The Rijksluchtvaartdienst (RLD), which is the airworthiness authority for the Netherlands, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on Fokker Model F27 Mark 050 series airplanes equipped with certain Pratt & Whitney Canada Model PW127B engines. The RLD advises that there have been several incidents of inadvertent autofeathering of the propellers, due to interruption of the torque signal between torque sensor No. 1 and the auto-feathering unit (AFU). The current electrical connectors on the torque sensor and on the wiring harness between the torque sensor and the AFU allow movement between the pins and sockets, causing fretting damage, which can lead to interruption of the signal between torque sensor No. 1 and the AFU. This condition, if not corrected, could result in additional incidents of inadvertent autofeathering of the propellers, which could lead to loss of engine power and loss of control of the airplane.

Fokker Services B.V. has issued Service Bulletin SBF50-61-019, dated July 11, 1997. The Fokker Service Bulletin refers to Pratt & Whitney Canada Service Bulletin No. 21533, dated December 16, 1996, as an additional source of service information. The Pratt & Whitney Canada service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the torque sensor with one with an improved connector and replacing two connectors on the electrical wiring harness with improved connectors. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the Pratt & Whitney Canada service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. The RLD classified the Pratt & Whitney Canada service bulletin as mandatory and issued Dutch airworthiness directive 1997-090(A), dated August 29, 1997, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the Netherlands.

This airplane model is manufactured in the Netherlands and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.19) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the RLD has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the RLD, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design that may be registered in the United States at some time in the future, this AD is being issued to prevent inadvertent autofeathering of the propeller caused by interruption of the torque signal between torque sensor No. 1 and the AFU, which could result in loss of engine power and loss of control of the airplane. This AD requires replacing torque sensor No. 1 with one having an improved connector and replacing the electrical connectors on the wiring harness with improved connectors. The actions are required to be accomplished in accordance with the Pratt & Whitney Canada service bulletin described previously.

None of the Fokker Model F27 Mark 050 series airplanes, equipped with Pratt & Whitney Canada Model PW127B engines, which are affected by this action, are on the U.S. Register. All airplanes included in the applicability of this rule currently are operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign registry; therefore, they are not directly affected by this AD action. However, the FAA considers that this rule is necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed in the event that any of these subject airplanes are imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future.

Should an affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would require approximately 2 work hours to accomplish the required actions, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. The cost of required parts would be approximately $30,000. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD would be $30,120 per airplane.

Since this AD action does not affect any airplane that is currently on the U.S. register, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, prior notice and public procedures hereon are unnecessary and the amendment may be made effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

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

Submit comments using the following format:

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

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

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2001-NM-127-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

On October 31, 2000, 2 the Commission published for comment proposed amendments to Rule 1.32 that would permit an FCM, in computing the amount of customer funds required to be held in segregated accounts pursuant to Section 4d of the Act, to offset a net liquidating deficit or a net debit balance in a customer's commodity trading account with securities deposited by such customer to margin or guarantee his account (the “proposing release”). 3 The comment period expired on December 1, 2000. The National Futures Association (“NFA”) filed the only comment letter. NFA supported the proposed amendments. The Commission is, therefore, adopting the amendments as proposed.

Section 4d of the Act requires, among other things, that an FCM segregate from its own assets all money, securities, and other property held for customers as margin for their commodity futures and option contracts, as well as gains accruing to such customers from open futures and option positions. The statute also prohibits an FCM from using the money, securities, or property of one customer to margin or secure futures or option positions of another customer.

Commission Regulations 1.20 through 1.30 implement the segregation of funds provisions of Section 4d. Rule 1.32, a related recordkeeping regulation, requires each FCM to prepare a daily computation which shows: (1) The amount of funds that an FCM is required to segregate for customers who are trading on U.S. commodity exchanges pursuant to the Act and Commission regulations; (2) the amount of funds the FCM actually has in segregated accounts; and (3) the amount, if any, of the FCM's residual interest in the customer funds segregated. The computations required by Rule 1.32 are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “segregation computation”. 4

Currently, in preparing the segregation computation, an FCM may offset a net liquidating deficit or a net debit balance in a customer's commodity trading account with U.S. Treasury obligations that are deposited by such customer to margin or guarantee his account. An FCM is not permitted, however, to offset a net liquidating deficit or net debit balance by the value of any other readily marketable securities deposited by the customer. 5

The amendments to Rule 1.32 permit an FCM, in computing the amount of customer funds required to be held in segregated accounts pursuant to Section 4d of the Act, to offset a net liquidating deficit or net debit balance in a customer's account with securities that have a “ready market” as defined by SEC Rule 15c3-1(c)(11). SEC Rule 15c3-1(c)(11) defines “ready market” to include a recognized established securities market in which there exist independent bona fide offers to buy and sell so that a price reasonably related to the last sales price or current bona fide competitive bid and offer quotations can be determined for a particular security almost instantaneously and where payment will be received in settlement of a sale at such price within a relatively short time conforming to trade custom. 6 Therefore the amendments expand the securities against which an FCM could offset a customer's net liquidating deficit or net debit balance from just U.S. Treasuries to any security that has a ready market as defined in the SEC's rule. 7

The amount of the offset is limited to the market value of the securities, less applicable haircuts set forth in SEC Rule 15c3-1(c)(2)(vi). 8 Furthermore, an FCM is required to maintain a security interest in the securities, including the written authorization to liquidate the securities at the FCM's discretion, and to segregate the securities in a safekeeping account with a bank, trust company, clearing organization of a contract market, or another FCM. 9

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601-611 (1994), requires that agencies, in adopting rules, consider the impact of those rules on small businesses. The Commission has previously established certain definitions of “small entities” to be used by the Commission in evaluating the impact of its rules on such entities. 10 The Commission has previously determined that, based upon the fiduciary nature of FCM/customer relationships, as well as the requirement that FCMs meet minimum financial requirements, FCMs should be excluded from the definition of small entity. 11 In this regard, the Commission notes that it did not receive any comments regarding the RFA implications of the amendments to Rule 1.32.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (Supp. I 1995), imposes certain requirements on federal agencies (including the Commission) to review rules and rule amendments to evaluate the information collection burden that they impose on the public. The Commission believes that the amendments to Rule 1.32 do not impose an information collection burden on the public.

The Administrative Procedure Act provides that the required publication of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, but provides an exception for “a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.”  12 Amended Rule 1.32 will relieve current restrictions imposed upon FCMs by permitting an FCM, in computing the amount of customer funds required to be held in segregated accounts pursuant to Section 4d of the Act, to offset a net liquidating deficit or debit ledger balance in a customer's account with readily marketable securities that were deposited by such customer to margin or guarantee the futures and option positions in such customer's account. Accordingly, the Commission has determined to make Rule 1.32 effective immediately.

Section 15 of the Act, as amended by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before issuing a new regulation under the Act. The amended section 15 further specifies that costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: protection of market participants and the public; efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; price discovery; sound risk management practices; and other public interest considerations.

The Commission has considered the amendments in light of the factors listed above and has determined to adopt the amendments as proposed. In this regard, the amendments to Rule 1.32 are expected to increase the efficiency and competitiveness of FCMs by reducing the amount of capital that such FCMs are obligated to contribute to customer segregation accounts to cover deficit or debit balances when the deficits or debits may be offset by readily marketable securities deposited as margin by customers. Furthermore, the amendments are not expected to have a significant adverse impact on the protections currently afforded customers and market participants as FCMs will continue to be subject to the Commission's requirements regarding the segregation of customer funds and other financial requirements.

