This interim final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order (E.O.) 121866, and it has been determined that it is not a “significant regulatory action” because it will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely and materially affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities. This interim final rule will not create any serious inconsistencies or otherwise interfere with actions taken or planned by another agency. It will not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof, and does not raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities or principles set forth in E.O. 12866.

USDA certifies that this interim final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. 96-534, as amended (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

The purpose of this interim final rule is to establish finality with respect to the status of Section 741 Complaint Requests filed under part 15f by imposing deadlines that will bring closure to all actions filed under part 15f.

On December 4, 1998, USDA published an interim final rule at 7 CFR part 15f implementing Section 741 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, enacted in Division A, section 101(a) of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, Pub. L. 105-277. Section 741 waived the statute of limitations (SOL) for filing discrimination complaints under certain nondiscrimination statutes for a period of two years after the enactment of that Act with respect to certain USDA programs.

The period for filing a Section 741 Complaint Request under the waiver of the SOL provided in Section 741 expired on October 21, 2000. USDA no longer has authority under the terms of the statutory waiver to accept Section 741 Complaint Requests under part 15f unless such a complaint has already been docketed under part 15f by USDA or unless a request was filed with USDA prior to October 21, 2000. This interim final rule amends § 15f.5 to make clear that Section 741 Complaint Requests filed under part 15f are no longer accepted by USDA.

A number of Section 741 Complaint Requests filed under the waiver are still pending before USDA, and complainants are still entitled to review of the final resolution of those Section 741 Complaint Requests by an ALJ if the Section 741 Complaint Requests are pursued to the formal proceeding stage under part 15f.

Prior to enactment of Section 741, USDA had a number of civil rights complaints pending that were eligible for consideration under Section 7841. In part 15f, USA committed itself to automatically docketing these pending complaints as Section 741 Complaint Requests and reviewing them to determine if settlement was a possibility. If settlement did not occur, then the Director would advise the complainant of the opportunity for review of the Section 741 Complaint Request under formal proceedings before an ALJ. Additionally, any new Section 741 Complaint Requests that were filed after promulgation of part 15f similarly were reviewed to determine if settlement was a possibility, and complainants were notified of the opportunity for an ALJ review if settlement did not occur.

The current regulations do not specify a deadline by which a complainant must seek an ALJ review of the Section 741 Complaint Request after USDA has informed the complainant that USDA will not settle the Section 741 Complaint Request. In order to bring legal finality to the complaint resolution process provided in part 15f, USDA amends § 15f.9 to specify that a complainant has 30 days from receipt of a notice that USDA will not settle the Section 741 Complaint Request to file a request for review by an ALJ. Complainants who, prior to the date of publication of this interim final rule, received a notice that USDA would not settle will have until 90 days after February 14, 2003 to request review of their Section 741 Complaint Request by an ALJ. Finally, part 15f is clarified to state that new request under part 15f will not be accepted by USDA.

Exotic Newcastle disease (END) is a contagious and fatal viral disease affecting the respiratory, nervous, and digestive systems of birds and poultry. END is so virulent that many birds and poultry die without showing any clinical signs. A death rate of almost 100 percent can occur in unvaccinated poultry flocks. END can infect and cause death even in vaccinated poultry.

The regulations in “Subpart A—Exotic Newcastle Disease (END)” (9 CFR 82.1 through 82.15, referred to below as the regulations) were established to prevent the spread of END in the United States in the event of an outbreak. In § 82.3, paragraph (a) provides that any area where birds or poultry infected with END are located will be designated as a quarantined area, and that a quarantined area is any geographical area, which may be a premises or all or part of a State, deemed by epidemiological evaluation to be sufficient to contain all birds or poultry known to be infected with or exposed to END. Less than an entire State will be designated as a quarantined area only if the State enforces restrictions on intrastate movements from the quarantined area that are at least as stringent as the regulations. The regulations prohibit or restrict the movement of birds, poultry, products, and materials that could spread END from quarantined areas. Areas quarantined because of END are listed in § 82.3, paragraph (c).

On October 1, 2002, END was confirmed in the State of California. The disease was confirmed in backyard poultry, which are raised on private premises for hobby, exhibition, and personal consumption, and in commercial poultry.

In an interim rule effective on November 21, 2002, and published in the Federal Register on November 26, 2002 (67 FR 70674-70675, Docket No. 02-117-1), we amended the regulations in § 82.3(c) by quarantining Los Angeles County, CA, and portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, CA, and restricting the interstate movement of birds, poultry, products, and materials that could spread END from the quarantined area.

In a second interim rule effective on January 7, 2003, and published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2003 (68 FR 1515-1517, Docket No. 02-117-2), we further amended § 82.3(c) by adding Imperial, Orange, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties, CA, and the previously non-quarantined portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, CA, to the list of quarantined areas. Because the Secretary of Agriculture signed a declaration of extraordinary emergency with respect to the END situation in California on January 6, 2003 (see 68 FR 1432, Docket No. 03-001-1, published January 10, 2003), that second interim rule also amended the regulations to provide that the prohibitions and restrictions that apply to the interstate movement of birds, poultry, products, and materials that could spread END will also apply to the intrastate movement of those articles in situations where the Secretary of Agriculture has issued a declaration of extraordinary emergency (new § 82.16).

On January 16, 2003, END was confirmed in backyard poultry on a premises in Las Vegas, NV. Therefore, in a third interim rule effective January 17, 2003, and published in the Federal Register on January 24, 2003 (68 FR 3375-3376, Docket No. 02-117-3), we amended § 82.3(c) by quarantining Clark County, NV, and a portion of Nye County, NV, and prohibiting or restricting the movement of birds, poultry, products, and materials that could spread END from the quarantined area. On January 17, 2003, the Secretary of Agriculture signed a declaration of an extraordinary emergency because of END in Nevada (see 68 FR 3507, Docket No. 03-001-2, published January 24, 2003).

On February 4, 2003, END was confirmed in backyard poultry on a premises in the Colorado River Indian Nation in Arizona. Therefore, in this interim rule, we are amending § 82.3(c) by designating all of La Paz and Yuma Counties, AZ, and that portion of Mohave County, AZ, that lies south of the Colorado River as a quarantined area and prohibiting or restricting the movement of birds, poultry, products, and materials that could spread END from the quarantined area. As provided for by the regulations in § 82.3(a), this quarantined area encompasses the area where poultry infected with END were located and a surrounding geographical area deemed by epidemiological evaluation to be sufficient to contain all birds or poultry known to be infected with or exposed to END.

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

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

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

This rule amends the regulations by quarantining La Paz and Yuma Counties, AZ, and a portion of Mohave County, AZ, and prohibiting or restricting the movement of birds, poultry, products, and materials that could spread END from the quarantined area. This action is necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the spread of END from the quarantined area.

This emergency situation makes timely compliance with section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) impracticable. We are currently assessing the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. Based on that assessment, we will either certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or publish a final regulatory flexibility analysis.

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

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

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

The animal importation regulations in 9 CFR part 93 (referred to below as the regulations), among other things, prohibit or restrict the importation of certain animals, including horses, into the United States to protect U.S. livestock from communicable diseases.

In § 93.301, paragraph (c)(1) prohibits the importation of horses into the United States from certain regions where contagious equine metritis (CEM) exists. Paragraph (c)(2) lists categories of horses that are excepted from this prohibition, including, in § 93.301(c)(2)(vi), horses over 731 days of age imported for permanent entry if the horses meet the requirements of § 93.301(e).

One of the requirements in § 93.301(e) is that mares and stallions over 731 days old imported for permanent entry from regions where CEM exists must be consigned to States listed in § 93.301(h)(6), for stallions, or in § 93.301(h)(7), for mares. The Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has approved these States to receive stallions or mares over 731 days of age from regions where CEM exists because each State has entered into a written agreement with the Administrator to enforce State laws and regulations to control CEM, and each State has agreed to quarantine, test, and treat stallions and mares over 731 days of age from any region where CEM exists in accordance with § 93.301(e).

In 1995, Texas entered into a written agreement with the Administrator and was subsequently placed on both lists. However, the Texas Animal Health Commission has recently determined that Texas is no longer able to continue the quarantine, testing, and treatment of stallions and mares over 731 days old from regions where CEM exists, and has requested that the State be removed from the lists of States approved to received stallions and mares from CEM-affected regions. Therefore, this final rule removes Texas from the lists of States in § 93.301(h)(6) and (h)(7).

A State's decision to enter into a written agreement with the Administrator to enforce State laws and regulations to control CEM and to quarantine, test, and treat stallions and mares over 731 days of age from any region where CEM exists in accordance with § 93.301(e) is completely voluntary. Since the State of Texas has notified APHIS that it is unable to continue these activities and has withdrawn from its agreement with the Administrator, it does not appear that public participation in this rulemaking proceeding would make additional relevant information available to the Department.

Accordingly, pursuant to the administrative procedure provisions in 5 U.S.C. 553, we find upon good cause that prior notice and other public procedure with respect to this rule are unnecessary. We also find good cause for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

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

APHIS does not mandate that any State participate in the quarantine, testing, and treatment of stallions and mares over 731 days of age from any region where CEM exists. As a result, decisions regarding a State's compliance or noncompliance with the standards set out in § 93.301(e) are made at the State level. Since the State of Texas has notified APHIS that it is unable to continue these activities and has withdrawn from its agreement with the Administrator, this rule simply amends the regulations to reflect the State's decision.

