This amendment to 14 CFR 71 modifies the Class E airspace area designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area at Waterloo, IA. It also modifies the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Waterloo, IA and the legal descriptions of both airspace areas. An examination of controlled airspace for Waterloo, IA revealed discrepancies in the dimensions of Class E airspace areas and their legal descriptions. A discrepancy in the location of the collocated very high frequency omni-directional radio range and tactical air navigational aid (VORTAC) serving Waterloo Municipal Airport and used to describe these airspace areas was also noted. This action corrects the discrepancies, modifies Class E airspace areas at Waterloo, IA to the appropriate dimensions for protecting aircraft executing instrument approach procedures at Waterloo Municipal Airport and incorporates the changes into the legal descriptions of Waterloo, IA Class E airspace areas. This action brings the legal descriptions of Waterloo, IA controlled airspace areas into compliance with FAA Order 7400.2E, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. The areas will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas designated as extensions to a Class D or Class E Surface Area are published in paragraph 6004 of FAA Order 7400.9K, dated August 30, 2002, and effective September 16, 2002, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of the same FAA Order. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. Unless a written a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register , and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2003-15457/Airspace Docket No. 03-ACE-55.” The postcard will be date/time 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 noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This amendment to 14 CFR 71 modifies the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Webster City, IA. It incorporates the current airport reference point for Webster City Municipal Airport and the current location of the Webster City NDB. It corrects the bearing from the Webster City NDB of the Class E airspace extension and brings the legal description of this airspace area into compliance with FAA Order 7400.2E, Procedures for Handing Airspace Matters. The area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9K, dated August 30, 2002, and effective September 16, 2002, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register , and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2003-15458/Airspace Docket No. 03-ACE-56.'' The postcard will be date/time 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 noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This amendment to 14 CFR 71 modifies the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at West Union, IA. It expands the Class E airspace extension by .4 of a mile and brings the legal description of this airspace area into compliance with FAA Order 7400.2E, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. The area will be depicted on appropriated aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9K, dated August 30, 2002, and effective September 16, 2002, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2003-15459/Airspace Docket No. 03-ACE-57.” The postcard will be date/time 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 noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This amendment to 14 CFR 71 modifies the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Aurora, MO. It replaces “Aurora Memorial Municipal Airport,” the former name of the airport, with “Jerry Summers Sr. Aurora Municipal Airport,” the new name of the airport, in the legal description. It brings the legal description of the airspace area into compliance with FAA Order 7400.2E, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. The area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9K, dated August 30, 2002, and effective September 16, 2002, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register , and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2003-15460/Airspace Docket No. 03-ACE-58.” The postcard will be date/time 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 1312.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

As a consequence of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, the U.S. commercial aviation industry suffered severe financial losses. These losses placed the financial survival of many air carriers at risk. Acting rapidly to preserve the continued viability of the U.S. air transportation system, President Bush sought and Congress enacted the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act.

Under section 101(a)(2)(A)-(B) of the Stabilization Act, a total of $5 billion in compensation is provided for “direct losses incurred beginning on September 11, 2001, by air carriers as a result of any Federal ground stop order issued by the Secretary of Transportation or any subsequent order which continues or renews such stoppage; and the incremental losses incurred beginning September 11, 2001 and ending December 31, 2001, by air carriers as a direct result of such attacks.”

Section 103 of the Stabilization Act established the basis for determining the amount of compensation payable to each carrier. Under section 103(b), that amount, for each passenger and combination passenger-cargo carrier, was the lesser of (1) the amount of its direct and incremental losses, or (2) the product of $ 4.5 billion and the ratio of the number of available seat miles reported for the month of August 2001 by the particular carrier to the number of available seat miles of all such air carriers reported for that month.

Thereafter, a number of carriers expressed concern that the Stabilization Act's use of approximate market share ratios as one of the alternate tests for compensation— i.e. , measuring each carrier's available seat miles (ASMs) against the total number of industry ASMs—would not adequately compensate some classes of carriers for their losses. Since ASMs are the product of the number of seats available for revenue use and the miles they are flown, 14 CFR 330.3, these carriers pointed out that those who operate aircraft having relatively few seats and/or fly for relatively short distances, such as air ambulances and air tour operators, do not accumulate ASMs as quickly as carriers operating large aircraft and flying longer distances. They argued that an ASM ratio formula, if used as a ceiling for compensation, would place such carriers at a disadvantage to larger carriers and result in compensation payments that were well below the losses these carriers had sustained from the attacks.

Subsequently, Congress enacted Section 124(d) of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Pub. L. 107-71, Nov. 19, 2001), which amended section 103 of the Stabilization Act. The purpose of this amendment, according to the Conference Report (H.R. REP. No. 107-296 at 79), was “to allow for a modified system of providing compensation to air tour operators and air ambulances to better address their needs after industry-wide losses.” The following is the text of this amendment:

(d) Compensation for Certain Air Carriers.—

(1) Set-Aside—The President may set aside a portion of the amount of compensation payable to air carriers under section 101(a)(2) to provide compensation to classes of air carriers, such as air tour operators and air ambulances (including hospitals operating air ambulances) for whom application of a distribution formula containing available seat miles as a factor would inadequately reflect their share of direct and incremental losses. The President shall reduce the $4,500,000,000 specified in subsection (b)(2)(A)(i) by the amount set aside under this subsection.

