Black stem rust is one of the most destructive plant diseases of small grains that is known to exist in the United States. The disease is caused by a fungus that reduces the quality and yield of infected wheat, oat, barley, and rye crops by robbing host plants of food and water. In addition to infecting small grains, the fungus lives on a variety of alternate host plants that are species of the genera Berberis, Mahoberberis , and Mahonia . The fungus is spread from host to host by wind-borne spores.

The black stem rust quarantine and regulations, which are contained in 7 CFR 301.38 through 301.38-8 (referred to below as the regulations), quarantine the conterminous 48 States and the District of Columbia and govern the interstate movement of certain plants of the genera Berberis, Mahoberberis , and Mahonia , known as barberry plants. The species of these plants are categorized as either rust-resistant or rust-susceptible. Rust-resistant plants do not pose a risk of spreading black stem rust or of contributing to the development of new races of the rust; rust-susceptible plants do pose such risks.

Section 301.38-2 of the regulations includes a listing of regulated articles and indicates those species and varieties of the genera Berberis, Mahoberberis , and Mahonia that are known to be rust-resistant. Although rust-resistant species are included as regulated articles, they may be moved into or through protected areas if accompanied by a certificate.

On April 7, 1998, we published in the Federal Register (63 FR 16908-16909, Docket No. 97-053-1) a proposed rule to amend the regulations by adding 15 varieties to the list of rust-resistant Berberis, Mahoberberis, and Mahonia species. Comments on the proposed rule were required to be received on or before May 22, 1998. We received two comments by that date, which were from the nursery industry and a State government official. One of the commenters opposed the addition of more rust-resistant barberry varieties to the list in § 301.38-2 without the distribution of proper field identification aids to inspectors. After considering that comment, we agreed with the commenter's suggestion that identification aids could be useful for ensuring the accurate identification of the rust-resistant varieties, which would help to prevent the spread of black stem rust. Because this comment raised an issue we believed warranted further consideration, we withdrew the April 7, 1998, proposed rule, and replaced it with an alternative proposal.

In the alternative proposal, which was published in the Federal Register on June 14, 2001 (66 FR 32268-32272, Docket No. 97-053-2), we proposed to amend the list of rust-resistant Berberis, Mahoberberis, and Mahonia species by adding the 15 varieties listed in our original proposed rule as well as an additional 17 varieties that had been submitted for listing since the publication of the original proposed rule. We also proposed to amend the regulations to require that persons who request the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to add a variety to the list of rust-resistant barberry varieties in the regulations must provide APHIS with a description of the variety, including a written description and color pictures that can be used by State nursery inspectors to clearly identify the variety and distinguish it from other varieties. As noted in the proposed rule, the nurseries that developed the 32 new rust-resistant varieties listed in the proposed rule had provided such identification guides to APHIS. Finally, we proposed to require that inspectors who issue certificates for the movement of rust-resistant barberry varieties under the regulations in § 301.38-4(b)(2) must, prior to issuing certificates, verify that the barberry varieties to be shipped match the description of the varieties.

We solicited comments concerning our June 2001 proposal for 60 days ending August 13, 2001. We received two comments by that date. They were from a national nursery and landscape association and a State department of agriculture. These letters fully supported the proposed rule. Therefore, we are not making any changes to the rule based on the comments we received. However, we are making three changes to the rule in order to clarify certain aspects of the regulations.

First, while a footnote in the definition of rust-resistant plants in § 301.38-1 provides a description of the testing performed to determine whether a new variety is rust-resistant, the regulations have not specifically provided that a person may request that an additional rust-resistant variety be added to the lists of rust-resistant varieties in § 301.38-2. Similarly, while our June 2001 proposed rule contained provisions to require that a person requesting a rust-resistant variety be added to the list in § 301.38-2 provide APHIS with certain information regarding the variety, we did not specifically state that a person may request that an additional rust-resistant variety be added to that list. We do, in fact, accept requests for additions to the lists in § 301.38-2, so we have amended § 301.38-2(b) in this final rule to make that clear.

Second, in our June 2001 proposed rule, we proposed to amend § 301.38-5 by adding a new paragraph (b)(3). Under that proposed paragraph, an inspector would have to verify, prior to issuing a certificate for the interstate movement of a rust-resistant variety, that the variety matches the description provided to APHIS by the person who requested the addition of that variety to the list in § 301.38-2. Given that the existing regulations in § 301.38-5(b)(1) already provide that an inspector must determine, upon examination, that the regulated article may be moved in accordance with § 301.38-4, which would include verifying that a particular variety is eligible for movement, we have determined that our proposed amendment to § 301.38-5 is unnecessary and have removed that provision in this final rule. However, we are amending § 301.38-5(b)(1) in this final rule so that it states that an inspector must determine, upon examination, that the regulated article may be moved interstate in accordance with the regulations in the entire subpart, not just § 301.38-4. This amendment is necessary because there are requirements elsewhere in the subpart that apply to the interstate movement of regulated articles.

Third, while our June 2001 proposed rule contained provisions to require that descriptions be provided to APHIS in accordance with § 301.38-2(b) for use by State nursery inspectors as identification aids, those individuals who inspect varieties of black stem rust barberry are simply referred to as inspectors elsewhere in the regulations. The definition of an inspector, which is contained in § 301.38-1, provides that such individuals may be any APHIS employee or other person authorized by the Administrator to enforce this subpart. Because State nursery inspectors are included in this definition, we have amended § 301.38-2(b) in this final rule by removing the reference to “State nursery inspectors” and replacing it with “an inspector” in order to make the regulations more consistent.

Finally, in this final rule we have made several nonsubstantial editorial changes in the regulations for clarity.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This final rule allows the interstate movement of 32 new varieties of Berberis, Mahoberberis, and Mahonia that have been determined to be resistant to black stem rust into and through States or parts of States designated as protected areas. Based on the information provided to us, we have determined that this rule will affect three or four nurseries that might propagate the new species and numerous retail sales nurseries that might purchase and resell the varieties. This action will enable those nurseries to move the species into and through protected areas and to propagate and sell the species in States or parts of States designated as protected areas.

Prior to this final rule, 123 varieties of barberry plants were listed in the regulations as rust-resistant. Of those 123 varieties, many are no longer propagated for commercial sale, as many consumers are choosing newer varieties that are horticulturally more attractive. This rule adds 32 new varieties to the list. The addition of these 32 new varieties will simply create a greater selection of barberry plant varieties from which consumers can choose. This rule could encourage innovation by allowing nurseries that develop new rust-resistant Berberis, Mahoberberis, and Mahonia varieties the opportunity to market those varieties in protected areas; however, there is no indication that the periodic introduction of new varieties to the market has any effect on overall sales volumes. Therefore, we do not anticipate that there will be any significant economic effect on those nurseries that might handle the new varieties.

This rule requires that persons requesting the addition of a barberry variety to the list of rust-resistant varieties in the regulations must first provide APHIS with a description of the variety, including a written description and color pictures that can be used by inspectors to clearly identify the variety and distinguish it from other varieties. This rule also requires that, prior to interstate movement, an inspector must verify that a rust-resistant variety matches the description of the variety provided to APHIS. However, these requirements are not expected to result in any measurable cost to persons involved in the production or movement of the plants.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0579-0186.

The regulations in 7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-8 (referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of fruit flies and other injurious plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States.

In a final rule published in the Federal Register on August 28, 2001 (66 FR 45151-45161, Docket No. 00-006-2), we amended the regulations to list a number of fruits and vegetables from certain parts of the world as eligible, under specified conditions, for importation into the United States. In that final rule, we also recognized the Department of Pete n in Guatemala and all Districts in Belize as areas free of the Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly).

One of the commodities listed as eligible for importation was peppers from Israel. As a condition of importation, the rule required that the “peppers must be packed in insect-proof containers prior to movement from approved insect-proof screenhouses in the Arava Valley.” Some regulated entities have interpreted “containers” to mean the large containers commonly used in the shipping industry. We intended to require peppers to be moved in insect-proof packaging, not shipping containers. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, we are replacing the term “containers” with the word “packaging.”

Also, in the rule portion of the final rule, there was an error in the table in § 319.56-2x, which lists fruits and vegetables for which treatment is required. The table listed papaya from Belize except for papayas grown in a Medfly-free area in Belize. Since the final rule declared all districts in Belize as areas free of Medfly, no papayas from Belize require treatment for Medfly, and there is no need to list papaya from Belize in the table in § 319.56-2x. We are correcting our error in this document.

In an interim rule effective September 10, 2001, and published in the Federal Register on October 16, 2001 (66 FR 52483-52484, Docket No. 01-094-1), we amended the regulations by adding Japan to the list in § 94.18(a)(1) of regions where bovine spongiform encephalopathy(BSE) is known to exist. Due to the detection of BSE in a native-born animal in that region, the interim rule was necessary to help prevent the introduction of BSE into the United States.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received by December 17, 2001. We did not receive any comments. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule.

This action also affirms the information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and the Paperwork Reduction Act. Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866.

