§ 1682 provides in part that any “rule, regulation, or order” issued by a federal agency to effectuate Title IX must be approved by the President in order to become effective. Consistent with this requirement, President Ford signed the Title IX regulations promulgated by HEW in 1975. EIA contends that the 1979 Policy Interpretation, including the Three-Part Test, is invalid because it lacked simüar presidential approval. The district court correctly rejected this contention as meritless. As with the APA’s notice and comment requirements, courts have held that the requirement of presidential approval does not apply to the issuance of interpretive guidelines. See, e.g., Cohen v. Brown Univ., 879 F.Supp. 185, 199 (D.R.I.1995), rev’d in part on other grounds, 101 F.3d 155 (1st Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). EIA’s efforts, moreover, to corral the fuü
holding that an order which purports to become final upon the happening of an event specified in the order is not a final order and the happening of the event does not operate to render the order final holding interpretation may not be inconsistent with regulation holding order granting a new trial is not a final appealable order because it does not terminate the action or any of the claims or parties in the action holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation holding that the 1979 policy interpretation need not be approved by the president in order to become effective as it is not a rule regulation or order