(2) Distribution of Amounts—The President shall distribute the amount set aside under this subsection proportionally among such air carriers based on an appropriate auditable measure, as determined by the President.

On January 2, 2002 (67 FR 263), the Department requested comments concerning whether it should utilize this discretionary authority to set-aside a portion of funds, and if so, in what manner and to what classes of air carriers. Following receipt and consideration of written comments, the Department determined that the statutory formula in the Stabilization Act did result in disproportionately smaller recoveries for smaller passenger carriers, and that it would be appropriate to use the set-aside authority to address that situation. In analyzing the financial information submitted to that point by smaller carriers, the Department found that air taxi, commuter, and regional carriers reporting fewer than 10 million ASMs would receive disproportionately less relative to their losses under the Stabilization Act formula than carriers that had higher ASM levels. Moreover, the smallest of these—those who reported an average of 10,000 or fewer per day, or 310,000 for the reporting period of August 2001—seemed to fall even further behind in compensation levels relative to their expected losses.

Therefore, in its final rule on the subject (67 FR 18468-78, April 16, 2002) the Department established a set-aside program and created two classes of small carrier for purposes of prospective compensation under that program. A Class I air carrier was defined as an air taxi, regional, or commuter air carrier that reported 310,000 or fewer available seat miles to the Department for the month of August 2001. A Class II air carrier was defined as an air taxi, regional, or commuter air carrier that reported between 310,001 and 10 million available seat miles to the Department for that month. 67 FR 18477, codified at 14 CFR 330.43. (Indirect carriers reporting 310,000 or fewer, and from 310,001 to 10 million ASMs, were added to these two classes in a final rule published on August 20, 2002, 67 FR 54058-83.) The rule further stated that compensation for Class I carriers would be calculated using a fixed ASM rate equivalent to the mean losses per ASM for all Class I carriers applying for compensation. Compensation for Class II carriers would be calculated using a graduated ASM rate equivalent to (i) the mean loss per ASM for all Class I carriers applying for compensation, for each of the first 310,000 ASMs reported and (ii) the mean loss per ASM for all Class II carriers applying for compensation for each ASM in excess of 310,000. 67 FR 18478, codified at 14 CFR 330.45(b).

Another subsection of the regulation set a “floor” for payment to qualifying set-aside carriers, equivalent to 25% of their direct and incremental transportation-related losses, to ensure that even air carriers with very high loss/ASM ratios would receive compensation at a rate more consistent with those being paid to larger carriers having high loss/ASM ratios. A further provision was necessary to ensure that carriers under the set-aside would not receive a higher percentage of compensation for losses, on average, than non set-aside carriers. Thus, we provided that compensation for set-aside carriers would not be more than an amount equivalent to the mean percentage of compensation for losses received by passenger and combination passenger-cargo air carriers that were not eligible for the set-aside funds. Finally, we provided that if a set-aside carrier would receive more compensation under the Stabilization Act formula than under the set-aside formula, it would receive compensation at the higher amount (14 CFR 330.35(c)).

Important to these calculations are, of course, the amounts that represented the mean losses per ASM for Class I and Class II carriers. In the Preamble to the April rule, the Department made clear that these amounts could be calculated only after all applications had been received from Class I and II carriers, and only after the amounts of actual losses could be verified. However, for purposes of illustration, the Department offered estimates of the basis upon which each Class would be compensated, relying upon the forecasted losses made by the air carriers that had already applied and would qualify for Class I and Class II. As an example, for Class I carriers, the Department estimated that the mean loss per ASM was $0.82, based upon this preliminary data. Thus, for Class I carriers, the Department projected that a carrier with 100,000 ASMs might receive $82,000 in total compensation if this formula were used. For Class II carriers, the average losses might be expected to be in the range of 25 to 50 cents per ASM, but to achieve consistency with the compensation rates for the Class I carriers this amount would need to be averaged over the first 310,000 ASMs and those between 310,000 and 10 million. The Department projected that if the $0.82 per ASM rate were used for the initial 310,000 ASMs, the overall mean, based on these forecast data, would be reached by applying a rate of $0.19 per ASM for those over the first 310,000 ASMs. As an example, we estimated that a carrier with 750,000 ASMs might receive approximately $337,800 in total compensation under this formula. Again, we cautioned that these were estimates, and that, depending on the actual losses and ASMs that would be validated for set-aside applicants, the ASM rates for both Class I and Class II carriers could change. See 67 FR 18470.

The Department has now received and processed the carrier applications under the set-aside program. We have determined that the losses incurred by Class I carriers were significantly lower than our earlier estimates, averaging only $0.42 per ASM. This was primarily due to carriers reporting actual losses lower than they had forecast earlier, although disallowance of some claimed losses also played a part. Losses for Class II carriers, on the other hand, were more consistent with earlier estimates, ranging generally from 25 to 32 cents per ASM. We also found that the smallest carriers in Class I, those reporting fewer than 75,000 ASMs, reported losses that were on average significantly higher per ASM than the larger carriers in Class I.

