The Secretary of Agriculture previously delegated authorities under the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171 (FSRIA) in Secretary's Memorandum (SM) 1030-50 (July 10, 2002). This rule codifies those delegations as follows.

Title I of FSRIA authorizes the use of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to implement a number of programs for producers of agricultural commodities such as wheat, feed grains, cotton, rice, and oilseeds. Title X authorizes CCC to implement a livestock assistance program for producers who have incurred losses as the result of a natural disaster. Since Congress has routinely authorized, on an annual basis, the conduct by CCC of other similar commodity and disaster programs that consistently have been delegated to the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, the delegations in 7 CFR 2.16 and 2.42 are amended to reflect the delegation of authority to the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Services and the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency, respectively, to implement all CCC-funded commodity programs that provide assistance to producers of agricultural commodities.

Additional, section 1504 of FSRIA expands the Dairy Products Mandatory Reporting program, which requires the collection and compilation of information with respect to prices, quantities sold, and inventories of dairy products in order to encourage competition, to include substantially identical products. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.21 and 2.68 are amended to reflect the delegation of this authority to the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics and the Administrator of the National Agricultural Statistics Service, respectively.

Title II of FSRIA authorizes the use of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to implement a number of natural resources conservation programs. Since Congress has routinely authorized, on an annual basis, the conduct of CCC of the same or similar conservation programs that consistently have been delegated to the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, the delegations in 7 CFR 2.20 and 2.61 are amended to reflect the delegation of authority to the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment and the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, respectively, to implement CCC-funded programs that provide assistance for natural resources conservation, except as elsewhere delegated.

Section 3107 of FSRIA authorized the President to establish the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. By Presidential Memorandum dated March 11, 2003 (68 FR 12,569 (March 17, 2003)), the President delegated the authority to implement this program to the Secretary of Agriculture. The delegations in 7 CFR 2.16, 2.42, and 2.43, are amended to delegate to the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services and the Administrators of the Farm Service Agency and the Foreign Agricultural Service, respectively, the Secretary's authority to implement the program.

Section 4125 of FSRIA amended the Food Stamp Act to authorize a contract or grant to a nongovernmental organization meeting specified eligibility requirements to gather information on, and recommend, innovative programs for addressing common community problems. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.21 and 2.66 are amended to reflect the delegation of this authority by an SM signed September 27, 2002, to the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics and the Administrator of the Cooperative State, Research, Education, and Extensions Service, respectively.

Section 4401 of FSRIA amended title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) to restore Food Stamp Program eligibility to certain disabled aliens, qualified alien children, and qualified aliens who have resided in the United States for a period of 5 years from their date of entry. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.19 and 2.57 are amended to delegate authority to administer those functions under PRWORA relating to the eligibility of aliens for benefits under the domestic food assistance programs to the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services and the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service, respectively.

Section 4402 of FSRIA directs the Secretary to establish a Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) to operate through 2007. The purposes of the SFMNP are to provide resources in the form of fresh, nutritious, unprepared, locally grown fruits, vegetables and herbs from farmers' markets, roadside stands and community supported agriculture programs to low-income seniors and to increase domestic consumption of agricultural commodities by expanding and developing or aiding in the development of such outlets. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.19 and 2.57 are amended to delegate authority to administer the SFMNP to the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services and the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service, respectively.

The delegations of authority at 7 CFR 2.16 and 2.42 are amended to reflect that the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services and the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency are delegated the responsibility to conduct studies and report to Congress on direct and guaranteed loan programs as required by section 5301 of FSRIA.

Title VI of FSRIA provided a number of new rural development program authorities to the Secretary. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.17 are amended to reflect delegation of these authorities to the Under Secretary for Rural Development, and 7 CFR 2.47, 2.48, and 2.49 are amended to reflect the further delegation of these authorities (with the exception of the Rural Strategic Investment Program) to the Administrators of the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), and Rural Housing Service (RHS), respectively, as follows: National Rural Development Partnership (RBS), the Rural Business Investment program (RBS), the Rural Telework program (RHS), the Historic Barn Preservation program (RHS), the Farm Workers Training Grant Program (RHS), the Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grant program (RBS), the Agriculture Innovation Center Demonstration program (RBS), and the Rural Firefighters and Emergency Personnel Grant program (RHS), the Household Well-Water Grant program (RUS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration All-Hazards Weather Radio Transmitter Grant program (RUS), the SEARCH Grant program (RUS), and the Grants for Water Systems for Rural and Native Villages in Alaska (RUS).

Title VII of FSRIA provided a number of new research, education, economics, and extension authorities and requirements to the Secretary. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.21 are amended to reflect the delegation of these authorities to the Under Secretary for Reserach, Education, and Economics (REE), and the delegations at 7 CFR 2.65, 2.66, 2.67, and 2.68, are amended to reflect the further delegation of these authorities by the Under Secretary for REE to the Administrators of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), Economic Research Service (ERS), and the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), respectively, as follows: An overseas internship program with the Foreign Agricultural Service (CSREES); a competitive grants program for special purpose scientific research equipment (CSREES); authority for joint administration of grant programs with other Federal agencies (CSREES); a beginning farmer and rancher development program (CSREES); a program of grants to colleges and universities in insular areas for resident instruction and distance education (CSREES); a program of public education regarding use of biotechnology in producing food for human consumption (CSREES); a requirement to ensure organic agricultural product information is included in agricultural production and marketing data (NASS); a program of grants to the Girl Scouts of the United States of America, the Boy Scouts of America, National 4-H Council and the National Future Farmers of America Organization (CSREES); authority to terminate the Federal personnel appointments of certain State extension employees holding joint Federal-State employment appointments (CSREES); a requirement for the inclusion of certain data in estimates of net farm income (ERS); and a broad authority, using any legal authority available to the Secretary, to carry out agricultural research, education, and extension activities to counter chemical or biological terrorism and enhance the biosecurity of the United States (CSREES). Additionally, a grant program regarding certain diseases of wheat and barley was expanded to include diseases of triticale, specifically Tilletia indica and related fungi (ARS).

Title VII of FSRIA also included an authorization for establishment of a Senior Scientific Research Service that has been delegated through the Assistant Secretary for Administration to the Office of Human Resources Management.

Title IX of FSRIA authorizes several new programs related to energy. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.29 are amended to reflect the delegation of authority to the Chief Economist to develop guidelines and establish a voluntary labeling program for the Biobased Products Federal Procurement Program and to administer the Biodiesel Fuel Education grants program. 7 CFR 2.29 is also amended to reflect the delegation to the Chief Economist of responsibility for entering into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of Energy regarding hydrogen and fuel cell technology programs for rural communities and agricultural producers, and that responsibility is further delegated by the Chief Economist to the Director, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses by amendment of 7 CFR 2.73.

The delegations at 7 CFR 2.17 are amended to reflect the delegation of authority to the Under Secretary for Rural Development to administer the Renewable Energy System and Energy Efficiency Improvements program, the Biorefinery Development Grant program, and the Energy Audit and Renewable Energy Development Program, and 7 CFR 2.48 is further amended to reflect delegation of the Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements program to the Administrator of RBS.

The delegations at 7 CFR 2.21 and 2.66 are amended to reflect the delegation of authority to the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics and the Administrator of CSREES to carry out a program of cooperative research and extension projects on carbon cycling and greenhouse gas exchanges from agriculture.

Title X, Subtitle E of FSRIA, titled the “Animal Health Protection Act,” updates and consolidates a number of animal health statutes. Section 10504 of FSRIA authorizes the Secretary to develop a program to maintain in all regions of the United States a sufficient number of Federal and State veterinarians who are well trained in recognition and diagnosis of exotic and endemic animal diseases. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.22 and 2.80 are amended to reflect the delegation of authority to administer the Animal Health Protection Act and the section 10504 veterinary program to the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs and to the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 7 CFR 371.4 is amended to reflect the delegation of this authority further from the Administrator of APHIS to the Deputy Administrator for Veterinary Services. Titles 7 and 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations will be amended in a future rulemaking action to add the Animal Health Protection Act to authority citations and to make any other changes deemed necessary as a result of the enactment of this law.

