Section 774 of Pub. L. 107-76 requires that the regulations necessary to implement Title VIII, Subtitle A of Pub. L. 107-76 be issued as soon as practicable and without regard to the notice and comment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 or the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture effective July 24, 1971 (36 FR 13804) relating to notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in rulemaking. This rule relates to tobacco assistance and implements the provisions of Subtitle A.

This final rule is issued in conformance with Executive Order 12866 and has been designated as “not significant.”

The title and number of the Federal assistance program, as found in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, to which this final rule applies is:

10.452—Disaster Reserve Assistance.

It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this rule because the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other provision of law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the subject matter of this rule.

It has been determined by an environmental evaluation that this action will have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.

This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).

This rule contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) for State, local and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

This rule does not impact the information collection requirements of 7 CFR 1464 approved by OMB and assigned OMB control numbers 0560-0047 and 0560-0076.

This Final Rule will implement requirements of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2002 (Pub. L. 107-76), which relate to agricultural market assistance for agricultural producers. Section 774 of Pub. L. 107-76 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary) to use funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to make payments to eligible persons who own, control or grow tobacco on a farm for which a basic quota or allotment for eligible tobacco was established for the 2001 crop year under part I of subtitle B of title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. This eligibility is not affected by temporary transfers or undermarketed tobacco.

Outlays under the programs implemented by this rule will total approximately $5 million. Most tobacco operations are small family-owned affairs and to the extent that the $5 million payment to producers and quota-holders defrays tobacco production costs, the Tobacco Loss Assistance Program 2001 (TLAP01) will enhance their solvency. In the short-term, the cost to the government roughly equals the benefits paid to the producers. In the longer term, to the extent that these disaster payments protect producers from bankruptcy, the payments may stabilize the small farm economy and thereby help achieve the public policy objective of the tobacco program.

A March 1 effective date for this rule was chosen to provide flexibility in the event of a delay in publication of the rule.

The regulations in 9 CFR parts 93, 94, 95, and 96 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of certain animals, birds, poultry, meat, other animal products and byproducts, hay, and straw into the United States in order to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases, including bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

BSE is a neurological disease of cattle and is not known to exist in the United States. It appears that BSE is primarily spread through the use of ruminant feed containing protein and other products from ruminants infected with BSE. Therefore, BSE could become established in the United States if materials carrying the BSE agent, such as certain meat, animal products, and animal byproducts from ruminants, are imported into the United States and are fed to ruminants in the United States. BSE could also become established in the United States if ruminants with BSE are imported into the United States.

Sections 94.18, 95.4, and 96.2 of the regulations prohibit or restrict the importation of certain meat and other animal products and byproducts from ruminants that have been in regions in which BSE exists or in which there is an undue risk of introducing BSE into the United States. Paragraph (a)(1) of § 94.18 lists the regions in which BSE exists. Paragraph (a)(2) lists the regions that present an undue risk of introducing BSE into the United States because their import requirements are less restrictive than those that would be acceptable for import into the United States and/or because the regions have inadequate surveillance. Paragraph (b) of § 94.18 prohibits the importation of fresh, frozen, and chilled meat, meat products, and most other edible products of ruminants that have been in any region listed in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2). Paragraph (c) of § 94.18 restricts the importation of gelatin derived from ruminants that have been in any of these regions. Section 95.4 prohibits or restricts the importation of certain byproducts from ruminants that have been in any of those regions, and § 96.2 prohibits the importation of casings, except stomach casings, from ruminants that have been in any of these regions. Additionally, the regulations in 9 CFR part 93 pertaining to the importation of live animals provide that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service may deny the importation of ruminants from regions where a communicable disease such as BSE exists and from regions that present risks of introducing communicable diseases into the United States (see § 93.404(a)(3)).

Finland has been among the regions listed in § 94.18(a)(2), which are regions that present an undue risk of introducing BSE into the United States. However, on December 7, 2001, a case of BSE was confirmed in a native-born animal in Finland. Therefore, in order to update the disease status of Finland regarding BSE, we are amending the regulations by removing Finland from the list in § 94.18(a)(2) of regions that present an undue risk of introducing BSE into the United States and adding Finland to the list in § 94.18(a)(1) of regions where BSE is known to exist. The effect of this action is a continued restriction on the importation of ruminants that have been in Finland, meat, meat products, and certain other products and byproducts of ruminants that have been in Finland. We are making these amendments effective retroactively to December 7, 2001, which is the date that BSE was confirmed in a native-born animal in Finland.

This rulemaking is necessary on an emergency basis to update the disease status of Finland regarding BSE. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the Federal Register . The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule as a result of the comments.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review process required by Executive Order 12866.

We are amending the regulations by adding Finland to the list of regions where BSE exists because the disease has been detected in a native-born animal in that region. Finland has been listed among the regions that present an undue risk of introducing BSE into the United States. Regardless of which of the two lists a region is on, the same restrictions apply to the importation of ruminants and meat, meat products, and most other products and byproducts of ruminants that have been in the region. Therefore, this action, which is necessary in order to update the disease status of Finland regarding BSE, will not result in any change in the restrictions that apply to the importation of ruminants and meat, meat products, and certain other products and byproducts of ruminants that have been in Finland.

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 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 retroactive effect to December 7, 2001; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

This interim rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 94 as follows:

The regulations in 9 CFR parts 93, 94, 95, and 96 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of certain animals, birds, poultry, meat, other animal products and byproducts, hay, and straw into the United States in order to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases, including bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

BSE is a neurological disease of cattle and is not known to exist in the United States. It appears that BSE is primarily spread through the use of ruminant feed containing protein and other products from ruminants infected with BSE. Therefore, BSE could become established in the United States if materials carrying the BSE agent, such as certain meat, animal products, and animal byproducts from ruminants, were to be imported into the United States and fed to ruminants in the United States. BSE could also become established in the United States if ruminants with BSE were imported into the United States.

Sections 94.18, 95.4, and 96.2 of the regulations prohibit or restrict the importation of certain meat and other animal products and byproducts from ruminants that have been in regions in which BSE exists or in which there is an undue risk of introducing BSE into the United States.

Paragraph (a)(1) of § 94.18 lists the regions in which BSE exists. Paragraph (a)(2) lists the regions that present an undue risk of introducing BSE into the United States because their import requirements are less restrictive than those that would be acceptable for import into the United States and/or because the regions have inadequate surveillance. Paragraph (b) of § 94.18 prohibits the importation of fresh, frozen, and chilled meat, meat products, and most other edible products of ruminants that have been in any region listed in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2). Paragraph (c) of § 94.18 restricts the importation of gelatin derived from ruminants that have been in any of these regions. Section 95.4 prohibits or restricts the importation of certain byproducts from ruminants that have been in any of those regions, and § 96.2 prohibits the importation of casings, except stomach casings, from ruminants that have been in any of these regions. Additionally, the regulations in 9 CFR part 93 pertaining to the importation of live animals provide that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service may deny the importation of ruminants from regions where a communicable disease such as BSE exists and from regions that present risks of introducing communicable diseases into the United States (see § 93.404(a)(3)).

Austria has been among the regions listed in § 94.18(a)(2), which are regions that present an undue risk of introducing BSE into the United States. However, on December 13, 2001, a case of BSE was confirmed in a native-born animal in Austria. Therefore, in order to update the disease status of Austria regarding BSE, we are amending the regulations by removing Austria from the list in § 94.18(a)(2) of regions that present an undue risk of introducing BSE into the United States and adding Austria to the list in § 94.18(a)(1) of regions where BSE is known to exist. The effect of this action is a continued restriction on the importation of ruminants, meat, meat products, and certain other products and byproducts of ruminants that have been Austria. We are making these amendments effective retroactively to December 13, 2001, which is the date that BSE was confirmed in a native-born animal in Austria.

This rulemaking is necessary on an emergency basis to update the disease status of Austria regarding BSE. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see DATES above). After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the Federal Register . The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule as a result of the comments.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review process required by Executive Order 12866.

We are amending the regulations by adding Austria to the list of regions where BSE exists because the disease has been detected in a native-born animal in that region. Austria has been listed among the regions that present an undue risk of introducing BSE into the United States. Regardless of which of the two lists a region is on, the same restrictions apply to the importation of ruminants and meat, meat products, and most other products and byproducts of ruminants that have been in the region. Therefore, this action, which is necessary in order to update the disease status of Austria regarding BSE, will not result in any change in the restrictions that apply to the importation of ruminants and meat, meat products, and certain other products and byproducts of ruminants that have been in Austria.

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 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 retroactive effect to December 13, 2001; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

This interim rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 94 as follows:

The Commission is issuing revised regulations at 11 CFR 100.19, 104.4, 104.5, 104.14, 104.18, 109.1 and 109.2. These revised rules implement Public Law 106-346 (Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, 114 Stat. 1356 (2000)), which amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. 431 et seq., (“the Act” or “FECA”). Paragraphs (b) and (c) of 2 U.S.C. 434 require political committees and other persons making independent expenditures to file reports or statements if their independent expenditures exceed $250. In addition, if independent expenditures of $1,000 or more are made less than twenty (20) days but more than twenty-four (24) hours before the day of an election, an additional statement must be filed within 24 hours. Public Law 106-346 required, inter alia, the Commission to issue rules requiring that reports of independent expenditures made less than twenty (20) days but more than twenty-four (24) hours before an election (“24-hour reports”) be received by the Commission or the Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, 1 within 24 hours of the time the independent expenditure was made. The statutory change permits those who must file 24-hour reports to do so using facsimile machines or electronic mail, except for those required to file electronically ( see 11 CFR 104.18). In addition to their 24-hour reports, persons other than political committees may file by fax or e-mail other reports of independent expenditures in accordance with the regular filing schedule ( see 11 CFR 104.5). Public Law 106-346 also requires the Commission to provide methods of verification of documents (other than requiring a signature on the document) for all purposes, including submission under penalty of perjury. These new filing methods are intended to speed up disclosure and to provide political committees and other filers with more flexibility in choosing methods of compliance with reporting requirements. The new law requires these methods to be in place for elections occurring after January 1, 2001, subject to regulations to be promulgated by the Commission.

In addition to the amendments regarding independent expenditures, the new law also requires the Commission to amend its regulations to exclude from the definition of “contribution” loans that candidates receive from brokerage accounts, lines of credit, or other credit instruments as long as the loans were made under commercially reasonable terms and were from a source that provides such loans in the normal course of business. That topic is being addressed in a separate rulemaking. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 65 Federal Register 38576 (Wednesday, July 25, 2001).

Before final promulgation of any rules or regulations to carry out the provisions of Title 2 of the United States Code, the Commission transmits the rules or regulations to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate for a thirty legislative day review period. 2 U.S.C. 438(d). These rules on independent expenditure reporting were transmitted to Congress on March 15, 2002.

The Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) in the Federal Register on May 9, 2001, 65 FR 23628 (May 9, 2001). The NPRM contained proposed rules at 11 CFR 100.19, 104.4, 104.5, 104.15, 109.1 and 109.2 regarding, inter alia, when 24-hour reports are considered filed, the filing of 24-hour reports by facsimile machine or electronic mail, and a definition of when an independent expenditure is made. Additionally, the NPRM explicitly recognized that authorized committees may file reports of last-minute contributions (48-hour notices) using facsimile machines or the Commission's web site.

The comment period ended on June 8, 2001. The Commission received one written comment from the James Madison Center for Free Speech (“Madison Center”).

The Commission's regulations at 11 CFR 100.19 define file, filed, and filing. The introductory text of this section states that a document is considered filed if it is: (a) Delivered to the appropriate filing office of the appropriate office, (b) sent by registered or certified mail and postmarked by midnight of the prescribed filing date—except for pre-election reports, or (c) electronically filed, and received and validated by the Commission's electronic filing system on or before 11:59 p.m. eastern time on the prescribed filing date. For clarification, the Commission has added a definition of “document” which mirrors the definition in the electronic filing regulations (11 CFR 104.18). A document is any report, statement, notice or designation required by the Act to be filed with the Commission or the Secretary of the Senate.