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

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

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

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

The swine health protection regulations in 9 CFR part 166 (referred to below as the regulations) were established under the Swine Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 3801 et seq., referred to below as the Act). The Act and the regulations contain provisions concerning the treatment of garbage to be fed to swine and the feeding of that garbage to swine. These provisions operate as safeguards against the spread of certain swine diseases in the United States.

The regulations in § 166.15 categorize States according to the respective status of each with regard to the feeding of garbage to swine. Some States prohibit this activity, while other States permit the feeding of garbage to swine; these States are listed in § 116.15(a) and (b), respectively.

Under section 10 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 3809), a State will have primary enforcement responsibility for violations of laws and regulations related to the treatment and feeding of garbage if the Secretary determines that the State: (1) Has adopted adequate laws and regulations governing the treatment of garbage to be fed to swine and the feeding thereof which laws and regulations meet the minimum standards of the Act and regulations, (2) has adopted and is implementing adequate procedures for the effective enforcement of its garbage feeding laws and regulations, and (3) will keep records and make reports showing compliance with its garbage feeding laws and regulations and their enforcement as the Secretary may require by regulation. States that have primary enforcement responsibility are listed in § 166.15(c).

Prior to this rulemaking, Kansas and Oregon were listed in § 166.15(b) as States that permitted the feeding of treated garbage to swine and in § 166.15(c) as States with primary enforcement responsibility. However, Kansas and Oregon have both repealed their laws permitting the feeding of treated garbage to swine. We are, therefore, removing Kansas and Oregon from the list of States in § 166.15(b) that permit the feeding of treated garbage to swine and are adding them to the list of States in § 166.15(a) that prohibit the feeding of garbage to swine. We are also removing both States from the list in § 166.15(c) of States that have primary enforcement responsibility.

We are taking this action to update our regulations with respect to changes that have already occurred in the laws of Kansas and Oregon regarding the feeding of garbage to swine. It does not appear that public participation in this rulemaking proceeding would make additional relevant information available to the Department.

Accordingly, pursuant to the administrative procedure provisions in 5 U.S.C. 553, we find upon good cause that prior notice and other public procedure with respect to this rule are unnecessary. We also find good cause for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

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

The decision regarding whether or not a State will permit the feeding of garbage to swine is made at the State level. Since the State of Kansas and the State of Oregon have each notified APHIS that State law now prohibits the feeding of garbage to swine, this rule simply amends the regulations to reflect each State's decision.

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

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

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

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

In the Federal Register of October 24, 2002 (67 FR 65311), FDA amended the color additive regulations to add § 73.3128 Mica-based pearlescent pigments (21 CFR 73.3128) to provide for the safe use of mica-based pearlescent pigments as color additives in contact lenses.

FDA gave interested persons until November 25, 2002, to file objections or requests for a hearing. The agency received no objections or requests for a hearing on the final rule. Therefore, FDA finds that the effective date of the final rule that published in the Federal Register of October 24, 2002, should be confirmed.

Effective January 20, 2003, the Department of State will realign responsibilities for defense trade controls under section 38 of the AECA and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 CFR Parts 120-130 (“ITAR”). Section 120.1(a) of the ITAR is amended to replace “Director of the Office of Defense Trade Controls” with “Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Trade Controls and Managing Director of Defense Trade Controls.” Section 120.1, subparagraph (b) is amended by inserting “(1)” after “(b)” and by adding the new subparagraph “(b)(2)”: and by adding a new subparagraph “(b)(2)” about the new Directorate of Defense Trade Controls and the positions of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Trade Controls (DAS-Defense Trade Controls); Managing Director of Defense Trade Controls (MD-Defense Trade Controls); Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Management; Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Licensing; Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance; and Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy. Initially, one individual will hold both the DAS-Defense Trade Controls and MD-Defense Trade Controls positions. The position of Director of the Office of Defense Trade Controls is abolished.

It is anticipated that further amendments to the ITAR will be promulgated in the near future to reflect these specific changes as a result of this realignment.

This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, is not subject to the procedures required by 5 U.S.C. 553 and 554. It is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 but has been reviewed internally by the Department to ensure consistency with the purposes thereof. This rule does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. It has been found not to be a major rule within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 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 rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant application of the consultation provisions of Executive Order 12372 and 13132.

Internet users can 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 using a computer, modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may also reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.archives.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

The FHWA in consultation with the Federal Transit Administration, published a final rule on Statewide and Metropolitan Planning on January 24, 2003, at 68 FR 3176. After reviewing the final published document, the agencies realized that there was a mistake in the definition of the non-metropolitan local official. The definition indicated that a non-metropolitan local official, “means the elected or appointed officials of general purpose * * *”; however, the word “or” that follows the word “elected” and precedes the word “appointed” should be an “and”. In the section-by-section analysis section of the preamble, the agencies explain that the definition should read “elected and appointed officials of general purpose * * *”.

The language for the definition of non-metropolitan local official was jointly proposed by the National Association of Counties (NACO) representing the local governments, the National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) representing local officials and the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) representing the State DOTs. The agencies reviewed this proposed definition and believed it had merit because it came from the organizations whose members are most impacted by the final rule. Therefore, this correction merely changes the “or” to an “and” to accurately reflect the definition we intended to appear in the final rule.

The FHWA and the FTA have determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and the U.S. Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. This action merely corrects a definition used in the final rule to remove the word “or” and replace it with the word “and” as stated in the preamble to the final rule. This correction is not a substantive change to the rule, but rather, is a ministerial change necessary to accurately reflect the intent of the agencies.

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA and the FTA have evaluated the effects of this final rule on small entities and has determined it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in any one year.

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and the agencies have determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. The FHWA and the FTA have also determined that this action does not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction; 20.500 Federal Transit Capital Improvement Grants; 20.505, Federal Transit Metropolitan Planning Grants; 20.507, Federal Transit Formula Grants; 20515, State Planning and Research. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.

This action does not contain a collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

The FHWA and the FTA have analyzed this action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and have determined that this action will not have any effect on the quality of environment.

The FHWA and the FTA have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000. This action will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that this rule is not a significant energy action under EO 11321 because this rule is not a significant regulatory action and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211 is not required.

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.

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

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

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 PBGC's regulations prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits of terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets.

Three sets of interest assumptions are prescribed: (1) A set for the valuation of benefits for allocation purposes under section 4044 (found in Appendix B to Part 4044), (2) a set for the PBGC to use to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine lump-sum amounts to be paid by the PBGC (found in Appendix B to Part 4022), and (3) a set for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology (found in Appendix C to Part 4022).

Accordingly, this amendment (1) adds to Appendix B to Part 4044 the interest assumptions for valuing benefits for allocation purposes in plans with valuation dates during March 2003, (2) adds to Appendix B to Part 4022 the interest assumptions for the PBGC to use for its own lump-sum payments in plans with valuation dates during March 2003, and (3) adds to Appendix C to Part 4022 the interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology for valuation dates during March 2003.

For valuation of benefits for allocation purposes, the interest assumptions that the PBGC will use (set forth in Appendix B to part 4044) will be 5.10 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 5.25 percent thereafter. These interest assumptions are unchanged from those in effect for February 2003.

The interest assumptions that the PBGC will use for its own lump-sum payments (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022) will be 3.75 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. These interest assumptions are unchanged from those in effect for February 2003.

For private-sector payments, the interest assumptions (set forth in Appendix C to part 4022) will be the same as those used by the PBGC for determining and paying lump sums (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022).

The PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect, as accurately as possible, current market conditions.

Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits in plans with valuation dates during March 2003, the PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

The PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

MMS is responsible for the regulation of cranes, booms, and other material-handling equipment installed on fixed platforms according to the 1998 MMS/United States Coast Guard (USCG) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). MMS currently regulates cranes by requiring lessees and operators to comply with the American Petroleum Institute's Recommended Practice for the Operation and Maintenance of Offshore Cranes (API RP 2D), Fourth Edition. As outlined in the 1998 MOU, USCG is responsible for cranes, booms, and other material-handling equipment installed on mobile offshore drilling units and floating production systems. In short, MMS regulates cranes installed on fixed platforms and the USCG regulates cranes installed on floating facilities.

On July 19, 2001, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (66 FR 37611) to incorporate API's Specification for Offshore Cranes (API Spec 2C) and to require the installation of anti-two block devices on all cranes on fixed platforms. During the 90-day comment period (which ended on October 19, 2001), MMS received comments from one production operator, one contractor, one trade organization, one crane manufacturer, and three crane service companies. In the preamble to the proposed rule, we requested comments on nine specific questions. We grouped the comments to those questions and our responses in a table. Other comments and our responses follow.

This final rule adds API Specification 2C for Offshore Cranes, Fifth Edition, April 3, 1995, to those documents currently incorporated by reference into MMS regulations. MMS has reviewed this document and determined that incorporating it into our regulations ensures that industry uses the best available and safest technologies for the design and construction of cranes used on OCS fixed platforms.

The purpose of incorporating API Spec 2C into the regulations is to establish detailed requirements for the design and construction of pedestal-mounted cranes for new OCS fixed platforms. API Spec 2C includes minimum requirements for equipment, materials, manufacturing procedures, and testing (both design and operational) that are not covered in API RP 2D.

The proposed rule required that new cranes on OCS fixed platforms meet the requirements of API Spec 2C. Comments on the rule indicated that there was uncertainty about which cranes were considered new cranes. Commenters asked if a rental crane was considered a new crane when it moved to a new location and did that rental crane have to meet the requirements of API Spec 2C?

