of government, or sectors of the economy; (iv) if feasible, estimates of the effect on the national economy; and (v) a description of the Department's prior consultation with elected representatives of state, local, and tribal governments and a summary and evaluation of the comments and concerns presented. The Department has determined that today's final rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to state, local or to tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector. Therefore, the requirements of Sections 203 and 204 of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this action.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. No. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule or policy that may affect family well-being. Today's final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

Today's final rule will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or the use of energy, and, therefore, is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the issuance of today's final rule prior to the effective date set forth at the outset of this notice. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2).

Pursuant to the authority of sections 10(b), 13, 14, 19, et al., of the Federal Reserve Act, the Board has amended its Regulation A (12 CFR part 201) to incorporate changes in discount rates on Federal Reserve Bank extensions of credit. The discount rates are the interest rates charged to depository institutions when they borrow from their district Reserve Banks.

The “basic discount rate” is a fixed rate charged by Reserve Banks for adjustment credit and, at the Reserve Banks' discretion, for extended credit for up to 30 days. In decreasing the basic discount rate from 2.0 percent to 1.5 percent, the Board acted on requests submitted by the Boards of Directors of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks. The new rates were effective on the dates specified below. The 50-basis-point decrease in the discount rate was associated with a similar decrease in the Federal funds rate approved by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) and announced at the same time.

In a joint press release announcing these actions, the FOMC and the Board of Governors stated that heightened uncertainty and concerns about a deterioration in business conditions both here and abroad are damping economic activity. For the foreseeable future, then, the Committee continues to believe that, against the background of its long-run goals of price stability and sustainable economic growth and of the information currently available, the risks are weighted mainly toward conditions that may generate economic weakness. Although the necessary reallocation of resources to enhance security may restrain advances in productivity for a time, the long-term prospects for productivity growth and the economy remain favorable and should become evident once the unusual forces restraining demand abate.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Board certifies that the change in the basic discount rate will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule does not impose any additional requirements on entities affected by the regulation.

The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) relating to notice and public participation were not followed in connection with the adoption of the amendment because the Board for good cause finds that delaying the change in the basic discount rate in order to allow notice and public comment on the change is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest in fostering price stability and sustainable economic growth. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(d) that prescribe 30 days prior notice of the effective date of a rule have not been followed because section 553(d) provides that such prior notice is not necessary whenever there is good cause for finding that such notice is contrary to the public interest. As previously stated, the Board determined that delaying the changes in the basic discount rate is contrary to the public interest.

The Truth in Lending Act (TILA; 15 U.S.C. 1601 - 1666j) requires creditors to disclose credit terms and the cost of consumer credit as an annual percentage rate. The act requires additional disclosures for loans secured by a consumer's home, and permits consumers to cancel certain transactions that involve their principal dwelling. TILA is implemented by the Board's Regulation Z (12 CFR part 226). The Board's official staff commentary (12 CFR part 226 (Supp. I)) interprets the regulation, and provides guidance to creditors in applying the regulation to specific transactions.

In 1995, the Board published amendments to Regulation Z implementing HOEPA, contained in the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-325, 108 Stat. 2160 (60 FR 15463). These amendments are contained in § 226.32 of the regulation and impose substantive limitations and additional disclosure requirements on certain closed-end mortgage loans bearing rates or fees above a certain percentage or amount. As enacted, the statute requires creditors to comply with the HOEPA rules if the total points and fees payable by the consumer at or before loan consummation exceed the greater of $400 or 8 percent of the total loan amount. TILA and Regulation Z provide that the $400 figure shall be adjusted annually on January 1 by the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) that was reported on the preceding June 1. (15 U.S.C. 1602(aa)(3) and 12 CFR 226.32(a)(1)(ii)). The Board adjusted the $400 amount to $465 for the year 2001.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes consumer-based indices monthly, but does not “report” a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of each month. The Board uses the CPI-U index, which is based on all urban consumers and represents approximately 80 percent of the U.S. population, as the index for adjusting the $400 dollar figure. The adjustment to the CPI-U index reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on May 15, 2001, was the CPI-U index “in effect” on June 1, and reflects the percentage increase from April 2000 to April 2001. The adjustment to the $400 figure below reflects a 3.27 percent increase in the CPI-U index for this period and is rounded to whole dollars for ease of compliance.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, for purposes of determining whether a mortgage transaction is covered by 12 CFR 226.32 (based on the total points and fees payable by the consumer at or before loan consummation), a loan is covered if the points and fees exceed the greater of $480 or 8 percent of the total loan amount, effective January 1, 2002. Comment 32(a)(1)(ii)-2, which lists the adjustments for each year, is amended to reflect the dollar adjustment for 2002. Because the timing and method of the adjustment is set by statute, the Board finds that notice and public comment on the change are unnecessary.

The Board certifies that this amendment will not have a substantial effect on regulated entities because the only change is to raise the threshold for transactions requiring HOEPA disclosures.

What events have caused this AD? The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, recently notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all SOCATA Models TB 9, TB 10, TB 20, TB 21, and TB 200 airplanes that do not have factory Modification 165 incorporated on the front seats. The DGAC reports cases where the seat pan interfered with the front seat locking mechanism. Interference with the seat locking mechanism could result in uncontrolled movement of the front seats.

This condition does not affect airplanes with factory Modification 165, any edition, incorporated. This modification consists of cutting a slot in the solid metal seat pan to eliminate the interference.

Has FAA taken any action to this point? We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all SOCATA—Groupe Aerospatiale (SOCATA) Models TB 9, TB 10, TB 20, TB 21, and TB 200 airplanes that do not have factory Modification 165, any edition, incorporated on the front seats. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44556). The NPRM proposed to require you to modify the front seat configuration.

What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? The actions specified by this AD are intended to eliminate the potential for the front seats to inadvertently unlock from their fixed positions. Such uncontrolled movement could prevent the pilot from making the necessary flight maneuvers to control the airplane.

Was the public invited to comment? The FAA encouraged interested persons to participate in the making of this amendment. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and FAA's response to each comment:

What is the commenter's concern? The AD affects only certain models of seats; commenter estimates that 36 aircraft in the U.S. were affected by the AD. The commenter wants FAA to reflect this in the Cost Impact section.