As a result, air carriers in Class I have been processed for payments in amounts that are often less than anticipated. Also, the smallest of the carriers, because they have, on average, reported comparatively higher losses per ASM than other set-aside eligible carriers, still seem to have received disproportionately smaller amounts relative to those other carriers. On the other hand, because the verified loss amounts on a cumulative basis have been less than those we estimated, the Department has flexibility to modify the set-aside rule to provide more equitable treatment for the smaller set-aside carriers without disadvantaging the larger ones.

The Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on May 5, 2003, at 68 FR 23627. No comments were received in response to that notice. This final rule adopts the proposed rule without change.

This action amends the definitions for the two classes of set-aside air carrier in 14 CFR 330.43. Class I will now consist of those carriers reporting 75,000 or fewer ASMs to the Department for the month of August 2001, while Class II will consist of those reporting between 75,001 and 10 million ASMs for that month. The set-aside formula for Class I carriers will be based on a mean ASM rate for that class of $0.984 per ASM. The formula for Class II carriers will be based on the rate of $0.984 for each of the first 75,000 ASMs, and $0.24 for each ASM from 75,001 to 10 million. Use of these mean ASM rates will not reduce the payments any set-aside carrier has received. They will increase the maximum possible payment for set-aside carriers that reported 310,000 or fewer ASMs, but, primarily, will increase payments to the smallest carriers in that group.

In addition to use of this formula for compensation, the Department may utilize several other alternatives as bases for compensation of set-aside carriers. These other alternatives are currently available under 14 CFR 330.45(c), and no change is being made to that subsection. Thus, the compensation paid to qualifying set-aside carriers will not be less than an amount equivalent to 25 percent of the direct and incremental transportation-related losses that they demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department were incurred as result of the terrorist attacks. This will ensure that there is a “floor” of compensation at the 25 percent level available for extreme cases of loss.

In that same subsection, the Department had set a ceiling rate for compensation to ensure that set-aside carriers are not compensated at levels that would be excessive relative to other carriers. Passenger and combination passenger-cargo air carriers that were not eligible for the set-aside have received compensation computed at a mean of 71 percent of their losses. Accordingly, the Department will compensate set-aside carriers at that level if the amount that would be received is less than that computed under the set-aside formula.

Finally, the Department has noted that, in some unusual circumstances, the ASM-based formula established originally under the Stabilization Act would provide a greater level of compensation to a set-aside carrier than the 71 percent calculation based on the mean level of compensation for non set-aside carriers noted above. Because Congress afforded discretion to the Department in the Security Act to assist, not disadvantage, smaller carriers, we will provide compensation in this case based on the Stabilization Act formula, up to, but not to exceed, compensation for all air transportation-related losses.

This rulemaking is a nonsignificant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Order. This rule is also not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation, 44 FR 11034.

This rule does not impose unfunded mandates or requirements that will have any impact on the quality of the human environment.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , was enacted by Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and disproportionately burdened by government regulations. The Act requires agencies to review proposed regulations that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of this rule, small entities include approximately 50 small air carriers. The Department certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule will increase payouts to such a limited number of small air carriers. Therefore, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been performed.

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

This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999, and it is determined that this action does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This rule will not limit the policymaking discretion of the State nor preempt any State law or regulation.

The Department is making this rule effective immediately upon publication. The Department finds good cause to do so based on the importance of implementing this rule immediately to be able to enable the Department to make payments under the adjusted compensation formula to eligible air carriers. These eligible air carriers are typically among the smallest and most economically vulnerable participants in the industry, who have been awaiting compensation payments for many months.

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. In keeping with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard also finds that good cause exists for making this regulation effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The precise location of the event necessitating promulgation of this safety zone and other logistical details surrounding the event were not finalized until a date close in time to the event. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because doing such would prevent the Coast Guard from maintaining the safety of the participants of the event and users of the waterway.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the Colorado River in Laughlin, Nevada in support of the Avi Resort and Casino fireworks show. The fireworks will be launched from an area on land, however, the fallout area will be over a section of the Colorado River and a safety zone on this section of the river is necessary to provide for the safety of the users of this waterway.

The Coast Guard proposes to establish this temporary rule to provide for the safety of the participants, spectators and other users of the waterways. The temporary safety zone is specifically defined as that portion of the Colorado River 1000 yards north of Veterans Bridge. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.

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).

Due to the temporary safety zone's short duration of two hours, its limited scope of implementation, and because vessels will have an opportunity to request authorization to transit, the Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that full regulatory evaluation under paragraph 10 (e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of the DHS is unnecessary.

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.

For the same reasons set forth in the above Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on any substantial number of entities, regardless of size. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Colorado River from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on August 31, 2003.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The temporary safety zone's short duration of two hours on one day, The late hour when traffic is low, and the ability of the COTP to authorize entry if necessary.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard wants to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If your small business or organization is affected by this rule and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Commander Rick Sorrell, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office San Diego at (619) 683-6495.

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 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.