Section 10605 of FSRIA requires the Secretary to establish a Farmers' Market Promotion Program to promote the establishment, expansion, and promotion of farmers' markets, section 10606 establishes a National Organic Certification Cost-Share program to provide funds to assist organic producers and handlers in obtaining certification under the national organic production program, and section 10607 exempts producers of 100 percent organic products from assessments under any commodity promotion law for any agricultural commodity produced on a certified organic farm. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.22 and 2.79 are amended to reflect the delegation of these authorities to the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs and the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service, respectively.

Section 10704 authorizes the Secretary to establish the position of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR). The Secretary established that position by SM 1030-57 (March 7, 2003). Accordingly, delegations of authority for civil rights previously made to the Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA) under 7 CFR 2.24(a)(3) are transferred to the ASCR and codified in § 2.25, and the delegations to the Office of Civil Rights, currently at 7 CFR 2.89, are transferred to the ASCR under a new subpart R at § 2.300. Additionally, conforming changes are made in 7 CFR parts 15 and 15f to reflect the transfer of authority from the ASA to the ASCR.

Section 10805 of FSRIA authorizes a program of grants to the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.21 and 2.66 are amended to reflect the delegation of this authority to the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics and the Administrator of CSREES, respectively.

Section 10808(a) of FSRIA directs the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct an education program regarding the availability and safety of processes and treatments that eliminate or substantially reduce the level of pathogens on meat, meat food products, poultry, and poultry products. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.18 and 2.53 are amended to reflect the delegation of authority for this program to the Under Secretary for Food Safety and the Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service.

Section 10816 of FSRIA establishes a Country of Origin Labeling program that requires retailers of specified agricultural commodities to inform consumers of the specified country of origin of those commodities. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.22 and 2.79 are amended to reflect the delegation of this authority to the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs and the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service, respectively.

Title II, Subtitle B, of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, Public Law 107-188, authorizes the Secretary to regulate the possession, use, and transfer of biological agents and toxins that pose a severe threat to plant or animal health, or animal or plant products. This authority was delegated to the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs and authorized to be delegated further to the Administrator of APHIS by SM 1030-054 (December 6, 2002). The delegations at 7 CFR 2.22 and 2.80 are amended to reflect the delegation of the Secretary's authority to administer Title II, Subtitle B, of the Act to the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs and APHIS. 7 CFR 371.3 and 371.4 is amended to reflect the further delegation of this authority from the Administrator of APHIS to the Deputy Administrators of Plant Protection and Quarantine and Veterinary Services.

Section 141 of the Trade Act of 2002, Public Law 107-210, amended title II of the Trade Act of 1974 to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide “Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers.” Under this program, a group of agricultural commodity producers may petition the Secretary for benefits if the Secretary determines that prices for the commodity produced by the group have declined by an amount specified in the statute and increases in imports contributed importantly to the decline. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.16 and 2.43 are amended to delegate to the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services and the Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Services, respectively, the authority to implement this new provision.

A number of changes are made to the delegations of authority to the Assistant Secretary for Administration and to the offices that report to him.

SM 1020-052 (August 15, 2002) established a new Homeland Security Staff and transferred the lead responsibility for hazardous materials management and federal facilities environmental compliance, previously delegated to the Director, Hazardous Materials Management Group (HMMG), to the ASA and under him, to the Director of the Office for Procurement and Property Management (OPPM), to whom the HMMG will now report. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.24, 2.25 (which as noted above become will now become the delegation for the ASCR), 2.32, and 2.93 are revised to reflect the removal of the HGGM from the published delegations and to reflect the division of the security and emergency planning and response functions formerly under the ASA and OPPM between OPPM and a new Homeland Security Staff. The ASA and OPPM are responsible for administration of the Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government plans and the classification of information and administration of personnel security functions. The Homeland Security Staff is delegated authority for providing overall leadership and coordination of programs to plan for and respond to major natural and terrorist emergencies and threats.

The National Historic Preservation Act function and Indian affairs function are transferred from the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations to the ASA.

The ASA, the Director, Office of Operations, are delegated authority related to Department services for occupational health and related functions.

Responsibility for oversight of the Department Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center is transferred from the Office of Planning and Coordination to the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM).

Finally, technical changes have been made to the delegations to the ASA and OHRM to make clear their authorities to take adverse actions are redelegable.

This rule simplifies the language of the delegation of authority to the Judicial Officer and makes three substantive changes to that authority.

Pursuant to section 63 of the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2443), when the Plant Variety Protection Officers refuses an application for plant variety protection, the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of Agriculture. Effective December 1, 1977, the Secretary of Agriculture delegated authority to the Judicial Officer to exercise the functions of the Secretary of Agriculture where an appeal is filed under 7 U.S.C. 2443 (42 FR 61029). However, this delegation of authority is not reflected in the Code of Federal Regulations. Accordingly, this final rule amends 7 CFR 2.35 to reflect the Judicial Officer's authority to act as final deciding officer in appeals under section 63 of the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2443).

Pursuant to section 91 of the Plant Variety Protection Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2501), when a person notifies the Secretary of Agriculture of facts which may have a hearing on the protectability of a plant variety, the Secretary of Agriculture may cause the plant variety protection to be reexamined. This final rule delegates authority from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Judicial Officer to act as final deciding officer in reexamination proceedings under section 91 of the Plant Variety Protection Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2501).

Pursuant to section 359i of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1359ii), adversely affected persons may appeal allocations of marketing allotments and arbitrated disputes between processors and producers or groups of producers regarding the sharing of processors' allocations to the Secretary of Agriculture. This final rule delegates authority from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Judicial Officer to act as final deciding officer in adjudicatory proceedings under section 359i of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1359ii), and to issue rules of practice applicable to proceedings conducted pursuant to section 359i of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1359ii).

Sections 203(f) and 253 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-244) (“ARPA”), respectively, authorize programs for Apple Loans and Emergency Loans for Seed Producers. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.16 and 2.42 are amended to reflect the delegation of authority to administer these programs to the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services and the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency.

The V of ARPA authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to assess civil penalties not to exceed $10,000 against any person who causes harm to, or interferes with, an animal used for official inspections by the Department of Agriculture, and to subpoena witnesses and the production of documentary evidence relating to matters under investigation. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3 are amended to reflect the delegation of this authority to the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, the Administrator of APHIS, and the Deputy Administrator for Plant Protection and Quarantine.

The Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999 (7 U.S.C. 1635-1636(h)) established a program requiring reporting of information regarding the marketing of cattle, swine, lambs, and products of such livestock in order to provide producers, packers, and others in the marketplace with information regarding pricing, contracting, and supply and demand conditions for livestock and livestock products. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.22 and 2.79 are amended to reflect the delegation of this authority to the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs and the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service, respectively.

The purpose of the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7801-7813) is to establish, through assessments on Hass avocados sold by producers and importers, a coordinated program of promotion, research, industry information, and consumer information to strengthen and expand the domestic market for Hass avocados. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.22 and 2.79 are amended to reflect the delegation of this authority to the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs and the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service, respectively.

The Office International des Epizooties (OIE) is the international forum for setting animal health standards, reporting global animal situations and disease status, and presenting guidelines and recommendations on sanitary measures relating to animal health. The Trade Agreement Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2531 et seq. ), gives the Secretary of Agriculture responsibilities related to international standards for agricultural products, which include animals and animal products. Further, section 491 of the Trade Agreement Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2578), requires the President to designate an agency to be responsible for informing the public of the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standard-setting activities of each international standard-setting organization. The President, pursuant to Proclamation No. 6780 of March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15845), designated the Secretary of Agriculture as the official responsible for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of certain international standard-setting organizations, including the OIE.