What is FAA's response to the concern? The FAA agrees with the manufacturer that this initial estimate is correct. However, it is possible that owner/operators might have had modifications made to the aircraft later that make them subject to the AD. The FAA will note that this AD possibly affects 125 aircraft in the U.S. registry.

What is the commenter's concern? One commenter states that only seats with solid metal seat pans are affected by this AD; seats with a mesh seat pan are not affected. The commenter recommended that FAA make it clear in the AD what seats are affected.

What is FAA's response to the concern? The FAA agrees with the commenter and will clearly identify that only solid metal seat pans are affected by the AD.

What is FAA's final determination on this issue? We carefully reviewed all available information related to the subject presented above and determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for the changes discussed above and minor editorial questions. We have determined that these changes and minor corrections:

How many airplanes does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD possibly affects 125 airplanes in the U.S. registry. Of these 125 airplanes, 36 had the affected seats installed at the manufacturer. The other 89 airplanes could have had these seats installed since manufacture.

What is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate the following costs to accomplish the modification:

Does this AD impact various entities? 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.

Does this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? 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 copy of the final evaluation prepared for this action 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 .

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding priority letter airworthiness directive (AD) 90-02-23, applicable to certain Hartzell Propeller Inc. ( )HC-( )2Y( )-( ) propellers, was published in the Federal Register on January 27, 1999 (64 FR 4061). That action proposed to change the frequency and method of inspection by requiring initial and repetitive ECI of the propeller hub fillet radius for cracks and, if necessary, removal and replacement of cracked hubs with serviceable parts. In addition, that action proposed to expand the models of propellers affected and allow installation of an improved design propeller hub as terminating action to the repetitive ECI.

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

The manufacturer notes that since the NPRM was published, there have been some instances of fractures involving the rear hub half of the “A” suffix serial numbered hubs. Since the rear half of the hub cannot be readily inspected, the manufacturer recommends the replacement of “A” suffix hubs with the current “B” suffix hubs, which incorporate a new design.

The FAA agrees in part and has incorporated into this AD the replacement requirements for “A” suffix hubs per Hartzell Service Bulletin HC-SB-61-227, Revision 2, dated May 8, 2000. The FAA is also considering expanding the applicability of this action in the future to remove from service all “A” suffix hub designs, regardless of the aircraft model they are installed on.

One commenter contends that the current AD, requiring visual inspections using a 10× glass at intervals of 50 hours, adequately detects cracked hubs prior to catastrophic failure. Since a new design hub is available, and no catastrophic failures have been attributed to a failure to detect a crack using the current inspections, the commenter contends that there is no need for a more expensive eddy current inspection.

The FAA does not agree. The service history of these propellers since the current AD was issued indicates that the visual inspections are not working as intended. Two hubs that were apparently inspected visually did, in fact, fail in service, releasing propeller blades. In another instance, a crack was discovered during overhaul, 32 hours following a visual inspection performed in accordance with the current AD. Other instances were reported where cracks were found only after unusual vibrations or grease and oil on the windshield prompted examinations of the propeller hubs, which had passed the visual inspection required by the current AD. As a result, the FAA believes that an ECI of the propeller hub is required in order to increase the probability of detection and decrease the risk of in-service failure of the hub.

One commenter requests that the repetitive inspection period be changed from 150 hours to 400-500 hours, then shortened after more data is collected. The commenter feels that the cost analysis does not reflect the true costs of having to perform ECI every 150 hours, particularly for operators located in remote areas of the country.

The FAA does not agree. The service history demonstrates the need for ECI in lieu of the visual inspection. The 150-hour interval is based on an engineering evaluation of crack growth. The cost analysis estimates the average cost to perform the mandated actions. Those costs could be higher in certain cases. Operators could mitigate higher costs by seeking training and certification to perform the ECI at the operator's location. Operators desiring to pursue this alternative should contact Hartzell. In addition, the AD allows for replacement of certain propeller hubs as terminating action for the repetitive ECI.

One commenter notes that instead of requiring repetitive ECI and making design changes to the propeller, operators should be required to adhere to the manufacturer's recommended overhaul interval of 5 years or 1,000 hours. The commenter is concerned that the design changes will introduce a new set of problems, and in the commenter's opinion, while a propeller failure is extremely critical, the older Hartzell propeller designs are extremely reliable when properly maintained.

The FAA does not agree. The cracks were not caused by the lack of maintenance. The repetitive ECI inspection is required at intervals of 150 hours which is far more often than a 5-year or 1,000-hour time between overhaul.

One commenter expresses concerns that the FAA has treated the potential failure of these propeller hubs with too much complacency, allowing visual inspections using a 10X glass. The commenter notes that a crack detected using a 10X glass may well be very close to failure and that any propeller hub failure exposes the aircraft to serious control problems and could likely result in a loss of the aircraft.

The FAA agrees that cracks in a propeller hub present a very serious unsafe condition. When the current AD was issued, the FAA viewed a visual inspection with a very short repetitive interval as sufficient to address that serious unsafe condition. Based on the service history since then, the FAA has determined that an inspection method with a higher sensitivity of crack detection is needed, and this AD will require an ECI with longer intervals.

One commenter suggests changes to the aircraft names listed in the AD. The commenter notes that two different type certificates cover aircraft named Britten Norman BN-2, and the AD does not clearly indicate which aircraft may have the affected propellers. The commenter also notes that the phrase “agricultural category” does not clearly identify which aircraft may have an affected propeller. The commenter also notes that the Hartzell Y-shank propeller does not appear to be eligible for installation on a number of the aircraft listed in the AD.