This rule affirms an interim rule that amended the regulations by adding Japan to the list of regions where BSE exists because the disease had been detected in a native-born animal in that region. The effect of the interim rule was a restriction on the importation of ruminants that have been in Japan and meat, meat products, and certain other products of ruminants that have been in Japan. The interim rule was necessary to help prevent the introduction of BSE into the United States.

The following analysis addresses the economic effect of this rule on small entities, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The interim rule is expected to have an insignificant impact on U.S. entities because ruminants and ruminant products are either not imported from Japan or imported in very small amounts, as shown in table 1. The only category of commodities that Japan has been supplying in greater-than-negligible amounts is animal feed preparations other than dog and cat food (Harmonized Tariff Schedule 230990). For this category, Japan supplied about 5 percent of imports, by value, over the 3-year period 1998-2000. However, this level is not significant, particularly when considered in terms of the value of U.S. domestic shipments of animal feed preparations other than dog and cat food.

The average annual value of imports of ruminants and ruminant products from Japan between 1998 and 2000 was approximately $12 million. This amount is less than 0.1 percent of $19.17 billion, the value of U.S. shipments of animal feed preparations other than dog and cat food in 1997 (the year of the last economic census conducted by the Bureau of the Census).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies consider the effects of their rules on small entities. An industry that could be affected by the interim rule is Other Animal Food Manufacturing (NAICS code 311119), for which the small entity criterion is 500 or fewer employees. The 1997 Economic Census reports that all of the 1,514 Other Animal Food Manufacturing establishments had 500 or fewer employees. However, the relatively small quantity of animal feed preparations other than dog and cat food imported from Japan would suggest that the number of these establishments affected would not be substantial, and those that are would not be affected significantly.

The interim rule's restrictions on the importation of ruminants and ruminant products and byproducts from Japan due to BSE are expected to have an insignificant effect on small entities. The only category of prohibited products for which Japan has a history of export to the United States of greater-than-negligible value is animal feed preparations other than dog and cat food. However, imports of these products from Japan comprise less than 0.1 percent of U.S. domestic shipments.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Listed below is a complete edition of the Board's Foreign List. The Foreign List was last published on August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44525), and become effective September 1, 2001.

The Foreign List is composed of foreign equity securities that qualify as margin securities under Regulation T by meeting the requirements of § 220.11(c) and (d). Additional foreign securities qualify as margin securities if they are deemed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to have a “ready market” under SEC Rule 15c3-1 (17 CFR 240.15c3-1) or a “no-action” position issued thereunder. This includes all foreign stocks in the FTSE World Index Series.

It is unlawful for any creditor to make, or cause to be made, any representation to the effect that the inclusion of a security on the Foreign List is evidence that the Board or the SEC has in any way passed upon the merits of, or given approval to, such security or any transactions therein. Any statement in an advertisement or other similar communication containing a reference to the Board in connection with the Foreign List or the stocks thereon shall be an unlawful representation.

There are not additions to the Foreign List. The following six stocks are being removed because they no longer substantially meet the provisions of § 220.11(d) of Regulation T:

The requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 with respect to notice and public participation were not followed in connection with the issuance of this amendment due to the objective character of the criteria for inclusion and continued inclusion on the Foreign List specified in § 220.11(c) and (d). No additional useful information would be gained by public participation. The full requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 with respect to deferred effective date have not been followed in connection with the issuance of this amendment because the Board finds that it is in the public interest to facilitate investment and credit decisions based in whole or in a part upon the composition of the Foreign List as soon as possible. The Board has responded to a request by the public and allowed approximately a one-week delay before the Foreign List is effective.

The preamble below is designed to assist readers in understanding the interim amendments the Commission is making to its Rules of Practice and Procedure. The preamble begins with a discussion of the background of the rulemaking, then explains why an interim rulemaking procedure was adopted, provides an overview and a section-by-section analysis of the interim amendments, and ends with a regulatory analysis addressing government-wide statutes and issuances on rulemaking. The Commission encourages members of the public to comment—in addition to any other comments they wish to make on the rules amendments—on whether the interim amendments are in language that is sufficiently plain for users of the rules to understand.

Public Law 106-286 [H.R. 4444], 114 Stat. 880, was signed by the President on October 10, 2000. Section 103(a) of the law added new sections 421 and 422 to the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2451 and 2451a) that require the Commission to conduct new kinds of investigations and reviews of relief actions.

New section 421(b) of the Trade Act requires the Commission to investigate, in specified circumstances, “to determine whether products of the People's Republic of China are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities or under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause market disruption to the domestic producers of like or directly competitive products.”

The President may provide relief, under section 421(a), in the form of increased duties and/or other import restrictions with respect to the product being imported from the People's Republic of China. He will grant such relief to the extent and for the period that he considers necessary to prevent or remedy the market disruption. Starting six months after the relief first takes effect, the President may request a report from the Commission, under section 421(n)(1), on the probable effect that modification, reduction, or termination of the relief would have on the relevant domestic industry. Section 421(n)(3) provides that when the President issues relief under section 421(a), the Commission must collect such data as is necessary to enable it to respond rapidly to a request by the President under section 421(n)(1).

Within a specified time before the relief is to terminate, section 421(o) requires the Commission to investigate, at the request of the President or in response to a petition on behalf of the industry concerned, to determine whether action under section 421 continues to be necessary to prevent or remedy market disruption.

The new section 422(b) of the Trade Act requires the Commission to investigate, in appropriate circumstances, to determine whether an action of a type described in section 422(c) “has caused, or threatens to cause, a significant diversion of trade into the domestic market of the United States.” Section 422(c) indicates that an “action” for purposes of section 422(b) is an action—(1) By the People's Republic of China to prevent or remedy market disruption in a WTO [World Trade Organization] member other than the United States; (2) by a WTO member other than the United States to withdraw concessions under the WTO Agreement or otherwise to limit imports to prevent or remedy market disruption; (3) by a WTO member other than the United States to apply a provisional safeguard within the meaning of the product-specific safeguard provision of the Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic of China to the WTO; or (4) any combination of actions described in paragraphs (1) through (3).

The President determines, pursuant to section 422(h), what action to take to prevent or remedy the trade diversion or threat thereof. Section 422(j) requires the Commission to review the continued need for action taken under section 422(h) if the World Trade Organization (WTO) member or members involved notify the Committee on Safeguards of the WTO of any modification in the action taken by them against the People's Republic of China pursuant to consultation referred to in section 422(a). Specifically, the Commission must determine whether a significant diversion of trade continues to exist. After receiving the Commission's report on that subject, the President will determine whether to modify, withdraw, or keep in place the action taken under section 421(h).

The Commission ordinarily promulgates amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations in accordance with the rulemaking procedure in section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). That procedure entails publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register that solicits public comment on the proposed amendments, considering the public comments in deciding on the final content of the amendments, and publishing the final amendments at least 30 days prior to their effective date. In this instance, however, the Commission is amending its rules in 19 CFR part 206 on an interim basis, effective upon publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

The Commission's authority to adopt interim amendments without following all steps listed in section 553 of the APA is derived from section 335 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1335) and section 553 of the APA.

Section 335 of the Tariff Act authorizes the Commission to adopt such reasonable procedures, rules, and regulations as it deems necessary to carry out its functions and duties. The Commission has determined that the need for interim rules is clear in this instance. The new sections 421 and 422 of the Trade Act require the Commission to conduct new kinds of investigations and reviews. Rulemaking is essential for orderly administration of the new statutory provisions. Since the People's Republic of China acceded to the WTO on December 11, 2001, it is imperative that implementing rules be adopted as quickly as possible.

Section 553(b) of the APA allows an agency to dispense with publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking when the following circumstances exist: (1) The rules in question are interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure or practice; or (2) the agency for good cause finds that notice and public comment on the rules are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates that finding and the reasons therefor into the rules adopted by the agency.

Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an agency to dispense with the publication of notice of final rules at least thirty days prior to their effective date if the agency finds that good cause exists for not meeting the advance publication requirement and the agency publishes that finding along with the rules.

In this instance, the Commission has determined that the requisite circumstances exist for dispensing with the notice, comment, and advance publication procedure that ordinarily precedes the adoption of Commission rules. For purposes of invoking the section 553(b) exemption from publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking that solicits public comment, the Commission finds that the interim amendments to part 206 are “agency rules of procedure and practice.” Moreover, the People's Republic of China's accession to the WTO on December 11, 2001, a date that could not be predicted sufficiently far in advance, makes the establishment of rules a matter of urgency. Hence, it clearly would have been impracticable for the Commission to comply with the notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment procedure.

For the purpose of invoking the section 553(d)(3) exemption from publishing advance notice of the interim amendments to part 206 at least thirty days prior to their effective date, the Commission finds that the fact that the People's Republic of China acceded to the WTO on December 11, 2001 makes such advance publication impossible and constitutes good cause for not complying with that requirement.