Brokers, Commodity Futures, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections are under section 420 of the Internal Revenue Code.

As published, the final regulations contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

Accordingly, the publication of the final regulations (TD 8948), that were the subject of FR Doc. 01-15255, is corrected as follows:

1. On page 32900, column 1, amendatory instruction Paragraph 1., lines 2 and 3, the language “for part 1 continues to read in part as follows:” is corrected to read “for part 1 is amended by adding a new entry in numerical order to read in part as follows:”.

2. On page 32900, column 1, the authority citation is corrected to read as follows:

This document amends 26 CFR parts 1 and 301 to provide modified rules relating to the disclosure of certain reportable transactions by corporate investors on their Federal corporate income tax returns under section 6011 and the registration of confidential corporate tax shelters under section 6111.

On February 28, 2000, the IRS issued temporary and proposed regulations regarding section 6011 (TD 8877, REG-103735-00), section 6111 (TD 8876, REG-110311-98), and section 6112 (TD 8875, REG-103736-00) (collectively, the February regulations). The February regulations were published in the Federal Register (65 FR 11205, 65 FR 11215, 65 FR 11211) on March 2, 2000. On August 11, 2000, the IRS issued temporary and proposed regulations regarding sections 6011, 6111, and 6112 (TD 8896, REG-103735-00, REG-110311-98, REG-103736-00) (collectively, the August regulations). The August regulations were published in the Federal Register (65 FR 49909) on August 16, 2000, modifying the February regulations.

Based on comments that have been received, the IRS and Treasury have determined that certain additional interim changes to the temporary and proposed regulations are warranted. The changes in the proposed rules are published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register .

These interim changes are intended to assist taxpayers and ease tax administration by simplifying and clarifying certain provisions of the regulations, addressing certain practical problems relating to compliance with the regulations, and making certain other changes relating to the scope of the regulations. The IRS and Treasury continue to evaluate all the comments and recommendations received, and other changes may be made in the final regulations.

Under section 6011, reportable transactions include listed transactions and transactions that have at least two of six specified characteristics. One of the characteristics is present if the expected characterization of any significant aspect of the transaction for Federal income tax purposes differs from the expected characterization of such aspect of the transaction for purposes of taxation of any party to the transaction in another country. Commentators have suggested that the inclusion of this characteristic causes the regulations to be overinclusive. Based on these comments and further review, the IRS and Treasury have removed this characteristic from the temporary and proposed regulations.

The temporary regulations under section 6011 provide that a transaction, other than a listed transaction, is not a reportable transaction if one of four exceptions is satisfied. One exception applies if the taxpayer has participated in the transaction in the ordinary course of its business in a form consistent with customary commercial practice, and the taxpayer reasonably determines that there is a long-standing and generally accepted understanding that the expected Federal income tax benefits (taking into account any combination of intended tax consequences) from the transaction are allowable under the Code for substantially similar transactions.

Commentators have requested additional guidance on the meaning of the phrase “long-standing and generally accepted” that is contained in this exception. This exception is intended to apply to transactions the structure of which is customary and the intended tax treatment of which is widely known and generally accepted as properly allowable under the Internal Revenue Code. Ordinarily, a determination as to whether the intended tax treatment of a transaction has achieved such a level of general acceptance cannot be made unless information relating to the structure and tax treatment of substantially similar transactions has been in the public domain and widely known for a period of years. However, the applicability of this exception does not depend on such general acceptance having existed for any minimum period of time. Accordingly, the IRS and Treasury have eliminated the phrase “long-standing” from the exception and have added language to clarify the scope of the exception. Corresponding changes have been made in § 301.6111-2T.

This exception generally provides that a transaction, other than a listed transaction, is not reportable if the taxpayer reasonably determines that there is no reasonable basis under Federal tax law for denial of any significant portion of the expected Federal income tax benefits from the transaction. Commentators have requested additional guidance on the no reasonable basis determination. Accordingly, the regulations clarify that for purposes of this exception, whether the IRS would have a reasonable basis for its position is to be determined by applying the same standard as that applicable to taxpayers under § 1.6662-3(b)(3). Thus, the reasonable basis standard is not satisfied by an IRS position that would be merely arguable or that would constitute merely a colorable claim. The determination of whether the IRS would have such a reasonable basis is qualitative in nature and does not depend on any percentage or other quantitative assessment of the likelihood that the taxpayer would ultimately prevail if a significant portion of the expected tax benefits were disallowed by the IRS. Corresponding changes have been made to newly redesignated § 301.6111-2T(b)(4)(i).

Commentators have suggested that the economic substance test, as articulated in § 301.6111-2T(b)(3), may encompass transactions for which registration pursuant to section 6111(d) or list maintenance under section 6112 would not be appropriate. Further, the IRS and Treasury believe that substantially all transactions encompassed by the economic substance test for which registration and list maintenance are appropriate will constitute other tax structured transactions within the meaning of § 301.6111-2T(b)(4). Accordingly, the economic substance test as described in § 301.6111-2T(b)(3) is removed from the temporary and proposed regulations under section 6111.

Section 301.6111-2T(c)(3) contains a presumption that, unless facts and circumstances clearly indicate otherwise, an offer is not considered made under conditions of confidentiality if the tax shelter promoter provides express written authorization to each offeree permitting the offeree (and each employee, representative, or other agent of such offeree) to disclose the structure and tax aspects of the transaction to any and all persons, without limitation of any kind on such disclosure. There has been a request to clarify the phrase “to disclose the structure and tax aspects of the transaction.” Accordingly, the IRS and Treasury have added language to clarify that this phrase is to be construed broadly and includes all materials (including opinions or other tax analyses) that are provided to the offeree related to the structure and tax aspects of the transaction.

The August regulations provided that the Form 8264, “Application for Registration of a Tax Shelter,” was to be filed with the Kansas City Service Center. Recently, the Service issued Announcement 2001-62 (2001-24 I.R.B. 1337), instructing taxpayers to file these forms with the Ogden Service Center. The instructions to Form 8264 will be revised to reflect the change in filing location. Accordingly, the regulations are amended to provide that the Form 8264 is to be filed as prescribed in the instructions to the form.

The regulations are applicable August 2, 2001. However, in general, taxpayers may rely on the regulations after February 28, 2000.

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because these regulations impose no new collection of information on small entities, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, these temporary regulations will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

The principal author of these regulations is Danielle M. Grimm, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.

On April 5, 2001, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Fireworks Displays, Chester River, Kent Island Narrows, Maryland, in the Federal Register (66 FR 18056). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested and none was held.

At various times throughout the year, fireworks displays are held over the waters of the Chester River, Kent Island Narrows, Maryland. The events consist of pyrotechnic displays fired from a barge positioned north of Kent Island Narrows, Maryland. A fleet of spectator vessels gathers nearby to view the fireworks displays. Due to the dangers inherent in fireworks displays, vessel traffic will need to be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of spectators and transiting vessels.

There have been no changes made in the Final Rule, as we received no comments on the NPRM.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979).

Although this rule will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Chester River during the events, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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

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

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the effected portions of the Chester River during the event.

Although this rule will prevent traffic from transiting or anchoring in a portion of the Chester River during the events, the effect of this regulation will not be significant because of the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. No assistance was requested by any small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction.