Paragraph (a) of this section states that a document is timely filed upon delivery to the Commission or Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, by the close of the prescribed filing date. As explained below, revised paragraph (a) clarifies that the definition of “timely filed” is different for paper filers and electronic filers.

Under paragraph (b) of section 100.19 of the previous regulations, 24-hour reports were considered timely filed if they were deposited at a Post Office and were postmarked for certified or registered mail within 24 hours of the time the independent expenditure was made. Under Public Law 106-346 and the revised regulations at paragraph (b), 24-hour reports will only be considered timely filed if they are received by the Commission or Secretary of the Senate within 24 hours of the time the expenditure was made. Thus, sending 24-hour reports by mail will no longer be a viable option because it is unlikely that these reports will be received by the Commission within 24 hours of the making of the expenditure.

New paragraph (d) of section 100.19 defines “timely filed” with regard to 24-hour reports of independent expenditures. The new paragraph states that such reports are timely filed when they are received by the Commission or the Secretary of the Senate after a disbursement is made, or a debt reportable under 11 CFR 104.11(b) is incurred, for the independent expenditure, but no later than 24 hours from the time the independent expenditure is made. The new paragraph also states that such 24-hour reports may be filed by facsimile machine or electronic mail, in addition to other permissible means of filing ( e.g., hand delivery or overnight courier).

New paragraph (e) expressly incorporates the Commission's practice of allowing authorized committees to file their reports of contributions of $1,000 or more made less than twenty (20) days but more than forty-eight (48) hours before the day of an election (48-hour reports) using a fax machine or the Commission's web site. This change does not stem from Pub. L. 106-346. Rather, the Commission has for some time allowed authorized committees (if they are not electronic filers) to file these reports by facsimile machine in addition to other permissible filing methods. See Advisory Opinion (“AO”) 1988-32. In the fall of 2000, the Commission began allowing all authorized committees who file with the Commission (including electronic filers) to file 48-hour reports on-line through the Commission's web site. Note that 48-hour reports filed with the Secretary of the Senate cannot be filed using the on-line program at the Commission's web site. They can, however be filed by fax to the Secretary of the Senate. New paragraph (e) of 11 CFR 100.19 specifically incorporates those filing methods in the regulations. The Commission received no comments on this section.

Note that the final rules differ from the rule proposed in the NPRM with regard to the web based filing of 48-hour reports. The proposed rule stated that only those who do not file electronically could use the Web based filing system implemented in the autumn of 2000. The Commission currently allows electronic filers to file 48 hour reports using either the electronic filing program or on the Commission's web site. Thus the final rules allow all authorized committees (including those who participate in the electronic filing program) to file their 48-hour notices using the Commission's web site.

The Commission's regulations at 11 CFR 104.4 set forth the requirements for political committees reporting independent expenditures. Paragraph (b) of this section is being revised in three respects. First, this paragraph is being revised to state that 24-hour reports must be received by the appropriate officers (the Commission or Secretary of the Senate) within 24 hours of the time the independent expenditure is made. Such reports were previously timely if they were postmarked as certified or registered mail within 24 hours of the making of the independent expenditure.

Second, to enable filers to meet the new deadline, amended paragraph (b) of section 104.4 permits political committees to file 24-hour reports by facsimile machine or electronic mail, as long as the filer is not part of the electronic filing program under 11 CFR 104.18.

Third, section 104.4(b) is being modified to make it easier for political committees to certify the independence of the expenditures falling under this paragraph. Schedule E contains a notarized certification under penalty of perjury as to whether the committee's expenditures were “coordinated” with any candidate, authorized committee or agent thereof, and, if the independent expenditures were made by a corporation, that the maker is a qualified nonprofit corporation ( see 11 CFR 114.10). No other campaign finance reports filed with the Commission or the Secretary of the Senate need to be notarized.

Public Law 106-346 at § 502(a) requires the Commission to create methods, other than by requiring a signature on the document, of verifying the independent expenditure certification on 24-hour reports for all purposes, including penalties of perjury. Consequently, the revised regulations allow the 24-hour report filer to verify the report using self-verification. This means that Schedule E no longer needs to be notarized. Instead, the political committee must self-verify the document using either a handwritten signature of the treasurer on a paper document or by typing the treasurer's name on e-mailed documents. The Commission intends to make the appropriate conforming amendments to Schedule E after the promulgation of these rules. This will extend self-verification to all reports of independent expenditures, including those made before the 20th day before the election and those that exceed $250 but are under $1000.

New paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of 11 CFR 104.4 set forth two methods for verifying 24-hour reports of independent expenditures. Paper reports ( e.g., filed by hand delivery or fax machine), must be verified by the filer's signature under the certification of independence. Reports filed by electronic mail must be verified by the filer typing his or her name under the certification.

As an alternative to self-verification, the NPRM sought comments on retaining the notarization requirement for faxed reports and requiring electronic notarizations for e-mailed reports. Additionally, the Commission sought comments on using digital signatures verified by a “Trusted Third Party” for e-mailed reports. Digital signatures utilize a Public Key Infrastructure. That structure uses Public and Private Keys to encode a message and to provide a method of positively identifying the sender. The Commission received no comments addressing this topic or offering other possible methods of verification.

The revised regulations remove the notarization requirement for several reasons. First, the statute simply requires verification, not notarization. Second, no other reports filed with the Commission require notarization. Third, the statement that the filer must sign carries the penalty for perjury if falsely made.

The Commission decided not to institute electronic notarization or digital signatures because they, as relatively new technologies, are not widespread enough to ensure access to everyone who might make an independent expenditure. For example, only a handful of states have electronic notarization statutes, effectively leaving citizens of other states without means of verification. Digital signatures must be purchased and, generally, require the purchaser to have a computer on which the private key (a computer generated string of digits) resides. The Commission is concerned that such a requirement would unduly burden the making or reporting of independent expenditures by those who do not have access to these means of verification.

Section 104.5 sets forth the required filing dates for each type of political committee and other individuals. The Commission is revising paragraph (f) of this section to follow new paragraph (e) of 11 CFR 100.19 discussed above.

Revised paragraph (g) of 11 CFR 104.5 states that 24-hour reports of independent expenditures must be received by the appropriate officers within 24 hours of the making of the independent expenditure. Previously, 24-hour reports were considered timely filed when they were postmarked to be sent by registered or certified mail. This change conforms to the amendments to 11 CFR 100.19 and 104.4(b) discussed above.

The Commission received no comments on the amendments to this section.

Under 11 CFR 104.14, reports and statements must be signed. Two conforming amendments are being made to paragraph (a) of this section. First, new paragraph (a)(1) provides that reports or statements of independent expenditures filed by facsimile machine or electronic mail under 11 CFR 104.4(b) or 11 CFR 109.2 must be verified in accordance with those sections. Secondly, new paragraph (a)(2) states that reports, designations or statements filed electronically under 11 CFR 104.18 must follow the signature requirements of 11 CFR 104.18(g). The Commission received no comments on this section.

Under the previous regulations at 11 CFR 104.18(h), those participating in the Commission's electronic filing program (either mandatory or voluntary) were required to file FEC Form 5 or Schedule E electronically accompanied by a paper copy in order to file a notarized document.

Public Law 106-346 does not allow electronic filers to use fax machines or electronic mail to file their independent expenditures reports. In order to afford all electronic filers the ability to comply with the new requirement that 24-hour reports be received by the appropriate office within 24 hours, the Commission is removing Schedule E and FEC Form 5 from the list in paragraph (h) of reports that require a paper follow-up. Instead, the revised rules require those in the electronic filing program to verify all reports of independent expenditures using the same process they use in filing any other report. Paragraph (h) is being reorganized to clarify which paper documents must accompany electronically filed reports, and when those paper copies must be filed.

The Commission's electronic filing software, FECFile, currently creates Schedule E for electronic filing by political committees. The Commission's electronic filing system accepts FEC Form 5 if created by another entity using the Commission's specifications (available on the FEC web site, www.fec.gov), but FECFile does not currently create Form 5. The Commission intends to make FEC Form 5 available in the FECFile software package. Note that this software is available for free from the Commission.

Further, the Commission is adding to the list of electronic filings that require paper follow-up Schedule C-P-1, used by Presidential candidates to report loans and lines of credit from lending institutions. Like Schedule C-1 (used by non-Presidential committees), Schedule C-P-1 requires the lending institution agent's signature.

On July 25, 2001, the Commission published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Brokerage Loans and Lines of Credit (65 FR 38576 (July 25, 2001)) which sought comments on further revisions to 11 CFR 104.18(h). Thus, additional changes to this section may be promulgated at a later time as part of that separate rulemaking.

Section 109.1 of the Commission's regulations contains definitions relevant to independent expenditures. Public Law 106-346 and the revised regulations at 11 CFR 100.19(d), 104.4(b), 104.5(g), and 109.2(b) require 24-hour reports to be received by the Commission or the Secretary of the Senate within 24 hours of the time the independent expenditure is made.

The NPRM sought comments on a three-pronged definition of when an independent expenditure is made that would apply to all independent expenditures, not just those reported on a 24-hour basis. That definition was taken from the statutory and regulatory definitions of “independent expenditure” (2 U.S.C. 431(17) and 11 CFR 100.8(a)(2)) and “expenditure” (2 U.S.C. 431(9)(A) and 11 CFR 109.1). Proposed new paragraph (f) of 11 CFR 109.1 stated that an independent expenditure is made at the earliest of three possible times: (1) The date on which a written contract, including a media contract, promise or agreement to make an independent expenditure is executed; (2) the first date on which the communication is printed, broadcast, or otherwise publicly disseminated; or (3) the date on which the person making the independent expenditure pays for it.

The sole commenter on this rulemaking objects to proposed paragraph (f) for several reasons. First, the commenter argues that the definition is a substantive change to the current provisions of the FECA and is, therefore, outside the Commission's regulatory authority. The commenter also asserts that the definition is illogical and that an independent expenditure is not made until the communication is disseminated to the public. Thus, the commenter argues, prong number one of the definition is incorrect.

The Commission believes that a legal basis arguably would exist for the first prong of its definition of “made”. Language in the FECA states that an “independent expenditure is an expenditure” (2 U.S.C. 431(17)). An expenditure includes a “written contract, promise, or agreement to make an expenditure” (2 U.S.C. § 431(9)(A)(ii)). Thus, independent expenditures necessarily include written contracts, promises or agreements to make an expenditure for a communication. Nonetheless, here the Commission is called upon to define when an independent expenditure should be considered “made” for purposes of reporting. Some practical and policy considerations come into play.

The Commission is dropping from the final rules the first prong of the test (the date on which a written contract, including a media contract, promise or agreement to make an independent expenditure, is executed). This will simplify the reporting rules, address the practical problem of reporting such transactions as independent expenditures and ensure that the relatively detailed rules on reporting debts at 11 CFR 104.11 apply only to political committees. Those latter rules require a debt (which includes a written contract debt) to be reported only if it exceeds $500 or is for any amount that has been outstanding for more than 60 days.

The commenter also objects to the second prong of the proposed rule at 11 CFR 109.1(f)(2), which stated that an independent expenditure would be made “on the first date on which the communication is printed, broadcast or otherwise publicly disseminated.” The commenter objects to the word “printed” on the grounds that fliers could be printed and sit in a garage for months, and thus not being publicly disseminated. The Commission is changing the word “printed” to “published” in the final rules to remove any confusion as to when a communication for an independent expenditure is made.