The FAA agrees that the applicability of the proposed AD was not clear and that changes are needed to provide operators with an unambiguous identification of the affected propellers. The FAA has reviewed the aircraft type certificate data sheets and supplemental type certificate data sheets and has changed the reference to the “Britten Norman BN-2( ) aircraft” to “Pilatus Britten Norman or Britten Norman BN-2 series aircraft (also known as the Islander or Trislander).” The AD applies to all Hartzell Y-shank propellers installed on any Britten Norman or Pilatus Britten Norman BN-2 series aircraft that have a Textron Lycoming 540 series engine. The AD does not apply to the Textron Lycoming 541 series engine. The general statement of applicability also includes all Hartzell Y-shank propeller installed on any aircraft certificated in the acrobatic catergory or that has ever been used for agricultural purposes. The list of aircraft types that follows that general statement includes the changes the commenter noted, “Great Lakes Aircraft Co. 2T-1 series aircraft” has been changed to “Great Lakes Aircraft Co. or Chaparral Motors 2T-1 series aircraft,” Piper “PA-36-600” has been changed to “Piper PA-36-300.” The list includes those aircraft types that may have a Hartzell Y-shank propeller installed through supplemental type certificate (STC). That STC approval may not be reflected on the aircraft's type certificate data sheet.

Since the FAA published this proposal, the manufacturer has updated Service Bulletin HC-SB-61-227. This AD references Hartzell Propeller Service Bulletin HC-SB-61-227, Revision 2, dated May 8, 2000.

The FAA has also made editorial changes in the requirements of the AD. Those changes do not alter the substance of the requirements from what was proposed.

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 10,800 propellers of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 4,600 propellers installed on aircraft of U.S. registry would be affected by ECI action of this AD, that it would take approximately 1 work hour per propeller to accomplish the ECI actions, and that the average ECI rate is $150 per work hour. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators per ECI is estimated to be $690,000. The FAA estimates that 2,100 propellers installed on aircraft of U.S. registry would be affected by the replacement action, and that it would take approximately 6 work hours to replace a propeller, the average parts cost for a replacement propeller hub is $2,600, and that the average rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators for replacement is estimated to be $6,216,000.

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.

What events have caused this AD? The Direction Ge ne rale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, recently notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Socata Model TBM 700 airplanes. The DGAC reports that Amendment A fuel tank air vent valve floats may block the air vent valve in the closed position making the valve defective. This condition is the result of a change in the manufacturing of the fuel tank air vent valve.

The DGAC reports one occurrence on a Socata Model TBM 700 airplane of abnormal venting conditions of the wing fuel tank due to a fuel tank air vent valve float blocking the air vent valve in the closed position.

What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? This condition, if not corrected, could result in severe handling problems or reduced structural capability. Continued operation with such structural deformation or handling problems could result in loss of control of the airplane.

Has FAA taken any action to this point? We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain Socata Model TBM 700 airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44558). The NPRM proposed to require you to inspect the fuel tank air vent valve to determine the Amendment level of the part and replace the defective Amendment A fuel tank air vent valve with a part of improved design (Amendment B).

Was the public invited to comment? The FAA encouraged interested persons to participate in the making of this amendment. We did not receive any comments on the proposed rule or on our determination of the cost to the public.

What is FAA's final determination on this issue? After careful review of all available information related to the subject presented above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:

—Provide the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

—Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

How many airplanes does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD affects 38 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate the following costs to accomplish the inspection:

We estimate the following costs to accomplish the replacement:

What events have caused this AD? The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, recently notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all SOCATA Model TB 9, TB 10, TB 20, TB 21, and TB 200 airplanes. The DGAC reports an occurrence of the lower rudder separating from the control linkage on a Model TB 9 airplane. A break in the lower rudder hinge fitting caused this problem and was found during a scheduled inspection on the airplane with more than 6,000 hours time-in-service (TIS). The DGAC reports that material fatigue caused cracks in the lower rudder hinge fitting.

What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? If this condition is not detected and corrected, the lower rudder could detach from the control linkage with consequent loss of control of the airplane.

Has FAA taken any action to this point? We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all SOCATA Models TB 9, TB 10, TB 20, TB 21, and TB 200 airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 29, 2001 (66 FR 45648). The NPRM proposed to require you to repetitively inspect the lower rudder hinge fitting for cracks and repair any crack found in accordance with a repair scheme obtained from the manufacturer through the FAA.

Was the public invited to comment? The FAA encouraged interested persons to participate in the making of this amendment. We did not receive any comments on the proposed rule or on our determination of the cost to the public.

What is FAA's final determination on this issue? After careful review of all available information related to the subject presented above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:

—Provide the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

—Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

How many airplanes does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD affects 239 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate the following costs to accomplish the inspection:

We have no method of determining the number of repetitive inspections each owner/operator will incur over the life of each of the affected airplanes so the cost impact is based on the initial inspection.

We estimate the following costs to accomplish any necessary repairs that will be required based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the number of repairs each owner/operator will incur over the life of each of the affected airplanes based on the results of the inspections.

Does this AD impact various entities? 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.

Does this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? 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 copy of the final evaluation prepared for this action 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 .

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that is applicable to Rolls-Royce plc model RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, RB211-535C-37, RB211-535E4-B-75, and RB211-22B-02 turbofan engines was published in the Federal Register on July 26, 2001 (66 FR 38961). That action proposed to require inspection of certain high pressure (HP) turbine disks, manufactured between 1989 and 1999, for cracks in the rim cooling air holes, and, if necessary, replacement with serviceable parts, in accordance with Rolls-Royce Mandatory Service Bulletin RB.211-72-C817, Revision 1, dated December 14, 1999 and Rolls-Royce Mandatory Service Bulletin RB.211-72-C817, Revision 2, dated March 7, 2001; and Rolls-Royce Mandatory Service Bulletin RB.211-72-C877, dated January 29, 2000 and Rolls-Royce Mandatory Service Bulletin RB.211-72-C877, Revision 1, dated March 7, 2001.

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

One commenter notes that a typographical error was made in the serial number range for CQDY, which was incorrectly listed as CDQY. The FAA agrees and the error has been corrected.

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 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 549 engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 300 engines installed on aircraft of U.S. registry would be affected by this AD. The FAA also estimates that it would take approximately 4 work hours per engine to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. No parts are required. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $72,000.

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.

This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, and 8260-5. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR (and FAR) sections, with the types of effective dates of the SIAPs. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number.