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 law 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 of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in the 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 and direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Governments and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

We prepared an “Environmental Assessment” in accordance with Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, and determined that this rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The “Environmental Assessment” and “Finding of No Significant Impact” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. In keeping with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM and for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The historical reenactment will take place on August 11 and 12, 2001. The event will consist of a mock amphibious landing and beach assault, involving 5 Navy personnel carriers and various support vessels. The special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, support vessels, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. In addition, advance notifications will be made via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers.

The Calvert Marine Museum will sponsor “The Cradle of Invasion”, a naval amphibious landing historical reenactment, on August 11 and August 12, 2000. The event will consist of 5 vintage U.S. Navy vessels following a pre-planned route from a pier south of Point Patience to an amphibious landing site north of Point Patience on the waters of the Patuxent River near Solomons, Maryland. A large fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of spectators and transiting vessels.

The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Patuxent River near Solomons, Maryland. The temporary special local regulations will be enforced from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. eastern time on August 11 and August 12, 2001 and will restrict general navigation in the regulated areas during the event. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated areas. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).

Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting portions of the Patuxent River during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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

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

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the effected portions of the Patuxent River during the event.

Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting portions of the Patuxent River during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant because of the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this temporary rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the address listed under ADDRESSES. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

This 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 law or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern 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 and direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Governments and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

We prepared an “Environmental Assessment” in accordance with Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, and determined that this rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The “Environmental Assessment” and “Finding of No Significant Impact” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

The City of Baltimore will sponsor the Defender's Day fireworks display on September 8, 2001 over the waters of the Patapsco River, Baltimore, Maryland. The fireworks display will be launched from a barge positioned within the regulated area. A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather nearby to view the aerial display. In order to ensure the safety of spectators and transiting vessels, 33 CFR 100.515 will be in effect for the duration of the event. Under provisions of 33 CFR 100.515, a vessel may not enter the regulated area unless it receives permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Spectator vessels may anchor outside the regulated area but may not block a navigable channel.

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

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. In keeping with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM and for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The Coast Guard received the request for special local regulations on July 12, 2001. We were notified of the need for special local regulations with insufficient time to publish a NPRM, allow for comments, and publish a final rule prior to the event on August 8, 2001. Because of the danger inherent in fireworks displays, special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of spectators and transiting vessels. For safety reasons, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. In addition, there will be extensive advance notifications made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

On August 8, 2001, the National Aquarium in Baltimore will sponsor a fireworks display above the waters of the Inner Harbor, Patapsco River. The fireworks will be launched from a barge anchored in the Inner Harbor. A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather near the event site to view the aerial demonstration. To provide for the safety of spectators and other transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area during the fireworks display.

The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Inner Harbor, Patapsco River, Baltimore, Maryland. The regulated area is a 140′ radius around the fireworks barge. The temporary special local regulations will be in effect from 9:15 p.m. to 10 p.m. eastern time on August 8, 2001. The effect will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the event. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of spectators and transiting vessels.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979).

Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of the Inner Harbor, Patapsco River during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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

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

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the effected portions of the Inner Harbor, Patapsco River during the event.

Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of the Inner Harbor, Patapsco River during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant because of the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this temporary rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the address listed under ADDRESSES.

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

This 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 law or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern 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 and direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Governments and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

We considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a marine event are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under that section. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES .

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. In keeping with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM and for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The Coast Guard received the request for special local regulations on June 26, 2001. We were notified of the need for special local regulations with insufficient time to publish a NPRM, allow for comments, and publish a final rule prior to the event on August 4, 2001. This event involves high speed racing boats and a large spectator fleet is expected. Because of safety concerns for the participants and spectators, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect on August 4 and 5, 2001.

On August 4 and August 5, 2001, the Kent Narrows Racing Association will sponsor the “Thunder on the Narrows” powerboat races, on the waters of Prospect Bay, Kent Island Narrows, Maryland. The event will consist of 75 Hydroplanes and Jersey Speed Skiffs racing in heats counter-clockwise around an oval racecourse. A large fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated. Due to the need for vessel control during the races, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of spectators, participants and transiting vessels.

The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations on specified waters of Prospect Bay. The temporary special local regulations will be enforced from 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. eastern time on August 4 and August 5, 2001. The effect will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated areas during the event. Except for participants in the “Thunder on the Narrows” powerboat races and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. The Patrol Commander will allow non-participating vessels to transit the event area between races. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979).

Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of Prospect Bay during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration of the regulation, the fact that the Patrol Commander will allow non-participating vessels to transit the event area between races, and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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

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

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the effected portions of Prospect Bay during the event.

Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting or anchoring in a portion of Prospect Bay during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant because of its limited duration, the fact that the Patrol Commander will allow non-participating vessels to transit the event area between races, and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this temporary rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the address listed under ADDRESSES.

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

This 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 law or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern 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 and direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Governments and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

We prepared an “Environmental Assessment” in accordance with Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, and determined that this rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The “Environmental Assessment” and “Finding of No Significant Impact” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM was unnecessary and contrary to the public interest since this rule only slightly modifies the current operating schedule for a limited period of time. Moreover, this regulation will only have a minimal impact on marine and vehicular traffic because the bridge will be operating on the same schedule as the PGA Boulevard Bridge.

For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

The Donald Ross Road Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway mile 1009.3 at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, has a vertical clearance of 35.0 feet in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet between fenders. On June 27, 2001, the Florida Department of Transportation and Palm Beach County, requested a modification from the current operating regulation in 33 CFR 117.261(r) which requires the draw to open on signal; except that from 1 October to 31 May, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., the draw need open only on the hour, quarter-hour, half-hour, and three quarter-hour.

Under this temporary rule, from July 31, 2001 until September 3, 2001, the Donald Ross Road Bridge shall open on signal; except that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, both single spans need open only on the quarter-hour and three-quarter hour. On Saturdays, Sundays and Federal holidays from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., both single spans need open only on the hour, 20 minutes after the hour, and 40 minutes after the hour.

This temporary rule will alleviate vehicular traffic caused by construction on the PGA Boulevard Bridge which is located approximately 3.3 miles downstream of the Donald Ross Road Bridge.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. The changes to the bridge's operating schedule will have a minimal impact on vehicular and marine traffic. Further, the temporary regulations still allow for regularly scheduled bridge openings.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast Guard considered whether this rule will have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. “Small entities” include small business, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small entities may contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance in understanding and participating in this rulemaking. We also have a point of contact for commenting on actions by employees of the Coast Guard. 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 requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this action and has determined under figure 2-1, paragraph 32(e) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, that this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation.

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

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

The following table of contents describes the format for the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a negative declaration submitted by the State of New York dated February 1, 2001. This negative declaration concerns existing commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators (CISWI) throughout the State of New York. The negative declaration satisfies the federal Emission Guidelines (EG) requirements of EPA's promulgated regulation entitled “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units” (65 FR 75338, December 1, 2000; and corrected at 66 FR 16605, March 27, 2001). The negative declaration officially certifies to EPA that, to the best of the State's knowledge, there are no CISWI sources in operation in the State of New York.

EPA has evaluated the negative declaration submitted by New York for consistency with the Clean Air Act (Act), EPA guidelines and policy. EPA has determined that New York's negative declaration meets all the requirements and, therefore, EPA is approving the State's certification that there are no existing CISWI units in operation throughout the State.