The intent of the proposed rule to incorporate API Spec 2C was twofold: (1) That newly manufactured cranes must be manufactured according to specifications of API Spec 2C; and (2) that cranes installed on new fixed platforms must be manufactured according to specifications of API Spec 2C. Since the use of the term “new” is not precise we revised the final rule by inserting the effective date of the final rule to clarify the intended requirements. We have revised paragraphs (c) and (d) in 30 CFR 250.108 to accurately reflect the intent of the proposed rule. These paragraphs read as follows:

“(c) If a fixed platform is installed after March 17, 2003, all cranes on the platform must meet the requirements of the American Petroleum Institute's Specification for Offshore Cranes (API Spec 2C), incorporated by reference as specified in 30 CFR 250.198.”

“(d) All cranes manufactured after March 17, 2003, and installed on a fixed platform, must meet the requirements of API Spec 2C, incorporated by reference as specified in 30 CFR 250.198.”

We do not use the term “rental crane” in the final rule because the comments indicated that there are differing definitions of what constitutes a rental crane. A rental crane must meet the same requirements as any other crane installed on a fixed platform. If a rental crane is manufactured after March 17, 2003, then it must meet the requirements of API Spec 2C. If a rental crane is installed on a fixed platform that was installed after March 17, 2003, then it must meet the requirements of API Spec 2C. The comments also raised the issue about the appropriate use of rental cranes. MMS will discuss this issue with interested parties after the publication of this final rule.

Several commenters pointed out that API Spec 2C applies only to pedestal-mounted cranes and that the requirements in the specification may not be appropriate for smaller cranes or other material-handling equipment. MMS understands that API Spec 2C provides specifications for pedestal-mounted cranes and that it is not intended for other types of material-handling equipment. MMS regulates other material-handling equipment by requiring lessees to operate and maintain that equipment in a manner that ensures safe operation and prevents pollution. The requirements for other material-handling equipment are contained in new 30 CFR 250.108(f), previously 30 CFR 250.108(b).

This final rule also requires lessees to install anti-two block devices on all existing cranes within 2 years of the effective date of this rule. In the past, MMS has encouraged industry to equip all cranes operating on OCS fixed platforms with an anti-two block safety device, regardless of the age or specific use of the crane. MMS has now determined that anti-two block safety devices must be used on all cranes installed on OCS fixed platforms. We are convinced that retrofitting all existing cranes with the anti-two block safety devices will benefit the industry by increasing safety, and reducing crane incidents on the OCS.

Our concern was highlighted by the International Association of Drilling Contractors in October 2000 when it issued a safety alert titled “Near Miss—Anti-Two Blocking Devices.” This safety alert stated that anti-two block safety devices should be installed on all cranes because “Having a safety device like this ensures that everything is in place to prevent a problem. The anti-two block safety device for the crane boom is a protection device as is the crown protection device on the rig's drawworks. Both are very important to working safely.”

In response to comments, the final regulations provide a 2-year transition period for the retrofitting of existing OCS fixed platform cranes with anti-two block safety devices. This additional year will allow industry adequate time to implement this change without causing undue hardships.

With the incorporation of API Spec 2C, we would include additional recordkeeping requirements in 30 CFR 250.108 to be consistent with the specification. Current regulations require you to keep inspection, testing, and maintenance records at the OCS facility for at least 2 years. The proposed rule would have expanded this requirement to retain these records for the “life of the crane.” Comments received on the proposed rule assert that requiring the lessees to retain these records for the life of the crane would create a significant paperwork and administrative burden. Several commenters recommended that MMS should continue to follow our existing requirements of retaining crane records for 2 years. Another commenter said that keeping inspection, testing, and maintenance records for 4 years would provide a great predictive maintenance tool in determining integrity on previous and future discrepancies. Based on these comments, we have revised the final rule to require lessees to keep inspection, testing, and maintenance records for 4 years. We believe that keeping records for an additional 2 years will allow lessees to make an improved assessment of the crane maintenance program and identify any safety trends.

The final rule also requires the lessee to retain all design and construction records, including installation records for any anti-two block safety devices, for the life of the crane at the OCS fixed platforms. The rule further modifies 30 CFR 250.108 to require lessees to keep training records on rigger personnel, as well as those for crane operators. There were no comments objecting to these requirements.

In the preamble to the proposed rule, we requested comments on nine specific questions. We have grouped the comments to those questions and our responses in the following table.

As noted in the responses to question (e), MMS believes that the installation of rental cranes and the relocation of cranes are issues that warrant additional attention. There have been numerous incidents and serious accidents involving the installation and use of rental cranes, including a fatal accident that occurred on May 5, 2002. However, any additional regulatory actions dealing with rental cranes are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. MMS will initiate discussions with operators, crane manufacturers, crane service companies, and other interested parties on the issues concerning rental cranes.

Finally, one commenter provided several relatively inexpensive suggestions and modifications for making older cranes (pre-1983) safer. These suggestions and modifications are:

• Maintain and post “Actual Lift Capacity Charts” in the cab of crane.

• Install high angle safety systems for lattice boom cranes or cranes that use a boom hoist and wire rope to lift the boom.

• Upgrade wire rope to meet the latest API Spec 2C safety factors.

• Post caution signs on all pre-1983 cranes and all non-API cranes to warn the crane operators that these cranes may not have the same safety factors as cranes built after 1983.

MMS is passing these suggestions on to lessees, operators, and contractors in the hope that they may be used to improve crane safety on the OCS.

The specifications in the API Spec 2C document we are incorporating by reference are currently widely accepted industry standards. The USCG has already incorporated API Spec 2C into its regulations. All cranes manufactured after 1983 came equipped with the anti-two block safety devices, and many earlier model cranes have been retrofitted with the anti-two block safety devices. The final rule will cause lessees to retrofit approximately 200 cranes that currently do not have anti-two block devices. MMS estimates that this will cost lessees approximately $800,000. The final rule also provides 2 years for industry to complete the retrofit. The 2-year period will allow industry to schedule the required retrofits in a systematic approach. Therefore, this regulation's impact on the entire OCS oil and gas industry is minor.

This document is not a significant rule and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

(1) This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. A cost-benefit and economic analysis is not required. The major purpose of this final rule is to establish a minimum design standard for future cranes installed on fixed platforms on the OCS and to prevent accidents that can be prevented by equipping cranes with anti-two block safety devices. This rule requires lessees to equip all existing cranes installed on OCS fixed platforms with anti-two block safety devices by March 16, 2005. Since API Spec 2C has already been accepted as an industry standard by most of the offshore community, including the USCG, the impact of this regulation on the entire industry is minor. Therefore, the associated costs to equip the remaining cranes, not previously retrofitted with anti-two block safety devices, will be minor. Based on our experience and information in MMS's Technical Information Management System, we estimate that about 5 percent (or a total of not more than 200) of the estimated 4,000 cranes located on OCS fixed platforms will need to be retrofitted with the anti-two block safety device. We estimate that this will cost approximately $4,000 per retrofit, for a total cost of not more than $800,000.

(2) This final rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. This rule will not affect how lessees or operators interact with other agencies.

(3) This final rule will not affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or their recipients. The rule deals only with the action to incorporate by reference API Spec 2C into our regulations.

(4) This final rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. The final rule does involve a new policy issue to require lessees to equip all new and existing cranes installed on OCS fixed platforms with anti-two block safety devices, but this new policy decision is not “novel.” The final rule simply addresses recognized gaps in our safety regulations. These minimum requirements are generally accepted industry practices.

The Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the RF Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). An RF Analysis is not required. Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required.

The provisions of this rule will not have a significant economic effect on lessees and operators, including those that are classified as small businesses. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business as having:

• Annual revenues of $5 million or less for exploration service and field service companies.

• Fewer than 500 employees for drilling companies and for companies that extract oil, gas, or natural gas liquids.

Offshore lessees/operators are classified under SBA's North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 211111 (Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction) and NAICS 213111 code (Drilling Oil and Gas Wells). We estimate approximately 130 companies will be affected by this rulemaking. According to SBA criteria, 39 companies are large firms, leaving approximately 91 companies (70 percent) that may qualify as small firms with fewer than 500 employees.

We estimate that about 5 percent of the 4,000 cranes (not more than 200) located on the OCS need to be retrofitted with anti-two block safety devices. Retrofitting an existing crane with an anti-two block system would cost approximately $4,000. Since 70 percent of the businesses operating on the OCS are small business firms, a corresponding 70 percent of the 200 cranes to be retrofitted would most likely involve small entities. The cost to small entities to retrofit these 140 cranes with anti-two block safety devices to comply with this standard is estimated to be $560,000 (140 × $4,000 = $560,000).

While MMS does not know how many cranes each small operator must retrofit, MMS expects that the typical small operator would need to retrofit one or two cranes during the 2-year period allowed by the final rule. The cost for the typical small operator would be between $4,000 and $8,000 over the 2-year period. This cost does not constitute a significant impact to the typical small operator. There may be a few small operators that will need to retrofit several more cranes than the typical small operator. The costs for these few small operators could double or triple the costs incurred by the typical small operator. However, MMS believes that even these increased costs do not constitute a significant impact to these small operators. In addition, an operator can decide not to retrofit the crane with an anti-two block device. The operator has the option of taking the crane out of service or obtaining a rental crane to take its place. Therefore, this rule does not constitute a significant impact upon a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule applies to all lessees and operating companies that operate cranes on OCS fixed platforms. Incorporation of this new document into MMS regulations will:

(1) Increase safety;

(2) Provide the oil and gas industry with uniform guidelines and detailed requirements for design and construction of pedestal-mounted cranes for OCS fixed platforms; and

(3) Provide for consistency with other regulatory agencies such as the USCG.