The Commission recognizes that interim rule amendments should not respond to anything more than the exigencies created by the new legislation. Each interim amendment to part 206 accordingly falls into one or more of the following categories: (1) A revision of a preexisting rule to make it applicable to one or more of the new kinds of investigations or reviews of relief actions; (2) clarification of the manner in which a preexisting rule is to be applied to one or more of the new kinds of investigations or reviews; or (3) a new rule covering a matter addressed in the new legislation but not covered by a preexisting rule.

After taking into account all comments received and the experience acquired under the interim amendments, the Commission will replace them with final amendments promulgated in accordance with the notice, comment, and advance publication procedure prescribed in section 553 of the APA.

Until the publication of this notice, part 206 of the Commission's rules consisted of subpart A, which set out general requirements applicable to all investigations covered by the part, and subparts B-F, each of which established procedures for a particular type of investigation.

Among other things, the Commission is amending subpart A to extend the coverage of part 206 to investigations and reviews of relief actions under the new section 421 or 422 of the Trade Act.

Before this notice was published, subpart E of part 206 covered only market disruption investigations under section 406(a) of the Trade Act of 1974. The new investigations under section 421(b) also will address market disruption and will be similar, though not identical, to the investigations under section 406(a). For that reason, the Commission is amending subpart E to cover investigations under section 421(b) (in addition to investigations under section 406(a)). The Commission also is amending subpart E to cover investigations under section 421(o) on whether action under section 421 continues to be necessary to prevent or remedy market disruption.

The new investigations under section 422(b) concerning trade diversion—and the reviews under section 422(j) on whether there is a continued need for action taken under section 422(h)—do not so closely fit an existing subpart of part 206. For that reason, the Commission is adding a new subpart G to cover investigations under section 422(b) and reviews under section 422(j). Nevertheless, the procedures in subpart G closely track those in other subparts of part 206.

As noted, the new section 422 of the Act requires the Commission to conduct investigations of and reviews of relief actions for trade diversion. The Commission is therefore amending the heading of part 206 to include a reference to trade diversion.

Among other changes, the Commission is amending the heading of section 206.3 in subpart A of part 206. In subpart E, the Commission also is revising the heading of section 206.43, adding a new section 206.44, redesignating the existing sections 206.44 and 206.45 as 206.45 and 206.46, and adding a new section 206.47. Finally, the Commission is adding a new subpart G. The Commission is therefore amending the table of contents for part 206 to reflect those changes.

The Commission is amending the authority citation to part 206 to include citations to 19 U.S.C. 2451 and 2451a (the new sections 421 and 422 of the Trade Act).

Section 206.1 describes the applicability of part 206. The first sentence of that section lists the statutes under which the Commission performs functions and duties in accordance with part 206. The Commission is amending that sentence to include a reference to the Commission's functions and duties under the new sections 421 and 422 of the Trade Act. The third sentence of section 206.1 describes the kinds of investigations or reviews that are covered by subpart B, C, D, or E of part 206. The Commission is amending that sentence to state that subpart E of part 206 provides rules governing petitions and investigations under section 421 of the Trade Act (as well as petitions and investigations under section 406 of that Act). Finally, the Commission is adding a sentence to the end of section 206.1 stating that the new subpart G of part 206 provides rules applying to the Commission's functions and duties under section 422 of the Trade Act.

The first sentence of section 206.2 states that the Commission will institute an investigation under part 206 in response to a petition, request, resolution, or motion as described in the applicable statute. The Commission is amending that sentence by adding the new sections 421 and 422 of the Trade Act to the list of statutes under which the Commission may institute an investigation.

The second sentence in section 206.2 states that the first page of each petition or request must identify the statute and the subpart of part 206 under which the petition or request is being filed. The Commission is amending that sentence to add sections 421(b) and (o) of the Trade Act to the list of statutes and the new subpart G to the list of subparts.

Paragraph (a) of section 206.3 requires the Commission to promptly institute an investigation and to publish notice thereof in the Federal Register upon receipt of a properly filed petition or request under part 206. That obligation would apply to a petition or request under the new section 421(b) or (o) or the new section 422(b) of the Trade Act. The Commission also is required, however, in appropriate circumstances to institute an investigation and to publish a notice in the Federal Register in response to a resolution by the Senate Committee on Finance or the House Committee on Ways and Means or on the Commission's own motion. The Commission is amending paragraph (a) of section 206.3 by adding a sentence to the end of that paragraph to provide for those contingencies.

Paragraph (b) of section 206.3 specifies the required content of each Federal Register notice published pursuant to paragraph (a), that is, following receipt of a properly filed request or petition. The Commission is amending paragraph (b) by adding a sentence to the end of that paragraph stating that the notice will provide the same kind of information when the Commission institutes an investigation in response to a resolution or on the Commission's own motion.

Paragraph (c) of section 206.3 indicates that the Commission will make a nonconfidential copy of each petition or request available for public inspection. The Commission is amending paragraph (c) to state that the Commission will make each petition, request, resolution, or Commission motion available for public inspection, minus any confidential business information. Because of that change, the Commission also is amending the heading of section 206.3 to eliminate the reference to the availability of petitions for public inspection. Since the Commission will make each petition, request, resolution, or Commission motion available for such inspection, the revised portion of the heading will simply consist of the words “availability for public inspection.”

Section 206.4 currently requires the Commission to promptly transmit copies of a petition or request and the resulting notice of investigation to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, and other Federal agencies directly concerned. Those provisions do not match the statutory notification requirements or actual Commission practice for some types of investigations that are currently subject to provisions of part 206 (e.g., investigations under section 204(c) of the Trade Act or section 302(b) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act). In addition, the existing text of section 206.4 is not consistent with the notification requirements of the new section 421(b)(4) of the Trade Act, under which the Commission must provide the President, the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the House Committee on Ways and Means, and the Senate Committee on Finance with nonconfidential copies of each petition, request, or resolution filed under section 421(b). For those reasons, the Commission is revising section 206.4 by deleting the existing text and replacing it with the statement that for each investigation subject to provisions of part 206, the Commission will transmit copies of the petition, request, resolution, or motion as required by the relevant statute, along with a copy of the notice of investigation.

Paragraph (b) of section 206.5 provides for public hearings on injury and remedy in investigations conducted under subpart C, D, or E of part 206. The Commission is amending paragraph (b) on an interim basis to have it cover hearings in investigations under subpart C, D, E, or G. The specific changes that the Commission is making are described below.

First, the Commission is amending the heading of paragraph (b) to include investigations conducted under the new subpart G. Since the Commission is not likely to conduct a particular investigation under each of subparts C, D, E, and G, the revised heading refers to investigations under subpart C, D, E, or G.

Next, the Commission is amending the text of paragraph (b). The text currently states that the Commission will conduct a hearing on the subject of injury and remedy in each investigation instituted under subparts C, D, and E. Subpart E currently covers investigations under section 406(a) of the Trade Act. The Commission is amending paragraph (b) of section 206.5 to state that it will conduct a hearing on injury and remedy in each investigation instituted under subpart C or D or section 406(a) of the Trade Act and subpart E.

Subpart E, as amended in this notice, will cover investigations under section 421(b) or (o) of the Act in addition to investigations under section 406(a). Section 421 is comparable to section 406 in many respects. Moreover, material injury or the threat thereof to a domestic industry is an element of section 421(b). (See section 421(d) regarding the existence and cause of “market disruption” for purposes of section 421.) Material injury to a domestic industry or a threat thereof also would be relevant in an investigation under section 421(o) to determine whether the Presidential action taken under section 421(k) continues to be necessary to prevent or remedy market disruption.

Section 421 of the Act is a new statute however. For that reason, the Commission prefers not to adopt a rule, at this time, that would restrict the subject matter of public hearings in investigations under section 421(b) or (o) to “injury and remedy.” The Commission is therefore adding a sentence to paragraph (b) of section 206.5 stating that the Commission will conduct a hearing in each investigation instituted under section 421(b) or (o) of the Trade Act and subpart E, and that the Federal Register notice announcing the investigation will list the date, time, and location of the hearing, the subjects to be addressed, and the procedures to be followed, e.g., the procedure to be followed by each person who wishes to appear at the hearing.

The new subpart G of part 206 will cover, among other things, investigations under section 422(b) of the Trade Act. The principal subjects of those investigations are (1) whether an action described in section 422(c) of the Act has caused or threatens to cause a significant diversion of trade into the domestic market of the United States and (2) what relief, if any, the Commission should recommend to the President. Unlike market disruption under section 421 of the Act, trade diversion under section 422 does not include the element of material injury or threat thereof to a domestic industry (compare section 422(d)(1) of the Act to sections 421(c)(1) and (2) and (i)(1)(A)).

The Commission is therefore amending paragraph (b) of section 206.5 to say that for each investigation under section 421(b) or (o) or section 422(b) of the Trade Act, the Federal Register notice announcing the investigation will specify the date, time, and location of the public hearing, the subjects to be addressed, and the procedures to be followed.

Paragraph (a) of section 206.6 provides a general description of the required content of Commission reports to the President on investigations conducted under part 206.