EPA's approval of New York's negative declaration is based on the following:

(1) New York has met the requirements of § 60.23(b) in Title 40, part 60, subpart B of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 60) for submittal of a letter of negative declaration that certifies there are no existing facilities in the State. Such certification exempts the State from the requirements to submit a plan.

(2) EPA's own source inventory indicates there are no existing CISWI units operating in the State of New York. In November 2000, EPA compiled an inventory of CISWI sources (Docket No. A-94-63, IV-J-28) as a required element of a CISWI Federal Plan that is to be proposed in 2001. EPA's CISWI inventory was developed from EPA's Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking  1 (ICCR) survey database. The ICCR survey database contains incineration data compiled by EPA in 1998 from responses to an information collection request.

Section 60.2530 of 40 CFR 60, subpart DDDD (page 75363 @ 65 FR 75338, December 1, 2001) requires that if, after the effective date of today's action, an existing CISWI unit is found in the State, the Federal Plan implementing the EG would automatically apply to that CISWI unit until a State Plan is approved by EPA.

Section 111(d) of the Act requires that pollutants controlled under New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) must also be controlled at existing sources in the same source category. Once an NSPS is issued, EPA then publishes an EG applicable to the control of the same pollutant from existing (designated) facilities. States with designated facilities must then develop State Plans to adopt the EG into their body of regulations.

Under section 129 of the Act, the EG is not federally enforceable. Section 129(b)(2) of the Act requires states to submit State Plans to EPA for approval. State Plans must be at least as protective as the EG, and they become federally enforceable upon EPA approval. The procedures for adopting and submitting State Plans, as well as state requirements for a negative declaration, are in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B.

EPA originally issued the Subpart B provisions on November 17, 1975. EPA amended subpart B on December 19, 1995, to allow the subparts developed under section 129 to include specifications that supersede the general provisions in subpart B regarding the schedule for submittal of State Plans, the stringency of the emission limitations, and the compliance schedules (60 FR 65414).

On December 1, 2000, under sections 111 and 129 of the Act, EPA issued the NSPS applicable to new CISWI sources and the EG applicable to existing CISWI sources. The NSPS and EG are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD (65 FR 75338), respectively.

All CISWI sources that commenced construction on or before November 30, 1999 (“existing CISWI sources”) must comply with these requirements. See § 60.2555 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD for a list of incinerator source categories that are exempt from the federal requirements for CISWIs.

EPA has determined that New York's negative declaration meets all the requirements and, therefore, EPA is approving New York's certification that no CISWI units are in operation in New York State. If any existing CISWI sources are discovered in the future, the Federal Plan implementing the EG would automatically apply to that CISWI unit until the State Plan is approved by EPA.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the negative declaration should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective October 9, 2001 without further notice unless the Agency receives significant, material adverse comments by September 6, 2001.

If EPA receives significant, material adverse comments by the above date, the Agency will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document in the Federal Register that will withdraw this final action. EPA will address all public comments received in a subsequent final rule based on the parallel proposed rule published in today's Federal Register. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA 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” is 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.”

Under section 6(b) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, 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 EPA consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. Under section 6(c) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts state law, unless the Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

EPA has concluded that this rule may have federalism implications. The only reason why this rule may have federalism implications is if in the future a CISWI source is found in the State of New York the source will become subject to the Federal Plan until a State Plan is approved by EPA. However, it will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state or local governments, nor will it preempt state law. Thus, the requirements of sections 6(b) and 6(c) of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.”

This rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because as a negative declaration it is not subject to the CISWI EG requirements. Therefore, because the Federal approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective October 9, 2001 unless EPA receives material adverse written comments by September 6, 2001.

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 9, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, the action is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Alternatively, we find pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(b) that the provision of an opportunity for public comment on whether to delay the effective date of the rule is impracticable and unnecessary inasmuch as the Department cannot adequately review the comments previously filed and reach a conclusion before August 8, 2001. The Department sought public comment on specific components of the rule in the Federal Register notice published on April 10, 2001. We received several highly technical comments and cannot complete the review before August 8, 2001. The Department is further delaying the effective date to November 6, 2001, to provide for continued review.

On June 29, 2001 the Commission released a Report and Order (Order), 66 FR 38375 (July 24, 2001), that adopted a rule that will provide additional time for recipients under the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism to implement contracts or agreements with service providers for non-recurring services. Specifically, the rule will extend the deadline for receipt of non-recurring services from June 30, to September 30 following the close of the funding year. Finally, the Commission adopts a rule that will establish a deadline for the implementation of non-recurring services for certain qualified applicants who are unable to complete implementation by the September 30 deadline. The Commission believes these modifications will provide schools and libraries with more time to install non-recurring services, and thereby make greater use of their universal service discounts. A summary of the Order was published in the Federal Register . See 65 FR 38375 (July 24, 2001). Some of the rules contained information collection requirements that required OMB approval. On July 23, 2001, OMB approved the information collections. See OMB No. 3060-0992. The rule amendments adopted by the Commission in the Order took effect on July 23, 2001. This publication satisfies the statement in the Order that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of the rules.

In order to preserve the remedial impact of civil penalties and to foster compliance with the law, the Federal Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 ((“Adjustment Act”), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2461 note, Pub. L. 101-410), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (“Collection Act,” Pub. L. 104-134), requires us and other Federal agencies to regularly adjust certain civil penalties for inflation. Under these laws, each agency must make an initial inflationary adjustment for all applicable civil penalties, and must make further adjustments of these penalty amounts at least once every four years. The Collection Act limited the initial increase to 10 percent of the penalty being adjusted.

Our initial adjustment of civil penalties under these legislative authorities was published on February 4, 1997 (62 FR 5167). We established 49 CFR part 578, Civil Penalties, which applies to violations that occur on and after March 6, 1997. These adjustments resulted in the maximum permissible increases of 10 percent. On July 14, 1999, we further adjusted certain penalties to enhance their deterrent effect (64 FR 37876), effective August 13, 1999. As we are now at the end of the four-year period following the initial adjustment, we reviewed the penalties that have remained unchanged since 1997, and, on May 18, 2001, proposed adjusting those penalties where the statutory formulae authorize it (66 FR 27621). We received one comment on the proposal, from the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), which confirmed our methodology. NADA “expects these higher penalty figures will help to deter odometer and theft law violations and thus will help to protect dealers and their customers.”

Under the Adjustment Act as amended by the Collection Act, we determine the inflation adjustment for each applicable civil penalty by increasing the maximum civil penalty amount per violation by the cost-of-living adjustment, and then applying a rounding factor. Sec. 5(b) of the Adjustment Act defines the “cost-of-living” adjustment as:

Since the adjustment will be effective before December 31, 2001, the “Consumer Price Index [CPI] for the month of June of the calendar year preceding the adjustment” is the CPI for June 2000. This figure is 172.4. NHTSA's penalties were initially adjusted in February 1997 based on the CPI figure for June 1996, which was 156.7. The factor that we have used in calculating the increase, then, is 172.4 divided by 156.7, or 1.1001914, rounded to 1.1. Any calculated increase under this adjustment is then subject to a specific rounding formula set forth in Sec. 5(a) of the Adjustment Act. Under the formula:

Any increase shall be rounded to the nearest:

(1) multiple of $10 in the case of penalties less than or equal to $100;

(2) multiple of $100 in the case of penalties greater than $100 but less than or equal to $1,000;

(3) multiple of $1,000 in the case of penalties greater than $1,000 but less than or equal to $10,000;

(4) multiple of $5,000 in the case of penalties greater than $10,000 but less than or equal to $100,000;

(5) multiple of $10,000 in the case of penalties greater than $100,000 but less than or equal to $200,000; and

(6) multiple of $25,000 in the case of penalties greater than $200,000.