Your comments are important. The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness boards were established to receive comments from small businesses about Federal agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on the enforcement actions of MMS, call toll-free (888) 734-3247. You may comment to the Small Business Administration without fear of retaliation. Disciplinary action for retaliation by an MMS employee may include suspension or termination from employment with the Department of the Interior.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), SBREFA. This rule:

(1) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The final rule will not cause any significant costs to lessees or operators. The only costs will be the purchase of the API Spec 2C document, minor revisions to company operating procedures, and the installation of an anti-two block device on cranes installed on OCS fixed platforms that do not already have this safety device. These costs should be approximately $800,000 for the entire industry.

(2) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

(3) Will not have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This rule applies to the lessees operating cranes on OCS fixed platforms.

According to the PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current OMB control number. Until OMB approves the collection of information and assigns a control number, you are not required to respond. In connection with the proposed rulemaking, we submitted the information collection requirements to OMB for review and approval under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB approved the collection and assigned OMB control number 1010-0146, with a current expiration date of September 30, 2004. The information collection requirements in these final regulations remain unchanged from those OMB approved for the proposed rule, with one exception. We reduced certain proposed record retention requirements from “life of the crane” to 4 years. Since this change will have no effect on the annual paperwork burden of the regulations, we have determined that MMS is not required to resubmit the information collection requirements in the final regulations to OMB for approval.

The title of the collection of information for this final rule is “30 CFR 250, Subpart A—Crane Requirements.” Potential respondents are approximately 130 Federal OCS lessees and operators. The paperwork requirements in the final regulations are mandatory. This collection does not include proprietary information or questions of a sensitive nature. MMS will use the information to determine that crane operations are safe and that crane operators and rigger personnel meet the physical qualifications and have completed appropriate training.

Current regulations at 30 CFR 250.108(d)(2) require that lessees retain records on testing, inspection, and maintenance of cranes installed on OCS fixed platforms for 2 years, and retain records on crane operator qualifications for at least 4 years. As previously discussed, this final regulation revises the 2-year retention period to 4 years, and expands the qualification recordkeeping to include rigger personnel as well as crane operators. The final regulations also require lessees to retain records on crane design, construction, and retrofitting for the life of the crane. MMS estimated the paperwork burden to be an additional 2 hours per respondent each year for the expanded recordkeeping requirements. OMB approved a for a total of 260 annual burden hours for this requirement.

According to Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have Federalism implications. This rule does not substantially and directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State governments because it concerns the manufacturing requirements for specific equipment used in offshore oil and gas activities. The rule only affects manufacturers and users of such equipment. This rule does not impose costs on State or localities, as it only affects manufacturers and users of specific equipment used in offshore oil and gas activities.

According to Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have significant Takings implications. A Takings Implication Assessment is not required.

According to Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the NEPA is not required.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

According to the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have determined that there are no effects from this action on Federally-recognized Indian tribes.

We published in the January 17, 2003 Federal Register a final rule that increased the period of time that owners of United States Series EE and I Savings Bonds must hold their bonds before the bonds are eligible for redemption. This mandatory holding period increased from 6 months to 12 months for bonds purchased on or after February 1, 2003. Although the rule correctly references the February 1, 2003 date for bonds affected by the increased holding period, the rule stated that bonds issued December 1, 2002, or earlier, are unaffected by the change. (The issue date of a Series EE or I bond is the first day of the month in which a qualified issuing agent or organization receives or accumulates the full purchase price of the bond.) The rule should have stated that bonds issued January 1, 2003, or earlier, continue to retain the 6 months holding period. The misstatement could cause confusion for bond owners who purchased bonds during December 2002. This document corrects that misstatement.

In the FR Document 03-1114 published on January 17, 2003, (Vol. 68, No. 12, page 2666-2667, make the following corrections: change “December 1, 2002” to “January 1, 2003,” where it appears in §§ 321.8(a)(1), 321.9(a)(1), Appendix to Part 321, section (8)(a), §§ 351.2(d), 352.7(a), 353.35(b), 359.6(a), and 360.35(b).

The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development has requested a temporary deviation in order to repair the fender system of the bridge. The repairs are necessary for the continued safe operation of the bridge. This deviation allows the draw of the SR 384 bridge to remain closed to navigation from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. and from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. daily, Monday through Thursday, from February 17, 2003 through March 27, 2003.

The pontoon bridge has no vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position. The bridge normally opens to pass navigation an average of 1005 times a month. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, the bridge opens on signal for the passage of vessels. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies during the closure period; however, pile-driving equipment will have to be secured and moved prior to the opening of the bridge. Navigation on the waterway consists mainly of tugs with tows and some fishing vessels. No practical alternate route is readily available.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The EPA published in the Federal Register of September 27, 2002 (67 FR 60871) a document approving revisions to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Title 33 Environmental Quality Part III; Air Chapter 6 Emission Reduction Credits Banking in Nonattainment Areas. On page 60873 of the September 27, 2002 action, EPA incorrectly stated that Tulane Environmental Law Clinic (TELC) submitted comments. We should instead have stated that the TELC submitted comments on behalf of its client, the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN).

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

• Crop production

• Animal production

• Food manufacturing

• Pesticide manufacturing

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 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 this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2003-0034. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under 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. To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines at http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm.-

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

In the Federal Register of December 23, 2002 (67 FR 78229) (FRL-7284-5), 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 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (Public Law 104-170), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 2E6472) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. This notice included a summary of the petition prepared by BASF Corporation. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of imazamox (2-[4,5-dihydro-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-methoxymethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid) in or on all food commodities.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for 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. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by imazamox are discussed in this unit.

The dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. Based on a review of the available data, EPA concluded that imazamox showed no toxicological endpoints of concern and, therefore, no dietary, occupational, residential, or aggregate risk assessments are needed.

In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses).

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been established (40 CFR 180.508) for residues of imazamox, per se, in or on canola and the legume vegetable group; imazamox and its metabolite AC263284 in or on wheat (bran, germ, grain, forage, hay, shorts, and straw); and imazamox and its metabolites AC26284 and AC312622 in or on alfalfa (seed, forage and hay). Time-limited tolerances for section 18 emergency exemptions are established for dry bean and canola. Section 180.508, which lists the maximum permissible levels for imazamox, will be removed since this regulation eliminates the need to establish maximum permissible levels for residues of the pesticide.

i. Acute exposure. Acute dietary risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a one day or single exposure. EPA concluded that no acute toxicological endpoint was identified from the toxicological studies submitted for imazamox, including oral developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits. Therefore, an acute dietary risk assessment was not conducted.

ii. Chronic exposure. EPA concluded that a chronic dietary risk assessment is not needed since no toxicity was observed at doses exceeding the Limit-Dose (1,000 mg/kg/day and higher) in chronic and subchronic studies in mice, rats, and dogs. A dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day is equivalent to a human diet in which the pesticide comprises approximately 7 percent of dietary consumption.

iii. Cancer. Imazamox is classified as a “not likely human carcinogen” based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in mice and rats. Therefore a cancer risk assessment was not performed.

2. Drinking water exposure. The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for imazamox in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical characteristics of imazamox.

The Agency uses the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) or the Pesticide Root Zone/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS), to produce estimates of pesticide concentrations in an index reservoir. The SCI-GROW model is used to predict pesticide concentrations in shallow groundwater. For a screening-level assessment for surface water EPA will use FIRST (a tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a tier 2 model). The FIRST model is a subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific high-end runoff scenario for pesticides. While both FIRST and PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment, the PRZM/EXAMS model includes a percent crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the maximum percent crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin.

None of these models include consideration of the impact processing (mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this stage is to provide a coarse screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is highly unlikely that drinking water concentrations would ever exceed human health levels of concern.

Based on the FIRST and SCI-GROW models the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) for imazamox for acute exposures are estimated to be 5.7 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 1.0 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.61 ppb for surface water and 1.0 ppb for ground water.

The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Imazamox is not registered or proposed for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure.-

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether imazamox has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, imazamox does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that imazamox has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the final rule for Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-5754-7).

1. U.S. Population. The toxicological profile for imazamox supports a tolerance exemption since no adverse effects were observed in the submitted toxicological studies regardless of the route of exposure. EPA does not expect imazamox to pose a dietary risk under reasonable foreseeable circumstances and, thus, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposure to imazamox residues. Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting imazamox from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

2. Infants and children. Section 408 of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a MOE analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans.

EPA concludes there is a complete toxicity data base for imazamox and there is no evidence of pre-natal or post-natal toxicity to rat or rabbit fetuses following in utero exposure in the developmental studies or to young rats in the reproduction study. Due to the lack of toxicity in the animal studies, EPA did not use a margin of exposure (safety) approach to assess the safety of imazamox. For this same reason, an additional margin of safety is not needed for infants and children. The Agency concludes that an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for imazamox will be safe for infants and children.

An analytical method for enforcement purposes is not required, this action eliminates the need for maximum permissible levels for residues of imazamox in or on food commodities.