Paragraph (a)(2) discusses the Commission's obligation to provide recommendations for action in the report after reaching an affirmative determination in the investigation.

The Commission is amending paragraph (a)(2) to reflect the Commission's obligation to provide recommendations for action in the Commission report after reaching an affirmative determination under section 421(b)(1) or (i)(1) or section 422(b) of the Act—or a determination that the President and the USTR may regard as affirmative under section 421(e) or (i)(1) or section 422(e)(1).

Paragraph (b) of section 206.6 describes additional findings and information that the Commission will include in reports to the President concerning certain kinds of investigations conducted under Part 206. Paragraph (b)(1) applies to determinations under section 202(b) of the Trade Act. Paragraph (b)(2) applies to determinations under section 302(b) of the NAFTA Implementation Act. The Commission is adding a new paragraph (b)(3) concerning the kinds of additional findings and information that will be included in reports concerning determinations under section 421(b) or 422(b) of the Trade Act. The content of that new paragraph is based on the Commission's obligation to consider certain factors, pursuant to section 421(g)(2)(D) or 422(e)(3)(iv), in reaching a determination under section 421(b) or 422(b) of the Act.

Paragraph (a) of section 206.7 currently provides that, except for limited disclosure under an administrative protective order in accordance with section 206.17, the Commission will not release confidential business information unless the submitter either consents or had notice, when the information was submitted, that the Commission might release it. Paragraph (a) also states that when appropriate, the Commission will provide confidential business information in reports to the President and the USTR, but will release expurgated copies of the reports to the public. Paragraph (a) currently applies only to investigations conducted under subpart B, C, D, or F of part 206.

Paragraph (a) of section 206.7 implements sections 202(a)(8) and (i) of the Trade Act concerning the treatment of confidential business information. Section 202(a)(8) states that the procedures concerning the release of such information that are set forth in section 332 of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1332) shall apply with respect to information received by the Commission in the course of certain other kinds of investigations. Section 202(i) of the Trade Act states that the Commission shall promulgate regulations to provide access to confidential business information under protective order to authorized representatives of interested parties who are parties to an investigation under section 202 of the Act. Sections 202(a)(8) and (i) of the Trade Act apply to investigations under section 421 or 422 of the Act. See sections 421(b)(3) and 422(b)(3).

Investigations under section 421(b) or (o) of the Act will be conducted in accordance with amended subpart E of part 206, while investigations under section 422(b) will be governed by the new subpart G. The Commission is therefore amending the first sentence in paragraph (a) of section 206.7 to include references to those investigations and subparts.

(See also the discussion below concerning the interim amendments to section 206.47, regarding the limited disclosure of confidential business information under an administrative protective order in investigations under section 421(b) or (o) of the Trade Act. Also see the discussion of the new section 206.66 regarding such disclosures in investigations under section 422(b) of the Act and the omission of such disclosures in reviews under section 422(j).)

Section 206.41 describes the applicability of subpart E of part 206. The first sentence of that section makes subpart F applicable solely to investigations under section 406 of the Trade Act. The Commission is amending that sentence to state that subpart E applies to investigations under section 421(b) or (o) of the Trade Act as well as investigations under section 406(a) of the Act.

Section 206.42 tells who may file a petition for an investigation governed by subpart E of part 206.

Because section 206.42 only covers petitions under section 406(a) of the Trade Act, the Commission is amending that section by designating the original text paragraph (a) of section 206.42, but revising it to explicitly apply to petitions under section 406(a) of the Act. Also, because of the broadened applicability of subpart E (as described above in the analysis of section 206.41), the Commission is adding a new paragraph (b) to section 206.42 that tells who may file a petition under section 421(b) or (o) of the Trade Act.

Section 206.43 describes the required content of a petition for an investigation governed by subpart E of part 206. The Commission is revising the heading of section 206.43 to indicate that this section pertains solely to petitions under section 406(a) of the Trade Act. In the first sentence of the introductory text in section 206.43, the Commission is changing the words “a petition under this subpart E” to “a petition under section 406(a) of the Trade Act.” The required content of a petition under the new section 421(b) or (o) of the Trade Act will be set forth in a new section 206.44, as described below.

The Commission is adding a new section 206.44 to subpart E of part 206, describing the required content of a petition under section 421(b) or (o) of the Trade Act. As the legislative history of section 421 ( See H.R. Rept. No. 632, 106th Cong., 2d Sess. 16-17 (May 22, 2000)) points out, the provisions of that section are modeled after section 406 of the Act, but with certain modifications to conform to the language of the U.S.-China Bilateral Trade Agreement. The Commission accordingly has modeled the new section 206.44 in part after section 206.43 governing the required content of a petition under section 406(a) of the Act. But the new section 206.44 imposes requirements based on section 421 of the Act.

Paragraph (a) of the new section 206.44 imposes the basic requirement that the petition must provide specific information to support the claim that products of the People's Republic of China are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities or under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause market disruption to the domestic producers of like or directly competitive products. Section 421 imposes stringent deadlines for the Commission to make the required determination(s). Hence, the petition may become a primary source of data (in an investigation based on a petition). For that reason, paragraph (a) of the new section 210.44 in subpart E of part 206 requires the petition to provide the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (i) of that section, to the extent that such information is reasonably available to the petitioner with due diligence.

Paragraph (b) of the new section 206.44 tells what product description data the petition must contain, and is modeled after paragraph (a) of section 206.43 governing the product description in a petition under section 406(a) of the Trade Act.

A petition under section 421(b) of the Act must be filed by an entity, including a trade association, firm, certified or recognized union, or group of workers, which is representative of an industry. See sections 421(b)(1) and 202(a) of the Act. Hence, paragraph (c) of the new section 206.44 specifies what data the petition must furnish to establish that the petitioner satisfies the representativeness requirement. Paragraph (c) corresponds to paragraph (b) of section 206.43, concerning the representativeness of a petition under section 406(a) of the Act.

Paragraph (d) of the new section 206.44 specifies the import data to be furnished in a petition under section 421(b) of the Trade Act. Paragraph (d) is similar to paragraph (c) of section 206.43, which describes the import data to be furnished in a petition under section 406(a) of the Act. The difference is that owing to the language of section 421(c)(1) of the Act, paragraph (d) of the new section 206.44 requires the submission of information about whether imports are increasing absolutely or relatively (instead of absolutely or relative to domestic production).

Paragraph (e) of the new section 206.44 specifies the domestic production data to be submitted in a petition under section 421(b) of the Trade Act. Paragraph (e) matches paragraph (d) of section 206.43, which describes the domestic production data to be furnished in a petition under section 406(a) of the Act.

Paragraph (f) of the new section 206.44 specifies the injury data to be submitted in a petition under section 421(b) of the Trade Act. Paragraph (f) is similar to paragraph (e) of section 206.43, which describes the data showing injury that must be included in a petition under section 406(a) of the Act.

Paragraph (g) of the new section 206.44 specifies the injury causation data to be submitted in a petition under section 421(b) of the Trade Act. Paragraph (g) differs from paragraph (f) of section 206.43, regarding the cause of injury as described in a petition under section 406(a) of the Act. Owing to differences between factors the Commission must consider under section 421(d)(1) of the Act and those it must consider under section 406(e)(1)(C) of the Act, paragraph (g) of the new section 206.44 does not indicate that the petition should include evidence of disruptive pricing practices or other efforts to unfairly manage trade patterns (in addition to evidence of the effect of the subject imports on prices in the United States). Instead, paragraph (g) requires the submission of data about the effect that the product imported from the People's Republic of China has on prices in the United States for like or directly competitive articles—which is consistent with section 421(d)(3) of the Act.

A petition under section 421(b) of the Trade Act may allege that critical circumstances exist and may request that provisional relief be provided with respect to the product identified in the petition. See section 421(i) of the Act. For that reason, paragraph (h) of the new section 206.44 states that a petition alleging critical circumstances must provide information demonstrating that delay in taking action under section 421 of the Act would cause damage to the relevant domestic industry that would be difficult to repair.

Paragraph (i) of the new section 206.44 states that the petition must include a statement describing the import relief sought and the purpose thereof.

Paragraph (j) of the new section 206.44 describes the required content of a petition under section 421(o) of the Trade Act. A petition under section 421(o) must be filed “on behalf of the industry concerned.” Therefore, paragraph (j) of the new section 206.44 requires the petition to provide evidence of representativeness, as described in paragraph (b) of that section. The new paragraph (j) also states that the petition must contain specific information supporting the petitioner's claim that action under section 421 of the Trade Act continues to be necessary to prevent or remedy market disruption. Paragraph (j) also tells the petitioner that the information provided should take into account factors such as those specified in paragraphs (c)-(g) of section 206.44. Owing to the short time provided for the Commission to make its determination under section 421(o), the petition may become a key source of information. For that reason, paragraph (j) of section 206.44 states that, to comply with paragraph (j), the petition should contain all relevant information reasonably available to the petitioner with due diligence.

