Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 70675

Emergency Action

This rulemaking is necessary on an

emergency basis to prevent END from

spreading to other States. Under these

circumstances, the Administrator has

determined that prior notice and

opportunity for public comment are

contrary to the public interest and that

there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553

for making this rule effective less than

30 days after publication in the Federal

Register.

We will consider comments that we

receive during the comment period for

this interim rule (see DATES above).

After the comment period closes, we

will publish another document in the

Federal Register . The document will

include a discussion of any comments

we receive and any amendments we are

making to the rule.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866. For this action,

the Office of Management and Budget

has waived its review under Executive

Order 12866.

This rule amends the END regulations

by adding Los Angeles County and

portions of Riverside and San

Bernardino Counties, CA, to the list of

quarantined areas. The regulations

restrict the interstate movement of birds,

poultry, products, and materials that

could spread END from the quarantined

area.

This emergency situation makes

timely compliance with section 604 of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601 et seq.) impracticable. We are

currently assessing the potential

economic effects of this action on small

entities. Based on that assessment, we

will either certify that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities or

publish a final regulatory flexibility

analysis.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

under No. 10.025 and is subject to

Executive Order 12372, which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part

3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State

and local laws and regulations that are

in conflict with this rule; (2) has no

retroactive effect; and (3) does not

require administrative proceedings

before parties may file suit in court

challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no new

information collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 82

Animal diseases, Poultry and poultry

products, Quarantine, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Accordingly, 9 CFR part 82 is

amended as follows:

PART 82-EXOTIC NEWCASTLE

DISEASE (END) AND CHLAMYDIOSIS;

POULTRY DISEASE CAUSED BY

SALMONELLA ENTERITIDIS

SEROTYPE ENTERITIDIS

1. The authority citation for part 82 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8304-8306 , 8308, 8313,

and 8315; 7 CFR 2. 22, 2.80, and 371.4.

2. In § 82.3, paragraph (c) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 82.3 Quarantined areas.

(c) The following areas are

quarantined because of END:

California

Los Angeles, Riverside, and San

Bernardino Counties. All of Los Angeles

County. That portion of San Bernardino

County south of State Highway 58 and

bounded by an imaginary line beginning

at the intersection of the Kern County

line and State Highway 58; then

southeast along State Highway 58 to

Interstate Highway 15; then south along

Interstate Highway 15 to State Highway

247; then southeast along State Highway

247 to State Highway 62; then south

along State Highway 62 to the Riverside

County line. That portion of Riverside

County south of the Riverside County

line and bounded by an imaginary line

beginning at the intersection of State

Highway 62 and the Riverside County

line; then south along State Highway 62

to Interstate Highway 10; then southeast

along Interstate Highway 10 to State

Highway 111 (Golf Center Parkway);

then south along State Highway 111 to

State Highway 86; then southeast along

State Highway 86 to the Imperial

County line.

Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of

November, 2002.

Peter Fernandez,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 02-29987 Filed 11-25-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-34-P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket No. EE-RM-96-400]

RIN 1904-AB11

Energy Efficiency Program for Certain

Commercial and Industrial Equipment:

Extension of Time for Electric Motor

Manufacturers To Certify Compliance

With Energy Efficiency Standards

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION : Final rule.

SUMMARY : This procedural rule amends

the compliance certification regulations

by revising the deadline date for all

electric motor manufacturers to certify

compliance to the Department of Energy

that their motors meet the applicable

energy efficiency standards.

DATES : This rule is effective November

26, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE-41,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585-0121, telephone

(202) 586-8654, telefax (202) 586-4617,

or: jim.raba@ee.doe.gov.

Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of General Counsel,

Mail Station GC-72, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-

0103, (202) 586-7432, telefax (202) 586-

4116, or: francine.pinto@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Introduction

Section 345(c) of the Energy Policy

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA)

requires "manufacturers to certify,

through an independent testing or

certification program nationally

recognized in the United States, that

such motor meets the applicable

[nominal full load efficiency standard]"

(42 U.S.C. 6316(c)). The Department of

Energy (DOE) construes the statutory

language to provide manufacturers with

two equivalent ways to fulfill the

certification requirement: (1) A

EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 62
70676 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

manufacturer may certify, through an

independent testing program nationally

recognized in the United States, that a

covered motor meets the standard; or (2)

a manufacturer may certify, through an

independent certification program

nationally recognized in the United

States, that a covered motor meets the

standard. DOE is of the view that

section 345(c) does not require

preference for one program over the

other.

The procedures by which a

manufacturer may certify the energy

efficiency of the manufacturer's electric

motors, through either a certification

program or an accredited laboratory, are

set forth in 10 CFR 431.24(a)(5). Section

431.123(a) in 10 CFR part 431 currently

provides that, beginning on June 7,

2002, no electric motor "subject to an

energy efficiency standard set forth in

subpart C of this part" may be

distributed in commerce unless it is

covered by a Compliance Certification

that the manufacturer has submitted to

DOE.

II. Background

On November 9, 2001, DOE published

a notice of final rulemaking in the

Federal Register that amended 10 CFR

431.123(a) to change the deadline for

submission of compliance certifications

from November 5, 2001, to June 7, 2002

(66 FR 56604). That action was taken

because there was insufficient

independent testing laboratory capacity

for testing the thousands of basic

models of electric motors covered by

EPCA's efficiency standards. The notice

of final rulemaking reported that a

number of motor manufacturers had

elected to base the certification of their

motors' energy efficiency on testing

conducted in a National Voluntary

Laboratory Accreditation Program

(NVLAP) accredited laboratory.

However, about half of the motor

manufacturers had elected to base their

compliance on a certification program

that DOE classifies as nationally

recognized. Many of those

manufacturers have committed

resources in anticipation of certification

programs being recognized by DOE. As

of the November 9, 2001 date of

publication of the notice of final

rulemaking, there were no certification

programs nationally recognized for the

purposes of section 345(c) of EPCA.

Therefore, it was impossible for

manufacturers electing to use a

nationally recognized certification

program, as allowed by EPCA, to test

and certify their motors for energy

efficiency before November 5, 2001.

At that time, DOE believed that the

extension of the certification deadline to

June 7, 2002, would provide sufficient

time for all manufacturers to come into

compliance with EPCA's requirements.

The new deadline was based on DOE's

belief that it would be able to promptly

complete action on the petitions for

certification program recognition that

had been submitted by CSA

International and Underwriters

Laboratories, Inc., and that such action

could be completed in a timeframe that

would allow manufacturers, if they so

chose, to use an approved certification

program and submit required

certifications to DOE by the June 7, 2002

deadline. DOE had published for public

comment the petition of CSA

International on April 26, 2000 (65 FR

24429), and the petition of Underwriters

Laboratories, Inc. on October 3, 2001 (66

FR 50355).

III. Discussion of Rule Amendment

DOE was not able to complete action

on these two petitions for certification

program recognition by June 7, 2002.

DOE published its interim

determinations to approve the CSA

International and Underwriters

Laboratories, Inc., petitions for

certification program recognition on

July 5, 2002. 67 FR 45018 and 45028.

Under the certification program

recognition process set forth in 10 CFR

431.28(a)-(f), after the period for public

comment for the interim determinations

closes, DOE will review any comments

and information submitted, as well as

any responsive statements of the

petitioners. DOE then will publish a

final determination on the petitions. In

the meantime, however, the situation

remains the same as it was in November

2001 when DOE granted the previous

extension of the deadline in 10 CFR

431.123(a). That is, a number of motor

manufacturers have elected to base the

certification of their motors' energy

efficiency on a certification program

that DOE classifies as nationally

recognized; many of those

manufacturers have committed

resources in anticipation of certification

programs being recognized by DOE;

there are no certification programs

nationally recognized for the purposes

of section 345(c) of EPCA; it is

impossible for manufacturers electing to

use a nationally recognized certification

program, as allowed by EPCA, to test

and certify their motors for energy

efficiency before June 7, 2002; and there

is insufficient independent testing

laboratory capacity for testing the

thousands of basic models of electric

motors covered by EPCA's efficiency

standards. Therefore, DOE is amending

section 431.123(a) to further extend the

deadline for motor manufacturers to

certify compliance with EPCA.