This amendment to part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center (NFDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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—(i) 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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description on each SIAP is contained in the appropriate FAA Form 8260 and the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent (P) Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) which are incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation's Regulations (FAR). Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction of charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR (and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number.

This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained in the content of the following FDC/P NOTAMs for each SIAP. The SIAP information in some previously designated FDC/Temporary (FDC/T) NOTAMs is of such duration as to be permanent. With conversion to FDC/P NOTAMs, the respective FDC/T NOTAMs have been canceled.

The FDC/P NOTAMs for the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these chart changes to SIAPs by FDC/P NOTAMs, the TERPS criteria were applied to only these specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Date Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.

Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the TERPS. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the following steps:

(1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page ( http://dms.dot.gov/search ).

(2) On the search page type in the last four digits of the Docket number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on “search.”

(3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information for the Docket you selected, click on the document number for the item you wish to view.

You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the Office of Rulemaking's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm or the Federal Register's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html .

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

On April 29, 1996, the Department of Transportation (DOT) published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (61 FR 18713) asking for suggestions to change 49 CFR part 40, Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs. Subsequently, on December 9, 1999, the DOT published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (64 FR 69076) proposing a comprehensive revision to 49 CFR part 40, and the DOT published its final rule on December 29, 2000 (64 FR 79462). As a consequence of the DOT's final rule, on April 30, 2001, the FAA published an NPRM (66 FR 21494) proposing to revise its drug and alcohol regulations to integrate, as appropriate, the new DOT procedures and to be consistent with changes made to 14 CFR part 67. On August 9, 2001, we published a final rule (66 FR 41959) consistent with the new DOT procedures and the current 14 CFR part 67.

Since publication of our final rule, we have become aware of minor corrections that need to be made to avoid confusion. Unless these rule sections are revised, the FAA regulations will not be technically accurate.

In our final rule, we inadvertently retained language allowing, but not requiring, employers to follow certain recommendations for follow-up testing. Sections 40.297 and 40.309 of the DOT final rule require the employer to carry out the Substance Abuse Professional's (SAP) follow-up testing requirements. Therefore, the FAA is modifying 14 CFR part 121, appendix I, section V.G.3., to require the employer to direct the employee to have follow-up testing for alcohol, in addition to drugs, if the SAP determines that alcohol testing is necessary for the particular employee. Similarly, the FAA is modifying 14 CFR part 121, appendix J, section III.F.3. to require the employer to direct the employee to have follow-up testing for drugs, in addition to alcohol, if the SAP determines that drug testing is necessary for the particular employee. With the correction to these sections, the FAA requirements for following SAP recommendations are now consistent with the DOT requirements.

In addition, the FAA found an inadvertent omission regarding pre-employment alcohol testing. In our final rule, we adopted language that all the DOT modal administrations proposed. Our adoption provision inadvertently omitted previous language in 14 CFR part 121, appendix J, section III.A. that stated: “If a pre-employment test result under this paragraph indicates an alcohol concentration of 0.02 or greater but less than 0.04, the provisions of paragraph F of section V of this appendix apply.” If the language is left as it appears in the final rule, employers might erroneously believe that persons with alcohol concentrations of between 0.02 and 0.04 on a pre-employment test could be put to work immediately. Therefore, we are restoring the missing language to 14 CFR part 121, appendix J, section III.A.

Finally, after publication of the final rule we became aware that some cross-references had become incorrect because of changes made in the final rule. Therefore, we are correcting these cross-references.

The FAA is making minor technical amendments to its drug and alcohol regulations final rule, which was effective August 1, 2001, to correct minor omissions in the rule language. The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, we determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications.

The FAA has determined that this action does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation since the anticipated impact is minimal. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (3) will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (4) will not impose barriers to international trade; and (5) does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector.

In addition, this rule imposes no information collection requirements for which Paperwork Reduction Act approval is needed.

Sections 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. Sections 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3)) authorize agencies to dispense with certain notice procedures for rules when they find “good cause” to do so. Under section 553(b)(3)(B), the requirements of notice and opportunity for comment do not apply when the agency, for good cause, finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Section 553(d)(3) allows an agency, upon finding good cause, to make a rule effective immediately, thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date requirement in section 553.

The FAA finds that notice and public comment to this technical amendment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The amendments made in this final rule are corrective and clarifying changes to an existing rule that went through public notice and comment. The corrections in this technical amendment, in and of themselves, do not have a substantial impact upon regulated employers because they merely conform the final rule published August 9, 2001, to current DOT regulations. The amendments do not make significant, substantive changes to 14 CFR part 121, appendices I and J, and we would not anticipate the receipt of adverse comments on them. Furthermore, if the changes are stayed awaiting public notice and comment, regulated persons are likely to become confused about the conflicts between the FAA and DOT regulations on the issues addressed in the amendments. Therefore, the FAA finds that notice and comment are unnecessary and good cause exists for making these technical amendments effective immediately.

It is essential that these technical amendments take effect upon publication of this final rule. Delaying these amendments with a later effective date would result in confusion on the part of the regulated public. These technical amendments are merely intended to correctly implement the August 9 final rule. Therefore, the FAA finds good cause to make the changes effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

The Appliance Labeling Rule was issued by the Commission in 1979, 44 FR 66466 (Nov. 19, 1979), in response to a directive in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. 1 The Rule covers eight categories of major household appliances: Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, water heaters (this category includes storage-type water heaters, gas-fired instantaneous water heaters, and heat pump water heaters), room air conditioners, furnaces (this category includes boilers), and central air conditioners (this category includes heat pumps). The Rule also covers pool heaters, 59 FR 49556 (Sept. 28, 1994), and contains requirements that pertain to fluorescent lamp ballasts, 54 FR 28031 (July 5, 1989), certain plumbing products, 58 FR 54955 (Oct. 25, 1993), and certain lighting products, 59 FR 25176 (May 13, 1994, eff. May 15, 1995).