Sec. 578.6 contains the civil penalties authorized by the statutes that we enforce. We have reviewed these penalties, multiplied each of them by 1.1, considered the nearest higher multiple specified in the rounding provisions, and concluded that only the penalties discussed below may be increased.

Sec. 578.6(f) Odometer tampering and disclosure. The maximum civil penalty for a related series of violations of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 327 is $110,000, as specified in Sec. 578.6(f)(1). The inflation factor raises this figure to $121,000. Under the formula, any increase in a penalty shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $10,000 in the case of penalties greater than $100,000 but less than or equal to $200,000. Accordingly, we are amending Sec. 576.8(f)(1) to increase the maximum civil penalty to $120,000 for a related series of violations of the odometer tampering and disclosure provisions. However, the maximum civil penalty for a single violation remains at $2,200 because the inflation-adjusted figure of $2,420 is not yet at a level to be rounded to the nearest multiple of $1,000.

Sec. 578.6(g) Vehicle theft prevention. Under Sec. 578.6(g)(1), the maximum civil penalty for a related series of violations of 49 U.S.C. 33114(a)(1-4) is $275,000. The inflation factor raises this figure to $302,500. Under the formula, any increase in a penalty shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $25,000 in the case of penalties greater than $200,000. Accordingly, we are amending Sec. 576.8(g)(1)to increase the maximum civil penalty to $300,000 for a related series of violations of the vehicle theft prevention provisions. However, the maximum penalty for a single violation remains at $1,100.

Under Sec. 578.6(g)(2), a person that violates 49 U.S.C. 33114(a)(5) is liable for a civil penalty of not more than $110,000 a day for each violation. The inflation factor modified by the rounding factor results in this penalty being raised to $120,000, and we are amending Sec. 578.6(g)(2) to reflect this adjustment as well.

The amendments are effective September 6, 2001. The adjusted penalties will apply to violations occurring on and after the effective date.

We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This action is limited to the adoption of adjustments of certain civil penalties under statutes that the agency enforces, and has been determined to be not “significant” under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures.

We have also considered the impacts of this notice under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this final rule will have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following is my statement providing the factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. Sec. 605(b)). The amendments primarily affect manufacturers of motor vehicles. Manufacturers of motor vehicles are generally not small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The Small Business Administration's regulations define a small business in part as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” (13 CFR 121.105(a)) SBA's size standards are organized according to Standard Industrial Classification Codes (SIC), SIC Code 3711 “Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car Bodies” has a small business size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer.

For manufacturers of passenger cars and light trucks, NHTSA estimates there are at most five small manufacturers of passenger cars in the U.S. Since each manufacturer serves a niche market, often specializing in replicas of “classic” cars, production for each manufacturer is fewer than 100 cars per year. Thus, there are at most 500 cars manufactured per year by U.S. small businesses.

In contrast, in 2001, there are approximately nine large manufacturers producing passenger cars, and light trucks in the U.S. Total U.S. manufacturing production per year is approximately 15 to 15 and a half million passenger cars and light trucks. We do not believe small businesses manufacture even 0.1 percent of total U.S. passenger car and light truck production per year.

Further, small organizations and governmental jurisdictions will not be significantly affected as the price of motor vehicles ought not to change as the result of this rule. As explained above, this action is limited to the adoption of a statutory directive, and has been determined to be not “significant” under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures.

Finally, this action will not affect our civil penalty policy under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (62 FR 37115, July 10, 1997). We shall continue to consider the appropriateness of any civil penalty to the size of the business charged.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PL 96-511), we state that there are no requirements for information collection associated with this rulemaking action.

We have also analyzed this rulemaking action under the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it has no significant impact on the human environment.

We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and have determined that it has no significant federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This proposed rule does not have a retroactive or preemptive effect. Judicial review of a rule based on this proposal may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702. That section does not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. Because this rule will not have a $100 million effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment will be prepared.

Regulations governing the Atlantic bluefish fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through Florida. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state are described in § 648.160.

The initial total commercial quota for bluefish for the 2001 calendar year was set equal to 9,583,010 lb (4,348,008 kg) (66 FR 23625, May 9, 2001). The resulting quota for North Carolina was 3,072,386 lb (1,394,005 kg), for Maryland was 287,662 (130,518 kg), for Virginia was 1,138,412 lb (516,521 kg), and for Florida was 964,021 lb (437,396 kg). The commercial quota for North Carolina was attained and the fishery closed on May 15, 2001 (66 FR 27043).

The final rule implementing Amendment 1 to the FMP was published on July 26, 2000 (65 FR 45844), and allows two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), to transfer or combine part or all of their annual commercial quota. The Regional Administrator must consider the criteria set forth in § 648.160 (f)(1) in the evaluation of requests for quota transfers or combinations.

Maryland, Virginia, and Florida have agreed to transfer 100,000 lb (45,359 kg), 300,000 lb (136,116 kg), and 300,000 lb (136,116 kg) of their respective 2001 commercial quotas to North Carolina. The Regional Administrator has determined that the criteria set forth in § 648.160(f)(1) have been met, and publishes this notification of quota transfer. The revised quotas for the calendar year 2001 are: Maryland, 187,662 lb (85,122 kg); Virginia, 838,412 lb (380,405 kg); Florida, 664,021 (301,195 kg); and North Carolina, 3,772,386 lb (1,711,126 kg). NMFS also announces the reopening of the commercial bluefish fishery in North Carolina.

This action does not alter any of the conclusions reached in the environmental impact statement prepared for Amendment 1 to the FMP regarding the effects of bluefish fishing activity on the human environment. Amendment 1 established procedures for setting an annual coastwide commercial quota for bluefish and a formula for determining the commercial quota for each state. Amendment 1 also established the quota transfer provision. This is a routine administrative action that reallocates commercial quota within the scope of previously published environmental analyses.

This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

This Federal Register document is also accessible via the internet at the website of the Office of the Federal Register: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su-docs/aces/aces140.html .

The notice of availability for Amendment 14 was published on May 9, 2001 (66 FR 23660), and NMFS requested public comments on Amendment 14 through July 9, 2001. A proposed rule to implement portions of Amendment 14 was published on June 8, 2001 (66 FR 30869). NMFS requested public comment on the proposed rule through July 9, 2001. During the comment periods on the notice of availability and on the proposed rule, NMFS received 3 letters of comment, which are addressed later in this preamble. See the preamble to the proposed rule for additional background information on the fishery and on this rule.

NMFS approved Amendment 14 on July 30, 2001. Amendment 14 introduces a permit stacking program in the limited entry, fixed gear primary sablefish season. Under Amendment 14, a vessel owner is allowed to “stack” up to three sablefish endorsed permits on his/her vessel in order to harvest the cumulative sablefish limits associated with each of the stacked permits. Permit stacking allows fleet participants with greater harvest capacity to better match their sablefish cumulative limits with individual vessel capacity by stacking multiple permits. For each stacked permit, a vessel will be removed from the fishery, reducing overall limited entry fixed gear fishery capacity. Amendment 14 will allow longer fishing seasons. Beyond the safety benefits of a longer season, fishers will be able to use the time to fish more selectively and to increase their incomes by improving the quality of their ex-vessel product.