Tolerances are established (40 CFR 180.508) for residues of imazamox, per se, in or on canola and the legume vegetable group; imazamox and its metabolite AC263284 in or on wheat (bran, germ, grain, forage, hay, shorts, and straw); and imazamox and its metabolites AC26284 and AC312622 in or on alfalfa (seed, forage and hay). Time-limited tolerances for section 18 emergency exemptions are established for dry bean and canola. Section 180.508 will be removed since this regulation eliminates the need for maximum permissible levels for residues of the pesticide.

There are no established or proposed Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for imazamox.

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 ID number OPP-2003-0034 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 April 15, 2003.

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 (1900C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm.104, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. 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 (703) 603-0061.

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 20460-0001. -

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 20460-0001.

3. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit IX.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.1. Mail your copies, identified by docket ID number OPP-2003-0034, 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 20460-0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB described in Unit I.B.1. 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 an exemption from the tolerance requirement 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 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). 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 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). 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 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); 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 exemption 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).

LSC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by the terms of the Legal Services Corporation Act. 42 U.S.C. 2996d(g).1 LSC has implemented FOIA by adopting regulations which contain the rules and procedures the Corporation follows in making agency records available to the public under FOIA. As part of an overall review of LSC's regulations, LSC determined that a variety of amendments to LSC's FOIA regulation are in order and Part 1602 was assigned a high priority for rulemaking. In light of the above, at the August 24, 2002, meeting of the Board of Directors, the Board identified Part 1602 as an appropriate subject for rulemaking and LSC subsequently announced that it was initiating a Notice and Comment rulemaking to consider revisions to its FOIA regulations. Subsequently, LSC published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on November 18, 2002 (67 FR 69498).

LSC received seven comments on the NPRM, all of which generally supported the proposed revisions. Upon receipt of the comments, LSC drafted a Final Rule for the consideration of the Operations and Regulations Committee of the Board of Directors. This Final Rule was adopted by the Board of Directors at its meeting of February 1, 2003.

Pursuant to current LSC practice, if a request is received for the grant application records of a current or prospective recipient, LSC provides that applicant with an opportunity to request that some or all of the records requested be withheld from disclosure prior to LSC sending its response to the requester. This practice, which is consistent with current FOIA law, is not described or discussed in the regulations. The submitter's rights process affords important rights to grant applicants and also impacts requesters who have to wait until the submitter's rights process has been completed to obtain releasable records subject to this process. LSC believes that it is important, therefore, for this process to be explicitly set forth in Part 1602. Accordingly, LSC proposed to add a new section 1602.14, Submitter's rights process, to formally incorporate the Corporation's current practice into the regulations.

At the outset, LSC notes that its submitter's rights process is based on the submitter's rights process outlined in Federal Executive Order No. 12,600 (June 23, 1987). E.O. 12,600 required Federal agencies to “establish procedures to notify submitters of records containing confidential information [information arguably subject to FOIA Exemption 4] * * * when those records are requested under the Freedom of Information Act * * *.” (Emphasis added) Although LSC is not a Federal agency, and, therefore, not subject to E.O. 12,600, LSC chose to develop a policy consistent with the Order. LSC believes that grant application records are the only records likely to contain “confidential information,” the release of which could cause competitive harm. Thus, the current submitter's rights process is only invoked in relation to requests for grant application information, but not other records submitted by recipients. LSC proposed to keep the process limited to requests for grant application materials, but specifically invited comment on whether there are other records submitted by recipients which would likely be subject to withholding under Exemption 4.

LSC received five comments specifically addressing this issue. Two of the five comments supported the proposed submitter's rights section as proposed. The other three comments all supported the proposed section while also urging LSC to broaden the process to cover any information submitted by grantees and which might be subject to any exemption from disclosure under FOIA. Although the commenters make good points about specific records being likely to be exempt from disclosure, LSC is not persuaded that the submitter's rights process should be extended to cover records other than grant applications and exemption 4 information, disclosure of which could cause competitive harm.

Some of the information specifically referenced by the commenters, such as client names, financial records, etc., are already specifically protected from disclosure under 509(i) of the appropriations act (thus implicating FOIA exemption 3—information specifically protected from disclosure by law). LSC already knows not to disclose this information and believes that including requests for records that would be subject to this disclosure to the submitter's rights process would only add unnecessary administrative obstacles to fulfilling its obligations under FOIA. Moreover, whether information contained in client files, statements of facts, 1644 disclosure forms, and personnel files (examples mentioned by at least one commenter) would be subject FOIA exemption 6 (personal privacy) information or exemption 7 (law enforcement/personal privacy) information is a question which is properly decided by the Corporation under FOIA exemptions on a case-by-case basis under the case law interpreting FOIA. To date, LSC has experienced no problems concerning releasing or withholding requested information contained in recipient provided records. Accordingly, LSC declines to broaden the proposed submitter's rights process beyond the circumstances envisioned by the Executive Order and has been implemented at LSC.

Accordingly, LSC adopts new section 1602.14 as proposed. Under the new section, when the Corporation receives a FOIA request seeking the release of a submitter's grant application(s), or portions thereof, the Corporation will provide prompt written notice of the request to the submitter in order to afford the submitter with an opportunity to object to the disclosure of the requested records (or any portion thereof). If a submitter who has received notice of a request for the submitter's records objects to the disclosure of the records (or any portion thereof), the submitter will have to submit a written detailed statement identifying the information for which disclosure is objected to and specifying the grounds for withholding the information under the confidential information exemption of FOIA or this Part. The submitter's statement will have to be provided to LSC within seven business days of the date of the notice from the Corporation and if the submitter fails to respond to the notice from LSC within that time, LSC will deem the submitter to have no objection to the disclosure of the information.

Upon receipt of written objection to disclosure by a submitter, LSC will be required to consider the submitter's objections and specific grounds for withholding in deciding whether to release the disputed information. Whenever LSC decides to disclose information over the objection of the submitter, LSC will be required to give the submitter written notice that the Corporation was rejecting the submitter's withholding request (including an explanation of why the request was being rejected) and informing the submitter that the submitter shall have 5 business days from the date of the notice of proposed release to appeal that decision to the LSC President, whose decision will be final.

Under paragraph (d), the submitter's rights process will not apply if (1) LSC determines, upon initial review, that the information requested is exempt from disclosure; (2) the information has been previously published or officially made available to the public; or (3) disclosure of the information is required by statute (other than FOIA) or LSC regulations.

In addition, LSC is including provisions requiring that: (1) Whenever a requester files a lawsuit seeking to compel disclosure of a submitter's information, LSC will have to promptly notify the submitter; (2) whenever LSC provides a submitter with notice and opportunity to object to disclosure under this section, LSC will also notify the requester; and (3) whenever a submitter files a lawsuit seeking to prevent the disclosure of the submitter's information, LSC will notify the requester.

LSC also adds a definition of the term “submitter” as that term is used in this section. The definition to be added at section 1602.2(k) would define “submitter” as any person or entity from whom the Corporation receives a grant application.

Many, if not most, agency FOIA regulations contain a provision permitting the agency to suspend continuing work on any pending requests and appeals from requesters who are 30 or more days in arrears on FOIA fees which they have been charged. LSC regulations provide LSC with the authority to require anticipated fees for new requests be paid in advance for requesters with outstanding overdue bills, but do not expressly contain the authority to cease processing other existing requests, including appeals. Having this express authority would be helpful to the Corporation to avoid wasting resources on “nuisance” requesters who chronically have several requests and/or appeals pending before the Corporation at the same time, while being in arrears on properly assessed fees from prior requests to the Corporation. Accordingly, LSC proposed to add a new paragraph to section 1602.13, Fees, to provide for this authority. Specifically, the new language proposed would provide express authority to the Corporation to cease processing existing requests, including action on appeals, from a requester who is more than 30 days late in paying a properly assessed FOIA fee.

LSC received three comments which generally supported the proposed new provision, but which requested that LSC clarify that the provision would not apply in circumstances in which a fee waiver decision remains in dispute through a properly filed and pending appeal or lawsuit. This was LSC's intent. Use of the phrase “properly assessed fee” in the preamble to the NPRM and “properly charged FOIA fee” in the proposed regulatory text was intended to convey this meaning. LSC is, however, happy to clarify that the phrase “properly charged FOIA fee” in the text of the regulation is intended to mean fees that have been fairly assessed and which are not the subject of a timely filed and pending appeal or lawsuit.

LSC adopts the new language as proposed. This new language appears as a new paragraph (j) and the current paragraphs (j), (k) and (l) are redesignated as paragraphs (k), (l), and (m), respectively.

Requesters of records under FOIA are generally expected to pay reasonable fees related to the processing of FOIA requests. However, the statute also provides for waivers or reductions of fees when certain enumerated criteria are met. Section 1602.13(f) of the current regulation restates the basic fee waiver criteria as set forth in the statute. By way of contrast, the Department of Justice (DOJ) FOIA regulations on fee waiver criteria are more detailed, providing more guidance, based on long standing case law in this area, on the meaning of each of the factors to be considered in assessing fee waiver requests. LSC believes it would be helpful to both LSC and requesters for the LSC FOIA regulations to provide additional guidance in this area. By having a better understanding of the criteria, requesters can better prepare fee waiver requests and there will be less opportunity for disagreements and confusion as to when a fee waiver or reduction is appropriate. LSC, accordingly, proposed to add language to each of the subparagraphs setting forth the factors upon which fee waiver determinations are made that provides a greater explanation of that factor.

LSC received four comments specifically addressing the proposed revisions to the fee waiver criteria. All of these comments supported the proposed clarifications, although one commenter also provided suggestions for additional clarifications to the factors.