In view of the foregoing, DOE today

amends 10 CFR 431.123 to replace

"June 7, 2002" with a phrase crossreferencing a new paragraph (g), which

establishes a new compliance date. New

paragraph (g) of 10 CFR 431.123

provides that the new compliance date

is April 30, 2003, or the date that is 120

days after the date on which DOE

publishes its final determinations for

the CSA International and Underwriters

Laboratories, Inc. petitions, whichever

is earlier. The rule further provides that

if DOE publishes the final

determinations for the CSA

International and Underwriters

Laboratories, Inc. petitions on different

dates, the compliance certification date

is the date that is 120 days after the date

of publication of the earlier final

determination. DOE believes this

approach will result in certifications by

manufacturers using certification

programs at the earliest possible time.

While establishing April 30, 2003 as the

outside limit on the extension, DOE

expects to issue final determinations on

the two petitions in time to allow

manufacturers to come into compliance

before that date.

The Secretary of Energy has approved

issuance of this final rule.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory

Review

A. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act

DOE reviewed today's rule under the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the

regulations of the Council on

Environmental Quality, 40 CFR parts

1500-1508, and DOE's regulations on

compliance with NEPA, 10 CFR part

1021. DOE has determined that today's

rule is covered by the Categorical

Exclusion found at paragraph A6 of

appendix A to subpart D of DOE's NEPA

regulations, which applies to

rulemakings that are strictly procedural.

Accordingly, neither an environmental

assessment nor an environmental

impact statement has been prepared.

B. Review Under Executive Order 12866,

"Regulatory Planning and Review"

Today's regulatory action has been

determined not to be a "significant

regulatory action" under Executive

Order 12866, "Regulatory Planning and

Review" (58 FR 51735). Accordingly,

today's action was not subject to review

under the Executive Order by the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs in

the Office of Management and Budget.

EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 62
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 228 /Tuesday, November 26, 2002 /Rules and Regulations 70677

C. Review Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 601, et seq., requires that a

federal agency prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis for any rule for

which the agency is required to publish

a general notice of proposed

rulemaking. Today's rule is a rule of

agency procedure that is exempt from

the Administrative Procedure Act's

notice and comment requirements.

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility

analysis has not been prepared.

D. Review Under Executive Order

13132, "Federalism"

Executive Order 13132, "Federalism"

(64 FR 43255) requires federal agencies

to develop an accountable process to

ensure meaningful and timely input by

State and local officials in the

development of regulatory policies that

have "federalism implications." Policies

that have federalism implications are

defined in the Executive Order 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." On March 14,

2000, DOE published a statement of

policy describing the intergovernmental

consultation process it will follow in the

development of such regulations (65 FR

13735). DOE has examined today's rule

and determined that it does 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. No further action

is required by the Executive Order.

E. Review Under Executive Order 12630,

"Governmental Actions and

Interference With Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights"

DOE has determined that this

regulation would not result in any

takings which might require

compensation under the Fifth

Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

F. Review Under the Paperwork

Reduction Act

No new collection of information will

be imposed by this rulemaking.

Accordingly, no clearance by the Office

of Management and Budget is required

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

U.S.C. 3501, et seq.).