The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) adopted Amendment 14 in November 2000. Amendment 14 is complex, with many provisions that will be time-consuming to implement. However, some of the Amendment 14 provisions most desired by the fleet can be and with this final rule, are being implemented for the 2001 season, including a longer primary sablefish season and allowing up to three limited entry permits to be registered with a single vessel. The fixed gear sablefish fleet has been in favor of a longer duration primary sablefish season for several years, wishing to end the derby-style fishery and to move to a slower paced and safer season. For this reason, NMFS decided to split implementation of Amendment 14 into two rulemakings with the first one implementing the less complex provisions in time for the 2001 season, and the second to follow later in time for the 2002 season and beyond.

Under this final rule: (1) up to three sablefish endorsed permits may be registered for use with a single vessel; (2) the limited entry, fixed gear primary sablefish season opens on August 15 and ends on October 31, 2001; (3) a vessel may fish for sablefish during the primary season with any of the gears specified on at least one of the limited entry sablefish endorsed permits registered for use with that vessel; (4) no person may hold (own or lease) more than three sablefish endorsed limited entry permits unless that person owned more than three permits as of November 1, 2000; (5) no partnership or corporation may own a sablefish endorsed limited entry permit unless that partnership or corporation owned a permit as of November 1, 2000; (6) cumulative limits for species other than sablefish and for the sablefish daily trip limit fishery remain per vessel limits and are not affected by permit stacking; and (7) the limited entry daily trip limit fishery for sablefish will be open during the primary season for vessels not participating in the primary season.

NMFS expects that the proposed rule to implement the additional provisions of Amendment 14 for 2002 and beyond will propose the following: (1) holding the limited entry, fixed gear primary sablefish season from April 1 through October 31; (2) requiring persons, partnerships, and corporations owning sablefish endorsed limited entry permits to document the ownership interests in those permits to ensure that no person holds more than three permits; (3) prohibiting vessels that do not meet minimum frozen sablefish historic landing requirements to process sablefish at sea; (4) requiring persons who own sablefish endorsed limited entry permits who did not own sablefish endorsed permits on November 1, 2000, to be on board their vessels while those vessels are participating in the primary sablefish fishery; (5) requiring vessels landing sablefish against their primary season cumulative limits to report to enforcement officers before making any sablefish landings; and (6) charging participants a fee to cover the management costs of this program.

During the comment period for Amendment 14, NMFS received three letters of comment: one letter was written by an association of seafood processors; one letter was written by an association of vessel owners and an association of fishing crew members; and one letter was written by the United States Coast Guard (USCG). Comments received address both Amendment 14 and the proposed rule to implement Amendment 14.

Comment 1 : Amendment 14 is consistent with National Standard 10 because it improves the safety in this fishery. The longer fishing season will also give vessel owners the flexibility to fish their sablefish tier limits at times when sablefish prices are high, rather than only during a short opening.

Response : NMFS agrees. National Standard 10 requires that conservation measures, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea. For the past several years, overcapitalization and competition in the fixed gear sablefish fleet have resulted in an intense derby-style fishery. The rule increases the duration of the fishery from 9 days in 2000 to 2.5 months in 2001. Participants in past limited entry fixed gear sablefish fisheries often complained that fishing during the derby meant working for several days at a time without sleep. The rule allows holders of sablefish endorsed limited entry permits to harvest their sablefish tier limits at a reasonable pace and during optimal weather and ocean conditions.

NMFS also agrees that Amendment 14 and this final rule will give permit holders more flexibility to fish for sablefish under optimal marketing conditions. In past years, the short derby season prevented permit holders from taking advantage of changes in the sablefish market, and the sablefish produced from the derby would briefly flood the market. Most West Coast sablefish is exported to Japan, where consumers pay higher prices for carefully handled fish. Amendment 14 will give fishers a chance to slow down their operations so that they have a better product to offer to the market and will allow them to choose their fishing time to coincide with higher market prices.

Comment 2 : This permit stacking program limits the number of permits that may be stacked and held by a single individual. This provision will limit social disruptions in the fishery while also allowing a reasonable concentration of capital.

Response : NMFS agrees. While the Council intended Amendment 14 to reduce overall fleet capacity, the Council also wished to ensure that the fleet would remain a locally owned, owner operated fleet. Thus, Amendment 14 allows no more than three permits per vessel, and no more than three permits per person, partnership, or corporation, unless that person, partnership, or corporation held more than three permits as of the Council’s November 1, 2000, decision date on Amendment 14. By allowing up to three permits per vessel, Amendment 14 could reduce the number of vessels participating in the fishery by as much as two-thirds. The Council has expressed a goal of reducing fleet capacity in West Coast groundfish fisheries, and Amendment 14 is a step in that direction.

Comment 3 : Amendment 14 sets an accumulation limit of three permits, prohibiting a person, partnership or corporation from holding more than three permits. The amendment also allows an exception to this accumulation limit for persons, partnerships, or corporations that owned more than three permits as of November 1, 2000. A permit accumulation limit is contrary to the Council’s goal of reducing capacity in the groundfish fishery. Further, an exception to the permit accumulation limit creates an elite class of permit holders and allows those meeting the exception an excessive share of fishing privileges. Both the accumulation limit and the exception to that limit should be disapproved.

Response : NMFS disagrees. In October 2000, the Council completed a Strategic Plan, which discussed the Council’s goals for the future of the groundfish fishery. One goal is to reduce vessel overcapacity, with the objective of reducing the size of the groundfish fleet by one-half. As stated in the response to Comment 2, Amendment 14 could reduce the size of the affected segment of the groundfish fleet by up to two-thirds. Amendment 14 allows some consolidation, but no unlimited consolidation, because it could cause excessive concentration of control over this segment of the fleet. Thus, the primary sablefish fishery is expected to become more efficient without dramatically changing the character of the fleet.

The commenter is correct in saying that Amendment 14 allows persons, partnerships, or corporations who owned more than three permits as of November 1, 2000, to continue to own those same permits. If, however, one of these initial permit holders were to sell one of his/her originally owned permits, the maximum number of permits that person could own would be reduced. As of November 1, 2000, it appears that only four persons had ownership interest in more than three permits, and none of those persons owned more than 5 permits. (Since NMFS does not currently have complete ownership information, this number may be low). NMFS does not believe that this small number of excepted permit owners creates an “elite class,” particularly given that the number of exempted permit owners is expected to decrease over time. Amendment 14 could have required persons owning in excess of three permits to sell those excess permits, but the Council did not wish to unnecessarily disrupt existing fishing businesses, but rather wanted to guide future developments.

Comment 4 : Under Amendment 14, a vessel owner who stacks more than one permit on his/her vessel would not be required to permanently combine those permits. Stacked permits could be “unstacked” and freely traded. Allowing permit unstacking is contrary to the Council’s goal of capacity reduction. The Amendment 14 provision to allow unstacking should be disapproved because it will prevent the program from reducing the number of vessels in the sablefish fishery or in other non-sablefish groundfish fisheries.