The delegations at 7 CFR 2.22 and 2.80 are amended to reflect the delegation of authority for carrying out responsibilities of the United States related to activities of the OIE to the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs and to the Administrator of APHIS. 7 CFR 371.4 is amended to reflect the delegation of this authority further from the Administrator of APHIS to the Deputy Administrator for Veterinary Services.

Section 313 of the Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvement Act of 2002, Public Law 106-472, added a new section 14 to the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1012) authorizing the Secretary to provide technical and financial assistance to sponsoring organizations to rehabilitate water resource projects owned and operated by the sponsors that were installed under programs administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.20 and 2.61 are amended to reflect the delegation of that authority by SM 1030-049 (January 16, 2002) to the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment and the Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, respectively.

A number of miscellaneous minor changes have been made to the delegations for other reasons. The delegation of authority in 7 CFR 1.189 to take final action in matters covered by the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. 504, is revised. The headings for 7 CFR part 2, subpart N, § 2.22, and § 2.80(a) are revised to reflect the change in the title of the policy official responsible for Marketing and Regulatory Programs. The title of this position was changed from “Assistant Secretary” to “Under Secretary” by the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277). References in 7 CFR 2.22 and 2.80 references to statutes repealed by the Plant Protection Act (Title IV, Pub. L. 106-224, 114 Stat. 438, 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772) are removed. The delegations of authority for outreach and technical assistance to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers under 7 U.S.C. 2279 have been revised to reflect the fact that this authority has been removed from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and that the authority to enter into contracts and other agreements pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2279 has been transferred from the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Office of Outreach to the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics and the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. The reservations of authority by the Secretary in 7 CFR 2.22(b)(2) related to animal and plant health inspection are amended to update the authority citations.

Additional changes have been made to the REE mission area delegations to reflect the repeal of authorities, to consolidate some paragraphs, and to clarify the delegation regarding the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Program.

Finally, this rules relates to internal agency management. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for comment are not required, and this rule may be made effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . This rule also is exempt from the provisions of Executive Orders 12866 and 12988. This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. 96-354, and the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Enforcement Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and thus is exempt from the provisions of those Acts.

This rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 50 series airplanes. The DGAC advises that since September 2002, there have been four separate reports of interference and consequent chafing on the hydraulic lines located within the No. 1 and No. 3 engine pylons. The interference and consequent chafing were discovered during scheduled maintenance. In a recent occurrence (April 9, 2003), the No. 1 hydraulic system failed due to leakage of the hydraulic line where chafing had worn through the hydraulic line. The No. 1 and No. 3 engine pylon installations are symmetrical. Subsequent investigation of the No. 3 engine pylon revealed that the hydraulic lines of the No. 2 hydraulic system were also chafed severely. Such chafing and consequent leakage of the hydraulic lines located within the No. 1 and No. 3 engine pylons, if not corrected, can result in failure of the No. 1 and No. 2 hydraulic systems, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

Dassault has issued Service Bulletin F50-A370, dated May 6, 2003, which describes procedures for a detailed inspection for clearance and chafing of the entire length of the hydraulic lines located within the engine pylons, and follow-on/corrective actions, as applicable. The follow-on actions include fastening the hydraulic clamps, ensuring proper clearance between the hydraulic lines and adjacent structure, and using yellow paint to mark the location of the clamps installed on the hydraulic lines. The corrective actions include inspecting for discrepancies ( i.e. , evidence of contact, chafing, or abrasion) between the hydraulic lines, measuring the wear depth, and replacing the hydraulic line with a new hydraulic line, as applicable.

Dassault has issued Falcon 50 Maintenance Manual Temporary Revision 37, dated May 2003, which describes procedures for ensuring that the clamps that hold the hydraulic lines are reinstalled in their initial position during normal maintenance, and that the position is identified with a yellow paint line. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin and the maintenance manual temporary revision are intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.

The DGAC classified this service bulletin and maintenance manual temporary revision as mandatory and issued French telegraphic airworthiness directive T2003-190(B), dated May 6, 2003, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France.

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

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, this AD is being issued to prevent chafing and consequent leakage of the hydraulic lines located within the No. 1 and No. 3 engine pylons, which can result in failure of the No. 1 and No. 2 hydraulic systems, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. This AD requires a detailed inspection for clearance and chafing of the entire length of the hydraulic lines within the pylons, and follow-on/corrective actions, as applicable. This AD also requires a revision of the maintenance manual to ensure that the clamps that hold the hydraulic lines are reinstalled in their initial position during normal maintenance, and that the position is identified with a yellow paint line. The actions are required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin and maintenance manual temporary revision described previously.

Operators should note that the French telegraphic airworthiness directive specifies that the required actions be accomplished within the next 3 flights from the date of receipt of the French telegraphic airworthiness directive. The compliance time for this AD is within 7 days of the effective date of this AD.

We have determined that the identified unsafe condition is not a catastrophic event based on the following information:

• There is no indication that two hydraulic systems will fail simultaneously. The event that occurred on April 9, 2003, was a single system failure.

• The Falcon 50 Airplane Flight Manual contains procedures for single and dual hydraulic systems failure.

• Model Mystere-Falcon 50 series airplanes are certified for manual reversion of the flight control system with the loss of the No. 1 and No. 2 hydraulic systems.

• Model Mystere-Falcon 50 series airplanes have an electric auxiliary hydraulic system in the event that No. 1 and No. 2 hydraulic systems fail.

In light of all of these factors, we find a 7-day compliance time for completing the required actions to be warranted, in that it represents an appropriate interval of time allowable for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.

On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance (AMOC). Because we have now included this material in part 39, only the office authorized to approve AMOCs is identified in each individual AD.

Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.

• Include justification ( e.g. , reasons or data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2003-NM-118-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

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

Section 845 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, Public Law 103-160, 107 Stat. 1547, as amended, authorizes the Secretary of a Military Department, the Director of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and any other official designated by the Secretary of Defense, to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants or cooperative agreements in certain situations for prototype projects that are directly relevant to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense. Such transactions are commonly referred to as “other transaction” agreements for prototype projects. To the extent that a particular statute or regulation is limited in its applicability to the use of a procurement contract, it would generally not apply to “other transactions” for prototype projects.

Part 3 to 32 CFR was established to codify policy pertaining to prototype “other transactions” that have a significant impact on the public and are subject to rulemaking. Additional guidance on prototype “other transactions” directed at Government officials can be found at the Defense Procurement Web site at: http://www.osd.dp.mil.

A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 58422-58425) for public comment on November 21, 2001. A notice of public meeting was published in the Federal Register on March 4, 2002 (67 FR 9632), and held on March 27, 2002. The proposed rule addressed conditions on use of “other transactions” for prototype projects, the nontraditional Defense contractor definition and audit policy. Comments on the proposed rule were received from five respondents and approximately 50 representatives of Government and industry attended the public meeting. The majority of the written comments and discussion at the public meeting focused on the audit policy and are addressed in this final rule. The following summarizes the comments regarding audit policy and the disposition.

The following is a summary of the public input and the DoD response thereto (the source of the input is annotated after each comment):

1. Public Comment: The policy will discourage nontraditional Defense contractors from doing business with DoD (written public comments—five commenters).

DoD Response: A key concept of our form of government is accountability for its resources. DoD recognizes the balance that must be achieved between encouraging nontraditional contractors to do business with the DoD and the key concept of accountability for public funds. DoD believes there are certain instances when the government, either through use of an Independent Public Accountant (IPA) or a government employee, must have access to the awardee's books and records. However, in response to this and other comments, a number of revisions have been made to the proposed rule to reduce the potential for discouraging nontraditional Defense contractors. These revisions include raising the mandatory applicability requirements to $5 million per cost-type agreement, providing for a deviation from the mandatory applicability requirements for agreements in excess of $5 million, specifying instances in which the government could have no direct access to the contractor's books and records, and specifying that the government will make copies of IPA work papers when there is evidence that the audit has not been properly performed.