Existing section 206.44 addresses the time by which the Commission must furnish its report to the President in an investigation under section 406(a) of the Trade Act. Because the Commission is adding a new section 206.44 as discussed above, the Commission is redesignating existing section 206.44 as section 206.45. The Commission also is redesignating the existing provisions of section 206.44 as paragraph (a) of section 206.45 and explicitly limiting them to the issuance of a report to the President in an investigation under section 406(a) of the Trade Act. The Commission is adding a new paragraph (b) concerning the deadlines for submitting its determination and report to the President and the USTR in an investigation under section 421(b) of the Trade Act. A new paragraph (c) states the Commission's deadlines for issuing a determination and report on critical circumstances, pursuant to section 421(i) of the Act, when the petition in an investigation under section 421(b) alleges that such circumstances exist and requests provisional relief. Finally, the Commission is adding a new paragraph (d) concerning the time by which the Commission must issue its determination and report in an investigation under section 421(o) of the Act.

Existing section 206.45 states that the Commission will issue a nonconfidential version of the report issued in an investigation under subpart E and will publish a summary of it in the Federal Register . Because the Commission is adding a new section 206.44 to subpart E as discussed above, the existing section 206.45 will become section 206.46. The Commission is making no changes in the substance of this rule.

Section 421(b)(3) of the Trade Act states that sections 202(a)(8) and (i) of the Act, relating to the treatment of confidential business information, shall apply to investigations conducted under section 421. The provisions concerning confidential business information in investigations under section 202(b) of the Act are set forth in sections 206.7 and 206.17 of part 206.

Section 206.7 applies to investigations under section 421(b) or (o) of the Trade Act as a result of the Commission's interim amendments to sections 206.7 and 206.41.

The Commission is adding a new section 206.47 to provide for the limited disclosure of confidential business information under an administrative protective order, as described in section 206.17, in investigations under section 421(b) or (o) of the Act.

As noted in the overview, the Commission is adding a new subpart G concerning investigations under section 422(b) and reviews under section 422(j) of the Trade Act.

Section 206.61 describes the applicability of subpart G and cross-references relevant rules of general application.

Section 206.62 states who may file a petition for an investigation under section 422(b) of the Trade Act. This section is based on section 422(b)(1) of the Act, which states that a petition may be filed by an entity described in section 202(a) of the Act.

Section 206.63 describes the required content of a petition for an investigation under section 422(b) of the Trade Act. It consists of an introductory paragraph and paragraphs (a)-(f).

The introductory paragraph of the new section 206.63 imposes the basic requirement that the petition must provide specific information to support the claim that an action described in section 422(c) has caused, or threatens to cause, a significant diversion of trade into the domestic market of the United States. Because of the stringent deadline for the Commission to make its determination under section 422(b)(1) of the Act, the petition may become a primary source of information. The introductory paragraph of section 206.63 accordingly requires the petition to furnish the information specified in the introductory paragraph and paragraphs (a)-(f) of that section, to the extent that such information is reasonably available to the petitioner with due diligence.

Among other things, paragraph (a) directs the petitioner to submit data concerning the imported product at issue. A petition under section 422(b) must be filed by an entity, including a trade association, firm, certified or recognized union, or group of workers, which is representative of an industry. See sections 422(b)(1) and 202(a) of the Act. Hence, paragraph (a) of the new section 206.63 also requires the petition to provide the name and description of the domestic product concerned, while paragraph (b) requires the submission of evidence of the petitioner's representativeness.

Paragraph (c) indicates that the petition must contain a description of the action, as defined in section 422(c) of the Trade Act, that allegedly has caused or threatens to cause a significant diversion of trade into the domestic market of the United States.

Paragraph (d) requires the petition to provide information about the factors enumerated in section 422(d)(1) of the Act, which the Commission must consider in determining whether significant diversion or the threat thereof exists for purposes of section 422.

Section 422(d)(2) of the Trade Act directs the Commission to examine the changes in imports into the United States from the People's Republic of China since the time that the WTO member commenced the investigation that led to a request for consultations described in section 422(a) of the Act. In some cases, the United States Customs Service will be required by law to monitor the subject imports and to make data from such monitoring available to the Commission upon request. See section 422(a) of the Act. However, the Commission has drafted paragraph (e) of section 206.63 to require the petition to provide any information available to the petitioner that will help the Commission fulfill its statutory obligation to examine the changes in imports.

Finally, paragraph (f) of section 206.63 states that the petition must contain a statement describing the import relief desired under section 422(h) and the purpose thereof.

Section 206.64 addresses the institution of an investigation under section 422(b) or a review under section 422(j) of the Trade Act. Section 206.64 also addresses the Commission's publication of a Federal Register notice concerning the investigation or review and the fact that the Commission will make the petition, request, resolution, or motion that triggered the investigation or the notification document that triggered the review available for public inspection, except for any confidential information contained therein.

Section 206.65 governs public hearings in investigations under section 422(b) and reviews under section 422(j) of the Trade Act. Section 422(b)(2) of the Act makes public hearings mandatory for investigations under section 422(b). Paragraph (a) section 206.65 states that hearings for those investigations are provided for in paragraph (b) of section 206.5 (discussed above).

Section 422(b)(3) of the Trade Act states that the provisions of sections 202(a)(8) and (i) of the Act, relating to confidential business information, shall apply to investigations conducted under section 422. The provisions governing the treatment of such information in investigations under section 202(b) of the Act are set forth in sections 206.7 and 206.17 of part 206.

Section 206.7 applies to investigations under section 422(b) of the Act as a result of the Commission's interim amendments to sections 206.7 and 206.41.

The Commission is adding a new section 206.66 to provide for the limited disclosure of confidential business information under an administrative protective order, as described in section 206.17, in investigations under section 422(b).

As noted, section 422(b)(3) of the Act states that the provisions of sections 202(a)(8) and (i) of the Act, relating to the treatment of confidential business information, “shall apply to investigations conducted under this section [422] [italics added].” Section 422(j) characterizes a review under section 422(j) as a “review of circumstances.” The Commission notes further that while it has 60 days to make its determination in such a review (as opposed to 45 days for making a determination in an investigation under section 422(b)), section 422(j) of the Act does not mandate the kinds of procedures that apply to an investigation under section 422(b), namely, the publication of a Federal Register notice of institution and the conduct of a public hearing. For those reasons, the Commission did not draft the new section 206.66 to provide in reviews for the limited disclosure of confidential business information under an administrative protective order, as described in section 206.17.

Paragraph (a) of section 206.67 lists the deadlines for issuance of the Commission's determination and report to the President and the USTR in an investigation under section 422(b) of the Trade Act. Paragraph (b) lists the deadlines for issuing the determination and report in a review under section 422(j) of the Act.

Section 206.68 governs the publishing of the Commission reports and notice concerning such report in an investigation under section 422(b) or a review under section 422(j) of the Trade Act. This rule states that upon making a report to the President of the results of such investigation or a review, the Commission will make the report public (with the exception of information which the Commission determines to be confidential) and will publish notice of the report in the Federal Register .

The Commission notes that the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is inapplicable to this rulemaking because it is not one for which a notice of proposed rulemaking is required under section 553(b) of the APA. (See the discussion above concerning the procedure for adopting the interim amendments.)

Even if the Regulatory Flexibility Act applied, the Commission's interim amendments to part 206 are not likely to affect small entities in the manner that the Act is intended to prevent. The interim amendments are agency rules of procedure and practice. The procedures for the new types of proceedings are similar to those for existing types. Moreover, the Commission has no reason to believe, at this point, that a majority of the petitioners will be small entities. For those reasons, the Commission certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the interim rule amendments in this notice will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Commission has determined that the interim amendments to part 206 do not meet the criteria described in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) and thus do not constitute a significant regulatory action for purposes of the Executive Order. As noted, they merely respond to exigencies created by the new legislation. The interim amendments to part 206 will not result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions, or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or foreign markets. Accordingly, no regulatory impact assessment is required.

The interim amendments to part 206 of the Commission's rules do not contain federalism implications warranting the preparation of a Federalism Assessment pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 4, 1999).

The interim amendments to part 206 of the Commission's rules will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

The interim amendments to part 206 of the Commission's rules are not major rules as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et. seq.). The interim amendments will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

The interim amendments to part 206 of the Commission's rules are exempt from the reporting requirements of the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) because they concern rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.

The interim amendments to part 206 are not subject to section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.), since they do not contain any new information collection requirements.

On September 17, 2001, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Marine Events and Regattas; Annual Marine Events in the Eighth Coast Guard District” in the Federal Register . We received one e-mail and no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.

The Coast Guard is establishing various annually recurring marine events and modifying some of the existing marine event regulations throughout the Eighth Coast Guard District. Establishing permanent marine event regulations and modifying some of the existing marine event regulations by notice and comment rulemaking gave the public an opportunity to comment on these proposed regulations. The Coast Guard has received no prior notice of any impact caused by the previous events. The new or modified marine event regulations are as follows:

The regulated area for this event is from the shore of the east bank out 500 feet into the Mobile River between latitudes 30 degrees 41 minutes 20 seconds North and 30 degrees 41 minutes 15 seconds North. The Mobile Register will sponsor the one-day event that will occur on the 4th of July.