Response : NMFS agrees that permanent capacity reduction could have been achieved if Amendment 14 had not allowed permit owners to separate and unstack their permits. However, permit owners would likely be more reluctant to stack and consolidate their permits if they could not again separate those permits, particularly considering the uncertainty in how other segments of the fishery will be managed in the future. For example, Council advisory groups have discussed establishing rockfish endorsements, similar to sablefish endorsements, and/or adopting an individual quota (IQ) program. Without a resolution of these issues, permit holders might be reluctant to permanently stack permits. In 2004-2005, NMFS will review this provision and the state of groundfish management to see how well this provision works and whether there have been changes in the fishery that provide incentives to stack permits even if they cannot later be unstacked.

The Council’s Strategic Plan emphasized voluntary methods of fleet reduction over mandatory methods. Allowing unstacking is in keeping with the Council’s general practice of allowing some permit owner flexibility in how an owner uses his/her permits. NMFS also notes that limited entry program regulations prohibit permit owners from transferring their permits more than once per calendar year (50 CFR 660.335 (e)). This prohibition should ensure that stacked permits remain unused outside the primary sablefish season for up to a year per permit.

Comment 5 : Amendment 14 requires permit owners to be on board the permitted vessel while that vessel is fishing for sablefish, unless the permit owner owned a limited entry sablefish endorsed permit on November 1, 2000. This owner-on-board requirement will preserve the basic character of the fleet, the majority of which are vessel owners operating their own boats.

Response : NMFS agrees. Amendment 14 is essentially an IQ program. An often-expressed concern about IQ programs is that, if fishing privileges are for sale, persons who do not fish could buy those privileges. Allowing persons who do not fish to own fishing privileges and then rent those privileges out to fishers is often referred to as “share-cropping” the fishing privileges. Members of the West Coast sablefish fleet were concerned that without an owner-on-board provision, permit ownership could flow out of fishing communities and into the hands of speculative non-fishing buyers. To ensure that only fishers could buy into the sablefish fleet, the Council included an owner-on-board provision in Amendment 14.

Comment 6 : The owner-on-board provision could result in increased sablefish discards because a vessel operator who encounters sablefish when the owner is not on board would be forced to discard that sablefish. The exception to this requirement for permit owners who owned permits on November 1, 2000, is discriminatory and provides an excessive advantage to one group over another. Both the owner-on-board provision and the exception to that provision should be disapproved.

Response : At its June 2001 meeting, the Council addressed the concern that an owner-on-board provision could result in discard. The Council clarified its intent that Amendment 14 implementation require that the owner be on board from the start of the sablefish primary season until that vessel’s primary season limits have been reached and that all sablefish harvested during this period count toward that vessel’s primary sablefish season limits. Therefore, there will not be a period during which a vessel would have the ability to harvest rockfish or other groundfish and be required to discard sablefish because the owner was not on board.

As stated by the commenter, permit owners who owned permits on November 1, 2000, will be exempt from the owner-on-board requirement. This provision does provide an advantage to initial permit owners over permit owners who buy into the fleet. Amendment 14 provides a grandfathered exemption to this rule for initial permit owners to minimize disruption to the fleet while guiding future development of the fishery. As discussed above in the response to Comment 5, the owner-on-board requirement is intended to ensure that only fishers may buy into the fleet. Approximately 75 to 80 percent of the fleet is already owner-operated vessels; thus even most initial permit owners are expected to continue fishing their sablefish-endorsed permits.

NMFS supports the intention of the owner-on-board provision; however, the agency also believes that the permit stacking program could benefit from future analysis of the effects of this provision on the fishery. In 2004-2005, NMFS will analyze how this provision and the exemption to the owner-on-board requirement have affected participation in the fishery. At that time, the agency will consider whether an owner-on-board requirement is beneficial, considering all of the effects on the fishery and, if it is, whether it should also be applied to persons who owned permits as of November 1, 2000. NMFS believes that the fishery will need a few years of operating under Amendment 14 to test the effect of this provision.

Comment 7 : Amendment 14 restricts permit ownership to individual human beings, unless a permit is owned by a partnership or corporation that owned that permit before November 1, 2000. This provision precludes efficiencies that might result from corporate or partnership ownership. When viewed in connection with the owner-on-board provision, restricting permit ownership to individuals also imposes a burden on small business owners. In a partnership or corporation belonging to a married couple, only one of the two could own the permit and would have to be on board when the permit is fished. If the permit owner suffers a medical emergency, Amendment 14's exemption to the owner-on-board requirement might not be approved in time to allow the couple to use the permit. As with other provisions, the exception to this provision allows an elite group to operate freely while restricting the actions of others. For these reasons, the restriction on partnership or corporations should be disapproved.

Response : NMFS agrees that this provision prevents persons who buy into the fleet from enjoying the efficiencies of partnership or corporate ownership of a permit. However, the Council intended this restriction to have the same effect as the owner-on-board provision. As with the owner-on-board provision, initial owners are exempted to ensure that they transition smoothly into the permit stacking program. Persons buying into the fleet are required to be “individual human” persons both to ensure the owner-operator quality of the fleet and to implement the owner-on-board requirement.

NMFS supports the intention of the requirement that only individual humans may own permits; however, the agency also believes that the permit stacking program could benefit from future analysis of the effects of this provision on the fishery. In 2004-2005, NMFS will analyze how this provision and the exemption to the provision have affected participation in the fishery. At that time, the agency will consider whether this requirement is necessary and, if it is necessary, whether it should also be applied to persons who owned permits as of November 1, 2000. NMFS believes that the fishery will need a few years of operating under Amendment 14 to test the efficacy of this provision.

The commenter also mentions the medical exemption to the owner-on-board requirement. NMFS will process emergency applications swiftly. In addition, the fishery under Amendment 14 will be 2.5 months in duration. With the longer season, there is less need for swift action than there is during the current 8- to 9-day fishery.

Comment 8 : The economic analysis of the effects of Amendment 14 on coastal communities and seafood processors is woefully inadequate. This is particularly problematic given that most of the provisions of Amendment 14 are based on the economics of the fishery, rather than on biology or conservation.

Response : NMFS disagrees. The effects of Amendment 14 on coastal communities and seafood processors are discussed throughout the EA/RIR/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for Amendment 14. NMFS also notes that several Amendment 14 provisions, like the owner-on-board requirement, reflect social values, rather than economic values.

Comment 9 : The USCG supports Amendment 14 for its expected improvement to safety in the sablefish fishery. Safety improvements that NMFS expects to result from Amendment 14 are discussed in the response to Comment 1.

Response : The comment is noted.

This final rule includes four significant changes to the regulatory text from the proposed rule. The first change is a result of June 2001 Council discussions on Amendment 14, held within the comment period on the proposed rule for this action. The Amendment 14 EA/RIR/IRFA included some ambiguous language within the provision that limited permit ownership to no more than three permits per person, with an exception for those persons who held more than three permits as of November 1, 2001. A “permit owner” is “a person who owns a limited entry permit” (50 CFR 660.302). A “permit holder” is “a permit owner or a permit lessee” (50 CFR 660.302). The Council confirmed that it had not intended Amendment 14 to allow a person to own three permits and then lease any number of additional permits. Nor had the Council intended to provide exemptions to the three-permit limit for persons who held more than three permits, but who did not own more than three permits as of November 1, 2000. Rather, the Council’s intent had been to allow a person to hold no more than three permits, regardless of whether those permits are owned or leased. Further, exceptions to the limit of three permits will only be allowed for persons who owned more than three permits as of November 1, 2000. These clarifications are reflected in the regulations at 50 CFR 660.334 (d)(3)(ii). NMFS checked its permits records and concluded that, based on current information, all of the persons who held more than three permits as of November 1, 2000, were owners of those permits.