The Rule requires manufacturers of all covered appliances and pool heaters to disclose specific energy consumption or efficiency information (derived from the DOE test procedures) at the point of sale in the form of an “EnergyGuide” label and in catalogs. It also requires manufacturers of furnaces, central air conditioners, and heat pumps either to provide fact sheets showing additional cost information, or to be listed in an industry directory showing the cost information for their products. The Rule requires manufacturers to include, on labels and fact sheets, an energy consumption or efficiency figure and a “range of comparability.” This range shows the highest and lowest energy consumption or efficiencies for all comparable appliance models so consumers can compare the energy consumption or efficiency of other models (perhaps competing brands) similar to the labeled model. The Rule also requires manufacturers to include, on labels for some products, a secondary energy usage disclosure in the form of an estimated annual operating cost based on a specified DOE national average cost for the fuel the appliance uses.

Section 305.8(b) of the Rule requires manufacturers, after filing an initial report, to report certain information annually to the Commission by specified dates for each product type. 2 These reports, which are to assist the Commission in preparing the ranges of comparability, contain the estimated annual energy consumption or energy efficiency ratings for the appliances derived from tests performed pursuant to the DOE test procedures. Because manufacturers regularly add new models to their lines, improve existing models, and drop others, the data base from which the ranges of comparability are calculated is constantly changing. To keep the required information consistent with these changes, under section 305.10 of the Rule, the Commission will publish new ranges if an analysis of the new information indicates that the upper or lower limits of the ranges have changed by more than 15%. Otherwise, the Commission will publish a statement that the prior ranges remain in effect for the next year.

The Commission has analyzed 2001 submissions of data for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. Analysis of the submission indicates that the ranges for these products have changed significantly. 3 Therefore, the Commission is publishing new ranges of comparability for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. Today's publication of the new ranges for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers also means that, after February 19, 2002, manufacturers of these products must calculate the operating cost figures at the bottom of labels for the products using the 2001 cost for electricity (8.29 cents per kilowatt-hour).

The Commission is also amending the cost calculation formulas appearing in the Appendices (H and I) to part 305 that contain, for central air conditioners and heat pumps, heating and cooling performance costs and the ranges of comparability. These formulas must be provided on fact sheets and in directories so consumers can calculate their own costs of operation for the central air conditioners and heat pumps that they are considering purchasing. This amendment corrects some of the figures in the formulas to reflect the current Representative Average Unit Cost of Electricity—8.29 cents per kilowatt-hour—that was published by DOE on March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13917), and by the Commission on May 21, 2001 (66 FR 27856).

The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis (5 U.S.C. 603-604) are not applicable to this proceeding because the amendments do not impose any new obligations on entities regulated by the Appliance Labeling Rule. Thus, the amendments will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 605. The Commission has concluded, therefore, that a regulatory flexibility analysis is not necessary, and certifies, under section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that the amendments announced today will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

FDA has found that the animal drug regulations do not reflect the dose range of arsanilic acid for Type C medicated poultry feeds reported to the agency by the NAS/NRC Drug Efficacy Study in 1972. At this time, the regulations are being amended in 21 CFR 558.62 to reflect a dose range of 45 to 90 grams per ton of medicated poultry feed.

Publication of this document constitutes final action on these changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Notice and public procedure are unnecessary because FDA is merely correcting nonsubstantive errors.

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

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as follows:

2. Section 558.62 is amended in the table in paragraph (c)(1) by revising entries (i) and (ii) to read as follows:

On July 17, 2001, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Fireworks Displays, Atlantic Ocean, Virginia Beach, Virginia, in the Federal Register (66 FR 37200). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested and none was held.

The City of Virginia Beach sponsors fireworks displays at various times throughout the year over the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, adjacent to the beachfront between 17th Street and 24th Street. The events consist of pyrotechnic displays fired from a vessel positioned in the Atlantic Ocean. Spectator vessels gather nearby to observe the fireworks. Due to the need for vessel control during the fireworks displays, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of spectators and transiting vessels.

No comments were received. No changes have been made to the proposed regulatory text.

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 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).

Although this rule will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to the beachfront during the events, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration of the regulation, the small size of the regulated area and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the owners or operators of vessels, some of which may be small entities, intending to transit or anchor in the affected portions of the Atlantic Ocean during the events.

Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting or anchoring in portions of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to the beachfront during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant because of its limited duration, the small size of the regulated area and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. No assistance was requested by any small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction.

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 law 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 of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in the preamble.

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and 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 and direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Governments 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 considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under that section. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

On June 13, 2001, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Fireworks Displays, Patapsco River, Baltimore, Maryland, in the Federal Register (66 FR 31868). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested and none was held.

The Baltimore Office of Promotions sponsors fireworks displays at various times throughout the year over the waters of the Patapsco River, Inner Harbor and Northwest Harbor, near Baltimore, Maryland. The events consist of pyrotechnic displays fired from 2 barges positioned in the Inner Harbor and Northwest Harbor. A large fleet of spectator vessels gathers nearby to observe the fireworks. Due to the need for vessel control during the fireworks displays, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of spectators and transiting vessels.

No comments were received. No changes have been made to the proposed regulatory text.

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 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).

Although this rule will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Patapsco River during the events, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration of the regulation, the small size of the regulated area and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the owners or operators of vessels, some of which may be small entities, intending to transit or anchor in the effected portions of the Patapsco River during the events.

Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting or anchoring in portions of the Patapsco River during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant because of its limited duration, the small size of the regulated area and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. No assistance was requested by any small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction.

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 law 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 of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in the preamble.

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and 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 and direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Governments 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 prepared an “Environmental Assessment” in accordance with Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, and determined that this rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The “Environmental Assessment” and “Finding of No Significant Impact” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

As published, the temporary final rule contains errors that create confusion for the National Vessel Movement Center (NVMC) and for vessel owners and operators required to notify the Coast Guard of their arrival at or departure from a U.S. port or place. A discussion of the errors and corrections follows:

Applicability. By error we did not update all of the cross-references in 33 CFR 160.201(g), and inadvertently removed exemptions to this rule. To correct this error, we have revised the remaining cross-references so that certain vessels continue to be exempt from the notification of arrival (NOA) and notification of departure (NOD) requirements.