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are required for this rule and can be viewed in the docket.

The modified base flood elevations are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified base flood elevation determinations are available for inspection is provided.

Any request for reconsideration must be based upon knowledge of changed conditions, or upon new scientific or technical data.

The modifications are made pursuant to Section 201 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 base flood elevations 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 elevations, 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.

The changes in base flood elevations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 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 National Flood Insurance Program. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

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

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

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency makes the final determinations listed below of modified base flood elevations 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 base flood elevations 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 base flood elevation 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 base flood elevations 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 elevations, 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 polices established by other Federal, state or regional entities.

These modified elevations 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 base flood elevations 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 the final determinations listed below of BFEs and 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.

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.

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 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 establish and maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

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

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

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

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.

This final rule is issued in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67.

The 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 Flood Insurance Rate Map available at the address cited below for each community.

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

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 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 final or modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required to establish and maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

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

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

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

The Federal Emergency Management Agency makes the final determinations listed below of BFEs and 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.

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 establish and 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.

On February 3, 2000, Mr. James E. Stocke, a retired automotive safety engineer, submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting that NHTSA amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301), to provide that the moving barrier assembly be equipped with P205/75R15 radial tires inflated to 207 kPa (30 psi), replacing the currently specified G78-15 bias ply tires inflated to 165 kPa (24 psi). Mr. Stocke stated that the bias tire size designation referenced in FMVSS No. 301 was outdated 15 years ago and that bias tires are no longer readily available because they have been replaced with radial tires. Mr. Stocke noted that the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (SAE) J972 Recommended Practice “Moving Rigid Barrier Collision Tests” was revised (in August 1997) to specify both P205/75R15 radial tires and G78-15 bias ply tires for use on moving barriers. In a letter dated August 16, 2000, NHTSA granted Mr. Stocke's petition for rulemaking.

FMVSS No. 214, Side impact protection (49 CFR 571.214), and FMVSS No. 301 specify impact tests using moving barriers. Paragraph S6.10 of FMVSS No. 214 contains specifications for a 1,367 kilogram (3,000 pound) moving deformable barrier. FMVSS No. 301 contains specifications for two 1,814 kilogram (4,000 pound) moving rigid barriers: a moving flat rigid barrier (Paragraphs S7.2 and S7.3), and a moving contoured rigid barrier (Paragraph S7.5). Both FMVSS No. 301 moving barriers are used to assess vehicle fuel system integrity. The FMVSS No. 301 moving flat rigid barrier is used for testing passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. The FMVSS No. 301 moving contoured rigid barrier is used for testing large school buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). The FMVSS No. 214 moving deformable barrier is used for side impact testing of passenger cars, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less. G78-15 bias ply tires are currently specified for the FMVSS No. 301 barriers. 1

The tire specifications for the FMVSS No. 214 moving barrier are not specified in FMVSS No. 214. Instead, S6.10 of FMVSS No. 214 incorporates by reference the moving barrier specified in 49 CFR part 587, subpart B, Side Impact Moving Deformable Barrier. The tire specifications for that barrier are contained in Drawing DSL-1278, Sheet 2 of 2, Item -11 and Note 8. Item -11 specifies “Bias belted tire (BF Goodrich—G78-15 CLM).” In October 1991, Note 8 was added to drawing DSL-1278 that states “Bias belted tire, size P215/75B15, may be substituted for that specified in -11. Inflate to recommended pressure.”

On October 10, 2001, the agency published a NPRM proposing amendments to FMVSS Nos. 214 and 301 to require radial tires of certain specifications and also proposing to delete certain outdated or inaccurate specifications for the moving barriers in FMVSS No. 301. (66 FR 51629, Docket No. NHTSA-01-10435). In that notice, NHTSA discussed several considerations regarding Mr. Stocke's petition.

First, the agency noted that with the increased use of the radial tire design over the past 30 years in the U.S., the bias ply tire design had become virtually obsolete. Consequently, bias ply tires were not currently or readily available to testing laboratories and would become even more difficult for the laboratories to obtain in the future. Also, the agency noted that the SAE J972 Recommended Practice “Moving Rigid Barrier Collision Tests” now includes specifications for radial tires as well as for bias ply tires. Both P205/75R15 and P215/75R15 radial tires are readily available at present and are widely recommended for use by vehicle manufacturers on passenger cars, small passenger vans, and small sport utility vehicles.

Another consideration discussed by the agency was the potential effect on ride height (the height of the center of gravity) and vertical motion (bounce) of a moving barrier if tires different from those currently specified in FMVSS Nos. 214 and 301 were used on those barriers. Bias ply tires and radial tires are different in design and construction; therefore, they exhibit different performance characteristics. The radial construction creates a tread that is stiffer and a sidewall that is more flexible than that of a bias ply tire. These factors would affect the performance of moving barriers. 2

In addition to discussing considerations arising out of the petition, the agency summarized related barrier tire research conducted by Ford Motor Company (Ford) and the revised SAE J972 Recommended Practice. After careful review of the study and the SAE Recommend Practice, NHTSA tentatively concluded that the P215/75R15 radial tire inflated to 221 kPa (32 psi) would be an appropriate alternative to the G78-15 bias ply tire for use on the FMVSS No. 214 moving deformable barrier and that the P205/75R15 tires inflated to 207 kPa (30 psi) would be appropriate for use on both moving rigid barriers specified in FMVSS No. 301.