The second change is technical and is the result of NMFS having published two proposed rules in quick succession. On May 30, 2001 (66 FR 29276), NMFS published a proposed rule to revise the timing and frequency of limited entry permit transfers and to clarify and update overall limited entry program regulations. This rule proposed amending the then current regulatory text in 50 CFR 660.333-340. On June 8, 2001 (66 FR 30869), NMFS published the proposed rule to implement Amendment 14, which proposed amending the then current regulatory text in 50 CFR 660.333 and 660.336. On August 1, 2001 , NMFS filed the final rule revising limited entry program regulations with the Federal Register , which was effective on filing. Thus, this final rule revises the new regulations that were filed on August 1, 2001. Renumbering the limited entry program regulations did not result in any substantive changes to the Amendment 14 regulatory language. Although this trail of regulatory changes is somewhat confusing, NMFS believes that the resultant new regulatory text for the limited entry program regulations is more logically arranged and easier to understand.

The third change is to add a temporary provision at 50 CFR 660.335(e)(3)(ii), which allows limited entry permit holders with sablefish endorsements who transfer their permits between August 1 and August 14, 2001, to have the permit’s registration with the new vessel effective August 15, 2001. Without this change, permit transfers made in the first part of August would be effective on the first day of the next major cumulative limit period, September 1, 2001. If all permit transfer activities for sablefish endorsed permits are effective for the start date of the primary sablefish fishery, participating vessels will have the opportunity to begin fishing at the same time.

The final change from the proposed rule is to change the start date of the primary sablefish fishery from August 1, 2001, to August 15, 2001. This later start date will allow permit holders to make arrangements for stacking or transferring their permits once this rule is effective, yet before the start of the season.

In addition to implementing Amendment 14, this final rule announces the season dates and cumulative landings limits for the 2001 limited entry, fixed gear, primary sablefish fishery. For the reasons stated here, NMFS announces the following changes to the 2001 annual specifications and management measures at 66 FR 2338, January 11, 2001, as amended at 66 FR 10211 (February 14, 2001), at 66 FR 18409 (April 9, 2001), at 66 FR 22467 (May 4, 2001), at 66 FR 28676 (May 24, 2001), at 66 FR 35388 (July 5, 2001), and at 66 FR 38162 (July 23, 2001) to read as follows:

(1) In Section IV, under B. Limited Entry Fishery , paragraph (2)(b)(i) is revised to read as follows:

The Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, determined that Amendment 14 to the FMP is necessary for the conservation and management of the West Coast groundfish fishery, and that it is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This rule implements a permit stacking program in a limited entry primary sablefish fishery. Because it relieves a restriction, under 5 U.S.C. 553 (d)(1) it is not subject to a 30-day delay in effectiveness.

A delay in effectiveness of this rule could unnecessarily restrict permit transfer and stacking activities and cause financial harm to sablefish fishery participants. In some parts of the West Coast, difficult autumn ocean conditions arise in September. Thus, a delay in effectiveness of this rule could also prevent permit holders from participating in the sablefish season during the more favorable August weather. For these reasons, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds for good cause under 553 (d)(3) that delaying the effectiveness of this rule for 30 days would be contrary to the public interest.

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

NMFS prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) describing the impact of this action on small entities. The IRFA was summarized in the proposed rule published on June 8, 2001 (66 FR 30869). The following is the summary of the FRFA.

Amendment 14 primarily affects the holders of the 164 limited entry permits with sablefish endorsements, with some minor positive effects on the 66 permit holders without sablefish endorsements. All of the permit owners and vessels in the Pacific Coast, limited entry, fixed gear fleet are considered small entities under Small Business Administration standards.

The fixed gear fleet includes vessels that fish with longline and pot gear, varying in length between approximately 40-60 feet. All 36 limited entry pot vessels have sablefish endorsements. Of the 202 limited entry longline vessels, 136 have sablefish endorsements. The primary sablefish fishery is managed as a cumulative limit fishery, with participating vessels organized into three separate tiers based on permit catch history. Permits with the highest sablefish catch history are in Tier 1, while those with the lowest catch history are in Tier 3. Most of the sablefish endorsed pot vessels qualified for Tier 1, whereas most of the sablefish endorsed longline vessels qualified for Tier 3. Most vessels in the fleet are owner-operated.

There were two major alternatives considered under Amendment 14, with numerous possible combinations of alternatives for the 11 different provisions considered in the Amendment 14 EA/RIR. Continuing status quo, a derby fishery of less than 10 days in duration, would have continued the fishery’s historically intense and unsafe management program. Continuing status quo would have also allowed only one permit per vessel, which would have been inefficient with the currently overcapitalized fleet. Permit stacking will allow vessel owners who wish to exit the fishery to sell or lease their permits to others who wish to continue in the fishery.

Amendment 14 is expected to have generally positive economic effects on small entities and to provide more choices and flexibility for fishery participants. Amendment 14 will significantly improve the safety of the primary fishery for participating vessels. Under the current management system, the primary fishery is less than 10 days long, a brief and intense fishery. This final rule will lengthen the fishery to 2.5 months duration in 2001 and a rule to be proposed for 2002 and beyond would extend the season to 6-7 months duration. Participants would have the opportunity to fish against their tiered cumulative limits at a more safe and rational pace than in past years. Changes to expenses associated with participating in the fishery could be both positive and negative. Vessel owners would likely hire fewer crew members if they do not have to fish in the same rapid-pace manner, but would spend more of their own time on the water. Participants may also have fewer gear expenses because the more-reasonably paced fishery would reduce chances of vessels losing gear. However, if these vessel owners catch their cumulative limits over a longer period of time, they may take more trips to do so and thereby use more gas to catch the same amount of fish. The major financial benefit to fishery participants would be that they would have more flexibility in deciding where and how to distribute operating expenses.

Permit owners who decide to purchase additional permits to have access to more sablefish within the primary season will have to contend with the initial cost of those additional permits. Some of the permit owners who have not participated in the primary season in past years may decide to sell their permits and will receive compensation for leaving the fishery.

In the past, limited entry permit holders without sablefish endorsements have been prohibited from participating in the daily trip limit fishery during the primary (regular + mop-up) season. Amendment 14 would revise the FMP to allow the daily trip limit fishery to occur during the primary season. This change relieves a burden for limited entry permit holders without sablefish endorsements and allow them to schedule their sablefish fishing at their convenience.

On the whole, Amendment 14 is expected to bring greater operational safety and more business planning flexibility to the participants in both the primary sablefish fishery and the daily trip limit fishery for sablefish. Permit stacking will allow fleet participants with greater harvest capacity to better match their sablefish cumulative limits with individual vessel capacity by stacking multiple permits. For each stacked permit, a vessel will be removed from the fishery, reducing overall primary fishery capacity. The Council will also be able to set longer, and therefore safer, fishing seasons. Beyond the safety benefits of a longer season, fishers will be able to use the time to fish more selectively and to increase their incomes by improving the quality of their ex-vessel product. It was for these reasons that NMFS and the Council have selected the alternative adopted by the final rule. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 requires a plain language guide to assist small entities in complying with this rule. NMFS has produced a public notice for the 2001 season that includes frequently asked questions on Amendment 14 and the new sablefish season. Contact NMFS to request a copy of this public notice (see ADDRESSES ) or see the NMFS Northwest Region’s groundfish website at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/gdfsh01.htm.

Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.