2. Public Comment: The value of the expanded policy and oversight is questionable (written public comment—one commenter).

DoD Response: DoD believes there is value in having an access to records policy that properly balances the need to encourage contractor participation with the need to obtain access to records necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of the agreement. However, DoD recognizes that the proposed rule needed to be revised to provide more flexibility towards achieving this balance.

3. Public Comment: Balance the need for audit access with the possible loss of access to technology (public meeting).

DoD Response: DoD agrees there must be an appropriate balance between the need to access new technologies and the level of access required to assure compliance with the terms of the agreement. DoD believes the final rule achieves this appropriate balance.

4. Public Comment: Review the language throughout the rule to ensure consistency of terms (public meeting).

DoD Response: DoD has reviewed the terms in the final rule to ensure consistency.

5. Public Comment: Revise the tone and verbiage of the proposed rule to reduce the perception of intrusion (public meeting).

DoD Response: DoD believes the final rule reduces the perception of intrusion noted at the public meeting. For example, the final rule states that the purpose of the government's review of an IPA's work papers is to verify compliance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS). The rule also states that the government has no direct access to awardee records for nontraditional Defense contractors that refuse to accept government access. Another example is the language that provides for the government to make copies of audit work papers only if the audit has not been performed in accordance with GAGAS. Finally, the length and extent of audit access language specifies that access should be provided only to the extent needed to verify the actual costs or statutory cost share.

1. Public Comment: Definition of “Key Participant” should be clarified for applicability to subawardees and their segments (written public comments—two commenters).

DoD Response: Revisions to the proposed rule have eliminated the need for the term “key participant” in the final rule.

2. Public Comment: Delete or define terms “subordinate element” and “awardee” (written public comments—two commenters).

DoD Response: Revisions to the proposed rule have eliminated the need for the term “subordinate” in the final rule. The term “awardee” was defined in the final rule issued on August 27, 2002 (67 FR 54955), regarding conditions for use.

3. Public Comment: Define “Qualified Independent Public Accountant” (written public comment—one commenter).

DoD Response: The final rule provides a definition of a “Qualified Independent Public Accountant.”

Public Comment: Withdraw audit policy and clauses in their entirety because they are not required or implied by statute, rule, or regulation. The audit policy is not supported by legislative direction and not tailored to implement changes in 2000 or 2001 DoD Authorization Acts. The audit policy should incorporate only those provisions in section 803 of the FY 2000 DoD Authorization Act (written public comments—two commenters).

DoD Response: DoD does not believe the policy should be withdrawn. DoD believes that issuance of this final rule is consistent with the statutory requirements for the use of other transactions. The statutory authority for other transactions specifically requires, at 10 U.S.C. 2371, that the Secretary of Defense “ * * * shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section.” DoD believes that this access to records policy is consistent with that statutory requirement.

1. Public Comment: Replace audit policy with a general statement such as “If the Agreements Officer determines that an audit right is required, the coverage, length and extent shall be mutually agreed to by the parties. The audit shall be performed by an independent auditor that is mutually acceptable to the parties, and all audit expenses shall be reimbursed by the government” (written public comment—one commenter).

DoD Response: For agreements that are less than $5 million, DoD agrees that general language providing the Contracting Officer with flexibility in negotiating the coverage, length, and extent of access is appropriate. DoD believes that, for cost-type agreements in excess of $5 million, more specific policy is necessary. However, the final rule provides flexibility to deviate from the specific policy when supported by the particular facts and circumstances.

2. Public Comment: Rely on awardee's internal auditors, certification of accounting procedures and documentation, and if necessary a tailored audit clause providing limited access for independent auditor (written public comment—one commenter).

DoD Response: DoD does not believe it is sufficient to rely on an awardee's internal auditors when cost-type agreements provide for government payments that exceed $5 million. DoD agrees that access is limited to those records that are needed to verify the established cost-share, actual costs or reporting used as the basis for payments.

3. Public Comment: Limit audits to post-verification of cost sharing only. Costs incurred should not be subject to audit other than GAO (written public comments—three commenters).

DoD Response: DoD believes the government should not preclude reviews when payments are based on amounts generated from awardee's financial or cost records. The government needs to have some reasonable assurance regarding the appropriateness of those amounts. DoD believes the final rule provides such reasonable assurance while also providing appropriate flexibility in its application.

4. Public Comment: Audits for other than cost sharing should apply only if there is reason to believe an impropriety has occurred (written public comment—one commenter).

DoD Response: DoD believes the government should not limit reviews of actual costs incurred to cases where there is a reason to believe an impropriety has occurred. When cost-type agreements provide for government payments that exceed $5 million, the government needs to have some reasonable assurance regarding the appropriateness of those amounts. DoD believes the final rule provides such reasonable assurance while also providing appropriate flexibility in its application.

1. Public Comment: Need to establish a threshold for applicability to prime recipients (written public comment—one commenter).

DoD Response: DoD agrees that a threshold for mandatory application of the policy is needed. The final rule establishes that threshold at $5 million per cost-type agreement. DoD believes this is an appropriate threshold because it will cover a majority of the dollars while exempting a majority of the agreements from mandatory application of the policy. Using data from the past eight years, it is anticipated that this threshold will provide the government with access to records for 89% of all government dollar under cost-type agreements, while also exempting 78% of those agreements from mandatory application of the policy.

2. Public Comment: Consider whether the language regarding “payments generated from financial records” could be misconstrued and applied too broadly. Examples of when the language would and would not apply should be considered (public meeting).

DoD Response: The language “payments generated from financial records” has been included in the final rule within the definition of a cost-type other transaction. To reduce potential misunderstanding or inappropriate application, the final rule includes examples of what constitutes a cost-type agreement.

3. Public Comment: Consider providing the Agreements Officer more flexibility in the application of the audit access clause (public meeting).

DoD Response: The final rule provides the Agreements Officer with the flexibility to negotiate the length and extent of access for any agreements that are less than $5 million. It also provides for the ability to deviate from some or all of the specific access requirements for cost-type agreements in excess of $5 million when such deviation is adequately supported by the particular facts and circumstances. The Agreements Officer should consult with the cognizant auditor to ensure that the benefits of such a deviation outweigh any increased risks to the Government.

4. Public Comment: Consider addressing the circumstances where a single agreement has both cost-based and fixed-price portions (public meeting).

DoD Response: DoD believes the examples of a cost-type agreement included in the proposed rule provides sufficient guidance for use by Agreements Officers in determining proper application of the policy to those unique circumstances in which an agreement has both cost-type and fixed-price portions.

5. Public Comment: Consider using different thresholds for nontraditional vs. traditional contractors (public meeting).

DoD Response: DoD considered using different thresholds for nontraditional and traditional contractors, but believes such an application would result in unnecessary complexity. DoD believes requiring application of the policy to all cost-type agreements in excess of $5 million is a more desirable approach because (1) it is anticipated to include a majority of the Government dollars on cost-type agreements while also exempting most of the agreements from mandatory application, and (2) it provides for the same threshold as the Comptroller General access, thereby providing a simple unified threshold for applying the two requirements.

6. Public Comment: Make the application of the audit policy at the discretion of the Agreements Officer regardless of the dollar amount of the agreement (public meeting).

DoD Response: DoD believes it is desirable to provide some specific policy for access to records when agreements exceed $5 million. However, DoD recognizes the need for an Agreements Officer to be able to exercise good business judgment. Under the final rule, for agreements that are less than $5 million, application of the audit policy is solely at the discretion of the Agreements Officer. In addition, for cost-type agreements in excess of $5 million, the final rule provides for a deviation from application of the policy if supported by the particular facts and circumstances.