As a result of these conclusions, NHTSA proposed specifying either P215/75R15 tires inflated to 221 kPa (32 psi) or P205/75R15 tires inflated to 207 kPa (30 psi) for use on FMVSS Nos. 214 and 301 moving barriers. NHTSA stated that it would pick one of these tires and specify it in the final rule for all moving barriers.

The agency also indicated that prior to making a final decision, the agency would assess the extent to which the substitution of a tire may have unintended effects on either (1) the ride height, or (2) the impact performance of the FMVSS Nos. 214 and 301 moving barriers. For example, in attempting to find a set of appropriate radial tires (tire size and inflation pressure) for use on the FMVSS No. 214 barrier, NHTSA expressed concern that a set of four incorrectly inflated tires could result in excessive barrier vertical motion during the towing process, which could have made it difficult to stay within the + / − 20 mm (0.8 inch) vertical displacement guideline. 3 NHTSA solicited comments and laboratory test data concerning these matters.

In conjunction with the proposal, NHTSA proposed that the tread width specification be deleted from the tire specifications in FMVSS No. 301. The tread width specification for radial tires is unnecessary because the radial tire size designation is sufficient to define tread width.

Finally, the agency proposed that the moment of inertia specifications for the moving contoured barrier be removed from FMVSS No. 301 because, based on the current measurements, excepting the moments of inertia, the FMVSS No. 301 moving contoured barrier could be constructed to the barrier specifications with the dimensional drawings and the specified center of gravity. In addition, there are no moments of inertia specified for the FMVSS No. 301 moving flat barrier.

NHTSA received comments on the October 2001 NPRM from General Motors North America (GM), Ford Motor Company (Ford), and Volkswagen (VW). The comments are summarized below.

All three commenters generally supported the amendments proposed in the NPRM.

With regard to tire-type and inflation pressure, GM commented that either tire-type proposed by the agency would be appropriate for use on FMVSS Nos. 214 and 301 moving barriers and suggested an inflation range between 179 kPa and 221 kPa (26 psi-32 psi). Ford said that either proposed tire-type and respective inflation pressure would perform satisfactorily, but recommended that the P215/75R15 tire, inflated to 221 kPa (32 psi), be adopted for use on all moving barriers specified in FMVSS Nos. 214 and 301. Both Ford and GM provided data supporting their conclusions. VW supported the use of the P205/75R15 tire inflated to 207 kPa (30 psi) on all moving barriers specified in FMVSS Nos. 214 and 301.

With respect to the tread width specification, GM and Ford supported the agency's proposal to delete the outdated specification from FMVSS No. 301.

GM and Ford both concurred with the agency's proposal to delete the inaccurate moment of inertia specified in FMVSS No. 301. GM, however, recommended that NHTSA request test laboratories to provide moments of inertia for their moving barriers for further examination. Ford recommended that NHTSA consider specifying the moments of inertia for the common carriage of moving barriers prescribed in FMVSS No. 301.

Finally, GM recommended that NHTSA standardize the language of the moving barrier standards so that the text of FMVSS No. 301 would read similarly to that of S6.10 of FMVSS No. 214.

Based on test data presented by GM and Ford, tire inflation pressure, rather than tire-type, appears to be a more critical element for various test facilities conducting moving barrier tests. GM has conducted FMVSS No. 214 tests using P205/75R15 tires inflated to 193 kPa (28 psi) with satisfactory results and at present is using 215/75R15 tires inflated to 193 + − 14 kPa (28 + − 2 psi) in all of its FMVSS No. 301 moving barrier tests. Pursuant to its testing, Ford recommends P215/75R15 tires inflated to 221 kPa (32psi) for use on the FMVSS No. 214 moving barrier. However, Ford believes that either tire-type would work well. Based on the comments and the data, NHTSA concludes that either tire-type, inflated to a pressure between 179 kPa and 221 kPa (26 psi-32 psi), would perform satisfactorily. Since either tire-type is reported to do well when properly inflated and since SAE J972 has already incorporated a specification for P205/75R15 radial tires inflated to 207 kPa (30 psi) for use on moving barriers, NHTSA adopts P205/75R15 tires inflated to between 179 kPa and 221 kPa (26 psi-32 psi) for use on all moving barriers specified in FMVSS Nos. 214 and 301.

Commenters supported the agency's proposal to delete the tread width specification in FMVSS No. 301. Therefore, the agency adopts the proposal to delete the tread width specification from FMVSS No. 301.

Both GM and Ford concurred with the agency's proposal to delete the inaccurate moments of inertia for the moving contoured barrier from FMVSS No. 301. However, Ford recommended that NHTSA consider specifying moments of inertia for the common carriage of the moving barriers. GM recommended that NHTSA ask test laboratories to provide the moment of inertia of their moving barriers and that NHTSA consider these specifications, as appropriate, in a future rulemaking.