LSC proposed to add a sentence to subparagraph (i), which currently reads in its entirety “The subject of the request: Whether the subject of the requested records concerns “the operations or activities of the Corporation or Federal government,” explaining that the subject of the requested records must concern identifiable operations or activities of the Corporation or the Federal government, with a connection that is direct and clear, not remote or attenuated. LSC received no objection to this proposed addition and LSC adopts the new sentence as proposed.(i)

The second factor currently reads, in its entirety, “The informative value of the information to be disclosed: Whether the disclosure is “likely to contribute” to an understanding of Corporation or Federal government operations or activities.” LSC proposed to add language noting that the requested records must be meaningfully informative about government operations or activities in order to be likely to contribute to an increased public understanding of those operations or activities and that the disclosure of information that is already in the public domain, in either a duplicative or a substantially identical form, would not be likely to contribute to such understanding where nothing new would be added to the public's understanding.

LSC received no comments objecting to the proposed additional language. One commenter suggested that LSC add additional language defining the terms “public domain” and “substantially identical form” as those terms are used in this section. Specifically, the commenter urges LSC define “public domain” as information that is “readily available” to the public and “substantially identical form” as excluding compilations or summaries of information that is in the public domain. Each of these proposals stem from case law interpreting the statute.

While LSC appreciates these suggestions, LSC does not believe it is necessary to define the terms “public domain” and “substantially identical form” in the regulation. LSC believes that these terms are reasonably straightforward. Moreover, in LSC's experience, requesters seeking fee waivers have not evinced much confusion about the meaning of these terms in making their fee waiver applications. LSC is interested in adding some additional language to the factors to aid requesters in understanding the fee waiver standards, but is also mindful that nearly every term in FOIA has case law interpreting its meaning. It would be difficult and, in some cases, inappropriate to attempt to distill all of the existing case law into regulatory language. Thus, while LSC does not take issue with the meanings the applicable case law has developed for those terms, LSC believes that the terms are sufficiently clear on their face as not to need additional regulatory definition. Of course, in applying the fee waiver standards, LSC is, and will continue to be, mindful of the interpretations of terms as set forth in the applicable case law.

The third factor currently reads:

(iii) The contribution to an understanding of the subject by the public likely to result from disclosure: Whether disclosure of the requested records will contribute to “public understanding.”

LSC proposed to provide additional guidance on the meaning of this factor by adding language explaining that: the disclosure must contribute to a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the personal interest of the requester; a requester's expertise in the subject area and ability and intention to effectively convey information to the public shall be considered; and that it shall be presumed that a representative of the news media will satisfy this consideration.

LSC received no comments objecting to the proposed additional language. One commenter suggested that LSC add additional language defining the term “public” as including one or more segments of the public. LSC agrees that the term “public” in this instance may refer to a segment of the public, and not just to the public “at large,” and intends that the regulation be understood to have this meaning. However, LSC believes that the addition of the phrase “reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject” conveys that meaning. Thus, LSC believes that the language, as proposed, is appropriate.

The fourth factor currently reads:

(iv) The significance of the contribution to public understanding: Whether the disclosure is likely to contribute “significantly” to public understanding of Corporation or Federal government operations or activities.

LSC proposed to include additional guidance in this factor that the public's understanding of the subject in question, as compared to the level of public understanding existing prior to the disclosure must be enhanced by the disclosure to a significant extent.

LSC received one comment in opposition to this language. The commenter found the additional proposed language to be confusing and not helpful to clarifying the meaning of the factor. Alternatively, the commenter suggested that, if LSC were to leave the language in the regulation, that LSC include greater explanation in the preamble of the meaning of the additional language.

The proposed new language is intended to clarify that this factor is assessing whether the disclosure sought would be “significant” by comparing the likely level of public understanding of the subject matter of the disclosure as it exists at that moment to what the level of understanding would be after disclosure. LSC is not sure in what way this is confusing, but has no objection to providing additional explanation in the preamble if it will aid in understanding of the rule. Generally, the fourth factor examines whether the information that is the subject of the disclosure either has been so widely disseminated and publicized or is so lacking in substantial informative value, such that the disclosure of the information is not likely to add any new perspective or facts (or the like), as to increase the public's understanding of the subject.

Section 1602.13(f)(2) sets forth the factors used by LSC to determine whether disclosure of the information is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. The first factor currently reads:

(i) The existence and magnitude of a commercial interest: Whether the requester has a commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure.

LSC proposed to add a sentence to this subparagraph explaining that LSC shall consider any commercial interest of the requester (with reference to the definition of “commercial use” in this Part) or of any person on whose behalf the requester may be acting, that would be furthered by the requested disclosure. LSC received no comments objecting to the proposed additional language.

The second factor reads:

(ii) The primary interest in disclosure: Whether the magnitude of the identified commercial interest is sufficiently large, in comparison with the public interest in disclosure, that disclosure is “primarily” in the commercial interest of the requester.

LSC proposed to add language specifying that a fee waiver or reduction is justified where the public interest standard is greater in magnitude than that of any identified commercial interest in disclosure and that LSC ordinarily shall presume that where a news media requester has satisfied the public interest standard, the public interest will be the interest primarily served by disclosure to that requester. That is, if the public interest standard has been satisfied, the fact that a news media requester has a commercial interest (i.e., in selling newspapers, etc.) will not ordinarily serve to prevent that requester from getting a fee waiver or reduction. LSC further proposes to add language providing that disclosure to data brokers or others who merely compile and market government information for direct economic return shall not be presumed primarily to serve a public interest. LSC received no comments objecting to the proposed additional language.

In each of these cases, the language proposed to be added is consistent with the current regulations and LSC practice, FOIA case law and government-wide FOIA practice. As noted above, LSC believes the additions will aid in public understanding of the meaning and application of the fee waiver criteria. Accordingly, LSC adopts the new language on the fee waiver standards as proposed.

Three of the commenters also suggested that LSC should generally grant fee waivers in connection with most, if not all, requests received from the legal services community. One of these comments further suggested that LSC formally adopt language providing a blanket fee waiver to all requests from grantees.

LSC is authorized and required to provide fee waivers in accordance with the standards set forth in the FOIA. The statutory standards require fee waiver determinations to be made on a case-by-case basis in reference to the enumerated fee waiver criteria. As such, for LSC to either incorporate into the regulations or even adopt an informal policy to grant a blanket fee waiver policy in connection with requests from grantees or others in the legal services community would exceed LSC's authority under FOIA. LSC will continue, as it has always done, to consider requests individually and grant fee waivers and/or assess fees as required by the statute.

There are several instances throughout the regulation where the regulation makes reference to the “Office of the General Counsel.” The Office of the General Counsel was renamed the Office of Legal Affairs in 1999. LSC, therefore, proposed to substitute the name “Office of Legal Affairs” for “Office of the General Counsel” each time it appears in sections 1602.6 and 1602.8 of the regulations. LSC received no objections to the proposed substitutions and LSC adopts them as proposed.

Section 1602.5, Public reading room, sets forth, among other things, the address of LSC's public reading room. The address listed, 750 First Street, NE., Washington, DC, 20002, is currently correct. However, LSC will be moving in June 2003 to new permanent headquarters. LSC proposed to add language to this section providing the address of the LSC public reading room in LSC's new home: 3333 K St., NW., Washington, DC 20007. LSC received no objections to the proposed addition and LSC adopts the change as proposed.

In accordance with FOIA, LSC charges fees for processing FOIA requests and providing copies of requested documents. LSC's schedule of applicable fees is set forth in section 1602.13(e). The current schedule of fees was adopted in 1998 and no longer accurately reflects LSC's costs in responding to FOIA requests. LSC, therefore, proposed to increase fees for search and review time and for copying.

LSC received no objections to the proposed fee increases. One commenter, however, did request that LSC apply the new fee schedule only to requests filed after the effective date of the amendment. LSC agrees that this is appropriate and LSC intends that the new fees will be assessed only on requests received on or after the effective date of this Final Rule.

LSC adopts the changes to the fee schedule as proposed. Specifically, LSC amends the search and review fee rates to reflect recent (2002) pay rates as follows:

LSC notes that the existing regulation provides for one blended rate for Bands 4 and 5. LSC is now separating these rates, providing separate search and review time rates for Bands 4 and 5. These changes will permit LSC to recover fees that are more in line with its actual costs relating to search and review activities.

Under the existing regulation, LSC charges $0.10 per page for standard paper photocopying. LSC's actual costs for photocopying are now closer to $0.15 per page. LSC is increasing copying costs to $0.13 per page so as to better reflect LSC's costs, while still providing a small discount to requesters. In addition, LSC substitutes the term “Express mail” for “special delivery” where it appears in section 1602.13(e)(7) to reflect current terminology.

(3) Duplication by paper copy: 13 cents per page;

(4) Duplication by other methods: actual charges as incurred;

(5) Certification of true copies: $1.00 each;

(6) Packing and mailing records: no charge for regular mail;

(7) Express mail: actual charges as incurred.

(f) Fee waivers. A requester may seek a waiver or reduction of fees below the fees established under paragraph (e) of this section. A fee waiver or reduction request will be granted where LSC has determined that the requester has demonstrated that disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations of the Corporation or Federal government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.

(1) In order to determine whether disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the Corporation or Federal government, the Corporation shall consider the following four factors:

(i) The subject of the request: Whether the subject of the requested records concerns “the operations or activities of the Corporation or Federal government.” The subject of the requested records must concern identifiable operations or activities of the Corporation or Federal government, with a connection that is direct and clear, not remote or attenuated.