The regulated area for this event is a five nautical mile radius from a center point located 1,500 feet from the Pensacola Beach water tower in a direction perpendicular to the beachfront. Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida will sponsor the two-day event that will occur on the 2nd weekend in July.

The regulated area for this event is in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway at Pensacola, Florida from the Fort Pickens pier to Barrancas Beach, crossing the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway at statute mile 180 between buoys 13, 14, 15, and 16. The one-day event will occur on the 1st weekend in August.

The regulated area for this event is bounded by the following coordinates: (1) Latitude 30 degrees, 24 minutes, 36 seconds North, longitude 088 degrees, 56 minutes, 00 seconds West; (2) latitude 30 degrees, 25 minutes, 30 seconds North, longitude 088 degrees, 55 minutes, 20 seconds West; (3) latitude 30 degrees, 25 minutes, 10 seconds North, longitude 088 degrees, 54 minutes, 55 seconds West. Keesler Air Force Base, Biloxi, Mississippi, will sponsor the two-day event that will occur on the 1st weekend in November.

The regulated area for this event is Santa Rosa Sound, east of the Brooks Bridge to Fort Walton Yacht Club at Smack Point on the western end of Choctowatchee Bay and Cinco Bayou. The Krewe of Billy Bowlegs of Okaloosa County, Inc. will sponsor the two-day event that will occur on the 1st weekend in June.

The regulated area for this event is the waters of Corpus Christi Bay adjacent to the Corpus Christi downtown area bounded by the following coordinates: (1) Latitude 27 degrees, 49 minutes, 24 seconds North, longitude 097 degrees, 23 minutes, 00 seconds West; (2) latitude 27 degrees, 49 minutes, 24 seconds North, longitude 097 degrees, 21 minutes, 22 seconds West; (3) latitude 27 degrees, 45 minutes, 00 seconds North, longitude 097 degrees, 23 minutes, 00 seconds West; (4) latitude 27 degrees, 45 minutes, 00 seconds North, longitude 097 degrees, 21 minutes, 22 seconds West. EM Marketing Company, Inc. and the Corpus Christi Offshore Racing Association will sponsor the two-day event that will occur on the 1st or 2nd weekend in June.

The regulated area for this event is on the Neches River from the Trinity Industries Dry Dock to the northeast corner of the Port of Beaumont's dock number 5. C P Rehabilitation Center will sponsor the event which will occur on the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Saturday in April.

The regulated area for this event is on the waters of the Sabine-Neches Canal from Wilson Middle School to the northern terminus of Old Golf Course Road. The event is sponsored by the City of Port Arthur and Lamar State College and will occur on the Fourth of July.

The date is amended to read “two days beginning on the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th weekend in April.”

The regulated area is amended to read “Destin East Pass between and including buoys 5 to 11, Destin, FL”.

The regulated area is amended to read “Destin East Pass between and including buoys 5 to 11, Destin, FL”.

We received one e-mail from Marine Safety Office Port Arthur notifying us that there was a minor error in the listing for the Rubber Ducky Derby. The NPRM stated that the event is to occur on the “2nd, 3rd, and 4th Saturday in April.” The correct language should be “2nd, 3rd, or 4th Saturday in April.” We changed the proposed regulation to reflect the correct language. No other comments were received.

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).

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

Although these marine events will restrict vessel traffic from transiting certain areas of Eighth Coast Guard District waters, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated areas will be in effect and the advance notification that will be made to the maritime community through the Federal Register . These regulations have been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on maritime interests yet provide the level of safety deemed necessary.

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

We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.

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.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.

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 E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

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

We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 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.

We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This rule fits paragraph 34(g) as it establishes and/or amends annual marine event regulations. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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 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 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 a NPRM. Publishing a NPRM and delaying the rule's effective date would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is needed to protect the public, ports and waterways of the United States. The Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners and place Coast Guard vessels in the vicinity of these zones to advise mariners of the restriction.

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 .

Based on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center buildings in New York and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, there is an increased risk that subversive activity could be launched by vessels or persons in close proximity to the Port of Tampa, Florida, moored vessels carrying or transferring Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Anhydrous Ammonia (NH3) and/or grade “A” and “B” flammable liquid cargoes and the terminals to which they are tied. No vessel may transit within 100 yards of moored vessels carrying or transferring Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Anhydrous Ammonia (NH3) and/or grade “A” and “B” flammable liquid cargoes.

Coast Guard and local police department patrol vessels will be on scene to monitor traffic through these areas. Entry into a security zone is prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Tampa, Florida. The Captain of the Port will notify the public via Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channels 13 and 16 (157.1 MHz) of all active security zones in port by identifying the names of the vessels around which they are centered.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979) because the zones only extends 100 yards around the subject vessels and vessels may enter the zones with the permission of the Captain of the Port of Tampa.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast Guard considered whether this rule would have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. “Small entities” include 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 because small entities may be allowed to enter on a case by case basis with the authorization of the Captain of the Port.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or government jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance in understanding this rule.

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded under Figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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 direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationships 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 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.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165, as follows:

This rulemaking action was taken at the request of the United States Navy and is considered necessary to safeguard U.S. Naval vessels and property from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, criminal actions, or other causes of a similar nature. This temporary security zone is necessary for protection of the public from the hazards of upcoming Naval operations in support of Operation Native Atlas 2002 in the area and for the protection of the operations from compromise and interference.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this temporary regulation. In keeping with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. In keeping with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard also finds that good cause exists for making this regulation effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

Due to the complex planning, national security reasons, and the coordination involved with Naval scheduling, final details for the Operation Native Atlas 2002 were not provided to the Coast Guard in time to draft and publish a NPRM or a final rule 30 days in advance of its effective date. Any delay in implementing this rule would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is necessary to ensure the protection of the Naval vessels, their crew and national security.

Furthermore, in order to protect the interests of national security, the Coast Guard is promulgating this temporary regulation to provide for the safety and security of U.S. Naval vessels in the navigable waters of the United States. As a result, the establishment and enforcement of this security zone is a function directly involved in, and necessary to military operations. Accordingly, based on the military function exception set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), notice and comment rulemaking and advance publication, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d), are not required for this regulation.

United States Navy officials have requested that the Captain of the Port (COTP), San Diego, California establish a temporary security zone in the area of Camp Pendleton California. This request was made to improve security of Naval facilities and operations at this location and to protect the public from hazardous operations. Several hazardous or classified naval operations, including activities related to Operation Native Atlas 2002, will be conducted near this location, that are vital to national security and require protection of the public or protection of the operation from compromise and interference. The Captain of the Port concurs with the need for this security zone. The security zone is needed to protect persons and property from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, criminal actions, or other causes of a similar nature, and to secure the interests of the United States.

This security zone is necessary to provide for the safety and security of the United States of America. This security zone, prohibiting all vessel traffic from entering, transiting or anchoring within the areas defined by the security zone, is necessary for the security and protection of national assets. U.S. Navy personnel and U.S. Coast Guard vessels will enforce this zone.

Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into this security zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. Each person and vessel in a security zone shall obey any direction or order of the COTP. The COTP may remove any person, vessel, article, or thing from a security zone. No person may board, or take or place any article or thing on board, any vessel in a security zone without the permission of the COTP.

This security zone is established pursuant to the authority of The Magnuson Act regulations promulgated by the President under 50 U.S.C. 191, including Subparts 6.01 and 6.04 of Part 6 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Vessels or persons violating this section are subject to the penalties set forth in 50 U.S.C. 192: seizure and forfeiture of the vessel, a monetary penalty of not more than $10,000, and imprisonment for not more than 10 years.

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

Due to national security interests, the implementation of this security zone is necessary for the protection of the United States and its people. The size of the zone is the minimum necessary to provide adequate protection for U.S. Naval vessels, their crews, adjoining areas, and the public. The entities most likely to be affected, if any, are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. Any hardships experienced by persons or vessels are considered minimal compared to the national interest in protecting U.S. Naval vessels, their crews, and the public.

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

This security zone will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because these security zones are only closing small portions of the navigable waters adjacent to Camp Pendleton, California. In addition, there are no small entities shoreward of the security zone. For these reasons, and the ones discussed in the previous section, the Coast Guard certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this temporary final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule and have determined that this rule 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 create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. 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 have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this rule, which establishes a security zone, is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

NARA published a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 7, 2001 at 66 FR 46752. The comment period ended on November 6, 2001. NARA received no public comments, and is issuing this final rule without change.