G. Review Under Executive Order

12988, "Civil justice Reform"

With respect to the review of existing

regulations and the promulgation of

new regulations, section 3 of Executive

Order 12988, "Civil Justice Reform" (61

FR 4729) imposes on Executive agencies

the general duty to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity; write regulations

to minimize litigation; provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct

rather than a general standard; and

promote simplification and burden

reduction. Section 3(c) of Executive

Order 12988 requires Executive agencies

to review regulations in light of

applicable standards in section 3(a) and

section 3(b) to determine whether they

are met. DOE has completed the

required review and determined that, to

the extent permitted by law, this final

rule meets the relevant standards of

Executive Order 12988.

H. Review Under Section 32 of the

Federal Energy Administration Act

Today's final rule does not

incorporate commercial standards by

reference. Therefore, section 32 of the

Federal Energy Administration Act does

not apply to today's final rule.

1. Review Under the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act

DOE has determined that today's final

rule does not include a federal mandate

that may result in estimated costs of

$100 million or more to state, local or

to tribal governments in the aggregate or

to the private sector. Therefore, the

requirements of Title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.

104-4) do not apply.

J. Review Under the Treasury and

General Government Appropriations

Act, 1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and

General Government Appropriations

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires

federal agencies to issue a Family

Policymaking Assessment for any

proposed rule or policy that may affect

family well-being. Today's final rule

would not have any impact on the

autonomy or integrity of the family as

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has

concluded that it is not necessary to

prepare a Family Policymaking

Assessment.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211,

"Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use"

Executive Order 13211, "Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use," (66 FR 28355,

May 22, 2001) requires federal agencies

to prepare and submit to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs

(OIRA), Office of Management and

Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for

any proposed significant energy action.

A "significant energy action" is defined

as any action by an agency that

promulgates or is expected to lead to the

promulgation of a final rule, and that:

(1) Is a significant regulatory action

under Executive Order 12866, or any

successor order; and (2) is likely to have

a significant adverse effect on the

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or

(3) is designated by the Administrator of

OIRA as a significant energy action. For

any proposed significant energy action,

the agency must give a detailed

statement of any adverse effects on

energy supply, distribution, or use

should the proposed action be

implemented, and of reasonable

alternatives to the action and their

expected benefits on energy supply,

distribution, and use.

Today's final rule would not have any

adverse effects on the supply,

distribution, or use of energy.

L. Review Under the Administrative

Procedure Act

Today's final rule is not subject to

requirements for prior notice and

opportunity for public comment

because it is procedural in nature.

However, to the extent that 5 U.S.C.

553(b) may apply to this rulemaking,

DOE finds that is impracticable and

contrary to the public interest to publish

prior notice because it is impossible for

manufacturers who elected to use a

nationally recognized certification

program, as allowed by EPCA, to

comply with the certification

requirement by the June 7, 2002

deadline, and because regulated

manufacturers should be relieved as

promptly as possible of the threat of

potential enforcement of the June 7,

2002 deadline, with which it was

impossible for them to comply. This

situation also warrants DOE making this

final rule effective upon publication in

the Federal Register.

M. Review Under the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will

report to Congress on the promulgation

of today's rule prior to its effective date.

The report will state that it has been

determined that the rule is not a "major

rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

Administrative practice and

procedure, Energy conservation,

EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 62
70678 Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 228 /Tuesday, November 26, 2002 /Rules and Regulations

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Issued in Washington, DC, on November

18, 2002.

David K. Garman,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, part 431 of chapter II of title

10, Code of Federal Regulations, is

amended as follows:

PART 431 -ENERGY EFFICIENCY

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL

EQUIPMENT

1. The authority citation for part 431

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6311-6316.

2. Section 431.123 is amended in

paragraph (a), in the first sentence, by

removing the phrase "Beginning June 7,

2002" and adding in its place the phrase

"Beginning on the compliance date

specified in paragraph (g) of this

section", and by adding a new

paragraph (g) to read as follows:

§ 431.123 Compliance certification.