Ports of arrival and departure. The NVMC needs vessel owners and operators to identify the port their vessel will arrive at so that it knows to which Captain of the Port (COTP) it must send a copy of the NOA or NOD. The language requiring only the name of the port is not sufficiently clear. We are clarifying the port arrival information requirements in 33 CFR 160.T208(c)(1), 160.T212(b)(1), and 160.T214(a)(1) and (10) by including the names of the port or place of destination, of the receiving facility, of the city, and of the state in which the port of arrival is located.

The World Heritage Program regulations describe the policies and procedures which the Department of the Interior uses to carry out the program authorized by Congress in accordance with the World Heritage Convention (hereafter known as “Convention”), a treaty ratified by the United States Senate in 1973. The World Heritage Program is an international listing program for recognizing universally important natural areas and cultural sites in sovereign nations around the world. One of the major national activities under the Convention is the nomination of sites proposed voluntarily by their owners to the World Heritage List. Elements in two sections of the regulations that deal with the United States nomination process are no longer accurate or applicable. We are publishing this revised rule to correct these elements and make current and accurate information available to the public.

The changes eliminate an obsolete calendar for the preparation and submission of United States nominations to the World Heritage List and replace outdated criteria for nominating sites. Both the calendar and the criteria, which the United States has played a role in determining, are established and have been changed by the World Heritage Committee (hereafter known as “Committee”). First, the United States calendar has been based on a fixed annual nomination submission deadline to the World Heritage Centre of January 1, which beginning in 2002, will be February 1 of a given year for consideration in the summer of the following year. The Committee has altered this date several times for administrative reasons and may again change it. In our revision, therefore, we have set up the U.S. nomination calendar to run independently of the Committee's deadlines for submittal of nominations. That means that we will submit nominations to the World Heritage Centre when the United States has approved them, regardless of when in the calendar that occurs. When we submit them, we will request that the Committee consider them in the next available review cycle. Second, the revision of the criteria for nominating sites means that those who prepare future nominations must use the new criteria.

If this revised rule is not published, those who consult the program regulations will continue to rely on inaccurate information about the program calendar and criteria for consideration. If they do so, consideration of their proposals for nominations might be delayed by as much as a year. The discrepancies between the current regulations and the procedures actually in effect have led to confusion, which we intend the changes in this rule to eliminate.

We intend to make further revisions in the World Heritage regulations to enhance public participation, including more explicit procedures for public participation and more extensive notification to potentially interested parties of the actions we take, than the current regulations require. When we do so, we will use general notice and comment rulemaking with full public involvement.

We are promulgating this rule pursuant to the Secretary of the Interior's authority under Title IV of the National Historic Preservation Amendments of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-515; 94 Stat. 3000; 15 U.S.C. 470a-1, a-2) which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, to ensure and direct United States participation in the World Heritage Convention (Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage), approved by the United States Senate on October 26, 1973.

You can find definitive official guidance for the World Heritage Program's policy and procedures only in these program regulations. Information sheets, websites, and other means of presenting this information as informal agency guidelines do not carry the force of law that accompanies formal rules that are published as part of the Code of Federal Regulations. Taking no action in this case means that the public will continue to receive and rely on outdated information.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to provide current information to parties interested in the program as soon as possible. For this reason, the interim rule needs to be effective upon the date of publication.

We intend this rulemaking action to provide current and accurate information to government agencies and the public that is necessary for them to participate in the World Heritage nomination process in a meaningful way.

We are promulgating this interim rule under the “good cause” exception of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) from general notice and comment rulemaking. As discussed above, we believe that this exception is warranted because of the need to inform the public in as timely a manner as possible.

Based upon this discussion, we find pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 533(b)(B) that it would be contrary to the public interest to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking. We are, however, soliciting comments and will review comments and consider making changes to the rule based upon an analysis of comments.

Further, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 531 et seq. ), we have determined that publishing this interim rule 30 days prior to the rule becoming effective would further delay the dissemination of current information to users of the regulations. This would be contrary to the public interest and the intended purpose of the rule. Therefore, under the “good cause” exception of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)), and as discussed above, we have determined that this interim rulemaking is excepted from the 30-day delay of effective date, and shall therefore become effective upon the date published in the Federal Register .

Because we are soliciting comments as discussed above, we plan to analyze the comments received and include and consider the results in proposed further rulemaking, as appropriate.

Our policy is, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. However, given the urgent need to disseminate accurate information concerning the schedule for consideration of World Heritage nominations and the criteria for their selection, we have determined that it is contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of this interim rule pending public comment.

Nevertheless, you are invited to submit written comments or suggestions regarding this interim rule to us at the address noted at the beginning of this rulemaking. Your comments must be received on or before January 18, 2002. We will review comments and consider making changes to the rule based upon the analysis of comments.

The primary author of this rule is James Charleton, Office of International Affairs, National Park Service, Washington, DC.

In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this rule is not a significant regulatory action and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

(1) This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.

A cost-benefit and economic analysis is not required. The revisions to existing regulations will modestly improve the administration of the World Heritage Program by providing current and accurate information to voluntary participants in the public, other Federal agencies, and other levels of government.

(2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. The Department of the Interior has sole direct responsibility to conduct the World Heritage nomination process. The revisions will clear up confusion regarding the schedule for nomination of sites to the World Heritage List and the criteria for eligibility to be considered. Participation by other agencies (and private parties) continues to be strictly voluntary, as before.

(3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects or entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients. Participation in the World Heritage program is strictly voluntary and requires the active cooperation of all owners of nominated property. The changes will provide more accurate and usable information to owners and other interested parties.

(4) This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues. The changes simply update aspects of the schedule and criteria for consideration and do not alter other aspects of the program.

The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. This rule, which only revises the calendar and criteria for consideration, will impact only owners voluntarily seeking to have their sites considered for listing. Nomination and approval of properties for inclusion on the World Heritage List recognizes their universally significant values and enhances public understanding and appreciation of heritage conservation. Only a small number of select U.S. properties will be considered for World Heritage status. Small entities may provide information or assistance in the preparation of nominations, but such participation is completely voluntary on their part. In some instances, small entities may be reimbursed for providing detailed site information and analysis. Designation of a property as a World Heritage site may enhance its tourism value. Any effects would likely be of a very localized nature and may be beneficial to small entities in the surrounding area.