7. Public Comment: Make the application of the audit policy mandatory regardless of the dollar amount of the agreement (public meeting).

DoD Response: DoD established a threshold that minimizes its risk. We did so to encourage participation by non traditional contractors. DoD believes that, for agreements that are less than $5 million, the Agreements Officer should have the flexibility to negotiate audit access to records based on their assessment of risk of the particular agreement.

8. Public Comment: Apply the audit threshold requirements at $5 million per agreement. This is the same as the GAO access requirements and the trigger for Earned Value Management (public meeting).

DoD Response: DoD agrees that this threshold is appropriate for mandatory application of the policy. In addition to being the same as the GAO access requirements (which simplifies application), DoD also believes that threshold, with its accompanying provisions for deviation, properly balances the need for access to records with the need to encourage contractor participation.

9. Public Comment: Consider using a trigger threshold requirement such as that used in applying the Cost Accounting Standards (public meeting).

DoD Response: DoD considered using a trigger concept, but believes such a concept would be unnecessarily complex. The $5 million threshold per cost-type agreement is a simplified approach that achieves the proper balance between the need for access to records and the need to encourage contractor participation.

10. Public Comment: The rule should not apply to nontraditional contractors (written public comment—one commenter).

DoD Response: DoD believes the final rule properly balances the need to access records with the concerns of nontraditional Defense contractors. The final rule provides for application of the policy for cost-type agreements in excess of $5 million. It is anticipated, based on past history, that this will exempt about 78% of the agreements. For the remaining 22%, the final rule provides for a deviation when supported by the particular facts and circumstances. In those remaining instances where the access requirements are applied to nontraditional Defense contractors, the rule provides for use of an Independent Public Accountant if the nontraditional Defense contractor refuses Government access to its records.

11. Public Comment: The rule should state that it does not apply to existing agreements (written public comment—one commenter).

DoD Response: The final rule specifies the Other Transactions to which the policy applies, which does not include existing agreements.

1. Public Comment: Use of an IPA will discourage nontraditional contractors because of the need for accounting systems to fully document costs and government access to IPA work papers that include company proprietary information (written public comments—two commenters).

DoD Response: DoD believes an awardee should maintain an accounting system that adequately supports the amounts used as the basis for payment regardless of whether the Government has access to the awardee's records. An awardee that enters into a cost-type agreement should have some sort of accounting system that adequately supports those amounts. In regard to company proprietary information, the final rule addresses this concern by limiting the government's right to make copies of the IPA's work papers to instances where there is evidence the audit has not been performed in accordance with GAGAS.

2. Public Comment: Delete government access to IPA work papers to protect propriety information of awardees/participants (written public comments—two commenters).

DoD Response: DoD believes it is important for the government to have access to IPA work papers to assure the audit has been performed in accordance with GAGAS. However, in recognition of the concern expressed by the commenter, the final rule limits the government's right to make copies of the IPA's work papers to instances where there is evidence the audit has not been performed in accordance with those standards.

3. Public Comment: The statements “Use amounts generated from the awardee's financial or cost records as the basis for payment” and “direct access to sufficient records to ensure full accountability for all government funding” are too broad and too vague. Audit access should be for very limited with focused purposes (written public comment—one commenter).

DoD Response: The final rule includes specific examples of a cost-type agreements which is defined as agreements where payments are based on amounts generated from the awardee's financial or cost records or that require at least one third of the total costs to be provided by non-Federal parties pursuant to statute. The statement “direct access to sufficient records to ensure full accountability for all government funding” has been replaced by a more focused requirement that the government have access to directly pertinent records “needed to verify the actual costs or reporting used as the basis of payment or to verify statutorily required cost share under the agreement.”

4. Public Comment: Define GAGAS (written public comment—one commenter).

DoD Response: The final rule includes a description of Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards and where those standards can be found.

5. Public Comment: The rule should require the agreement to specify the percentage of payments that may be withheld when an audit by an IPA is not adequately performed (written public comment—one commenter).

DoD Response: The final rule states that the Agreements Officer has the right to “withhold or disallow a specified percentage of costs until the audit is completed satisfactorily. The specified percentage should be sufficient to enhance performance or corrective action while also not being unfairly punitive.”

6. Public Comment: Change “should” to “shall” in statement that “Agreement Officer should grant approval to use an IPA when participant is not performing contract subject to Cost Principles/CAS and refuses to accept award if government has access” (written public comment—one commenter).

DoD Response: The final rule states that the access to records clause for business units not performing contracts subject to the Cost Principles/CAS “must provide for the use of a qualified IPA if such a business unit will not accept the agreement if the government has access to the business unit's records.”

7. Public Comment: Sample audit clause should revise “The audit will be conducted by an IPA” to “The audit will be conducted by a mutually acceptable IPA at government expense” (written public comment—one commenter).

DoD Response: To reduce the complexity of the rule and assure maximum flexibility for the Agreements Officer, the final rule deletes all of the sample audit clauses. Sample audit clauses intended to serve as a guide can be found at http://www.osd.mil/dp (under the “Other Transactions” Special Interest Item in “Questions and Answers”). These samples may be modified as necessary to address the particular facts and circumstances of each agreement.

8. Public Comment: Add language stating that the purpose of the audit of an IPA's work papers is to verify compliance with GAGAS (public meeting).

DoD Response: The final rule states that the government will have access to the IPA's audit reports and working papers to ensure that the IPA has performed the audit in accordance with GAGAS.

9. Public Comment: Eliminate the need to access an IPA's work papers and rely on AICPA standards and public accounting peer reviews (public meeting).

DoD Response: DoD does not believe the AICPA standards and peer reviews provide adequate assurance that the audit of the other transaction has been performed in accordance with GAGAS because (a) GAGAS has some requirements that are not included in the AICPA standards, and (b) public accounting peer reviews focus on financial statement reviews and compliance with GAAS (as opposed to government financial payment reviews and compliance with GAGAS).

10. Public Comment: Require that IPA's comply with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS) instead of GAGAS (public meeting).

DoD Response: The requirement to comply with GAGAS is a statutory requirement that cannot be waived by DoD. The Inspector General Act of 1978 (as amended) requires that audit work of Federal organizations, programs, activities, and functions comply with GAGAS.

11. Public Comment: Add language stating that, when an IPA's report is not adequate, an Agreements Officer should consider terminating an agreement only if it is impractical to withhold monies or suspend performance until the audit is satisfactorily performed (public meeting).

DoD Response: The final rule states that the Agreements Officer may terminate the agreement only if it is not practical to either (a) withhold monies, or (b) suspend performance until the audit is completed satisfactorily.

Public Comment: Delete 3.7(f)(2) that states if Agreements Officer gets access, DoDIG also gets access. This is not supported by statute. The only audit access in section 804 of Public Law 106-398 is for GAO, not DoDIG (written public comment—two commenters).

DoD Response: While section 804 of Public Law 106-398 does not provide for DoDIG access, such access is provided for in the Inspector General Act (Public Law 95-452). Public Law 95-452 provides that the Inspector General shall have access to the same records as the agency (DoD) and its employees ( e.g. , the Agreements Officer). Thus, in accordance with this statute, if an agreement gives the Agreements Officer or another DoD component official access to a business unit's records, the DoDIG is granted the same access to those records.

1. Public Comment: Delete the word “normally” from “Audits normally will be performed only when Agreements Officer determines it is necessary to verify the awardee's compliance with the terms of the agreement” (written public comment—one commenter).

DoD Response: The final rule deletes the word “normally.” The final rule states that “Audits will be performed when the Agreements Officer determines it is necessary to verify statutory cost share or to verify amounts generated from financial or cost records that will be used as the basis for payment or adjustment of payment.”

2. Public Comment: Consider adding a “problem statement” describing what the policy is intending to correct (public meeting).