*

(g) Compliance date. The compliance

date for purposes of this section is

February 28, 2003, or the date that is

120 days after the date of publication in

the Federal Register of DOE's final

determinations on petitions for

certification program recognition

submitted by CSA International and

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.,

whichever is earlier. If DOE publishes

the final determinations on different

dates, the compliance certification date

for purposes of this section shall be the

date that is 120 days after the date of

publication of the earlier final

determination.

[FR Doc. 02-29969 Filed 11-25-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000-NM-406-AD; Amendment

39-12962; AD 2002-23-18]

RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives ; McDonnell

Douglas Model MD-11 and -11 F

Airplanes Equipped with Collins LRA900 Radio Altimeters

AGENCY : Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION : Final rule.

SUMMARY : This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes

equipped with certain Collins LRA-900

radio altimeters, that currently requires

a revision to the Airplane Flight Manual

to prohibit autopilot coupled autoland

operations in certain conditions; or, for

certain airplanes, replacement of certain

Collins LRA-900 radio altimeters with

Collins LRA-700 radio altimeters. This

amendment also requires a one-time

inspection to determine whether a

Collins LRA-900 radio altimeter

receiver/transmitter with a certain part

number is installed, and modification of

such a radio altimeter. This amendment

is prompted by reports indicating that a

fault in Collins LRA-900 radio

altimeters having a certain part number

could result in an incorrect and

unbounded output of radio altitude to

other airplanes. The actions specified by

this AD are intended to prevent an

undetected anomalous radio altitude

signal that is passed along to the flare

control law of the flight control

computer, which could cause the

airplane to flare too high or too low

during landing, and consequently result

in a hard landing. This action is

intended to address the identified

unsafe condition.

DATES : Effective December 31, 2002.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of December

31, 2002.

ADDRESSES : The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Aircraft

Group, Long Beach Division, 3855

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,

California 90846, Attention: Data and

Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A

(D800-0024). This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

Suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brett Portwood, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California

90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5350;

fax (562) 627-5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)

by superseding AD 98-24-51,

amendment 39-10929 (63 FR 66422,

December 2, 1998), which is applicable

to certain McDonnell Douglas Model

MD-11 series airplanes equipped with

certain Collins LRA-900 radio

altimeters having certain part numbers,

was published in the Federal Register

on May 15, 2002 (67 FR 34637). The

action proposed to continue to require

a revision to the Airplane Flight Manual

to prohibit autopilot coupled autoland

operations in certain conditions; or, for

certain airplanes, replacement of certain

Collins LRA-900 radio altimeters with

Collins LRA-700 radio altimeters. The

action also proposed to require a onetime inspection to determine whether a

Collins LRA-900 radio altimeter

receiver/transmitter with a certain part

number is installed, and modification of

such a radio altimeter.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

single comment received.

Request To Change Applicability

The commenter suggests that the

applicability in the proposed AD be

changed from "McDonnell Douglas

Model MD-11 and -11F Airplanes

Equipped with Collins LRA-900 Radio

Altimeters," to "McDonnell Douglas

Model MD-11 and -11F Airplanes

Equipped with Collins LRA-900, Part

Number (P/N) 822-0334-220, Radio

Altimeters." The commenter states that

this would prevent operators of MD-11

airplanes with Collins radio altimeters

having other P/Ns from performing an

unnecessary inspection to comply with

the proposed AD.

The FAA acknowledges, but does not

agree with, the commenter's suggestion.

The inspection to determine if airplanes

have the radio altimeter with the P/N

specified above is required by paragraph

(b) of this AD, and the affected P/N is

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this AD.

Operators can ascertain what the

affected P/N is, and if the radio

altimeters do not have the affected P/N,

no further action is required by this AD.

Therefore, no change to the applicability

in this final rule is necessary.

Explanation of Change Made to

Proposed AD

The FAA has clarified the inspection

requirement contained in the proposed

AD. Whereas the proposed AD specified

a visual inspection, the FAA has revised

EE-RM-96-400 COMMENT 62