In response to Ford's recommendation, NHTSA notes that the moments of inertia of the common carriage are only a part of, and do not have a critical effect on, the resultant moments of inertia of the moving flat and contoured barriers specified in FMVSS No. 301. Because the moment of inertia of a concentrated mass is the product of the mass and the square of the distance between the mass and the axis of rotation, the distance between a component mass and the center of gravity of the moving barrier is more important than the mass itself in determining the moments of inertia of the moving barrier. Because of this distance from the center of gravity of the moving barrier, components such as the contoured contact face of the barrier and the ballast weights would have a greater influence than the common carriage on the moments of inertia of the moving barrier. Therefore, the agency concludes that it is unnecessary to define the moments of inertia for the common carriage.

In response to GM's suggestion that NHTSA request test laboratories to provide moment of inertia data for further rulemaking, NHTSA does not believe that re-defining the moment of inertia of the moving contoured barriers would affect testing results. The moments of inertia of the moving contoured barrier are a dynamic structural property of, rather than a primary design criterion for, the moving barrier. Therefore, the moving barrier structure, as constructed according to FMVSS No. 301 specifications, determines the moments of inertia. FMVSS No. 301 specifies the component cross-section, the structure dimension, the weight distribution, the ballast location, and the center of gravity for the moving contoured barrier. Based on these specifications, the construction of all moving barriers is very similar. Consequently, the moments of inertia of the moving contoured barrier would also be very similar. For this reason, the agency has decided not to pursue GM's recommendation.

The agency believes that GM's suggestion to standardize the language in all moving barrier standards has merit. Because the agency has not considered the effects of standardizing this language, it will not adopt the suggestion in this final rule. The agency, however, will consider this suggestion in the course of future rulemakings concerning moving barriers.

The bias ply tires currently specified in FMVSS No. 301 are not readily available to testing laboratories at present and will be even more difficult to obtain in the future. Vehicle manufacturers currently recommend both P205/75R15 and P215/75R15 radial tires proposed in the NPRM for use on passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, and light trucks. The agency has noted that certain laboratories have adopted the aforesaid radial tires for use on moving barriers specified in FMVSS Nos. 214 and 301. In view of this, the agency has decided to make that final rule effective September 29, 2003.

This final rule has not been reviewed under E.O. 12866. After considering the impacts of this rulemaking action, we have determined that the action is not significant within the meaning of the Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. The intent of the rulemaking action is to update regulatory procedures that have been in effect for over 25 years. In most cases, the effect of the proposed amendments will be to relax or eliminate burdens on regulated entities. The tires specified in the proposed rule are more readily available than those currently specified. Further, they are already widely recommended by voluntary standards organizations for use by vehicle manufacturers for testing. Accordingly, there will be no increase in the cost of tires used for testing. Further, we do not anticipate any impact on the ability to conduct valid tests or any other impact on the cost or ease of testing. Thus, the impacts are so minimal as not to warrant the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities. NHTSA certifies that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action merely replaces an outdated tire specification for testing devices with an equivalent current tire specification.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et. seq. ), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. NHTSA has reviewed this final rule and determined that it does not contain collection of information requirements.

This rule will not impose a Federal mandate resulting in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

This rule will not have any retroactive effect. Under section 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

We have analyzed this action 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 safety that may disproportionately affect children.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g. , material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. We note that the radial tire specifications contained in SAE J972 Recommended Practice “Moving Rigid Barrier Collision Tests” are a voluntary consensus standard and that we have incorporated them into FMVSS Nos. 214 and 301.

The agency has analyzed this action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined that this action will not have any effect on the quality of the environment.

E.O. 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” E.O. 13132 defines the term “Policies that have federalism implications” to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under E.O. 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implication, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

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

NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off Alaska according to fishery management plans (FMPs) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The FMPs are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations that also pertain to these fisheries appear in subpart H to 50 CFR part 600.

The commercial halibut fishery in and off Alaska is managed under the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program and the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) program codified at 50 CFR part 679. The IFQ Program, a limited access management system for the fixed gear Pacific halibut ( Hippoglossus stenolepis ) and sablefish ( Anoplopoma fimbria ) fisheries in and off Alaska, was approved by NMFS in January 1993 and fully implemented beginning in March 1995. The IFQ Program for the sablefish fishery is implemented by the FMPs and Federal regulations under 50 CFR part 679 under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The IFQ Program for the halibut fishery and the CDQ program for halibut are implemented by Federal regulations promulgated under the authority of the Halibut Act.

This action amends the regulatory text for some of the Recordkeeping and Reporting (R&R) requirements for the groundfish fishery, the IFQ program for halibut and sablefish, and the CDQ program for halibut. Revisions are made to the regulatory text to accommodate the procedural changes.

Currently, regulations require that vessels with IFQ halibut or sablefish catch leaving the jurisdiction of the Council check in with NOAA Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement (OLE) at a certified “primary” port and have the vessel's hold sealed prior to departure. OLE personnel are not currently able to effectively determine catch quantity at the primary port and are unable to seal a vessel's hold without compromising vessel safety. The requirement for a Vessel Clearance is removed with this action.