DoD Response: DoD does not believe it adds value to include a “problem statement” in the final rule. However, in response to the public comment, DoD notes that in developing the proposed and final rule, DoD has considered the “problem” to be the extent of access to records required by the government on cost-type agreements. The goal is to achieve an appropriate balance between the need to access new technologies and the level of access required to assure compliance with the terms of the agreement.

3. Public Comment: Consider permitting reviews of records at the awardee facility only, i.e. , the government would be precluded from removing records from the contractor's facility (public meeting).

DoD Response: DoD does not believe it is necessary to limit access to records at the awardee facility. However, DoD recognizes the concern expressed at the public meeting. For traditional contractors, the final rule does not provide any more access than the government currently has under procurement contracts with those contractors. For nontraditional Defense contractors, the rule provides for the use of an IPA if the nontraditional Defense contractor refuses to grant access to the government. In those instances, the government has no direct access to the nontraditional Defense contractors' books and records, and can only make copies of the IPA's work papers if there is evidence the audit was not performed in accordance with GAGAS.

1. Public Comment: Revise flow down requirements because they appear to be nonnegotiable (written public comment—one commenter).

DoD Response: The final rule provides for flexibility in negotiating flow down requirements for subagreements that are less than $5 million. For cost-type subagreements that are in excess of $5 million, a deviation from the flow down requirements is permitted when supported by the particular facts and circumstances. Note, that Single Audit Act requirements apply to subawardees/subagreements where appropriate.

2. Public Comment: The threshold of $300,000 for flow down to key participants is unusually low. Recommend using the $500,000 in legislation for traditional contractors or the $5 million used for GAO access (written public comments—two commenters).

DoD Response: DoD agrees that the $300,000 threshold in the proposed rule was too low. The final rule establishes a subagreement threshold of $5 million.

3. Public Comment: Delete the mandatory clauses for subagreements and instead make the awardee responsible for providing sufficient support for subawardee costs (public meeting).

DoD Response: The final rule deletes the requirement to apply the policy for subagreements that are less than $5 million. For cost-type subagreements that are in excess of $5 million, deviation from application of the policy is permitted when supported by the particular facts and circumstances.

4. Public Comment: The flow down requirements will discourage technology rich subcontractors from participating in other transactions (written public comment—one commenter).

DoD Response: DoD has strived to balance the potential discouragement of technology rich subcontractors from the need to assure compliance with the terms of the agreement. DoD believes this balance has been achieved in the final rule because (a) application of the policy is not required for subagreements that are $5 million or less, and (b) deviation from the policy is permitted for subagreements that are in excess of $5 million if warranted by the particular facts and circumstances.

1. Public Comment: Sample audit clauses should revise “awardee” to “business unit of the awardee”, and “awardee's records” to “directly pertinent records of those business units of the awardee performing the work under the OT agreement” (written public comment—one commenter).

DoD Response: DoD has deleted the sample clauses from the final rule because they add unnecessary complexity and could serve to reduce the flexibility of the Agreements Officer by becoming quasi-standard and/or quasi-required clauses. Sample clauses maintained at http://www.osd.mil/dp (under the “Other Transactions” Special Interest Item in “Questions and Answers”) that are intended to serve as a guide do clarify access is to the specified business unit.

2. Public Comment: Consider adding language to the audit access clause that states when it applies (public meeting).

DoD Response: The final rule does provide specific language as to when a DoD access to records clause is applicable.

1. Public Comment: Distinguish between nontraditional and traditional contractors based on the agreement value using TINA threshold of $550,000, or based on the CAS threshold for full ($50 million) or modified ($7.5 million) coverage (public meeting).

DoD Response: The final rule distinguishes between traditional and nontraditional Defense contractors for purposes of determining the level of approval for (a) the use of an IPA and (b) deviating from application of the policy. DoD believes that, when used for these purposes, the statutory definitions are adequate. In addition, the use of definitions that are consistent with those in statute reduces complexity, thereby simplifying implementation of the rule.

2. Public Comment: Consider whether using the cost principles as a criteria for use of an Independent Public Accountant is overly broad (public meeting).

DoD Response: DoD does not believe using the cost principles is overly broad for purposes of the final rule, which uses cost principles for determining the level of approval to (a) use an IPA and (b) deviate from application of the policy. When a contractor is performing on a contract subject to the cost principles, a government representative ( e.g. , Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)) has access to that contractors books and records. Therefore, DoD believes that cost principles are an appropriate for determining when an IPA may be used.

It has been determined that this rule is not a significant rule as defined under section 3(f)(1) through 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866.

It has been certified that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.

It has been certified that this part is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule does not require additional record keeping or other significant expense by project participants.

It has been certified that this rule does not impose any reporting or record keeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

It has been certified that this rule does not have federalism implications, as set forth in Executive Order 13132.

The Great Chesapeake Bay Swim, Inc. will sponsor the “Great Chesapeake Bay Swim Event” on the waters of the Chesapeake Bay between and adjacent to the spans of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge. Approximately 600 swimmers will start from Sandy Point State Park and swim between the spans of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge to the Eastern Shore. A large fleet of support vessels will be accompanying the swimmers. Therefore, to ensure the safety of participants and support vessels, 33 CFR 100.507 will be in effect for the duration of the event. Under provisions of 33 CFR 100.507, a vessel may not enter the regulated area unless it receives permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Vessel traffic will be allowed to transit the regulated area as the swim progresses, when the Patrol Commander determines it is safe to do so.

In addition to this notice, the maritime community will be provided extensive advance notification via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

On February 6, 2003, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Raccoon Creek, New Jersey” in the Federal Register (68 FR 6100). We received one letter commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested nor held.

CONRAIL, who owns and operates this movable (swing-type) bridge, requested changes to the operating procedure for the drawbridge located at mile 2.0 across Raccoon Creek, in Bridgeport, New Jersey. Currently, Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 117.741 requires the bridge to open on signal from March 1 through November 30, from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. At all other times, the draw must open on signal if at least four hours notice is given. The draw must also open at all times as soon as possible for passage of a public vessel of the United States.

CONRAIL installed a new Programmable Logic Controller and associated mechanical, electrical and signal apparatus on the CONRAIL Railroad Bridge over Raccoon Creek in Bridgeport, New Jersey. This rule allows a radio-controlled system to operate the opening and closing of the swing span from the cab of the locomotive. From March 1 through November 30, the swing bridge will normally be left in the fully opened position displaying flashing green channel lights indicating that vessels may pass through. At all other times, the draw of the CONRAIL Railroad Bridge need only open on signal if at least four hours notice is given by calling (856) 231-2393.

Under this rule, when a train approaches the bridge it will stop and a train crewmember will observe the waterway for approaching craft, which will be allowed to pass. The train crewmember will then enter a prearranged code number using a radio keypad. The radio code will send a radio signal to the Programmable Logic Controller attached to the bridge, which will begin the process of closing the bridge. At that time, the bridge channel lights will change from flashing green to flashing red, a horn blast will sound four times, followed by a pause, then the four horn blasts will be repeated and the bridge will close. Once closed, the train will proceed across the bridge. After the train has cleared the swing span, which is approximately 300 feet from the bridge, the horn will automatically sound five times to indicate the span of the bridge is about to return to the full open position. Channel traffic lights would change from flashing green to flashing red any time the bridge is not in the full open position. In the full open position, the channel traffic lights will turn from flashing red to flashing green.

This rule will make the closure process of the CONRAIL Railroad Bridge more efficient during train crossings and periodic maintenance, and will save operational costs by eliminating bridge tenders while providing greater bridge operating capabilities.