(ii) The informative value of the information to be disclosed: Whether the disclosure is “likely to contribute” to an understanding of Corporation or Federal government operations or activities. The requested records must be meaningfully informative about government operations or activities in order to be likely to contribute to an increased public understanding of those operations or activities. The disclosure of information that is already in the public domain, in either a duplicative or a substantially identical form, would not be likely to contribute to such understanding where nothing new would be added to the public's understanding.

(iii) The contribution to an understanding of the subject by the public likely to result from disclosure: Whether disclosure of the requested records will contribute to “public understanding.” The disclosure must contribute to a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the personal interest of the requester. A requester's expertise in the subject area and ability and intention to effectively convey information to the public shall be considered. It shall be presumed that a representative of the news media will satisfy this consideration.

(iv) The significance of the contribution to public understanding: Whether the disclosure is likely to contribute “significantly” to public understanding of Corporation or Federal government operations or activities. The public's understanding of the subject in question, as compared to the level of public understanding existing prior to the disclosure, must be enhanced by the disclosure to a significant extent.

(2) In order to determine whether disclosure of the information is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester, the Corporation will consider the following two factors:

(i) The existence and magnitude of a commercial interest: Whether the requester has a commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure. LSC shall consider any commercial interest of the requester (with reference to the definition of “commercial use” in this Part) or of any person on whose behalf the requester may be acting, that would be furthered by the requested disclosure.

(ii) The primary interest in disclosure: Whether the magnitude of the identified commercial interest is sufficiently large, in comparison with the public interest in disclosure, that disclosure is “primarily” in the commercial interest of the requester. A fee waiver or reduction is justified where the public interest is greater in magnitude than that of any identified commercial interest in disclosure. LSC ordinarily shall presume that where a news media requester has satisfied the public interest standard, the public interest will be the interest primarily served by disclosure to that requester. Disclosure to data brokers or others who merely compile and market government information for direct economic return shall not be presumed primarily to serve a public interest.

(3) Where LSC has determined that a fee waiver or reduction request is justified for only some of the records to be released, LSC shall grant the fee waiver or reduction for those records.

(4) Requests for fee waivers and reductions shall be made in writing and must address the factors listed in this paragraph as they apply to the request.

Section 25.701 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation prohibits the acquisition of supplies or services from sources in countries or regions subject to economic sanctions. On October 1, 2002, the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, issued DoD a license authorizing emergency acquisitions in direct support of U.S. or allied forces deployed in military contingency, humanitarian, or peacekeeping operations in a country or region subject to economic sanctions. This DFARS rule implements that license.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

This rule will not have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors, or a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD. Therefore, publication for public comment is not required. However, DoD will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should cite DFARS Case 2002-D031.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

A. Background

This interim rule relates to application of the Berry Amendment (10 U.S.C. 2533a), which requires the acquisition of certain items from domestic sources. The Berry Amendment restriction on food is implemented in the DFARS at 225.7002 and in the clause at 252.225-7012, Preference for Certain Domestic Commodities. DoD generally must buy foods grown or produced in the United States (DFARS 225.7002-1(a)(1)), but there is an exception for the acquisition of foods manufactured or processed in the United States, regardless of where the foods (and any component if applicable) were grown or produced (10 U.S.C. 2533a(f); DFARS 225.7002-2(j)).

Section 8136 of the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Pub. L. 107-248) makes the exception at 10 U.S.C. 2533a(f) inapplicable to fish, shellfish, and seafood products. Section 8136 is also specifically applicable to contracts and subcontracts for the procurement of commercial items.

Therefore, this interim rule revises DFARS 225.7002-2(j) and 252.225-7012(c)(3) to require the application of domestic source requirements to fish, shellfish, and seafood manufactured or processed in the United States, and fish, shellfish, and seafood contained in foods manufactured or processed in the United States.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

This rule may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. DOD has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which is summarized as follows:

This interim rule amends the DFARS to implement section 8136 of the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003. Section 8136 makes 10 U.S.C. 2533a(f) inapplicable to fish, shellfish, and seafood products. 10 U.S.C. 2533a(f) is an exception to domestic source requirements for foods manufactured or processed in the United States. The objective of the rule is to prohibit DoD acquisition of foreign fish, shellfish, and seafood, even if processed or manufactured in the United States. The rule will apply to all suppliers, processors, and manufacturers of seafood products sold to DoD. The rule should have a beneficial impact on domestic suppliers of fish, shellfish, and seafood.

A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the address specified herein. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2002-D034.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to publish an interim rule prior to affording the public an opportunity to comment. This interim rule implements section 8136 of the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Pub. L. 107-248). Section 8136 requires the acquisition of domestic fish, shellfish, and seafood, to include fish, shellfish, and seafood manufactured or processed, or contained in foods manufactured or processed, in the United States. Section 8136 became effective upon enactment, on October 23, 2002. Comments received in response to this interim rule will be considered in the formation of the final rule.

A. Background

This interim rule amends DFARS subpart 237.1 to implement section 332 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Pub. L. 107-314). Section 332 authorizes DoD to waive the prohibition at 10 U.S.C. 2465(a) related to security-guard functions at military installations or facilities. It permits contractor performance of security-guard functions to meet the increased requirements for such services since September 11, 2001. This authority extends only to the increased requirements; therefore, existing security-guard services not performed by contractors are unaffected. The authority expires on December 2, 2005. Recruiting and training standards for contractor personnel who are to perform security-guard functions pursuant to this authority will be comparable to the standards in place for DoD personnel currently performing those functions.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule applies only to the procurement of security-guard services over and above the level of such services being performed on September 10, 2001. The amount of such additional services is not expected to be significantly large, in comparison to the total amount of services procured by DoD. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2002-D042.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to publish an interim rule prior to affording the public an opportunity to comment. This interim rule implements section 332 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Pub. L. 107-314). Section 332 provides temporary authority for contractor performance of security-guard functions at military installations or facilities to meet the increased requirements for such services since September 11, 2001. Section 332 became effective upon enactment on December 2, 2002. The authority provided by section 332 expires on December 2, 2005. Comments received in response to this interim rule will be considered in the formation of the final rule.

You can obtain an electronic copy of this interpretive rule and other TSA rulemaking documents using the Internet by:

(1) Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html; or

(3) Visiting the TSA's Laws and Regulations web page at http://www.tsa.dot.gov/public/index.jsp.

In addition, copies are available by writing or calling the individual in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, Congress passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) on November 19, 2001 (49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq.), establishing TSA. TSA is an agency within the Department of Transportation (DOT), operating under the direction of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security. TSA is responsible for security in all modes of transportation regulated by DOT, including civil aviation. See 49 U.S.C. 114(d). Accordingly, ATSA transferred the responsibility for civil aviation security from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to the TSA.

On February 22, 2002, TSA published a final rule transferring the bulk of FAA's aviation security regulations to TSA. See 67 FR 8340. Among these was FAA's regulation governing the carriage of weapons, explosives, and incendiaries by individuals into sterile areas and into the cabins of passenger aircraft for which screening is conducted. This regulation now is codified at § 1540.111 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). See 67 FR 8340 at 8354. See also 67 FR 41635 at 41639 (June 19, 2002).

Section 1540.111 Carriage of Weapons, Explosives, and Incendiaries by Individuals. The rule provides, in part, that an individual (other than a law enforcement or other authorized individual) “may not have a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, on or about the individual's person or accessible property—

(1) When performance has begun of the inspection of the individual's person or accessible property before entering a sterile area, or before boarding an aircraft for which screening is conducted under § 1544.201 or § 1546.201 of this chapter (TSA's regulations on acceptance and screening of individuals and accessible property);

(2) When the individual is entering or in a sterile area; or

(3) When the individual is attempting to board or onboard an aircraft for which screening is conducted under § 1544.201 or § 1546.201 of this chapter.”

Section 1540.111(b) establishes certain exceptions to this rule for law enforcement officers and other persons authorized to carry weapons. These exceptions, however, do not apply to the general public.

For purposes of § 1540.111(a), “accessible property” is property that is accessible to the individual at the screening checkpoint, in the sterile area, or in the cabin of the aircraft. It includes carry-on baggage and property an individual carries on his or her person. A “sterile area” is a portion of an airport that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and to which the access is generally controlled through the screening or persons and property. See 49 CFR 1540.5.

Penalties for Prohibited Items. Individuals who carry weapons, explosives, or incendiaries into a sterile area or the cabin of a passenger aircraft are subject to civil and criminal penalties. See, for instance, 49 U.S.C. 46301 and 46314. These penalties also apply to individuals who place loaded firearms in checked baggage. See also 49 U.S.C. 46505.

Today's Interpretative Rule. This interpretation provides guidance to the public as to the types of property TSA considers to be “weapons, explosives, and incendiaries” that, if carried by an individual not authorized to carry such items, are prohibited in sterile areas and in the cabins of aircraft under 49 CFR 1540.111(a). TSA refers to these items collectively as prohibited items because they are prohibited from these areas. There are many items that are not created for use as weapons, explosives, or incendiaries, but may be used as such items. Today's regulatory interpretation includes examples of these so-called “dual use items,” which also are prohibited. Congress specifically directed TSA to identify dual use items for purposes of passenger screening. See 49 U.S.C. 44935(h)(3).