The function of the shipment report and the PTR is to document the movement of fish product. The PTR was designed for completion by a processor manager or operator to report to NMFS the movement of groundfish. The shipment report was designed for completion by a Registered Buyer to report to NMFS the movement of IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut and IFQ sablefish. In many cases, the manager or operator of a processor is also a Registered Buyer. The regulations require that both forms be completed, regardless of any duplication of effort. This action consolidates the shipment report into the PTR. The result is that the operator or manager that is also a Registered Buyer can document all fish in a shipment on one form. The revised PTR also works for the participant that is only an operator, manager or a Registered Buyer. The result for NMFS is one standard form. This action eliminates the shipment report and allows the collection of necessary information with fewer paperwork requirements.

In the IFQ program, fishers are required to notify OLE before IFQ species are offloaded. This requirement provides OLE agents and officers the time necessary to travel to unmanned ports throughout Alaska to monitor specific IFQ offloads and to gather specifics about a vessel's catch prior to landing. In addition, the PNOL helps International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) port samplers meet and interview the skipper during the offload and allows port samplers to optimally sample the landings and collect logbook information.

The PNOL is made by toll-free telephone to OLE a minimum of six hours before landing fish. As part of the PNOL, fishers must name the Registered Buyer to whom they plan to deliver their fish.

This rule changes the time limit for the PNOL from 6 hours to 3 hours before landing. This action relieves restrictions on vessel operators by providing them additional time to seek markets prior to reporting the time and location of a landing. This rule also changes the requirement from naming a specific Registered Buyer to naming the place of landing. Requiring vessel operators to report a “location of landing” rather than a “Registered Buyer” provides shoreside data-collection and OLE personnel with the location of the landing while not requiring a vessel to deliver to a specific processor. This provides vessels additional flexibility to market their product.

The departure report was created as a prerequisite notice to a vessel clearance. If a vessel operator intended to obtain a vessel clearance at Bellingham, Washington, he or she would first submit an IFQ departure report to an OLE clearing officer by toll-free telephone. The IFQ departure report was submitted only after completion of all IFQ fishing and prior to departing the waters of the EEZ adjacent to the jurisdictional waters of the State of Alaska, the territorial sea of the State of Alaska, or the internal waters of the State of Alaska. This action removes the vessel clearance, and thus changes the function of the departure report. Instead of being a prerequisite to a vessel clearance, the departure report now will be the complete report submitted to OLE by a vessel leaving the jurisdiction of the Council.

A fisher is required to submit a VAR if his or her vessel is carrying fish or fish product onboard before the vessel crosses out of the jurisdiction of the Council. Some changes are made to the regulatory text for this form to incorporate “CDQ halibut” and to compensate for the removal of the vessel clearance.

A Notice of Availability of Amendment 72/64 was published in the Federal Register on October 29, 2002 (67 FR 65941), inviting comments on the FMP amendment through December 27, 2002. NMFS received no comments. On January 24, 2003, the Secretary of Commerce approved Amendment 72/64 in its entirety.

NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on January 24, 2003 (68 FR 3485), which described the proposed regulatory amendment and invited comments from the public. No public comments were received on the proposed rule.

Some technical, non-substantive changes are made in the final rule that were not presented in the proposed rule. These changes are the result of further review, intended to improve the rule for final publication. Fishery participants have requested guidance from NMFS on where to find separate R&R procedures for groundfish, IFQ and CDQ programs, as these programs become more integrated and thus more complicated. Overviews are provided of the three programs to assist the reader to find detailed information on specific programs. Clarification is provided on where to find information that already exists in different parts of the regulations.

The changes from the proposed rule are organized in three categories. Each of the three categories affects many paragraphs. The affected paragraphs are arranged below in order of appearance in the 50 CFR part 679 regulatory text.

The IFQ and CDQ permits and cards are issued separately, under the IFQ Program and the CDQ Program. However, the IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, and IFQ sablefish fisheries are managed and monitored by the IFQ Program. The Registered Buyer permit authorizes receipt of CDQ halibut in the same manner as receipt of IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish. Some of the revisions clarify the administrative procedures that currently exist for halibut accounting in the IFQ Program and in the CDQ Program but which do not appear in regulatory text. Wherever CDQ halibut formerly was “understood” to be included in the phrase IFQ halibut, the regulatory text is revised to specifically state “CDQ halibut.” In addition, a distinction is made between “halibut CDQ,” which is a type of fish allocation and “CDQ halibut,” which is a type of fish. CDQ halibut is treated the same administratively as IFQ halibut, and has been since the beginning of the CDQ halibut program. The following table 1 shows how CDQ halibut changes are incorporated into the regulatory text.

These revisions correct the term “IFQ Registered Buyer” to read “Registered Buyer.” The term “IFQ” is removed from “IFQ Registered Buyer” everywhere it occurs in the regulatory text. With the inclusion of CDQ halibut regulatory text, it is necessary to make the term “Registered Buyer” more general. The Registered Buyer permit authorizes receipt of CDQ halibut in the same manner as IFQ halibut. This change is necessary to include “CDQ halibut” in the regulatory text that describes the functions of a Registered Buyer. Where only this change occurs in a paragraph, it is listed in Table 2, below. If a paragraph has more corrections than the “Registered Buyer” correction, that paragraph is included in either Tables 1 or 3.