The commenter further objects to what it believes to be a consequence of the revised regulation which would, in some instances, require disclosure before publication of the communication. The commenter expresses concern that this could lead to mischievous interference with communications from opposing campaigns. The commenter argues that such disclosure would allow incumbents the advantage of knowing when independent expenditures have been made on behalf of their opponents, thus giving them the opportunity to convince broadcasters not to run the advertisements in question.

While the Commission does not necessarily agree with the commenter's legal analysis, the Commission is dropping the third prong of the proposed definition. New paragraph (f) of the final regulations states that an independent expenditure is made on the first date on which the communication is published, broadcast or otherwise publicly disseminated. New language in 11 CFR 104.4(b), 104.5(g) and 109.2(b) would, however, allow persons to report an independent expenditure before the underlying communication is publicly disseminated, notwithstanding other regulations (11 CFR 104.11(b) or 104.3(b)) that could fairly be read to require earlier disclosure. The statutory change for 24-hour reports reflects Congressional intent to emphasize and ensure timely disclosure of independent expenditures. Consequently, the final rules will enhance timely disclosure by requiring that independent expenditures be reported after a disbursement is made, or a debt reportable under 11 CFR 104.11(b) is incurred, for an independent expenditure but no later than 24 hours after the time they are first publicly disseminated. Note that independent expenditures that are mailed to their intended audiences are publicly disseminated at the time that they are relinquished to the U.S. Post Office.

In some situations, a political committee will not make payment or incur a reportable debt before the communication underlying the independent expenditure is publicly disseminated. If the communication is both publicly disseminated and paid for in the same reporting period, then the committee reports the independent expenditure on Schedule E for that reporting period. If the communication is aired in one reporting period (e.g., during the 24-hour reporting period) and payment is made in a later reporting period (e.g., during the post-general election period), then the committee reports the independent expenditure as a memo entry on Schedule E during the reporting period in which the communication is publicly disseminated and reports it again as a positive entry on Schedule E in the reporting period in which payment is made.

In other situations, however, a political committee may pay the production and distributions costs associated with an independent expenditure in one reporting period, but not publicly disseminate it until a later reporting period. In this case, the committee reports the payment as a disbursement on Schedule B for operating expenditures. When, in a subsequent reporting period, the communication is publicly disseminated, the committee files a Schedule E for the independent expenditure referencing the earlier Schedule B transaction. The committee also reports the disbursement for the independent expenditure as a negative entry on Schedule B so the total disbursements are not inflated. Alternatively, if the committee wishes to disclose the independent expenditure before the communication is publicly disseminated, it could report the independent expenditure on Schedule E for the reporting period in which the payment is made, with no further reporting obligation at the time the communication is disseminated.

Obligations incurred but not yet paid (that are reportable debts), must be reported on Schedule D. When, in a subsequent reporting period, the communication is publicly disseminated, the committee must file a Schedule E referencing the debt on Schedule D. The committee must continue to report the debt on Schedule D (and any payment on it on Schedule E), until the debt is extinguished.

Persons other than political committees simply report their independent expenditures on FEC Form 5 or by letter (if they are not required to file electronically). If the independent expenditure is first distributed during the 24-hour reporting period (less than 20 days but more than 24 hours before an election), it must be reported no later than 24 hours after the first time the ad is distributed. If the independent expenditure is first publicly disseminated outside the 24-hour reporting period, it must be reported no later than by the end of the regular reporting period during which the ad is first distributed.

Section 109.2 of the Commission's regulations requires persons other than political committees to report their independent expenditures on either FEC Form 5 or in a signed statement containing certain information about the person who made the independent expenditure and about the nature of the expenditure itself. Under the previous regulations, regardless of whether the filer reported the independent expenditure on Form 5 or in a signed statement, the report had to be notarized. As discussed in the Explanation and Justification for 11 CFR 104.4 above, the revised regulations no longer require notarization of reports of independent expenditures, but do require filers to self-verify their reports. Accordingly, the introductory text of paragraphs (a) and (a)(1) of section 109.2 is being revised to change the signature requirement on reports of independent expenditures to the verification of reports of independent expenditures. To implement the self-verification, the amendments to 11 CFR 109.2(a)(1)(v) require that persons other than political committees continue to include a prescribed statement of certification as to the independence of the expenditure. The Commission intends to make conforming amendments to FEC Form 5 at a later point.

The NPRM proposed adding new paragraph (a)(1)(vi) to section 109.2 (and renumbering paragraph (a)(1)(vi) as (a)(1)(vii)). Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vi) would have required those who file a statement instead of FEC Form 5 to certify that the expenditure was not made to finance, disseminate, distribute or republish campaign materials prepared by a candidate or a candidate's agent or authorized committee. This statement is in addition to the statement of independence required in 11 CFR 109.2(a)(1)(v), discussed above. While this “republication statement” has long been included in the certification on FEC Form 5 (and on Schedule E, filed by political committees), it has not been required of those who file by letter. The NPRM further noted, that, on the other hand, the statutory certifications required by 2 U.S.C. 434(b)(6)(B)(iii) and (c)(2)(A) do not address distribution of candidate-prepared materials. Consequently, comments were requested on not adding the certification statement to paragraph (a)(1)(vi) and removing that part of the certification from FEC Form 5 and Schedule E. The commenter did not address this issue.

The Commission has decided to remove the “republication statement” from FEC Form 5 and Schedule E, and to not include it in revised 11 CFR 109.2. A statement regarding republication of candidate materials is not specifically mentioned in 2 U.S C. 434(b)(6)(B)(iii) or (c)(2). Corresponding changes will be made to FEC Form 5 and Schedule E.

Conforming changes are being made to paragraph (b) of section 109.2 to indicate that 24-hour reports must be received after a disbursement is made for an independent expenditure, but no later than 24 hours from the time the independent expenditure is made.

New paragraph (c) of 11 CFR 109.2 sets forth the acceptable methods of verification for both e-mailed and paper reports. Note that faxed reports are considered to be filed on paper and must contain the certification statement required by 11 CFR 109.2(a)(i) and new paragraph (a)(vi) followed by the signature of the filer. Electronically mailed reports must contain the certification statements and information required by 11 CFR 109.2(a)(i) through (a)(vii) followed by the typewritten name of the filer. The Commission received no comments on these amendments.

The Commission certifies that these final rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The basis of this certification is that the Commission is providing most filers with less than $50,000 of activity with additional means of complying with the law, thereby increasing the filers' flexibility by allowing them to choose the most convenient and cost effective filing method. These additional filing methods will likely reduce costs for small entities.

On February 18, 2000, the Finance Board published a final rule that reorganized and renumbered the agency's existing regulations, deleted obsolete regulations and made various technical amendments to the reorganized regulations. See 65 FR 8253 (Feb. 18, 2000) (Reorganization Rule). The amendments set forth in the Reorganization Rule were intended to implement a more logical, efficient and modern presentation of the regulations governing the Federal Housing Finance Board and Federal Home Loan Bank System, as well as to achieve greater consistency in terminology and greater conformity with current stylistic conventions of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Because the changes implemented by the Reorganization Rule were so comprehensive, there were a number of mistakes and oversights ( e.g., mistaken cross-references and obsolete terminology that was not amended) that remained to be corrected even after the rule became effective. In addition, since the publication of the Reorganization Rule, the Finance Board has completed a number of major rulemakings that have either added substantial amounts of text to its regulations, or significantly altered the text that existed prior to February of 2000. Although these major rulemakings were anticipated and taken into consideration in the drafting of the Reorganization Rule, their subsequent adoption has resulted in the need for some minor technical amendments in order to integrate fully the new material into the streamlined regulatory format. This final rule corrects the mistakes resulting from, and oversights remaining from, the Reorganization Rule and makes changes to integrate recently-adopted major regulations fully and cleanly into the overall structure of the regulations. None of the amendments contained in the rule are intended to effect any substantive change to any regulation.

A significant portion of the amendments set forth in the final rule involve the consolidation of definitions of terms that are used frequently throughout the regulations into part 900, which is the first part that appears in the regulations as codified in the CFR. Prior to the enactment of the Reorganization Rule, there were numerous examples throughout the regulations of terms that were defined many times over in separate parts of the regulations, and of synonymous terms that were variously used to describe the same concept in different parts of the regulations ( e.g., “Finance Board,” “Board” and “Federal Housing Finance Board” were used in different parts of the regulations to refer to the same agency). To remedy these problems, the Reorganization Rule established a new part 900 wherein terms that were used often throughout the regulations could be defined once without further repetition.

Because several major rulemakings were anticipated at the time that the Reorganization Rule was drafted, only a few definitions were moved into part 900 as part of that rule. Several more definitions were added to part 900 in subsequent rulemakings. The Finance Board has now completed a thorough review of the regulations and has selected all of the terms that it believes should logically appear in part 900. Generally, the rule would consolidate into part 900 the definitions of all terms: (1) That are used in more than two parts of the regulations; and (2) whose definition does not set forth a substantive standard. Definitions that set forth substantive standards continue to appear in the definitional sections of the parts in which the term is used, regardless of the number of times that the definition must be repeated throughout the regulations. For example, the term “investment grade” is used in parts 932 (capital requirements), 956 (investments) and 960 (standby letters of credit) of the regulations, but its definition has been left in each of the appropriate definitional sections because it sets forth a substantive standard that is integral to those regulations.

The remaining amendments, which are scattered throughout the regulations, either: correct mistaken cross-references or other typographical errors; change citations or paragraph headings and numbering to conform to current standards of the CFR; or make conforming changes related to the consolidation of definitions into part 900, discussed above.

Finally, because all of the amendments that would be implemented by this rule are technical and nonsubstantive, the Finance Board has adopted the rule in final form without the usual notice-and-comment process.

This is a technical rule that reorganizes the Finance Board's regulations without substantive change. The rule will not impose any regulatory requirements on small entities. Thus, in accordance with the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , the Finance Board hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

The final rule does not contain any collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. See 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Consequently, the Finance Board has not submitted any information to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

On February 6, 2002, the FAA issued Emergency AD (EAD) 2002-02-51, which required checking for a gap between the adhesive bead and the metal bushing on each arm end and, if a gap was found, replacing the STARFLEX. After issuing that EAD, we discovered the inadvertent omission of a STAFFLEX part number (P/N) from the applicability. That omission created an undue economic burden to the owners and operators of a significant percentage of the affected helicopters. That omission could have also created confusion to the personnel checking this flight critical part because there are a number of different STARFLEX configurations installed on the affected model helicopters. This condition, if not corrected, could have resulted in failure of the operators to properly conduct the check, failure to detect a gap between the adhesive bead and the metal bushing on the arm end, severe lateral vibrations, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Therefore, to eliminate any confusion, the FAA issued superseding EAD 2002-03-52 on February 8, 2002, which contains the same requirements as EAD 2002-02-51 but limits the applicability of this AD to those helicopters that have STARFLEX, P/N 350A31-1916-00, installed.

The Direction Generale De L'Aviation Civile (DGAC), the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on these helicopter models. The DGAC advises of several occurrences of rapid bonding failure of the metal bushing installed on the arm ends, severe vibrations, and some emergency landings.

ECF has issued Alert Telex Nos. 05.00.38, 05.00.37R1, and 05.A.001R1, dated November 13, 2001 (Telex). The Telex specifies checking for a gap between the adhesive bead and the metal bushing bonded on each arm end. ECF is currently analyzing modifications to this assembly. The DGAC classified this Telex as mandatory and issued AD Nos. 2001-557-086(A) R1, 2001-558-064(A) R1, and 2001-559-002(A) R1, all dated November 28, 2001, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in France.

These helicopter models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to the applicable bilateral agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of these type designs that are certificated for operation in the United States.

This unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type designs registered in the United States. Therefore, the FAA issued Emergency AD 2002-03-52 to require, at specified intervals, checking for a gap between the adhesive bead and the metal bushing bonded on each of the arm ends and, if a gap is found, before further flight, replacing any STARFLEX with an airworthy part.