The public access computers described in § 1254.25 are being installed in research and/or consultation rooms in all NARA archival facilities, including regional archives and Presidential libraries, to provide Internet access for research purposes, such as access to NARA's Archival Information Locator (NAIL), and NAIL's successor, the Archival Research Catalog (ARC). Computers designated for public use provide Internet access only. At least one of the public Internet access workstations in each facility complies with the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, ensuring comparable accessibility to individuals with disabilities. Individual accessibility requirements are addressed on an as-needed basis. We encourage people who require assistive technology to notify the appropriate research room at least two weeks in advance.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it applies only to individuals conducting research on NARA premises. This regulation does not have any federalism or tribal implications.

On October 28, 1999, the State of Georgia, through the GAEPD, submitted an attainment demonstration for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta nonattainment area for inclusion into the Georgia SIP. This submittal included a version of the low-sulfur/low-RVP fuel regulations that has subsequently been amended by the State, and submitted by the State to EPA in revised form in subsequent SIP revisions dated July 31, 2000, and August 21, 2001. The version submitted on August 21, 2001, which is the subject of this final rulemaking, is the “Gasoline Marketing Rule,” provided in Georgia's Rules for Air Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-1.02(2) (bbb).

On May 31, 2000, in support of its request for SIP approval of the State fuel regulations, GAEPD also submitted a demonstration that, in accordance with section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Act, the fuel control is necessary to achieve a NAAQS. On November 9, 2001, GAEPD submitted an updated “necessity” demonstration which reflected the revised motor vehicle emissions budget, the request for an attainment date extension from 2003 to 2004, and the revised Partnership for a Smog Free Georgia emissions calculations. Specifically, the Georgia “necessity” demonstration submittals contain data and analyses to support a finding under section 211(c)(4)(C) that the State's low-sulfur and low-RVP requirements are necessary for the Atlanta nonattainment area to achieve the ozone NAAQS. On December 11, 2001, (66 FR 63982) EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to approve the fuel waiver request and fuel rule. That NPR provides a detailed description of this action and EPA's rationale for proposed approval. The public comment period for this action ended on January 25, 2002. No comments, adverse or otherwise, were received on EPA's proposal.

EPA is approving Georgia's low-sulfur/low-RVP fuel program into the federally enforceable SIP because the fuel requirements are in accordance with the Act, are necessary for the Atlanta nonattainment area to achieve the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in a timely manner, and will supply some or all of the reductions needed to achieve the ozone NAAQS.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S. C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2001). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of prior existing requirements for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1195 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Action of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

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).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 23, 2002. 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)).

Regulated entities. Entities that will potentially be affected by this correction are those that store or transport natural gas and are major sources of HAP as defined in section 112 of the Clean Air Act. The regulated categories and entities include:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that we are now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in § 63.1270 of the Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Facilities NESHAP. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. World Wide Web (WWW). The text of today's document will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

Today's action consists of one error correction to the Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Facilities NESHAP technical corrections that were published on June 29, 2001 (66 FR 34548). This error correction is minor in nature and noncontroversial. We have deleted a subparagraph that was intended to have been deleted from the applicability section of the Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Facilities NESHAP.

The correction in today's action is being made to remove subparagraph § 63.1270(a)(1)(iv) that mistakenly remained in the June 29, 2001 technical corrections. In that action a single equation was added to simplify a four-step process to calculate natural gas throughput. The deletion of this subparagraph will avoid confusion and make it clear that only the single equation added in the June 29, 2001 action is used in determining natural gas throughput.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is, therefore, not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Because the EPA has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of the UMRA. This action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). This technical correction does not have substantial direct effects on the States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This technical correction also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant.

This technical correction action does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply. This technical correction also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this technical correction, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of this rule amendment in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order. This technical correction does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). The EPA's compliance with these statutes and Executive Orders for the underlying rule is discussed in the June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32610) Federal Register publication containing the Oil and Natural Gas Production final rule and Natural Gas Transmission and Storage final rule.

This technical correction is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) (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. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefor, and established an effective date of February 22, 2002. The 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 . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order in MM Docket No. 98-159, adopted February 6, 2002, and released February 8,2002. The full text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order in MM Docket No. 01-250, MM Docket No. 01-251, and MM Docket No. 01-253, adopted January 30, 2002, and released February 8, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202 863-2893, facsimile 202 863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

The Commission, at the request of Cheyenne Wells Broadcasting, allots Channel 224C1 at Cheyenne Wells, Colorado, as the community's first local aural transmission service. See 66 FR 50602 (October 4, 2001). Channel 224C1 can be allotted at Cheyenne Wells in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with no site restrictions. The coordinates for Channel 224C1 at Cheyenne Wells are 38-49-16 North Latitude and 102-21-09 West Longitude.

The Commission, at the request of Flagler Broadcasting, allots Channel 283C3 at Flagler, Colorado, as the community's first local aural transmission service. See 66 FR 50602 (October 4, 2001). Channel 283C3 can be allotted to Flagler in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 6.5 kilometers (4.1 miles) west of Flagler. The coordinates for Channel 283C3 at Flagler are 39-17-17 North Latitude and 103-08-32 West Longitude.

The Commission, at the request of Stratton Broadcasting, allots Channel 246C1 at Stratton, Colorado, as the community's first local aural transmission service. See 66 FR 50602 (October 4, 2001). Channel 246C1 can be allotted to Stratton in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 4.3 kilometers (2.7 miles) east of Stratton, Colorado. The coordinates for Channel 246C1 at Stratton are 39-18-34 North Latitude and 102-33-17 West Longitude.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-18, adopted January 30, 2002, and released February 8, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualtex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893.

This final rule is being adopted without prior notice and prior public comment. The Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 1134; Feb. 26, 1979), however provides that, to the maximum extent possible, operating administrations for the DOT should provide an opportunity for public comment on regulations issued without prior notice. Accordingly, interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments. Comments relating to environmental, energy, federalism, or international trade impacts that might result from this amendment also are invited. Comments must include the regulatory docket or amendment number and must be submitted in duplicate to the address above. All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with TSA personnel on this rulemaking, will be filed in the public docket. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date.

TSA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable. This final rule may be amended in light of the comments received.

See ADDRESSES above for information on how to submit comments.

You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the following steps:

(1) Go to search function of the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page ( http://dms.dot.gov/search ).

(2) On the search page type in the last digits of the docket number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on “search.”

(3) On the next page, which contains the docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the final rule.

You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140html.

In addition, copies are available by writing or calling the Transportation Security Administration's Air Carrier Division, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202-267-3413.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires TSA to comply with small entity requests for information advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within TSA's jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a question regarding this document may contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for information. You can get further information regarding SBREFA on the Small Business Administration's Web page at http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/law_lib.html.

On November 16, 2001, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) (Pub. L. 107-71), was enacted. ATSA created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and transferred aviation security functions from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to TSA. The civil aviation security rules have been transferred from the FAA (in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) to TSA (in title 49, Code of Federal Regulations) in a separate rulemaking (see docket number TSA-2002-11602).

Section 132(a) of ATSA requires the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security to “implement a security program for charter air carriers * * * with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or more.”

Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 1544 requires that certain aircraft operators have security programs. These include:

• Those operating scheduled or public charter passenger operations with 61 or more passenger seats (full programs).

• Those operating scheduled or public charter passenger operations with any size aircraft that enplane passengers from or deplane passengers into a sterile area (full programs).

• Those operating scheduled or public charter operations in aircraft with 31 to 60 passenger seats (partial programs).

• Those operating private charter operations that enplane passengers from or deplane passengers into sterile areas (private charter program).

In addition, an aircraft operator that is not required to have a security program under part 1544 may request a limited program in order to carry out certain activities. For instance, certain all-cargo aircraft operators have security programs that allow them to take over from the airport certain security functions at an airport, or that allow them to perform certain security measures to facilitate transferring cargo to passenger aircraft operators.

Further, Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 91 imposed security requirements on certain operators. See 66 FR 50531 (October 4, 2001). Paragraph 1(b) required that aircraft operations in aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of more than 12,500 pounds carry out security procedures when notified by the Administrator of the FAA. In October 2001, the FAA notified all-cargo operators using aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of more than 95,000 pounds to carry out certain security procedures. SFAR 91 was transferred, with changes, to 49 CFR part 1550.

ATSA section 132(a) expands the number of aircraft operations that must be under a security program. It requires security measures for smaller aircraft, and for cargo aircraft, that are not required to be under security programs under current rules.

Aircraft that have a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or more generally have 18 or more passenger seats. Part 1544 does not require security programs for passenger operations in aircraft with 30 seats or fewer. Accordingly, this rule requires security programs for the operation of smaller aircraft than under current rules. Note that some aircraft operators have full programs for operation of aircraft with 30 or fewer seats to allow them to enplane from and deplane into sterile areas.

Part 1544 does not require all-cargo operators to have security programs. However, section 132(a) is not limited to passenger operations. Further, the events on September 11, 2001, demonstrate the ability to use aircraft to endanger persons on the ground. An aircraft so used is just as dangerous whether it holds cargo or passengers. Accordingly, this rule requires security programs for both passenger and all-cargo operations using aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or more. As noted above, some all-cargo aircraft operators currently have limited security programs under part 1544, or have security programs under § 1550.7.