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 or more. The changes relate solely to providing more accurate information on the World Heritage process to those who request it.

b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. The changes will modestly reduce costs to those who otherwise might have relied on inaccurate information.

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. The changes place U.S. enterprises at no competitive disadvantage because only U.S. properties are eligible for nomination by the United States and only with their owners' concurrence.

On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (Executive Order 13211) on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. As this interim rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The World Heritage Program is a voluntary federal program. The interim rule will provide current information on designation procedures that are available to small governments, whose participation is strictly voluntary. No direct financial assistance, benefit, or penalty accompanies the act of nominating a site to the World Heritage List. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have significant takings implications. The entirely voluntary nature of the program is explained fully in the statute (16 U.S.C. 470a-1, a-2 and in sections 73.7 (b)(ii) and 73.13 (a)(2) of the current regulations), the substance of which are not being modified. A takings implication assessment is not required

In accordance with Executive Order 12612, the rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Adoption of the rule will permit States to make more informed decisions. The Department may request their assistance in carrying out its World Heritage mandate. However, since the World Heritage Convention provides additional recognition to certain select U.S. properties that usuallly are already committed to preservation; since participation by States and local communities is strictly voluntary; and since no direct Federal financial assistance or penalties accompany the act of nominating a site to the World Heritage List, this revision will simply provide current information to States and local governments for them to weigh in deciding whether to participate. A Federalism Assessment is not required.

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

This regulation does not require an information collection from 10 or more parties and a submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. An OMB form 83-I is not required. The changes being made impose no information collection or record-keeping requirements on the public.

This rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not required. Based on this determination, this interim rule is categorically excluded from the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by Departmental regulations in 516 DM 6 (49 FR 21438). Thus, neither an Environmental Assessment (EA) nor an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared.

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects. Indian lands can be nominated to the World Heritage List only with the voluntary support of their owners. The changes in the regulations will provide current information on nomination procedures to the owners of Indian lands.

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” appears in bold type and is preceded by the symbol “§ ” and a numbered heading; for example, § 73.7 World Heritage nomination process.) (5) Is the description of the rule in the Supplementary Information section of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? (6) What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

Please send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to this address: Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

In our September 21, 2001 (66 FR 48561) (FR Doc. 01-23596) rulemaking, we approved Montana's transportation conformity rules (Sub-Chapter 13). In the regulatory text of the September 21, 2001, rule, we inadvertently incorporated by reference sections of sub-chapter 13 which were not submitted for approval. These references to sub-chapter 13 were sections “reserved” by Montana for future rule adoption. We are correcting the regulatory text of that rulemaking, (on page 48564, second column, Subpart BB—Montana, § 52.1370 Identification of Plan, paragraph (c)(47)(i)(A)) to read as follows: “Administrative Rules of Montana 17.8.1301, 17.8.1305, 17.8.1306, 17.8.1310 through 17.8.1313, effective June 4, 1999; and 17.8.1304 effective August 23, 1996.”

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because we are merely correcting incorrect text in the IBR section of a previous rulemaking. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. We find that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute as indicated in the Supplementary Information section above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601 et seq. ), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. This rule also 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

This technical correction action does not involve technical standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note ) do not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). EPA's compliance with these statutes and Executive Orders for the underlying rules are discussed in the September 21, 2001, rule, approving Montana's transportation conformity rules.

The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of December 19, 2001. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This correction to the identification of plan for Montana is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-85, adopted November 6, 2001, and released November 14, 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 Order (“ Order ”) in WT Docket No. 96-18 and PR Docket No. 93-253, DA 01-2650, adopted November 13, 2001, and released November 14, 2001. The full text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC. The complete text is also available under the file name da012650.doc on the Commission's Internet Web site at www.fcc.gov.

Under the Commission's current interim licensing rules for lower band shared paging channels and the five 929 MHz shared paging channels (Shared Paging Channels), incumbent licensees may file applications for new sites at any location. Non-incumbent entities may file applications on these Shared Paging Channels, but only for private, internal-use systems. In its Third Report and Order (“ Third R&O ”) (64 FR 33762, June 24, 1999) in this proceeding, the Commission directed the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) to remove these interim licensing rules as applied to Shared Paging Channels once warning language about the consequences of failing to meet construction requirements had been added to FCC Form 601, the Application for Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Radio Service Authorization. Having added the language to FCC Form 601, by this Order, the Bureau removes the Commission's interim licensing rules with respect to filing applications for licenses at new sites on the Shared Paging Channels. Any qualified entity may submit applications for licenses on these channels at any location.

In early 1996, the Commission suspended acceptance of new applications for paging channels during the pendency of its rulemaking proceeding to establish geographic area licensing and competitive bidding rules for paging services. Mindful, however, that an across-the-board freeze on applications might impair the ability of licensees to maintain adequate services for their customers, the Commission established interim licensing rules initially permitting non-nationwide incumbent licensees to add sites to existing systems or modify existing sites, provided the additions or modifications did not expand the composite interference contour of the licensee's existing system.

Later that same year, in its First Report and Order (“ First R&O ”) (61 FR 21380, May 10, 1996), the Commission affirmed its decision to maintain the freeze on paging applications and to retain the interim licensing rules. The Commission, in large part, based its decision to maintain the freeze and, specifically, the limitation on incumbent applications under the interim licensing rules on its concern that lifting the freeze or allowing non-incumbents to file applications on either exclusive frequencies or the Shared Paging Channels would lead to a flood of speculative applications and increase opportunities for application mills to promote fraudulent investment schemes. The Commission, however, did relax the interim licensing rules to allow non-nationwide incumbent licensees on exclusive frequencies or the Shared Paging Channels to file applications for new sites outside the licensee's composite interference contour. Proposed sites that would expand a service area contour had to be located within forty (40) miles of a site for which the licensee had filed an application. Under this 40-mile requirement, the application for the original site must have been filed as of September 30, 1995. The Commission further exempted Special Emergency Radio Service providers from the paging freeze, allowing those providers to file applications on the Shared Paging Channels.