The short compliance time involved is required because the previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the controllability or structural integrity of the helicopter. Therefore, checking for a gap between the adhesive bead and the metal bushing is required before each start of the engines and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4 hours time-in-service, and this AD must be issued immediately.

An owner/operator (pilot) may perform the visual check required by paragraph (a) of this AD and must enter compliance with this AD into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.11 and 91.417(a)(2)(v). This AD allows a pilot to perform this check because it involves only a visual check for a gap between the adhesive bead and the metal bushing on each arm end and can be performed equally well by a pilot or a mechanic.

Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required, notice and opportunity for prior public comment thereon were impracticable and contrary to the public interest, and good cause existed to make the AD immediately effective by individual letters issued on February 8, 2002, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. These conditions still exist, and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to 14 CFR 39.13 to make it effective to all persons.

The FAA estimates that 30 helicopters will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 0.1 work hour to inspect the adhesive bead of the metal bushing bonded on each arm end, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $6 per helicopter and $180 for one inspection of the fleet. Assuming 10 additional inspections per week for all helicopters, the fleet cost per year will be $93,600.

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their mailed comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2002-SW-09-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

A proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD for ECF Model AS350B, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350BA, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, and AS355N helicopters was published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2001 (66 FR 59375). That action proposed replacing each bearing with an airworthy bearing at specified intervals. Also, that action noted that transferring a bearing from one model to another is permissible by complying with the transfer rules described in the Master Servicing Recommendations Chapter 05.99.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

The FAA estimates that 514 helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 5 work hours per helicopter to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $90 per helicopter. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $200,460.

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas.

A final rule airworthiness directive applicable to CFM International, S.A. CFM56-5 series turbofan engines, was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2002 (67 FR 6850). The following correction is needed:

A final rule airworthiness directive applicable to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-524G and -524H series turbofan engines, was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2002 (67 FR 6859). The following correction is needed:

On March 5, 2002, President George W. Bush signed Presidential Proclamation 7529, a proclamation to facilitate positive adjustment to competition from imports of certain steel products. The Proclamation, which was issued under the President's authority under section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2253), established increases in duty and a tariff-rate quota on imports of certain steel products. These safeguard measures were taken by the President to facilitate efforts by the domestic industry to make positive adjustment to import competition and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs. In the Proclamation, the President provides that if he determines within 30 days of the Proclamation that consultations between the United States and other World Trade Organization (WTO) members pursuant to Article 12.3 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards have revealed a compelling reason to reduce, modify, or terminate a safeguard measure, he shall proclaim a corresponding reduction, modification, or termination of the safeguard measure.

In conjunction with the Proclamation, President Bush also sent a memorandum dated March 5, 2002, to the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative requiring action under section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2253). In that memorandum, the President instructed the Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to section 505(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1505(a)), to prescribe by regulation a date no later than 45 days after the date of the memorandum at which estimated duties for the steel products described in the Proclamation that are entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after 12:01 a.m., EST, March 20, 2002, and up to the 30th day after the signing of the memorandum shall be deposited. The purpose of this deferral of duty is to facilitate consultations between the United States and its foreign trading partners concerning the President's determination in accordance with Article 12.3 of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Safeguards.

The Proclamation and the Memorandum for the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative were published in the Federal Register (67 FR 10553, 67 FR 10593) on March 7, 2002. The effective date of the Proclamation is March 20, 2002.

This document sets forth the temporary regulation that the President instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe. It is noted that, pursuant to the regulation set forth below, only deposit of the duties required pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 7529 is deferred. The deferral of deposit of duties is not applicable to regular duties, including antidumping and countervailing duties, that are owed on the entry of products covered by the Proclamation.

This regulation implements a direction of the President of the United States pursuant to his authority under section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2253) to take all appropriate and feasible action within his power which he determines will facilitate efforts by the domestic industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition and provide greater economic and social benefits than costs. Accordingly, there is good cause that notice and public procedure are contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). For the same reason, and because this temporary rule relieves importers from the obligation to deposit estimated duties, a delayed effective date is not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3). Moreover, because this temporary rule facilitates consultations between the United States and its foreign trading partners concerning the President's determination in accordance with Article 12.3 of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Safeguards, this rule involves a foreign affairs function of the United States that is exempt from notice and public procedure, as well as a delayed effective date, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, this temporary rule is not subject to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) Nor is this temporary rule a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of E.O. 12866.

Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL): http://dms.dot.gov . It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and help.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by using a modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may reach the Federal Register 's home page at http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's database at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara .

The FHWA provides funds to the States and other organizations to reimburse them for the costs they have incurred in constructing highways and other transportation related projects pursuant to title 23, United States Code. These projects frequently involve the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, businesses and farms. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq. ) ensures the fair and equitable treatment of persons whose real property is acquired or who are displaced as a result of a Federal or federally-assisted project. The FHWA regulations dealing with reimbursement, and the acquisition and management of real property, are contained in 23 CFR part 710.

On May 9, 2001, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) at 66 FR 23636, to propose amending our right-of-way regulations for federally assisted transportation projects to provide clarification. The NPRM described the development of the current regulation, which revised FHWA's policy on participation in costs incurred by States in the acquisition of real property. Basically, the FHWA now participates in any acquisition costs that are required by State law. In the NPRM, we proposed to revise the regulations to clarify that Federal financial assistance, provided by the FHWA pursuant to title 23, U.S.C., may be applied to relocation assistance benefits provided by State and local agencies, pursuant to State law, that are in addition to the relocation benefits prescribed by the Uniform Act.

The FHWA believes that its participation in such relocation payments is permissible based on the FHWA's general authority to participate in the costs of “construction,” which is defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(3) to include both costs of right-of-way acquisition and relocation assistance. We believe that the broad language in 23 CFR 710.203(b)(1) allows for this type of assistance; however, we received several inquiries regarding the FHWA's participation in relocation payments made by some States, pursuant to State law, that are in addition to those required by the Uniform Act. Therefore, in the NPRM we proposed amending section 710.203(b)(2) to clarify this matter.

We received two written comments and one oral comment to the docket. The three commenters were from the Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin State departments of transportation. The Washington DOT supported the proposed revision noting that the current Uniform Act benefits are inadequate for businesses. The Wisconsin DOT provided several technical comments. It noted that the change would allow Federal participation in some increased payments provided by State law, but was also concerned that more local governments might avail themselves of Federal funds thereby increasing its oversight responsibilities.

The Oregon DOT provided a verbal comment that questioned whether the proposed clarification would allow the FHWA to participate in relocation payments to aliens not lawfully present in the United States (illegal aliens). While the intent of this clarification is to emphasize that States have the flexibility in using the FHWA funds to participate in relocation payments required by State law, in addition to those payments mandated by the Uniform Act, we do not believe that the FHWA should permit the participation of Federal funds in such relocation payments to persons who Congress has specifically excluded from Uniform Act coverage. The Congress stated specifically in section 4605(a) of the Uniform Act that, with limited exceptions, a person not lawfully present in the United States is not eligible to receive relocation assistance under the Uniform Act (42 U.S.C. 4605(a)).

The Congress clearly stated that displaced persons shall not be eligible to receive relocation payments or any other assistance under the Uniform Act if they are not lawfully present in the United States. Consistent with that prohibition we have provided in this final rule that the FHWA will not participate in relocation assistance and payments provided by States to aliens not lawfully present in the United States.

We have adopted the change proposed with a slight modification, as discussed above, to deny Federal participation in relocation assistance and payments provided to illegal aliens. The primary reason for this change remains the same as stated in the NPRM, to make it clear that FHWA participation policies concerning both State acquisition costs and State relocation costs are the same. That is, the FHWA will participate in those acquisition and relocation costs that are required by State law (except for relocation costs to illegal aliens).

This basic participation policy promotes program streamlining. It gives States flexibility in the use of Federal aid funds available to the States. Further, it eliminates administrative burdens that would result if it were necessary to analyze all acquisition and relocation costs and categorize them as either participating or nonparticipating for purposes of Federal assistance. Finally, if the NRPM were not adopted uncertainty would remain as to whether acquisition costs required by State law and relocation costs required by State law should be treated differently for purposes of Federal participation.

While we are aware of the Wisconsin DOT's concern regarding possible increased oversight, we note that one of the primary purposes of this change is to increase the ability of States to effectively manage their acquisition and relocation programs. In the absence of any further comments, we believe that the promulgation of this final rule is necessary to advance the important program streamlining objectives noted above.

The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, nor is it a significant regulatory policy and procedure. It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal; therefore, a full regulatory evaluation is not required. The FHWA does not consider this action to be a significant regulatory action because this rule clarifies existing requirements relating to FHWA reimbursement for certain expenditures that are required by State law. Neither the individual or cumulative impact of this action is significant because this action would not alter the funding levels available to the states for Federal or federally assisted programs covered by title 23, U.S. Code.

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the agency has evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities and hereby certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action would merely clarify existing procedures.

The FHWA has also analyzed this action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and has determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of the human environment.

The FHWA has analyzed this action in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. This rule clarifies that greater flexibility is placed at the State or local level in the use of Federal funds in recognition of State laws. Nothing in this document directly preempts any State law or regulation.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48), the FHWA must prepare a budgetary impact statement on any proposal or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to State, local or tribal government of $100 million or more. The FHWA has determined that this rule will not result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to State, local, or tribal governments. This action simply clarifies existing requirements. Accordingly no additional costs to State, local or tribal governments are anticipated as a result of this action.

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

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

This proposal contains no new collection of information requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

The collections of information contained in these final regulations have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number 1545-1480. Some responses to these collections of information are mandatory, and others are required to obtain the benefit of the separate-entity election.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.

The estimated annual burden per respondent or recordkeeper varies from .1 to 40 hours, depending on individual circumstances, with an estimated average of 5.9 hours.

Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and suggestions for reducing this burden should be sent to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, W:CAR:MP:FP:S, Washington, DC 20224, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503.

Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any Internal Revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

This document contains amendments to 26 CFR Part 1 under section 1221 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Prior to amendment in 1999, section 1221 generally defined a capital asset as property held by the taxpayer other than: (1) Stock in trade or other types of assets includible in inventory; (2) property used in a trade or business that is real property or property subject to depreciation; (3) certain copyrights (or similar property); (4) accounts or notes receivable acquired in the ordinary course of a trade or business; and (5) U.S. government publications.

In 1994, the IRS published in the Federal Register (59 FR 36360) final Treasury regulations under section 1221 providing for ordinary character treatment for certain business hedges. The regulations generally apply to transactions that reduce risk with respect to ordinary property, ordinary obligations, and borrowings of the taxpayer and that meet certain identification requirements. (§ 1.1221-2). In 1996, the IRS published in the Federal Register (61 FR 517) final regulations on the character and timing of gain or loss from hedging transactions entered into by members of a consolidated group. In this preamble, the final regulations published in 1994 and 1996 are referred to collectively as the Treasury regulations.

On December 17, 1999, section 1221 was amended by section 532 of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (113 Stat 1860) to provide ordinary gain or loss treatment for hedging transactions and consumable supplies. Section 1221(a)(7) provides ordinary treatment for hedging transactions that are clearly identified as such before the close of the day on which they were acquired, originated, or entered into.

The statute defines a hedging transaction as a transaction entered into by the taxpayer in the normal course of business primarily to manage risk of interest rate, price changes, or currency fluctuations with respect to ordinary property, ordinary obligations, or borrowings of the taxpayer. Sections 1221(b)(2)(A)(i) and (ii). The statutory definition of hedging transaction also includes transactions to manage such other risks as the Secretary may prescribe in regulations. Section 1221(b)(2)(A)(iii). Further, the statute grants the Secretary the authority to provide regulations to address the treatment of nonidentified or improperly identified hedging transactions, and hedging transactions involving related parties (sections 1221(b)(2)(B) and (b)(3), respectively). The statutory hedging provisions are effective for transactions entered into on or after December 17, 1999. Congress intended that the hedging rules be the exclusive means through which the gains and losses from hedging transactions are treated as ordinary. S. Rep. No. 201, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. 25 (1999).