These revisions shown in Table 3, below, include cross reference corrections, cross reference additions, improvements in text clarity, addition of an effective date of two paragraphs, removal of obsolete text, replacing “recordkeeping and reporting” with “R&R” for clarity and brevity, and correction of a typographic error.

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, determined that Amendments 72/64 are necessary for the conservation and management of the IFQ Pacific halibut and sablefish fisheries and that they are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Halibut Act, and other applicable laws.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

NMFS prepared an RIR/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for the proposed amendments that describes the management background, the purpose and need for action, the management alternatives, and the socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives. The public comment period ended on February 24, 2003. No comments on the economic impacts of the proposed rule were received.

NMFS is aware of no existing relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.

NMFS prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) pursuant to Section 604(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which describes the impact this final rule may have on small entities. The FRFA incorporates the IRFA and its findings. A copy of the FRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). A summary of the FRFA follows.

The actions included in this regulatory amendment would potentially affect all individuals, corporations or partnerships, or other collective entities holding QS. This action could also affect all six of the CDQ groups that hold halibut CDQ. At the end of the 2001 IFQ season, 3,485 persons (individuals, corporations, and other entities) held halibut QS; 872 persons held sablefish QS. In addition, all six of the CDQ groups have halibut CDQ allocations. A total of 270 individuals landed CDQ halibut in 2001 and may be affected by this regulation. NMFS/RAM issued 694 permits for Registered Buyers in 2001; of these, 215 reported landings.

An examination of limits on quota share holdings indicates that all of the halibut and sablefish fishing operations are small entities. CDQ operations are small entities because they are non-profits. In the absence of data on employment and affiliation, the registered buyers have been assumed to be small entities.

This regulation does not impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on the regulated small entities.

Three alternatives were considered to the action modifying PNOL requirements on fishermen. The status quo, maintaining the PNOL and six hour reporting requirements, was rejected because it did not address the concerns raised by industry with the existing rule. Complete elimination of the PNOL requirement was rejected because, although it would have reduced the burden on small entities, it would adversely affect data-collection, monitoring, and enforcement operations. A third alternative would have reduced the burden on fishermen by randomly applying the PNOL requirements to a sample of vessels. This alternative was rejected because it may have required a new “hail out” report from fishermen as they left port, and communication with fishermen at sea to let them know they had been randomly selected. IPHC port sampling may be adversely affected by this alternative. NOAA enforcement efforts would be complicated.

The NPFMC and NMFS considered one alternative to the status quo “offload window” between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. This would have extended the offload window requirements so that fishermen would have had to begin offloading between 6 a.m. and 12 a.m. This alternative would have reduced the burden on small fishing entities compared to the status quo. However, this alternative could adversely affect current port sampling techniques used by the IPHC and increase their overall staffing costs, and potentially increase the labor costs for Registered Buyers. Industry indicated to the Council during the development of this action that extending the offload window would not be necessary if the PNOL were modified.

The status quo was considered as an alternative to the action to relax the requirement that IFQ vessels check in at a NMFS certified port prior to leaving the jurisdiction of the Council, but it was rejected. The status quo would not have addressed industry concerns about the vessel clearance requirements. The preferred alternative will not compromise enforcement activity. Because enforcement personnel are not currently able to effectively determine catch quantity at the vessel clearance port and are unable to seal a vessel's hold without compromising vessel safety, no effective difference occurs between a verbal “departure report” and the verbal vessel clearance report given in a certified port.

The status quo was considered as an alternative to the consolidation of the PTR and the shipment reports, but was rejected. That alternative would not have addressed industry concerns about duplication in reporting requirements. The preferred alternative collects necessary information with fewer paperwork requirements.

This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which have been approved by OMB. These requirements are listed by OMB control number.

OMB No. 0648-0213: 20 minutes for a product transfer report, and 14 minutes for a vessel activity report.

OMB No. 0648-0272: 12 minutes for a prior notice of landing, 18 minutes for an IFQ/CDQ landing report, 6 minutes for IFQ dockside sales receipts, 15 minutes for an IFQ departure report, and 12 minutes for an IFQ transshipment authorization, 30 minutes for Registered Buyer's permit application, 30 minutes for CDQ halibut or IFQ landing card.

Response times include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. Send comments regarding these burden estimates, or any other aspect of these data collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) and to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 (Attention: NOAA Desk Officer).

In conclusion, these actions will improve the efficiency of data collection required under existing IFQ regulations and will implement recommendations received from industry, enforcement and management. Based on the foregoing conclusions, these revisions to R&R for the IFQ fisheries and CDQ halibut fishery will not substantively alter environmental impacts already analyzed within existing environmental documents.

The legislative authorities for these actions are the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Pub. L. 94-265, 16 U.S.C. 1801 (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (NPHA) Pub. L. 97-176, 16 U.S.C. 773c (c).