Section 132(a) requires additional security measures for charter air carriers. In addition, there is no reason to apply additional security measures to charter air carriers, however, without also applying them to scheduled operations. Both carry passengers and property for hire. For both, the passengers rely on the aircraft operator to provide a safe and secure flight, and the potential for a criminal or terrorist threat against a scheduled operation is no less than against a charter operation. Accordingly, this rule applies security measures for both scheduled and charter service.

These amendments incorporate the new requirements in section 132(a) of ATSA, and require aircraft operators with aircraft having a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or more to have security programs for certain operations. This rule also requires certain additional measures for operators with full and partial security programs.

This rule introduces a new security program, the twelve-five program. It applies to operations conducted in an aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or more; in scheduled or charter service; carrying passengers or cargo or both; and not presently required to have a full program or partial security program. The contents of this new security program are similar to that for partial security programs. The main difference is that holders of twelve-five security programs are not required to participate in an airport operator-sponsored exercise of the airport contingency plan as described in § 1544.301(c). These operators are often small and conduct operations at airports without such contingency plans, or use only remote areas of airports that have them. Participation in this exercise may be very burdensome. Note that the airport operator may require any aircraft operator using its airport to participate is such exercises as a condition of using the airport.

Currently, under § 1544.229, individuals with unescorted access to the security identification display area (SIDA), individuals with authority to perform screening functions, and individuals with authority to perform certain checked baggage and cargo functions must undergo a CHRC. New § 1544.230 applies this same requirement to flightcrew members. “Flightcrew member” is defined in 14 CFR 1.1, and now in 49 CFR 1540.5, as a pilot, flight engineer, or flight navigator assigned to duty in an aircraft during flight time.

It is important that TSA require additional background checks to be conducted on flightcrew who operate aircraft that could be used to endanger others. Congress has determined that fingerprint-based CHRCs are an important measure in checking the background of individuals who have access to aircraft. See 49 U.S.C. 44936. The use of CHRCs for flightcrew will provide an additional assurance that they are suitable to carry out essential duties in the aviation system.

Section 1544.230 (a) states the scope of the section. It applies to each flightcrew member for each aircraft operator. Amendments to §§ 1544.101 and 1544.103 make clear that § 1544.230 is applicable to flightcrew members not only under a twelve-five program, but also flightcrew members for each aircraft operation under a full program, a partial program, or a private charter program, unless the individual is already subject to § 1544.229. In considering what security measures to apply to the twelve-five operators, it was apparent that the enhanced security of a CHRC for flightcrew should apply to all operations in the larger aircraft. Most flightcrew members in operations under full security programs are now subject to CHRCs under § 1544.229 because they need unescorted access to the SIDA to perform preflight inspections of their aircraft and other functions. Some flightcrew of all-cargo carriers also have undergone CHRCs because they operate in a SIDA, too. This rule, however, will require flightcrew members who operate under partial security programs or SFAR 91 security programs and those that, until now, have not operated under security programs, to undergo CHRCs. Note that this rule does not specifically apply to flightcrew for operations under limited programs. If the limited program includes access to the SIDA, however, § 1544.230 will be incorporated into the program.

Under § 1544.230, the aircraft operator must ensure that flightcrew members undergo a fingerprint-based CHRC that is largely the same as in § 1544.229. See 66 FR 63474 (December 6, 2001) and the rule (docket number TSA-2002-11602) that adopts § 1544.229 for a full discussion of these procedures.

Aircraft operators that now hold partial programs or that will hold twelve-five programs have not, for the most part, been required to carry out CHRCs in the past. They must be provided with sufficient time to learn how to perform this function and make all necessary arrangements. On the other hand, Congress made clear in ATSA section 132(a) that additional security measures must be implemented without undue delay. The compliance date for this section is December 6, 2002, which is intended to give sufficient time to perform this function without undue delay. This is the same date that operators under full programs must complete CHRCs on certain current employees. See 66 FR 63474.

Section 1544.237 requires that each aircraft operator restrict access to the flight deck, as provided in its security program. There currently are restrictions on access to the flight deck, such as 14 CFR 121.547, 121.548, and 121.550. After September 11, the FAA issued Security Directives to operators with full programs further restricting access to the flight deck to provide increased security for the flightcrew. The security program for all-cargo operators under SFAR 91 also includes increased flight deck restrictions. ATSA clearly requires that the flight deck must have additional protections. See section 104. The increased security measures for access to the flight deck provide additional protection by limiting the opportunity for an individual to endanger the flightcrew members and thereby endanger the flight.

This section incorporates such restrictions into the security program for each aircraft operator. Amendments to §§ 1544.101 and 1544.103 make clear that this section applies to all operators with full programs, partial programs, and twelve-five programs.

Paragraph (b) makes clear that this section does not restrict access for an FAA air carrier inspector or an authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board under 14 CFR 121.547, 121.548, 125.315, 125.317, or 135.75; or for an Agent of the United States Secret Service under 14 CFR 121.550. Further, this section does not restrict access for a Federal Air Marshal under § 1544.223. Such individuals have essential safety and security duties and, if they are authorized in accordance with 14 CFR 121, 125, or 135, or 49 CFR 1544.223, they must be admitted to the flight deck on request.

TSA is aware that in the state of Alaska, operators of some aircraft of the size covered by the twelve-five program are required to carry emergency equipment to use if they must make a forced landing at a remote site. Alaska has vast areas that are accessible only by air. If an aircraft is forced to land in that kind of area, it may take some time to locate. Wildlife can pose serious threats to individuals. Alaska law provides that aircraft must have emergency equipment on board, including such things as food for each occupant sufficient to sustain life for two weeks, an axe or hatchet, a firearm, a knife, matches, and signaling devises such as smoke bombs. See Alaska Stat. section 02.35.110. While there are exemptions from some of these requirements for larger aircraft, some aircraft subject to the twelve-five security program are required under Alaska law to have firearms, signaling devises, and other items that otherwise would not be permitted.

TSA recognizes that travel in Alaska poses unique circumstances and dangers for which the aircraft operator must be prepared. Accordingly, TSA will approve amendments to the security programs of operators in Alaska to ensure that they may comply with Alaska law and carry emergency equipment for the safety of the passengers and crew.

This action is necessary to prevent a possible imminent hazard to aircraft and persons and property within the United States. Because the circumstances described herein warrant immediate action, Under Secretary of Transportation for Security finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

This emergency rule contains information collection activities subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the paperwork burden associated with the rule will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. As protection provided by the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this information collection will be published in the Federal Register after it has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget.

Need: This rule requires aircraft operators using aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or more to implement an aviation security program.

Description of Respondents: All new and existing aircraft operators using aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or more.

Burden: TSA does not currently have concise data on which aircraft operators have aircraft 12,500 pounds or more. Accordingly, TSA will calculate the paperwork burden assuming that all aircraft operators will be subject to this rule. Thus, these assumptions will overestimate the overall burden. In addition, TSA assumes no change in the number of aircraft operators over the next 10 years. Without this simplifying assumption, it would be impossible to estimate the total effects of these changes over the ten-year period.

Each air carrier subject to this rule will need to fingerprint all its flightcrew members; train all employees with security-related duties; acknowledge receipt of, and distribute, Security Directives and Information Circulars; and prepare, maintain, and accommodate modifications to a security program. The total ten-year burden is approximately 608,470 hours at a cost of $14,613,040. The annual burden sums to about 60,850 hours at a cost of $1,461,300.

TSA anticipates that the regulated entities will have to purchase no additional equipment.

This rulemaking action is taken under an emergency situation within the meaning of Section 6(a)(3)(D) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. It also is considered an emergency regulation under Paragraph 11g of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures. In addition, it is a significant rule within the meaning of the Executive Order and DOT's policies and procedures. No regulatory analysis or evaluation accompanies this rule. TSA has not assessed of whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. When no notice of proposed rulemaking has first been published, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply. TSA recognizes that this rule may impose significant costs on aircraft operators. An assessment will be conducted in the future. The current security threat requires, however, that operators take necessary measures to ensure the safety and security of their operations. This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

TSA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, we have determined that this final rule does not have Federalism implications.

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. TSA has assessed the potential effect of this rulemaking and has determined that it will impose the same costs on domestic and international entities and thus has a neutral trade impact.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as Pub. L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995 is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.”

The requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply when rulemaking actions are taken without the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking. Accordingly, TSA has not prepared a statement under the Act.

TSA has reviewed this action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has determined that this action will not have a significant effect on the human environment.

The energy impact of this rule has been assessed in accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Pub. L. 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362). It has been determined that this rule is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Transportation Security Administration amends 49 CFR chapter XII as follows:

In rule FR Doc. 01-31832, published on December 28, 2001, (66 FR 67118) the following correction is made. On page 67118, in the third column, correct the third paragraph of the DATES section to read: “The fishery opening for SCS, pelagic sharks, blue sharks, and porbeagle sharks is effective January 1, 2002, through June 30, 2002, unless otherwise modified or superseded through a publication in the Federal Register .”