Section 1221(a)(8) provides that supplies of a type regularly consumed by the taxpayer in the ordinary course of a taxpayer's trade or business are not capital assets. That provision is effective for supplies held or acquired on or after December 17, 1999.

A notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-107047-00, 2001-14 I.R.B. 1002) was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 4738) on January 18, 2001. On May 16, 2001, the IRS held a public hearing on the proposed regulations. Written comments responding to the notice of proposed rulemaking were also received. In response to these comments, the proposed regulations were modified and as so modified are adopted as final regulations. The principal changes to the proposed regulations are discussed below.

The provisions of these regulations generally apply to determine the character of gain or loss from transactions that are also subject to various international provisions of the Code. Paragraph (a)(4) of the regulations, however, provides that the character of gain or loss on section 988 transactions is not determined under these regulations because gain or loss on those transactions is ordinary under section 988(a)(1). In addition, no implication is intended as to what constitutes “risk management” or “managing risk” for purposes of proposed or final regulations under section 482.

Paragraph (a)(4) of the proposed regulations provided that the definition of a hedging transaction under § 1.1221-2(b) of the proposed regulations would apply for purposes of certain other international provisions of the Code only to the extent provided in regulations issued under those provisions. Technical changes have been made in the final regulations to eliminate references to proposed regulations as well as Code sections for which the relevant regulations have not been issued in final form. Subsequent regulations will specify the extent to which the rules relating to hedging transactions that are contained in § 1.1221-2 will be applicable for purposes of those other regulations and related Code sections.

Several commentators noted that the proposed regulations used risk reduction as the operating standard to implement the risk management definition of hedging introduced by section 1221(b)(2)(A). These commentators found that risk reduction is too narrow a standard to encompass the intent of Congress which defined hedges to include transactions that manage risk of interest rate, price changes or currency fluctuations. They urged the IRS and Treasury to adopt a broader definition of hedging to reflect Congress' intent. With one exception, the commentators did not suggest a definition of risk management.

In response to these comments, the final regulations have been restructured to implement the risk management standard. No definition of risk management is provided, but instead, the rules characterize a variety of classes of transactions as hedging transactions because they manage risk. Risk reducing transactions still qualify as one class of hedging transactions, but there are also others. In addition, specific provision is made for the recognition of additional types of qualifying risk management transactions through published guidance or private letter rulings. Under the final regulations, as under the proposed regulations, transactions entered into for speculative purposes will not qualify as hedging transactions. See S. Rep. No. 201, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. 24 (1999).

The proposed regulations provided that a taxpayer has risk of a particular type only if it is at risk when all of its operations are considered. That is, risk must exist on a “macro” basis. For this purpose, under the proposed regulations, a taxpayer has to show that hedges of particular assets or liabilities, or groups of assets or liabilities, are reasonably expected to reduce the overall risk of the taxpayer's operations.

Commentators pointed out that this entity-based approach to hedging is no longer uniform business practice. Instead, businesses often conduct risk management on a business unit by business unit basis. In response to these comments, the final regulations permit the determination of whether a transaction manages risk to be made on a business unit basis provided that the business unit is within a single entity or consolidated return group that adopts the single-entity approach. An example was added to the final regulations in which for one taxpayer, the determination of whether hedging activities reduce risk is made at the business unit level. In the example, the conduct of risk management activities within separate business units is undertaken as part of a program to reduce the overall risk of the taxpayer's operations.

Paragraph (c)(1) of the proposed regulations recognized that a transaction that economically converts an interest rate or price from a fixed rate or price to a floating rate or price may manage risk. Commentators suggested that the rule in the proposed regulations provides insufficient guidance in that it states only that fixed-to-floating interest rate or price hedges may be hedging transactions. In response to these comments, the regulations have been restructured to separately address interest rate hedges and price hedges.

Commentators suggested that in the case of interest rate conversions, a taxpayer may choose to convert from a floating to a fixed rate to fix the amount payable on the obligation. However, a taxpayer could also elect to convert from a fixed to a floating rate to insure that the value of the liability remained relatively constant. In response to these comments, the final regulations provide that a transaction that converts an interest rate from a fixed rate to a floating rate or from a floating rate to a fixed rate manages risk. With respect to fixed-to-floating price hedges, the final regulations adopt the proposed rules without change.

Paragraph (c)(3) of the proposed regulations provided that the purchase or sale of certain assets will not qualify as a hedging transaction if the assets are not acquired primarily to manage risk. This rule was illustrated by the example of a taxpayer that has an interest rate risk from a floating rate borrowing and that acquires debt instruments bearing a comparable floating interest rate. Although the taxpayer's interest rate risk from the floating rate borrowing may be reduced by the purchase of the floating rate debt instruments, the proposed regulations provided that the acquisition of the debt instruments is not made primarily to reduce risk and, therefore, is not a hedging transaction.

The IRS and Treasury understand that some employers may invest in assets (such as shares of a mutual fund) that are used as a reference investment for purposes of computing their liability to employees under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan. A question may arise whether such an investment may constitute a hedging transaction and, if so, whether income from the investment may be deferred by the employer until payments of deferred compensation are made to employees. See § 1.446-4(b); but compare Albertson's, Inc. v. Commissioner , 42 F.3d 537 (9th Cir. 1994).

The rule in the proposed regulations is based on § 1.1221-2(c)(1)(vii). The rule has been restated in the final regulations to refer specifically to investments in debt instruments, equity securities, and annuity contracts so as to provide greater certainty in its application. For this purpose certain transactions in instruments that are not themselves debt instruments may include a debt investment. See, e.g. , § 1.446-3(g)(4). Further, the final regulations provide that the IRS may identify by future published guidance specified transactions that are determined not to be entered into primarily to manage risk. An example has been added to the final regulations to illustrate that an investment in mutual fund shares in the case described in the preceding paragraph does not qualify as a hedging transaction. A similar example is added with respect to an investment in an annuity contract.

Paragraph (c)(8) of the proposed regulations provided that the Commissioner may, by published guidance, provide that hedging transactions include transactions entered into to manage risks other than interest rate or price changes, or currency fluctuations.

The notice of proposed rulemaking solicited comments regarding the expansion of the definition of hedging transactions to include transactions that manage risks other than interest rate or price changes, or currency fluctuations with respect to ordinary property, ordinary obligations or borrowings of the taxpayer. Some comments were received in response to that request. Because the comments described hedging transactions that related to the general operating results of a business (such as gross sales) rather than specific ordinary property, ordinary obligations or borrowings of the taxpayer, the implementation of rules respecting such hedges would present a number of issues not easily dealt with by the rules contained in the final regulations. Thus, the expansion of the scope of operation of the hedging rules is not being proposed at this time, so as not to delay the publication of guidance on the matters that are covered by the final regulations. However, the IRS is continuing to consider whether to expand the definition of hedging transactions to cover hedges of such other risks. The IRS and Treasury invite comments on the types of risks that should be covered, including specific examples of derivative transactions that may be incorporated into future guidance, as well as the appropriate timing of inclusion of gains and losses with respect to such transactions. Send submissions to: CC:ITA:RU (REG-107047-00), room 5226, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044.

The status of so-called gap hedges was not separately addressed in the proposed regulations and is not covered in the final regulations. Insurance companies, for example, sometimes hedge the gap between their liabilities and the assets that fund them. Under the final regulations, a hedge of those assets would not qualify as a hedging transaction if the assets are capital assets. Whether a gap hedge qualifies as a liability hedge is a question of fact and depends on whether it is more closely associated with the liabilities than with the assets.

A rule has been added specifying additional information that must be provided for a transaction that counteracts a hedging transaction.

The regulations generally apply to all transactions entered into on or after March 20, 2002. However, the IRS will not challenge any transaction entered into on or after December 17, 1999, and before March 20, 2002, that satisfies the provisions of either § 1.1221-2 of REG-107047-00, published in the Federal Register (66 FR 4738) on January 18, 2001, or the provisions of this final regulation.

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that the collection of information in these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based upon the fact that very few small businesses enter into hedging transactions due to their cost and complexity. Further, those small businesses that hedge enter into very few hedging transactions because hedging transactions are costly, complex, and require constant monitoring and a sophisticated understanding of the capital markets. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

The principal author of these regulations is Elizabeth Handler, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. In keeping with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM and for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The event will occur on April 13, 2002, and numerous spectator craft are anticipated. Because of the danger posed to spectators and participants by other vessels transiting through the event area, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. In addition, advance notifications will be made via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers.

St. Mary's College of Maryland will sponsor the St. Mary's Seahawk Sprint on April 13, 2002. The St. Mary's Seahawk Sprint consists of intercollegiate crew rowing teams racing along a 2000-meter course on the waters of the St. Mary's River. A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather near the event site to view the competition. To provide for the safety of event participants, spectators and transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel movement in the event area during the crew races.

The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the St. Mary's River. The temporary special local regulations will be in effect from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. eastern time on April 13, 2002. The effect will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the event. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel will be allowed to enter or remain in the regulated area. The Patrol Commander will allow non-participating vessels to transit the regulated area between races, when it is safe to do so. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.

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

Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of the St. Mary's River during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally, the regulated area has been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on general navigation yet provide the level of safety deemed necessary.

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

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

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of St. Mary's River during the event.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial and 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 considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(h) and (35)(a) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade permit for an event not located in, proximate to, or above an area designated as environmentally sensitive by an environmental agency of the Federal, state, or local government, are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under those sections. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

On February 19, 2002, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Safety Zone; Long Beach, CA” in the Federal Register (67 FR 7321). We received no letters from the public commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.

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 . Waiting 30 days after publication would delay the effective date of this safety zone beyond the event date of March 23, 2002, and that would be contrary to the need for public safety during this event.

This temporary safety zone provides for the safety of National Water Ski Racing Association (NWSRA) water ski race participants and spectators on March 23 and 24, 2002, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. both days. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into or transiting through this zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative. By prohibiting persons and vessels from entering the waters surrounding the racecourse, the risk of high-speed collision will be significantly reduced. The U.S. Coast Guard will enforce this safety zone with assistance from the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary and event staff.

The following area is safety zone: All waters encompassed by lines connecting the following points, beginning at latitude 33°45′50″ N, longitude 118°10′48″ W; thence to 33°44′00″ N, 118°10′05″ W; thence to 33°44′00″ N, 118°09′26″ W; thence to 33°45′28″ N, 118°09′00″ W, and thence returning to the point of origin (North American Datum of 1983). This area is approximately 3,000 yards wide and 2,500 yards long and is centered near the oil islands off Long Beach, California.

We received no letters from the public commenting on the proposed rule. We made one editorial change from the proposed rule to clarify that the rule will be enforced during the hours listed in paragraph (b).

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 this safety zone will encompass a small portion of the waterway for limited periods of time and vessel traffic can pass safety around the affected area.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 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.

We expect that this rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of private and commercial vessels intending to transit or anchor in a small portion of the port of Long Beach. The impact to these entities would not, however, be significant since this zone will encompass a small portion of the waterway for limited periods of time.

We received no letters from the public commenting on the proposed rule's impact to small entities and no changes to the proposed rule were made.

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 could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. No requests for assistance to small entities were received.

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 under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule implications for federalism and no changes to the proposed rule were made.

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.

We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule and no changes to the proposed rule were made.

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.

We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule effecting a taking of private property and no changes to the proposed rule were made.

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 received no letters commenting on the proposed rule complying with Civil Justice Reform and no changes to the proposed rule were made.

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.

We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule environmental risks to children and no changes to the proposed rule were made.

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 received no letters commenting on the proposed rule implications for tribal governments and no changes to the proposed rule were made.

