Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 60359

alternatives were not adopted. Thus it

has satisfied its mandate under the RFA.

3. The Air Tour Providers Have Not

Demonstrated That the Weighing of the

Interests Favors a Stay

The FAA, in enacting these rules is

carrying out the statutory mandate set

forth in Public Law 100–91—to

substantially restore natural quiet in the

GCNP. It has been 12 years since the

enactment of this legislation and the

FAA has attempted to work with the Air

Tour Providers, the Indian Tribes, the

environmental groups and the National

Park Service to come to a resolution

with regard to the means of

substantially restoring natural quiet.

The FAA believes that this rule achieves

the proper balance that Congress sought

in adopting Public Law 100–91 between

the interests of the Air Tour Providers

and those of the environmental interests

and makes significant gains in

substantial restoration of natural quiet.

See 65 FR 17713. This balance is

evidenced by the fact that the

government has been sued in the

District of Columbia Circuit Court of

Appeals for the United States by one

party (Air Tour Providers) claiming the

government has done too much in

effecting the goal of Public Law 100–91

and by another party (Grand Canyon

Trust, et al.) claiming the government

has not gone far enough in fulfilling the

statutory mandate. The Air Tour

Providers have not demonstrated why

their interests outweigh the interest

expressed by Congress in passing Public

Law 100–91.

D. Conclusion

Given that the Air Tour Providers

cannot prevail under either the public

interest test followed by the Department

of Transportation, or the Washington

Metropolitan test followed by the

Circuit Court, the FAA hereby denies

the Air Tour Providers’ Motion to Stay

the final rules.

Issued in Washington, DC on October 3,

2000.

Jane F. Garvey,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–25952 Filed 10–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. 00N–0085]

National Environmental Policy Act;

Food Contact Substance Notification

System; Confirmation of Effective Date

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of

effective date.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is confirming the

effective date of August 24, 2000, for the

direct final rule (DFR) that appeared in

the Federal Register of May 11, 2000 (65

FR 30352). The DFR amended FDA’s

regulations on environmental impact

considerations. This document confirms

the effective date of the DFR.

DATES: Effective date confirmed: August

24, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mitchell A. Cheeseman, Center for Food

Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–

215), Food and Drug Administration,

200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204,

202–418–3083.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a DFR

published in the Federal Register of

May 11, 2000 (65 FR 30352), FDA

amended its regulations on

environmental impact considerations as

part of the agency’s implementation of

the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA)

of 1997. FDAMA amended the Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act)

by establishing a notification process for

authorizing new uses of food additives

that are food contact substances. The

DFR amended the regulations in 21 CFR

25.20 to add to the list of those actions

that require an environmental

assessment allowing a notification

submitted under section 409(h) of the

act (21 U.S.C. 348(h)) to become

effective and in 21 CFR 25.32(i), (j), (k),

(q), and (r) to expand the existing

categorical exclusions from the

requirement of an environmental

assessment to include allowing a

notification submitted under section

409(h) of the act to become effective.

FDA solicited comments concerning

the DFR for a 75-day period ending July

25, 2000. FDA stated that the effective

date of the DFR would be on August 24,

2000, 30 days after the end of the

comment period, unless any significant

adverse comment was submitted to FDA

during the comment period.

FDA received only one comment

(from a trade association) on the DFR,

which reiterated the association’s views

presented in response to an agency

public meeting held prior to the

initiation of this rulemaking. FDA has

determined that the received comment

is not a significant adverse comment for

several reasons. First, in the preamble to

the DFR, FDA referenced the

association’s prior submission and

addressed its substance. Second, the

comment does not dispute (or even

directly address) the analysis presented

in the DFR. It raises no new arguments

and provides no new information for the

agency’s consideration. Finally, the

association expressly characterizes the

comment as not a ‘‘significant adverse

comment’’ and supports the rule

becoming effective as drafted.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under

authority delegated to the Commissioner

of Food and Drugs, the amendments

issued thereby became effective August

24, 2000.

Dated: October 3, 2000.

Margaret M. Dotzel,

Associate Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 00–26022 Filed 10–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD11–00–009]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Mokelumne River, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation

from regulations.

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eleventh

Coast Guard District has approved a

temporary deviation to the regulations

governing the opening of the Millers

Ferry swing bridge, mile 12.1, over the

Mokelumne River at Walnut Grove, CA.

The approval specifies that the bridge

need not open for vessel traffic from 8

p.m. to 6 a.m., October 9 through

October 13, 2000. The purpose of this

deviation is to allow Sacramento County

to perform essential maintenance on the

bridge.

DATES: Effective period of the deviation

is 8 p.m., October 9, 2000 through 6

a.m., October 14, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section,

Eleventh Coast Guard District, Building

50–6, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA

94501–5100, phone (510) 437–3516.