The Coast Guard received one comment on the NPRM. The comment offered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) indicated that the federally listed (threatened) bald eagle currently nests within 1.6 miles of the CONRAIL Railroad Bridge. The Service states that bald eagles from the nearby nest site may occasionally forage or roost in the vicinity of the bridge. Based on the current available information, the Service does not anticipate adverse impacts to the bald eagle and does not object to the proposed changes in the operation of the CONRAIL Railroad Bridge. Therefore, no changes were made to the final rule.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

We reached this conclusion based on the fact that this final rule for the CONRAIL Railroad Bridge will provide for greater flow of vessel traffic than the current regulations for the drawbridge. Under the current regulations, the CONRAIL Railroad Bridge remains closed and opens after proper signal from March 1 through November 30. The final rule will require the bridge to remain in the open position during this period, permitting vessels to pass freely. The bridge will close only for train crossings and bridge maintenance. This final rule will provide for the reasonable needs of navigation.

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

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

This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The final rule will provide for the CONRAIL Railroad Bridge to remain in the open position from March 1 through November 30, allowing the free flow of vessel traffic. The bridge would only close for the passage of trains and maintenance.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. In our notice of proposed rulemaking, we provided a point of contact to small entities who could answer questions concerning proposed provisions or option for compliance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. The final rule only involves the operation of an existing drawbridge and will not have any impact on the environment. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

The Coast Guard is implementing the permanent safety zones in 33 CFR 165.907 (66 FR 27868, May 21, 2001), for fireworks displays in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone during June 2003. The following safety zones are in effect for fireworks displays occurring in the month of June 2003:

(1) Bay-Rama Fishfly Festival, New Baltimore, MI. Location. All waters off New Baltimore City Park, Lake St. Clair-Anchor Bay bounded by the arc of a circle with a 300-yard radius with its center located at approximate position 42°41′ N, 082°44′ W (NAD 83).

Enforcement period. June 26, 2003, from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.

(2) St. Clair Shores Fireworks, St. Clair Shores, MI. Location. All waters of Lake St. Clair within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 42°32′ N, 082°51′ W, about 1000 yards east of Veterans Memorial Park (off Masonic Rd.), St. Clair Shores, MI (NAD 83).

Enforcement period. June 27, 2003, from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m.

(3) Port Huron 4th of July Fireworks, Port Huron, MI. Location. All waters of the Black River within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 42°58′ N, 082°25′ W about 300 yards east of 223 Huron Ave., in the Black River (NAD 83).

Enforcement period. June 29, 2003, from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m.

(4) Sigma Gamma Assoc., Grosse Pointe Farms, MI.

Location. The waters off Ford's Cove, Lake St. Clair bounded by the arc of a circle with a 300-yard radius with its center in approximate position 42°27′ N, 082°52′ W (NAD 83).

Enforcement period. June 23, 2003 from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m.

In order to ensure the safety of spectators and transiting vessels, these safety zones will be in effect for the duration of the events. In cases where shipping is affected, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit to transit the safety zone. Approval will be made on a case-by case basis. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of Port before transits will be authorized. The Captain of the Port may be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard Group Detroit on channel 16, VHF-FM.

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

Under 5 U.S.C 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date would be contrary to public interest because the June 7, 2003 event would then be without an enforceable zone, thus placing the safety and property of spectators at unnecessary risk.

During the start of the Chicago to Michigan City sailboat race, the Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone encompassing the starting area. The Coast Guard expects approximately 150 vessels to participate in this event. This safety zone is required to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with this sailing event. Entry into, transit through or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Chicago or the designated Patrol Commander. The designated Patrol Commander on scene may be contacted on VHF Channel 16.

The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Michigan bounded by the arc of a circle with a 1000 foot radius with its center in approximate position 41°52′67″ N; 087°35′24″ W. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983. All vessels except those officially participating in this event are prohibited from entering the safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Chicago or his on-scene representative. The on-scene representative will be the Patrol Commander.

This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

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

This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone is in an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones' activation.

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

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

This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of commercial vessels intending to transit a portion of an activated safety zone.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The proposed zone is only in effect for two hours on the day of the event.

The designated area is being established to allow for maximum use of the waterway for commercial vessels to enjoy the fireworks display in a safe manner. In addition, commercial vessels transiting the area can transit around the area. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed 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.

We have considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 32(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A written categorical exclusion determination is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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

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

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

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

The safety zone for the Elberta fireworks will encompass all waters of Betsie Bay in Lake Michigan, off Frankfort, Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 250-foot radius from the fireworks launch site with its center in the approximate position 44°37′41″ N, 086°14′05″ W. These coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).

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

This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that the full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.

This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

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

This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone is in an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones' activation.

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

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

This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of commercial vessels intending to transit a portion of an activated safety zone.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The proposed zone is only in effect for two hours on the day of the event.

The designated area is being established to allow for maximum use of the waterway for commercial vessels to enjoy the fireworks display in a safe manner. In addition, commercial vessels transiting the area can transit around the area. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed 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.

We have considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 32(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A written categorical exclusion determination is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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

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

On February 14, 2003, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; Captain of the Port Chicago Zone, in the Federal Register (68 FR 7473, February 14, 2003). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.

Under 5 U.S.C 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The events listed in this rule have been regularly held on an annual basis with widespread public participation. The Coast Guard has not received any complaints or negative comments previously with regard to these events. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to public interest because events being held in early June would be without an enforceable zone, thus placing the safety and property of spectators at unnecessary risk.

Each year, various organizations in Illinois and Michigan sponsor fireworks displays at the same locations during the same general time periods. Based on recent accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, and the explosive hazards associated with these events, the Captain of the Port Chicago has determined that fireworks launches in close proximity to watercraft pose a risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of inexperienced recreational boaters, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement will ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risk.

In the past, and for those reasons stated above, the Captain of the Port has annually promulgated separate temporary rulemaking for each fireworks event. This proposed rule merely consolidates past temporary rulemakings into one rulemaking, includes other events for the purpose of uniformity, and allows for a more thoughtful, timely rulemaking process. This rulemaking will create a permanent rule listing the safety zones for each fireworks launch platform used for each fireworks display. All geographic coordinates are based upon North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).

During the public comment period, the Coast Guard received no comments or related information pertaining to this rulemaking.

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 exempted it from review under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.

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

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

These safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The safety zone sizes were carefully considered and consist in size such that they will not obstruct the regular flow of commercial traffic and will allow vessel traffic to pass around the safety zone. In addition, in the event that it may be necessary, prior to transiting commercial vessels can request permission from the Captain of the Port Chicago to transit through the zone.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this final rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. No comments or questions were received from any small businesses.

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34) (g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lC, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES .

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM and for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Publishing a NPRM would be contrary to public interest since immediate action is necessary to safeguard AMHS vessels from sabotage, other subversive acts, or accidents. If normal notice and comment procedures were followed, this rule would not become effective soon enough to provide immediate protection to AMHS vessels from the threats posed by hostile entities and would compromise the vital national interest in protecting maritime transportation and commerce. The security zone in this regulation has been carefully designed to minimally impact the public while providing a reasonable level of protection for AMHS vessels. For these reasons, following normal rulemaking procedures in this case would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.

The Coast Guard, through this action, intends to assist AMHS vessels by establishing a security zone to exclude persons and vessels from the immediate vicinity. Recent events highlight the fact that there are hostile entities operating with the intent to harm U.S. National Security. The President has continued the national emergencies he declared following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (67 FR 58317 (Sept. 13, 2002) (continuing national emergency with respect to terrorist attacks), 67 FR 59447 (Sept. 20, 2002) (continuing national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit or support terrorism)). The President also has found pursuant to law, including the Act of June 15, 1917, as amended August 9, 1950, by the Magnuson Act (50 U.S.C. 191 et seq ), that the security of the United States is and continues to be endangered following the attacks (E.O. 13,273, 67 FR 56215 (Sept. 3, 2002) (security endangered by disturbances in international relations of U.S. and such disturbances continue to endanger such relations)).

Entry into this zone will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designee. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies.