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 received no letters commenting on the proposed rule effect on energy and no changes to the proposed rule were made.

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 is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation because it is a safety zone in effect for only 2 days. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is not required.

We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule environmental impact and no changes to the proposed rule were made.

The Environmental Protection Agency published in the Federal Register of January 29, 2002 (66 FR 4185), a Direct Final Rule related to the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP). In FR Doc. 02-1495, published on January 29, 2002, a couple of typographical errors to chemical formulas were made inadvertently. This document identifies and corrects these errors.

In FR Doc. 02-1495, published on January 29, 2002 (66 FR 4185), make the following corrections:

1. On page 4191 in the last paragraph of the third column, correct the formula “C 4 H 10 ” to read “C 4 F 10 .”

2. On page 4200 in the third column, amendatory instruction 3a. is corrected to read as follows:

a. Revising the table entitled “Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection—Acceptable Subjects to Use Conditions: Total Flooding Agents” by removing the entries “C 3 F 8 ”, “CF 3 I” and “Gelled Halocarbon/Dry Chemical Suspension”.

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because we are merely correcting an incorrect citation in a previous action. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. We find that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this correction 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 correction 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 correction 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 correction 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 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 correction also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant. This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

This correction does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply. This correction also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This 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 rule for the Removal of Restrictions on Certain Fire Suppression Substitutes for Ozone-Depleting Substances; and Listing of Substitutes.

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. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the Congressional Review Act 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, the EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefor, and established an effective date of April 1, 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 correction in the Federal Register . This correction is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_40/40cfr180_00.html, a beta site currently under development.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-301224. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

In the Federal Register of June 30, 2000 (65 FR 40632) (FRL-6592-6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a as amended by the FQPA of 1996 (Public Law 104-170) announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 0E6162) for a tolerance by Aventis CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. This notice included a summary of the petition prepared by Aventis CropScience, the petitioner. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.570 be amended by establishing a tolerance for the combined residues of the inert ingredient, herbicide safener isoxadifen-ethyl (ethyl 5,5-diphenyl-2-isoxazoline-3-carboxylate, (CAS No. 163520-33-0), and its metabolite: 4,5-dihydro-5,5-diphenyl-3-isoxazolecarboxylic acid, in or on corn, grain at 0.10 part per million (ppm); corn, forage at 0.30 ppm; and corn, stover 0.50 (ppm). The Agency determined that the tolerance levels should be changed (lowered) and that the corn commodities should be expressed as in the Food and Feed Vocabulary; therefore, the tolerance levels are corn, field, grain and corn, field, forage both at 0.10 ppm and corn, field, stover at 0.20 ppm.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances November 26, 1997 (62 FR 62961) (FRL-5754-7).

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2), for a tolerance for combined residues of isoxadifen-ethyl (ethyl 5,5-diphenyl-2-isoxazoline-3-carboxylate, (CAS No. 163520-33-0), and its metabolite: 4,5-dihydro-5,5-diphenyl-3-isoxazolecarboxylic acid, on corn commodities.

EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the above tolerances was published in the Federal Register of June 21, 2001 (66 FR 33179) (FRL-6786-1), when the time-limited tolerances (expiring June 21, 2004) for combined residues of isoxadifen-ethyl for rice commodities were established. The assessment that was discussed in the above final rule considered both corn and rice. All risks were less than the Agency's level of concern. The corn tolerances were not established at that time, since the enforcement method for corn had not yet been validated. For a complete description of the toxicological profile and endpoints, the uncertainty factors, the exposure assessment which includes dietary exposure for both food and drinking water, the safety factor for infants and children, and aggregate risk for isoxadifen-ethyl see the final rule of June 21, 2001.

Based on the previous published assessment, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to residues of isoxadifen-ethyl (ethyl 5,5-diphenyl-2-isoxazoline-3-carboxylate, (CAS No. 163520-33-0), and its metabolite: 4,5-dihydro-5,5-diphenyl-3-isoxazolecarboxylic acid, on corn, field, grain and corn, field, forage both at 0.10 ppm and corn, field, stover at 0.20 ppm.

The petitioner submitted the results of an Independent Laboratory Validation (ILV) for isoxadifen-ethyl and its major metabolites. The method is gas chromotography using ion trap mass selective detection. The ILV reported that overall the method worked well. There is thus a practical method suitable to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Calvin Furlow, PIRIB, IRSD (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-5229; e-mail address: furlow.calvin@epa.gov.

There are no CODEX, Canadian, or Mexican tolerances/MRLs for isoxadifen-ethyl residues.

The following data gap has been identified for isoxadifen-ethyl in/on corn: storage stability data. Preliminary results only have been submitted as the study is still on-going. The Agency believes that the available data and risk assessment support the determination that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm and the establishment of permanent tolerances for isoxadifen-ethyl in/on corn. The registration of a formulation containing isoxadifen-ethyl will be time-limited and conditional upon submission of this information.

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of isoxadifen-ethyl (ethyl 5,5-diphenyl-2-isoxazoline-3-carboxylate, (CAS No. 163520-33-0), and its metabolite: 4,5-dihydro-5,5-diphenyl-3-isoxazolecarboxylic acid, on corn, field, grain and corn, field, forage both at 0.10 ppm and corn, field, stover at 0.20 ppm.

Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) provides essentially the same process for persons to “object” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket control number OPP-301224 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before May 20, 2002.

1. Filing the request . Your objection must specify the specific provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.

Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. C400, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 260-4865.

2. Tolerance fee payment . If you file an objection or request a hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i) or request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33(m). You must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please identify the fee submission by labeling it “Tolerance Petition Fees.”

EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement “when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.” For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at tompkins.jim@epa.gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

3. Copies for the docket . In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VI.A., you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion in the official record that is described in Unit I.B.2. Mail your copies, identified by docket control number OPP-301224, to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB described in Unit I.B.2. You may also send an electronic copy of your request via e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov. Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.

A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (October 4, 1993 58 FR 51735). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use May 22, 2001 (66 FR 28355). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations February 16, 1994, (59 FR 7629) or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq ) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.” This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

The 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 this final rule in the Federal Register . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, import, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this rule. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action applies to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 721.5. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register— Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 721 is available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_40/40cfr721_00.html, a beta site currently under development.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPPTS-50644A. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, North East Mall Rm. B-607, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. The Center is open from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Center is (202) 260-7099.

The Agency proposed the modification of these SNURs in the Federal Register of October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54742) (FRL-6798-7). The background and reasons for the modification of each individual SNUR are set forth in the preamble to the proposed SNUR modification. The comment period closed on November 29, 2001. EPA received no comments regarding these SNURS. Therefore, EPA is issuing the modified SNURs.

TSCA section 5(a)(2) and 40 CFR part 721 authorize EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including those listed in section 5(a)(2) of TSCA. Once EPA promulgates a rule designating “significant new uses” for a given chemical substance, section 5(a)(1)(B) of TSCA requires persons to submit a notice to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture, import, or process the substance for that use. The mechanism for reporting under this requirement is established under 40 CFR 721.5.

Section 5(a)(1) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 720 and 721 require that any person intending to manufacture a new chemical substance, or to manufacture or process any chemical substance for a significant new use, must give EPA 90-days advance written notice in the form of a pre-manufacture notice (PMN) or SNUN, respectively.

Upon reviewing those notices, if EPA makes certain determinations regarding potential exposures and risks that may be presented by the activities associated with the chemical, EPA may regulate the chemical by issuing an order under TSCA section 5(e) and/or a SNUR under TSCA section 5(a)(2) and 40 CFR part 721. The TSCA section 5(e) order governs only the entity who submitted the PMN, whereas the section 5(a)(2) SNUR applies to all manufacturers and processors of the same chemical.

EPA may respond to SNUNs by issuing or modifying a TSCA section 5(e) consent order and/or amending the SNUR promulgated under TSCA section 5(a)(2). Amendment of the SNUR will often be necessary to allow companies other than the SNUN submitter to engage in the newly authorized use(s), because even after a manufacturer submits a SNUN and the review period expires, processors of the same substance still must submit a SNUN before engaging in the significant new use. Provisions regarding EPA's authority to modify or revoke SNUR requirements appear at 40 CFR 721.185.

EPA responded to PMN P-95-1411 by issuing a TSCA section 5(e) consent order and TSCA section 5(a)(2) SNUR to address concerns for both human health and the environment. Based on data from a 90-subchronic oral toxicity study in rats, submitted pursuant to the terms of the 5(e) consent order, EPA however, no longer concludes that the PMN substance may present an unreasonable risk to human health. Therefore, EPA has revoked the section 5(e) consent order entirely and, pursuant to TSCA section5(a)(2) and 40 CFR 721.185, is amending the SNUR to remove the human health related notice requirements, leaving only the notification requirements related to environmental releases.

EPA responded to PMNs P-97-520/521 by issuing a TSCA section 5(e) consent order requiring certain testing based on expected substantial human and environmental exposures and promulgating a TSCA section 5(a)(2) SNUR to address concerns for human health. In response to SNUNs S-00-397/398 by the same manufacturer proposing new uses for the same chemicals, EPA modified the section 5(e) consent order to allow certain new uses, but with restrictions to mitigate potential risks to human health. Accordingly, pursuant to TSCA section 5(a)(2) and 40 CFR 721.185, EPA is hereby amending the corresponding SNURs to modify the significant new uses consistent with the terms of the modified section 5(e) consent order and to provide EPA an opportunity to assess the potential for significant changes in human or environmental exposure.

General provisions for SNURs appear under subpart A of 40 CFR part 721. These provisions describe persons subject to the final rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the final rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the final rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. Persons subject to this SNUR must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under section 5(a)(1)(A) of TSCA. In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5 (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUR notice, EPA may take regulatory action under TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7 to control the activities on which it has received the SNUR notice. If EPA does not take action, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to explain in the Federal Register its reasons for not taking action.

Persons who intend to export a substance identified in a proposed or final SNUR are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b). The regulations that interpret TSCA section 12(b) appear at 40 CFR part 707. Persons who intend to import a chemical substance identified in a final SNUR are subject to the TSCA section 13 import certification requirements, which are codified at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 127.28. Such persons must certify that they are in compliance with SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of the import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707.

Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that proposed or final SNURs are not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by OMB, because they do not meet the criteria in section 3(f) of the Executive Order.

Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or tribal government will be impacted by this rulemaking. As such, EPA has determined that this regulatory action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any affect on small governments subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).

This rule does not have tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR 276755, May 19, 1998), do not apply to this rule. Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), which took effect on January 6, 2001, revokes Executive Order 13084 as of that date. EPA developed this rulemaking, however, during the period when Executive Order 13084 was in effect; thus, EPA addressed tribal considerations under Executive Order 13084. For the same reasons stated for Executive Order 13084, the requirements of Executive Order 10175 do not apply to this rule either. Nor will this action have a substantial direct effect on 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, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

In issuing this rule, 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, entitled Civil Justice Reform (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996).

EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630, entitled Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988), by examining the takings implications of this rule 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 action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.

In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) Pub. L. 104-113 section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq .), the Agency hereby certifies that promulgation of this SNUR will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale supporting this conclusion is as follows. A SNUR applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any activity described in the rule as a “significant new use.” By definition of the word “new,” and based on all information currently available to EPA, it appears that no small or large entities presently engage in such activity. Since a SNUR only requires that any person who intends to engage in such activity in the future must first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN, no economic impact will even occur until someone decides to engage in those activities. Although some small entities may decide to conduct such activities in the future, EPA cannot presently determine how many, if any, there may be. However, EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of over 900 SNURs, the Agency has received fewer than 25 SNUNs. Of those SNUNs submitted, none appear to be from small entities in response to any SNUR. In addition, the estimated reporting cost for submission of a SNUN is minimal regardless of the size of the firm. Therefore, EPA believes that the potential economic impact of complying with this SNUR are not expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published on June 2, 1997 (62 FR 29684) (FRL-5597-1), the Agency presented it's general determination that proposed and final SNURs are not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, which was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq ., an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rule and in addition to its display on any related collection instrument, are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.

Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, OP Regulatory Information Division (2137), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.

This rule 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, 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 . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, import, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this rule. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action applies to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 721.5. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 721 is available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_40/40cfr721_00.html, a beta site currently under development.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPPTS-50642A. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, North East Mall Rm. B-607, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. The Center is open from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Center is (202) 260-7099.

The Agency proposed the modification of these SNURs in the Federal Register of August 16, 2001 (66 FR 42978) (FRL-6557-8). The background and reasons for the modification of each individual SNUR are set forth in the preamble to the proposed SNUR modification. The comment period closed on September 17, 2001. EPA received no comments regarding the SNUR for P-89-769 codified at 721.9480. Therefore EPA is issuing the modified SNUR.

EPA received one comment from the PMN submitter of P-95-4, who provided particle size data that was the basis for the proposed elimination of reporting requirements for respiratory protection when the particle size of the PMN substance is 250 microns or greater. The commenter stated that when the particle size of the substance is 250 microns or greater, exposed workers are not reasonably likely to be exposed to significant amounts of the PMN substance and that SNUR reporting provisions should not apply. EPA reviewed the available dermal toxicity data and determined that when the particle size of the substance is 250 microns or greater dermal exposures would not result in significant changes in human exposure. This determination was based on the fact that the dermal LD 50 of the substance is greater than 2,000 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg), the skin irritation study in rabbits for the substance showed no skin irritation and had a Draize irritation score of 0, indicative of a compound with no irritation potential to the skin, the skin sensitization study for the substance showed no reactions, and no dermal absorption of particles greater than 250 microns is expected. Therefore, EPA is issuing a modified final SNUR where no SNUR reporting requirements apply when the particle size of the substance is greater than 250 microns.

Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use. EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including those listed in section 5(a)(2) of TSCA. Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, section 5(a)(1)(B) of TSCA requires persons to submit a notice to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture, import, or process the substance for that use. The mechanism for reporting under this requirement is established under 40 CFR 721.5.

During review of the PMNs submitted for the chemical substances that are the subject of this rule, EPA concluded that regulation was warranted based on available information that indicated activities not described in the TSCA section 5(e) consent order might result in significant changes in human or environmental exposure as described in section 5(a)(2) of TSCA. Based on these findings, SNURs were promulgated.

EPA has revoked the TSCA section 5(e) consent order for P-89-769 and has determined that modifying these SNURs would not result in significant changes in human or environmental exposure. The modification of SNUR provisions for these substances designated herein is consistent with the provisions of the TSCA section 5(e) consent order.

General provisions for SNURs appear under subpart A of 40 CFR part 721. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the final rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. Persons subject to this SNUR must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under section 5(a)(1)(A) of TSCA. In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5 (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUR notice, EPA may take regulatory action under TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7 to control the activities on which it has received the SNUR notice. If EPA does not take action, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to explain in the Federal Register its reasons for not taking action.

Persons who intend to export a substance identified in a proposed or final SNUR are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b). The regulations that interpret TSCA section 12(b) appear at 40 CFR part 707. Persons who intend to import a chemical substance identified in a final SNUR are subject to the TSCA section 13 import certification requirements, which are codified at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 127.28. Such persons must certify that they are in compliance with SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of the import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707.

Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that proposed or final SNURs are not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by OMB, because they do not meet the criteria in section 3(f) of the Executive Order.

Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or tribal government will be impacted by this rulemaking. As such, EPA has determined that this regulatory action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any affect on small governments subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).

This rule does not have tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), which took effect on January 6, 2001 do not apply to this rule. Nor will this action have a substantial direct effect on 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, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

In issuing this rule, 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, entitled Civil Justice Reform (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996).

EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630, entitled Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988), by examining the takings implications of this rule 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 action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.

In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq .), the Agency hereby certifies that promulgation of this SNUR will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale supporting this conclusion is as follows. A SNUR applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any activity described in the rule as a “significant new use.” By definition of the word “new,” and based on all information currently available to EPA, it appears that no small or large entities presently engage in such activity. Since a SNUR only requires that any person who intends to engage in such activity in the future must first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN, no economic impact will even occur until someone decides to engage in those activities. Although some small entities may decide to conduct such activities in the future, EPA cannot presently determine how many, if any, there may be. However, EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of over 530 SNURs, the Agency has received fewer than 15 SNUNs. Of those SNUNs submitted, none appear to be from small entities in response to any SNUR. In addition, the estimated reporting cost for submission of a SNUN are minimal regardless of the size of the firm. Therefore, EPA believes that the potential economic impact of complying with this SNUR are not expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published on June 2, 1997 (62 FR 29684) (FRL-5597-1), the Agency presented it's general determination that proposed and final SNURs are not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, which was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq ., an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rule and in addition to its display on any related collection instrument, are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a significant new use notice to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review and submit the required SNUN.

Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, OP Regulatory Information Division (2137), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.

This rule 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, 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 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 . This rule is a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Department of the Interior published a final rule in the Federal Register of January 30, 2002, revising several parts of 43 CFR to reflect a change of address for OHA. 67 FR 4367. One of the sections for revision was erroneously cited as 43 CFR 35.1(g). There is no paragraph (g) in § 35.1. The correct citation is 43 CFR 35.2(g).

The IPHC has promulgated regulations governing the Pacific halibut fishery in 2002, under the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention (signed at Washington, D.C., on March 29, 1979). The IPHC regulations have been approved by the Secretary of State of the United States under section 4 of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act (Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773-773k). Pursuant to regulations at 50 CFR 300.62, the approved IPHC regulations setting forth the 2002 IPHC annual management measures are published in the Federal Register to provide notice of their effectiveness, and to inform persons subject to the regulations of the restrictions and requirements for harvesting Pacific halibut.

The IPHC held its annual meeting in Seattle, WA, on January 22-25, 2002, and adopted regulations for 2002. The substantive changes to the previous IPHC regulations (66 FR 15801, March 21, 2001) include:

1. New catch limits for all areas;

2. Opening dates for the Area 2A commercial directed halibut fishery;

3. Specification of which commercial fishing regulations apply to the commercial treaty Indian fishery in Area 2A-1;

4. Revision of the definition of illegal possession of halibut such that a person is not required to know that they are in contravention of the IPHC regulations to be in illegal possession of halibut;

5. Allowance of fishing vessels carrying crab pots and operating off Alaska to have halibut heads, skins, bones and entrails on board provided they have documentation of legally acquiring the halibut body parts;

6. Recognition of the customary and traditional use of halibut (i.e. subsistence halibut) in Alaska; and

7. Removal of the expiration date of regulations allowing fishermen using Community Development Quota (CDQ) in Area 4E to retain halibut for personal use that are shorter than the minimum commercial size limit and also extension of this allowance to Area 4D CDQ fishermen.

In addition, this action implements the CSP for regulatory Area 2A. The CSP was developed by the PFMC under authority of the Halibut Act. Section 5 of the Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773c) provides the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) with general responsibility to carry out the Convention and to adopt such regulations as may be necessary to implement the purposes and objectives of the Convention and the Halibut Act. The Secretary′s authority has been delegated to the AA. Section 5 of the Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773c(c)) also authorizes the Regional Fishery Management Council having authority for the geographic area concerned to develop regulations governing the Pacific halibut catch in United States Convention waters that are in addition to, but not in conflict with, regulations of the IPHC. Pursuant to this authority, NMFS requested the PFMC to allocate halibut catches should such allocation be necessary.

The PFMC′s Area 2A CSP allocates the halibut catch limit for Area 2A among treaty Indian, non-Indian commercial, and non-Indian sport fisheries in and off Washington, Oregon, and California. Under the CSP, 35 percent of the Area 2A total allowable catch (TAC) is allocated to Washington treaty Indian tribes in Subarea 2A-1, and 65 percent is allocated to non-treaty fisheries in Area 2A. Treaty fisheries are divided into commercial fisheries, and ceremonial and subsistence fisheries. The allocation to non-treaty fisheries is divided into three shares, with the Washington sport fishery (north of the Columbia River) receiving 36.6 percent, the Oregon/California sport fishery receiving 31.7 percent, and the commercial fishery receiving 31.7 percent. The non-treaty commercial allocation is further divided between a directed longline fishery (85 percent) and an incidental catch allowance in the salmon troll fishery (15 percent). The directed commercial fishery in Area 2A is confined to southern Washington (south of 46°53′18” N. lat.), Oregon and California. North of Point Chehalis, WA (46°53′18” N. lat.) halibut may be retained by longline vessels participating in the limited entry, primary sablefish fishery. Under applicable regulations, incidental halibut retention in the primary sablefish fishery is only allowable when the overall Area 2A TAC is above 900,000 lb (408.2 mt,) which it is in 2002. The CSP also divides the sport fisheries into seven geographic areas, each with separate allocations, seasons, and bag limits.

For 2002, PFMC recommended changes to the CSP to modify the Pacific halibut sport fisheries in Area 2A in 2002 and beyond pursuant to recommendations from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. These changes to the CSP will separate the Puget Sound sub-area of the Washington State sport fisheries into two regions with two separate season start dates and will allow Oregon anglers to retain up to two halibut on land.

A complete description of the PFMC recommended changes to the CSP, notice of a draft Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR), and proposed sport fishery management measures were published in the Federal Register on February 11, 2002 (67 FR 6220) with a request for public comments by February 22, 2002. No public comments were received. Therefore, NMFS has approved the changes to the CSP as proposed, made a finding of no significant impact, and finalized the EA/RIR. Copies of the complete CSP for Area 2A as modified and the final EA/RIR are available from the NMFS Northwest Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ).

In accordance with the CSP, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) held public workshops (after the IPHC set the Area 2A quota) in early February 2002, to develop recommendations on the opening dates and weekly structure of the sport fisheries. The WDFW and ODFW sent letters to NMFS discussing the outcome of the workshops and provided the following recommendations on the opening dates and season structure for the sport fisheries.

WDFW recommended a May 9 to July 12 season for eastern Puget Sound and a May 23 to July 27 season for western Puget Sound, 5 days per week (closed Tuesday and Wednesday). The recommended number of fishing days is based on an analysis of past harvest patterns in this fishery and meets the requirements of the CSP for the overall Puget Sound sport fishery subarea. For the Washington North Coast subarea, WDFW has recommended a season opening May 1 and continuing until the May-June sub-quota is taken, 5 days per week (closed Sunday and Monday), and a second season for July 1-4, with a possibility of re-opening this subarea if sufficient quota remains after July 4. WDFW also recommended extending the southern boundary of the North Coast subarea's closed area by four miles, in accordance with paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of the CSP. This modest increase in the size of the closed area is intended to lengthen the fishing season by reducing access to an area of higher halibut abundance, known as a halibut “hot spot.” For the Washington South Coast subarea, WDFW has recommended a season opening May 1 and continuing until the quota is taken, 5 days per week (closed Friday and Saturday) in the offshore area and 7 days per week in the nearshore area. WDFW recommendations for both the North Coast and South Coast Washington subareas meet the requirements of the CSP.

Both WDFW and ODFW have recommended opening the Columbia River subarea on May 1 and continuing the season until the quota has been reached, 7 days per week. This recommended season meets the requirements of the CSP.

ODFW recommended starting the nearshore fishery in the Oregon Central Coast and South Coast subareas on May 1 and continuing the season until the sub-quota for that fishery is taken, 7 days per week. For the all-depth fisheries in those subareas, ODFW recommended a 4-day season of May 10, 11, 17, and 18, based on an analysis of past harvest rates, which indicated an increasing annual trend in this sport fishery. ODFW further recommended a 2 day August all-depth season of August 2 and 3. If the May season does not take the entire May sub-quota for these subareas, ODFW recommended these additional potential opening dates: June 7, 8, 21, 22. If the August season does not take the entire August sub-quota for these subareas, ODFW recommended these additional potential opening dates: August 23, 24, September 20, 21. These recommendations meet the requirements of the CSP for these subareas.