In 1997, in the Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ Second R&O ”) (62 FR 11616, March 12, 1997) and (“ FNPRM ”) (62 FR 11638, March 12, 1997), the Commission concluded that the Shared Paging Channels should not be subject to geographic area licensing or competitive bidding procedures. Still concerned about consumer fraud and license application speculation on those channels, however, the Commission sought comment on how to change licensing and frequency coordination procedures to resolve the problems of consumer fraud and speculative applications. Pending resolution of these issues, and out of caution, the Commission required new applications filed for the Shared Paging Channels to continue to be processed under the interim licensing rules. The Commission, however, again relaxed the interim licensing rules by eliminating the 40-mile requirement and allowing incumbents to file for new sites on the Shared Paging Channels at any location. The Commission also affirmed its decision to allow new applicants to file applications for private, internal-use systems. While the interim licensing rules as developed in Commission decisions apply to all of the Shared Paging Channels, the Second R&O specifically revised § 90.494(g) of the Commission's rules to reflect the interim licensing rules for purposes of the five 929 MHz shared paging channels.

In the Third R&O, the Commission considered the many comments filed on the issue of application fraud. In response, it determined that adding language to FCC Form 601 warning applicants that failure of a licensee to meet construction or coverage requirements would result in termination of the license would be generally helpful to applicants in all services and might also help deter fraud. The Commission directed the Bureau to remove the interim licensing rules for the Shared Paging Channels, including § 90.494(g) of its rules, once the warning language was added to FCC Form 601.

As of November 9, 2001, the following warning language has been added near the signature block on the FCC Form 601 application in Universal Licensing System (ULS), as well as the FCC Form 601 available through Fax-on-Demand and the Bureau's website: “Upon grant of this license application, the licensee may be subject to certain construction or coverage requirements. Failure to meet the construction or coverage requirements will result in termination of the license. Consult appropriate FCC regulations to determine the construction or coverage requirements that apply to the type of license requested in this application.”

The Bureau has initiated the process for printing new paper copies of FCC Form 601 that contain the warning language, but those copies will not be available to the public for several weeks. As already noted, where paper copies of FCC Form 601 may be used or are needed, updated applications containing the warning language can be obtained from Fax-on-Demand (202-418-2830) or are currently available for downloading from http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/csinfo/orderfrm.html. The Bureau also notes that applications for new licenses on Shared Paging Channels must be filed through certified land mobile frequency coordinators. The Bureau has provided the updated version of FCC Form 601 to each coordinator and has encouraged them to point out the new warning language to applicants for the Shared Paging Channels.

Having added the warning language to FCC Form 601, the Bureau eliminates the interim licensing rules that have applied to lower band shared paging channels and the five 929 MHz shared paging channels. Accordingly, pursuant to the Third R&O, the Bureau removes the interim licensing rules developed through Commission decisions as well as § 90.494(g) of the Commission's rules as applied to the Shared Paging Channels. Any qualified entity may file an application for a license on the Shared Paging Channels for new sites at any location. Applications for new sites filed on these Shared Paging Channels continue to require frequency coordination prior to filing the applications with the Commission.

Pursuant to §§ 4(i), 303(r), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), 332, and the Third R&O, the Commission's interim licensing rules as applied to the Shared Paging Channels are eliminated and § 90.494(g) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 90.494(g), is removed as set forth in the Order.

This action is taken pursuant to the Third R&O and the authority delegated in § 0.331 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.331.

The provisions of this Order and the Commission's rules, as amended in the Order , shall become effective November 19, 2001 in accordance with § 1.103 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.103.

Currently, regulations pertaining to general provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act related to Council operations are contained in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). NMFS is updating part 600 (Regional Fishery Management Councils, subpart B, and Council Membership, subpart C) to codify important provisions of the recently withdrawn Council Operations and Administration Handbook (Handbook), which was a reference guide that compiled various requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law, as well as policy guidance. Some of the guidance contained in the Handbook consisted of regulations that were removed from title 50 of the CFR at the time the Handbook was developed. NMFS is reinstating some of those former regulations because they are not contained elsewhere and they are necessary for the Councils to function. Other proposed additions and revisions were not contained in the Handbook, and were not previously in regulation.

On May 25, 2001, NMFS published a proposed rule at 66 FR 28876 to update the regulations governing Council operations; comments were requested through June 25, 2001. The preamble of the proposed rule contained detailed descriptions of the proposed regulations, which are not repeated here. The following section contains the response to the only comment received during the comment period.

Comment . One commenter objected to the language in the proposed rule that would allow a person who is not a state employee to serve as a designee of a principal state official on a Regional Fishery Management Council. Currently, the principal state official’s designee is required to be an employee of the state. This commenter argued that a state employee will best represent the state’s and the public’s interests in fishery management issues. A non-state employee, on the other hand, may represent narrower interests. Therefore, this commenter proposed maintaining the previous CFR language that addressed this issue.

Response . NMFS maintains the change contained in the proposed rule. NMFS believes that the new language provides additional flexibility that will not compromise the representation of state and public interests in matters taken up by the Councils. This added flexibility was specifically requested by some of the Councils, in part because some states have very small offices and in the past have been limited to a small pool of candidates. Based on prior dealings with states, NMFS believes that the states will exercise this discretion in a responsible manner. It is not in a state’s best interest to select someone with very narrow interests or experience, and it is not likely to do so. Essentially, this change will enable state governments to select their designees from a larger pool of candidates, better ensuring that the states’ interests will be effectively represented.

NMFS has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as that term is defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C 601 et seq . The factual basis for this certification was published with the proposed rule. No comments were received regarding the economic impact of this final rule. As a result, no final regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared.

NMFS has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment because it provides only an update to agency procedure or practice (i.e., procedures and guidelines for the administration of Councils). NMFS has determined that issuance of this policy qualifies for a categorical exclusion as defined by NOAA 216-6 Administrative Order, Environmental Review Procedures.

This final rule contains no collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Fisheries, Fishing.