This rule controls vessel movement in a regulated area surrounding AMHS high capacity passenger vessels that are in service. For the purpose of this regulation, the AMHS vessel is the M/V Kennicott. All vessels authorized to be within 100 yards of this vessel shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course, and shall proceed as directed by the on-scene official patrol or AMHS vessel master. No vessel, except a public vessel (defined below), is allowed within 100 yards of the subject vessel, unless authorized by the on-scene official patrol or AMHS vessel master. Vessels requesting to pass within 100 yards of this vessel shall contact the on-scene official patrol or AMHS vessel master on VHF-FM channel 16 or 13. The on-scene official patrol or AMHS vessel master may permit vessels that can only operate safely in a navigable channel to pass within 100 yards of the subject AMHS vessels in order to ensure a safe passage in accordance with the Navigation Rules. Similarly, commercial vessels anchored in a designated anchorage area may be permitted to remain at anchor within 100 yards of passing this AMHS vessel. Public vessels for the purpose of this Temporary Final Rule are vessels owned, chartered, or operated by the United States, or by a State or political subdivision thereof.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

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

Although this regulation restricts access to the regulated area, the effect of this regulation will not be significant because: (i) Individual AMHS vessel security zones are limited in size; (ii) the on-scene official patrol or AMHS vessel master may authorize access to the AMHS vessel security zone; (iii) the AMHS vessel security zone for any given transiting AMHS vessel will effect a given geographical location for a limited time; and (iv) the Coast Guard will make notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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

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

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to operate near or anchor in the vicinity of AMHS vessels in the navigable waters of the United States.

This temporary regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) Individual AMHS vessel security zones are limited in size; (ii) the on-scene official patrol or AMHS vessel master may authorize access to the AMHS vessel security zone; (iii) the AMHS vessel security zone for any given transiting AMHS vessel will affect a given geographic location for a limited time; and (iv) the Coast Guard will make notifications via maritime advisories 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 want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact one of the points of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies to mitigate tribal concerns. Given the flexibility of the Temporary Final Rule to accommodate the special needs of mariners in the vicinity of AMHS vessels and the Coast Guard's commitment to working with the Tribes, we have determined that AMHS vessel security and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible and therefore have determined that this Temporary Final Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” (CED) will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

I. Background

Pursuant to sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the CAA, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth or Pennsylvania) is required to establish and implement RACT for all major volatile organic compound (VOC) and NO X sources. The major source size is determined by its location, the classification of that area, and whether it is located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). Under section 184 of the CAA, RACT, as specified in sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) applies throughout the OTR. The entire Commonwealth is located within the OTR. Therefore, RACT is applicable statewide in Pennsylvania.

On February 4, 2003, PADEP submitted formal revisions to its SIP to establish and impose case-by-case RACT for several major sources of VOC and NO X . This rulemaking pertains to one of those sources. The other sources are subject to separate rulemaking actions. The RACT determinations and requirements in this SIP revision are included in the operating permit (OP) issued by PADEP. Lafayette College, Easton Campus, is located in the City of Easton, Northampton County, Pennsylvania, and is considered a major source of NO X . In this instance, RACT has been established and imposed by PADEP in an operating permit. On February 4, 2003, PADEP submitted operating permit No. OP 48-0034 to EPA as a SIP revision. This operating permit incorporates RACT determinations for NO X for the following sources: One (1) Titusville boiler; Boiler No. 1; two (2) Keller boilers, Boiler Nos. 2 and 3; one (1) Babcock & Wilcox boiler; Boiler No. 4; six (6) oil-fired boilers; two (2) gas-fired boilers; seventeen (17) natural gas-fired emergency generators; three (3) propane-fired emergency generators; twenty-one (21) natural gas-fired water heaters; and thirty-seven (37) natural gas-fired hot air furnaces.

NO X RACT for the two (2) Keeler boilers at maximum heat input of 28.44MMBtu/hr. and the one (1) Babcock & Wilcox boiler at maximum heat input of 49.0MMBtu/hr., shall be the maintenance and operation of the sources according to the manufacturer's specifications in accordance with the presumptive RACT emission limitations found in 25 Pa. Code, Chapter 129.93(b)(2)-(3). The sources shall be operated and maintained in accordance with good air pollution control practices. NO X RACT for the seventeen (17) natural gas-fired emergency generators and the three (3) propane-fired emergency generators shall be regulated under the presumptive RACT emission limitations as described under 15 Pa. Code, Chapter 129.93(c)(5). Each generator must operate less than 500 hours in a consecutive 12-month period. Presumptive RACT shall be the maintenance and operation of the sources in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. The sources shall also be operated and maintained in accordance with good air pollution control practices. NO X RACT for the Titusville boiler at maximum heat input of 10.82MMBtu/hr., six (6) oil-fired boilers, two (2) natural gas-fired boilers, twenty-one (21) water heaters, and thirty-seven (37) hot air heaters shall be regulated under the presumptive RACT emission limitations described under 25 Pa. Code, Chapter 129.93(c)(1). Each source shall be limited to a maximum heat input of 20MMBtu/hr. The sources shall also be operated and maintained in accordance with good air pollution control practices. The facility shall maintain a file containing all records and other data required to be collected pursuant to 25 Pa. Code section 129.95. These records must provide sufficient data and calculations to clearly demonstrate that the requirements of 25 Pa. Code sections 129.91 through 94 are met. All measurements, records and other data required to be maintained by the company shall be retained for at least two years following the date on which such measurements, records or data are recorded. If requested by PADEP, the facility shall perform a stack test in accordance with the provisions of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 139 within the time specified by PADEP.

EPA is approving this SIP submittal because the Commonwealth established and imposed requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in SIP-approved regulations for imposing RACT or for limiting a source's potential to emit. The Commonwealth has also imposed record-keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on these sources sufficient to determine compliance with these requirements.

EPA is approving the revision to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's SIP which establishes and requires RACT for Lafayette College, Easton Campus, (OP 48-0034) located in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register , EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This direct final rule will be effective on July 21, 2003, without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by June 19, 2003. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

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

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability establishing source-specific requirements for Lafayette College, Easton Campus.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 21, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the Commonwealth's source-specific RACT requirements to control NO X from Lafayette College, Easton Campus, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2).)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

The Mitigation Division Director of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required to maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

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

This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency makes final determinations listed below of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed. The proposed BFEs and proposed modified BFEs were published in newspapers of local circulation and an opportunity for the community or individuals to appeal the proposed determinations to or through the community was provided for a period of ninety (90) days. The proposed BFEs and proposed modified BFEs were also published in the Federal Register .

This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and 44 CFR part 67.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community.

The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

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

The Mitigation Division Director of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required to maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

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

This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

The FCC published a document in the Federal Register of March 6, 2003, (68 FR 10664) removing DTV channel 59 and adding DTV channel 9 at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. DTV channel 59 was inadvertently published in lieu of DTV channel 59c. This correction removes DTV channel 59c in lieu DTV channel 59 at Bethlehem.

As published, the final regulations contain an error, which may prove to be misleading, and needs to be clarified.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The Pacific halibut bycatch allowance for the GOA trawl deep-water species fishery, which is defined at § 679.21(d)(3)(iii)(B), as established by the final 2003 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (68 FR 9924, March 3, 2003) for the second season, the period April 1, 2003, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., June 29, 2003, is 300 metric tons.

In accordance with § 679.21(d)(7)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the second seasonal apportionment of the 2003 Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl deep-water species fishery in the GOA has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for the deep-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the GOA. The species and species groups that comprise the deep-water species fishery are: all rockfish of the genera Sebastes and Sebastolobus , deep water flatfish, rex sole, arrowtooth flounder, and sablefish.

Maximum retainable amounts may be found in the regulations at § 679.20(e) and (f).

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is contrary to the public interest. This requirement is contrary to the public interest as it would delay the closure of the fishery, lead to exceeding the second seasonal apportionment of the 2003 Pacific halibut bycatch allowance, and therefore reduce the public's ability to use and enjoy the fishery resource.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.