For the southernmost subarea, south of Humbug Mountain, Oregon, ODFW recommended opening this subarea on May 1 and continuing the season until the quota has been reached, 7 days per week. This recommended season meets the requirements of the CSP.

NMFS has implemented sport fishing management measures in Area 2A based on recommendations from the states in accordance with the CSP.

The annual management measures that follow for the 2002 Pacific halibut fishery are identical to those recommended by the IPHC and approved by the Secretary of State.

Regulations Respecting the Convention Between Canada and the United States of America for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea

These regulations may be cited as the Pacific Halibut Fishery Regulations.

(1) These Regulations apply to persons and vessels fishing for halibut in, or possessing halibut taken from the maritime area as defined in Section 3.

(2) Sections 3 to 6 apply generally to all halibut fishing.

(3) Sections 7 to 21 apply to commercial fishing for halibut.

(4) Section 22 applies to the United States treaty Indian fishery in subarea 2A-1.

(5) Section 23 applies to customary and traditional fishing in Alaska.

(6) Section 24 applies to sport fishing for halibut.

(7) These Regulations do not apply to fishing operations authorized or conducted by the Commission for research purposes.

(1) In these Regulations,

(a) Authorized officer means any State, Federal, or Provincial officer authorized to enforce these regulations including, but not limited to, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Canada′s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Alaska Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection (ADFWP), United States Coast Guard (USCG), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and the Oregon State Police (OSP);

(b) Authorized clearance personnel means an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor;

(c) Charter vessel means a vessel used for hire in sport fishing for halibut, but not including a vessel without a hired operator;

(d) Commercial fishing means fishing, other than treaty Indian ceremonial and subsistence fishing as referred to in section 22, and customary and traditional fishing as referred to in section 23 and defined by and regulated pursuant to National Marine Fisheries Service regulations published at 50 CFR part 300, the resulting catch of which is sold or bartered; or is intended to be sold or bartered;

(e) Commission means the International Pacific Halibut Commission;

(f) Daily bag limit means the maximum number of halibut a person may take in any calendar day from Convention waters;

(g) Fishing means the taking, harvesting, or catching of fish, or any activity that can reasonably be expected to result in the taking, harvesting, or catching of fish, including specifically the deployment of any amount or component part of setline gear anywhere in the maritime area;

(h) Fishing period limit means the maximum amount of halibut that may be retained and landed by a vessel during one fishing period;

(i) Land or Offload with respect to halibut , means the removal of halibut from the catching vessel;

(j) License means a halibut fishing license issued by the Commission pursuant to section 4;

(k) Maritime area , in respect of the fisheries jurisdiction of a Contracting Party, includes without distinction areas within and seaward of the territorial sea and internal waters of that Party;

(l) Operator , with respect to any vessel, means the owner and/or the master or other individual on board and in charge of that vessel;

(m) Overall length of a vessel means the horizontal distance, rounded to the nearest foot, between the foremost part of the stem and the aftermost part of the stern (excluding bowsprits, rudders, outboard motor brackets, and similar fittings or attachments);

(n) Person includes an individual, corporation, firm, or association;

(o) Regulatory area means an area referred to in section 6;

(p) Setline gear means one or more stationary, buoyed, and anchored lines with hooks attached;

(q) Sport fishing means all fishing other than commercial fishing, treaty Indian ceremonial and subsistence fishing as referred to in section 22, and customary and traditional fishing as referred to in section 23 and defined in and regulated pursuant to National Marine fisheries Service regulations published in 50 CFR part 300;

(r) Tender means any vessel that buys or obtains fish directly from a catching vessel and transports it to a port of landing or fish processor.

(2) In these Regulations, all bearings are true and all positions are determined by the most recent charts issued by the United States National Ocean Service or the Canadian Hydrographic Service.

(3) In these Regulations all weights shall be computed on the basis that the heads of the fish are off and their entrails removed.

(1) No person shall fish for halibut from a vessel, nor possess halibut on board a vessel, used either for commercial fishing or as a charter vessel in Area 2A, unless the Commission has issued a license valid for fishing in Area 2A in respect of that vessel.

(2) A license issued for a vessel operating in Area 2A shall be valid only for operating either as a charter vessel or a commercial vessel, but not both.

(3) A vessel with a valid Area 2A commercial license cannot be used to sport fish for Pacific halibut in Area 2A.

(4) A license issued for a vessel operating in the commercial fishery in Area 2A shall be valid for one of the following, but not both.

(a) The directed commercial fishery during the fishing periods specified in paragraph (2) of section 8 and the incidental commercial fishery during the sablefish fishery specified in paragraph (3) of section 8; or

(b) the incidental catch fishery during the salmon troll fishery specified in paragraph (4) of section 8.

(5) A license issued in respect of a vessel referred to in paragraph (1) of this section must be carried on board that vessel at all times and the vessel operator shall permit its inspection by any authorized officer.

(6) The Commission shall issue a license in respect of a vessel, without fee, from its office in Seattle, Washington, upon receipt of a completed, written, and signed “Application for Vessel License for the Halibut Fishery” form.

(7) A vessel operating in the directed commercial fishery or the incidental commercial fishery during the sablefish fishery in Area 2A must have its “Application for Vessel License for the Halibut Fishery” form postmarked no later than 11:59 p.m. on April 30, or on the first weekday in May if April 30 is a Saturday or Sunday.

(8) A vessel operating in the incidental commercial fishery during the salmon troll season in Area 2A must have its “Application for Vessel License for the Halibut Fishery” form postmarked no later than 11:59 p.m. on March 31, or the first weekday in April if March 31 is a Saturday or Sunday.

(9) Application forms may be obtained from any authorized officer or from the Commission.

(10) Information on “Application for Vessel License for the Halibut Fishery” form must be accurate.

(11) The “Application for Vessel License for the Halibut Fishery” form shall be completed and signed by the vessel owner.

(12) Licenses issued under this section shall be valid only during the year in which they are issued.

(13) A new license is required for a vessel that is sold, transferred, renamed, or redocumented.

(14) The license required under this section is in addition to any license, however designated, that is required under the laws of the United States or any of its States.

(15) The United States may suspend, revoke, or modify any license issued under this section under policies and procedures in Title 15, CFR part 904.

(1) The Commission is authorized to establish or modify regulations during the season after determining that such action:

(a) Will not result in exceeding the catch limit established preseason for each regulatory area;

(b) Is consistent with the Convention between the United States of America and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, and applicable domestic law of either Canada or the United States; and

(c) Is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with any domestic catch sharing plans or other domestic allocation programs developed by the United States or Canadian governments.

(2) In-season actions may include, but are not limited to, establishment or modification of the following:

(a) Closed areas;

(b) Fishing periods;

(c) Fishing period limits;

(d) Gear restrictions;

(e) Recreational bag limits;

(f) Size limits; or

(g) Vessel clearances.

(3) In-season changes will be effective at the time and date specified by the Commission.

(4) The Commission will announce in-season actions under this section by providing notice to major halibut processors; Federal, State, United States treaty Indian, Provincial fishery officials, and the media.

The following areas shall be regulatory areas for the purposes of the Convention (see Figure 1):

(1) Area 2A includes all waters off the states of California, Oregon, and Washington;

(2) Area 2B includes all waters off British Columbia;

(3) Area 2C includes all waters off Alaska that are east of a line running 340° true from Cape Spencer Light (58°11′57″N. lat., 136°38′18″W. long.) and south and east of a line running 205° true from said light;

(4) Area 3A includes all waters between Area 2C and a line extending from the most northerly point on Cape Aklek (57°41′15″ N. lat., 155°35′00″ W. long.) to Cape Ikolik (57°17′17″ N. lat., 154°47′18″ W. long.), then along the Kodiak Island coastline to Cape Trinity (56°44′50″ N. lat., 154°08′44″ W. long.), then 140° true;

(5) Area 3B includes all waters between Area 3A and a line extending 150° true from Cape Lutke (54°29′00″ N. lat., 164°20′00″ W. long.) and south of 54°49′00″ N. lat. in Isanotski Strait;

(6) Area 4A includes all waters in the Gulf of Alaska west of Area 3B and in the Bering Sea west of the closed area defined in section 10 that are east of 172°00′00″ W. long. and south of 56°20′00″ N. lat.;

(7) Area 4B includes all waters in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska west of Area 4A and south of 56°20′00″N. lat.;

(8) Area 4C includes all waters in the Bering Sea north of Area 4A and north of the closed area defined in section 10 which are east of 171°00′00″ W. long., south of 58°00′00″ N. lat., and west of 168°00′00″ W. long.;

(9) Area 4D includes all waters in the Bering Sea north of Areas 4A and 4B, north and west of Area 4C, and west of 168°00′00″ W. long.;

(10) Area 4E includes all waters in the Bering Sea north and east of the closed area defined in section 10, east of 168°00′00″ W. long., and south of 65°34′00″ N. lat..

(1) Section 7 applies only to any person fishing, or vessel that is used to fish for, Area 4E Community Development Quota (CDQ) or Area 4D CDQ halibut provided that the total annual halibut catch of that person or vessel is landed at a port within Area 4E or 4D.

(2) A person may retain halibut taken with setline gear in Area 4E CDQ and 4D CDQ fishery that are smaller than the size limit specified in section 13, provided that no person may sell or barter such halibut.

(3) The manager of a CDQ organization that authorizes persons to harvest halibut in the Area 4E or 4D CDQ fisheries must report to the Commission the total number and weight of undersized halibut taken and retained by such persons pursuant to section 7, paragraph (2). This report, which shall include data and methodology used to collect the data, must be received by the Commission prior to December 1 of the year in which such halibut were harvested.

(1) The fishing periods for each regulatory area apply where the catch limits specified in section 11 have not been taken.

(2) Each fishing period in the Area 2A directed fishery 1 shall begin at 0800 hours and terminate at 1800 hours local time on June 26, July 10, July 24, August 7, August 21, September 4, and September 18 unless the Commission specifies otherwise.

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (7) of section 11, an incidental catch fishery 2 is authorized during the sablefish seasons in Area 2A in accordance with regulations promulgated by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), and paragraph (7) of section 11, an incidental catch fishery is authorized during salmon troll seasons in Area 2A in accordance with regulations promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

(5) The fishing period in Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E shall begin at 1200 hours local time on March 18 and terminate at 1200 hours local time on November 18, unless the Commission specifies otherwise.

(6) All commercial fishing for halibut in Areas 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E shall cease at 1200 hours local time on November 18.

(1) No person shall engage in fishing for halibut in any regulatory area other than during the fishing periods set out in section 8 in respect of that area.

(2) No person shall land or otherwise retain halibut caught outside a fishing period applicable to the regulatory area where the halibut was taken.

(3) Subject to paragraphs (7), (8), (9), and (10) of section 19, these Regulations do not prohibit fishing for any species of fish other than halibut during the closed periods.

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), no person shall have halibut in his/her possession while fishing for any other species of fish during the closed periods.

(5) No vessel shall retrieve any halibut fishing gear during a closed period if the vessel has any halibut on board.

(6) A vessel that has no halibut on board may retrieve any halibut fishing gear during the closed period after the operator notifies an authorized officer or representative of the Commission prior to that retrieval.

(7) After retrieval of halibut gear in accordance with paragraph (6), the vessel shall submit to a hold inspection at the discretion of the authorized officer or representative of the Commission.

(8) No person shall retain any halibut caught on gear retrieved referred to in paragraph (6).

(9) No person shall possess halibut aboard a vessel in a regulatory area during a closed period unless that vessel is in continuous transit to or within a port in which that halibut may be lawfully sold.