This interpretation also provides guidance on items that are permitted in a sterile area and in the cabin of a passenger aircraft even though they may appear to fall into the broad categories of items on the prohibited items list. These items generally are personal care, medical, and assistive items, examples of which are set forth below. In addition, certain prohibited items may be transported in checked baggage with appropriate safeguards.

It should be noted that TSA previously placed lists of prohibited and permitted items on its web site at http://www.tsa.gov/trav_consumers/trav_consumers_tip_week.shtm. Today's interpretive rule makes some changes in these lists, and the lists on TSA's web site will be updated to reflect this interpretation.

Neither the prohibited items list nor the permitted items list in today's regulatory interpretation contains all possible items. There are items not included on the prohibited items list that may be prohibited in an airport's sterile area and the cabin of an aircraft. Screeners have discretion to prohibit an individual from carrying an item into a sterile area or onboard an aircraft if the screener determines that the item is a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, regardless of whether the item is on the prohibited items list. Moreover, if future information or events demonstrate the need to prohibit items that this interpretive rule has listed as permitted, TSA may prohibit individuals from bringing these items into the sterile area or onboard the aircraft, without first publishing a change to this rule. This is consistent with Congress's direction that screeners be proficient in recognizing new threats and weapons. See, 40 U.S.C. 44935(h)(1).

The prohibited items list includes items in the following categories: Weapons (guns, sharp objects, club-like objects), explosives, and other dangerous items such as incendiary materials and disabling chemicals. The list contains examples of items in these categories, but it is not an exclusive list.

Weapons. Weapons are objects that may be used to attack another. TSA considers an item to be a weapon under 49 CFR 1540.111 if it is created for use as a weapon or is so similar to an item created as a weapon that it appears to be, or is easily used as, a weapon.

Weapons include firearms, as well as realistic replicas of firearms that may reasonably be thought to be actual weapons. Such realistic replicas are prohibited because their similarity in appearance to real weapons may allow them to be used to intimidate passengers and flight crew. The screener has the discretion to determine when a replica is so realistic that it should be prohibited. Other toy weapons will be allowed in the sterile areas and cabin.

Partial weapons and parts of weapons also are prohibited because they may be carried separately by collaborators for assembly subsequent to entry or boarding. In addition, partial weapons may appear to be operative and could be used to intimidate passengers and flight crew.

Weapons also include sharp objects that could be effective in intimidating or harming passengers or crew. These include knives; devices or instruments with razor blades, such as box cutters, utility knives with razor blades, and razor blades that are not components of safety razors; and metal scissors with pointed tips. Also included in this category are sharp or pointed tools and utensils such as screwdrivers, drills, and axes. Screwdrivers that are components of eyeglass repair kits, however, will be allowed in sterile areas and in the cabin.

The prohibited items list also includes as weapons many club-like items, whether made for use as weapons or made for other purposes but capable of being used as weapons. Examples include items such as billy clubs and night sticks, as well as items of sporting equipment, such as baseball bats, hockey sticks, lacrosse sticks, and tools such as crowbars and hammers.

Explosives. Explosives are substances that explode or cause an explosion. While many explosives may have commercial uses, they clearly could be used to damage an aircraft or against passengers and flight crew members. Examples include dynamite, plastic explosives, blasting caps, fireworks, flares, gunpowder, hand grenades, and ammunition for firearms. Realistic replicas of explosive devices are prohibited for the same reasons that realistic weapons are prohibited: They can be effective in intimidating crew and passengers.

Incendiaries. Incendiaries are devices or materials capable of causing a fire as well as realistic replicas of these devices Examples include gasoline and other fuels, gas torches (including micro-torches and torch lighters), and strike-anywhere matches. Incendiaries also include aerosol cans containing flammable liquids. Although many personal care and toiletry items may come in the form of aerosol cans containing flammable contents, the prohibited items list specifically excludes these items when carried in limited quantities into a sterile area and the cabin of a passenger aircraft. Under these conditions, the materials pose little risk.

Disabling Chemicals and Other Dangerous Items. Another category of weapons is disabling chemicals and other dangerous items. These include items that are intended for this purpose, such as tear gas, pepper spray, and mace, as well as household chemicals that may be used for this purpose, such as liquid bleach, chlorine for pools and spas, compressed gas cylinders, and batteries that may spill acid.

The prohibited items list contains a number of substances that constitute hazardous materials under separate DOT regulations for hazardous materials. See 49 CFR parts 172, 173, and 175. Individuals carrying hazardous materials on their person or in checked or carry-on baggage are subject to the hazardous materials requirements, which prohibit many types of hazardous materials from being carried aboard aircraft or permit their transport only with proper markings, labels, and packaging. Part 175 contains a list of passenger exceptions that permit passengers to bring into the cabin of a passenger aircraft some personal use items, such as toiletries, medicinal products, and limited quantities of certain matches and lighters for individual use, even though they otherwise constitute hazardous materials. Individuals with questions about the types and quantities of hazardous materials prohibited aboard passenger flights should contact the Hazardous Materials Information Center at 1-800-467-4922 or go to http://hazmat.dot.gov/infocent.htm.

Some items prohibited from sterile areas and aboard the cabin of passenger aircraft may be transported in checked baggage, under the following conditions. Passengers may place prohibited items other than explosives, incendiaries, and loaded firearms in their checked baggage, subject to any limitations provided in DOT's hazardous materials regulations. See 49 CFR part 175. Prohibited items that may be transported in checked baggage include unloaded firearms or starter pistols, small arms ammunition for personal use, club-like items, single containers of self-defense spray, and other articles listed in the interpretive rule. Realistic replicas of explosive and incendiary devices may not be transported in checked baggage because their detection would have the potential for causing delays and requiring the unwarranted expenditure of time and resources on the part of law enforcement personnel.

Some items are permitted in a sterile area and the cabin of a passenger aircraft even though they may appear to fall into the broad categories of items on the prohibited items list. These items generally are personal care, medical, and assistive items, and other items that appear to pose little risk or for which there is a compelling reason to allow their presence. For instance, many personal care items such as perfume and hair spray may contain incendiaries. In small amounts, however, they do not pose a risk to security. Other items, such as syringes included in diabetes-related equipment, and nitroglycerine pills or spray for medical purposes, conceivably could be used as weapons, but are permitted as a medical necessity for passengers with a legitimate need. Screwdrivers and other tools in eyeglass repair kits are also permitted, as are tools used in connection with prosthetic devices. Consistent with Department of Transportation regulations for hazardous materials, passengers also are permitted to carry no more than four books of matches (other than strike-anywhere matches) and no more than two lighters for individual use, if the lighters are fueled with non-refillable liquefied gas (Bic-type) or absorbed liquid (Zippo-type).

I. Prohibited Items. For purposes of 49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq. and 49 CFR 1540.111, TSA interprets the terms “weapons, explosives, and incendiaries” to include the items listed below. Accordingly, passengers may not carry these items as accessible property or on their person through passenger screening checkpoints or into airport sterile areas and the cabins of a passenger aircraft.

A. Guns and Firearms.

(1) BB guns.

(2) Compressed air guns.

(3) Firearms.

(4) Flare pistols.

(5) Gun lighters.

(6) Parts of guns and firearms.

(7) Pellet guns.

(8) Realistic replicas of firearms.

(9) Spear guns.

(10) Starter pistols.

(11) Stun guns/cattle prods/shocking devices.

B. Sharp Objects.

(1) Axes and hatchets.

(2) Bows and arrows.

(3) Drills, including cordless portable power drills.

(4) Ice axes/Ice picks.

(5) Knives of any length, except rounded-blade butter and plastic cutlery.

(6) Meat cleavers.

(7) Razor-type blades, such as box cutters, utility knives, and razor blades not in a cartridge, but excluding safety razors.

(8) Sabers.

(9) Saws, including cordless portable power saws.

(10) Scissors, metal with pointed tips.

(11) Screwdrivers (except those in eyeglass repair kits).

(12) Swords.

(13) Throwing stars (martial arts).

C. Club-Like Items.

(1) Baseball bats.

(2) Billy clubs.

(3) Blackjacks.

(4) Brass knuckles.

(5) Cricket bats.

(6) Crowbars.

(7) Golf clubs.

(8) Hammers.

(9) Hockey sticks.

(10) Lacrosse sticks.

(11) Martial arts weapons, including nunchucks, and kubatons.

(12) Night sticks.

(13) Pool cues.

(14) Ski poles.

(15) Tools including, but not limited to, wrenches and pliers.

D. All Explosives, Including.

(1) Ammunition.

(2) Blasting caps.

(3) Dynamite.

(4) Fireworks.

(5) Flares in any form.

(6) Gunpowder.

(7) Hand grenades.

(8) Plastic explosives.

(9) Realistic replicas of explosives.

E. Incendiaries.

(1) Aerosol, any, except for personal care or toiletries in limited quantities.

(2) Fuels, including cooking fuels and any flammable liquid fuel.

(3) Gasoline.

(4) Gas torches, including micro-torches and torch lighters.

(5) Lighter fluid.

(6) Strike-anywhere matches.

(7) Turpentine and paint thinner.

(8) Realistic replicas of incendiaries.

F. Disabling Chemicals and Other Dangerous Items.

(1) Chlorine for pools and spas.

(2) Compressed gas cylinders (including fire extinguishers).

(3) Liquid bleach.

(4) Mace.

(5) Pepper spray.

(6) Spillable batteries, except those in wheelchairs.

(7) Spray Paint.

(8) Tear gas.

II. Permitted Items. For purposes of 49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq. and 49 CFR 1540.111, TSA does not consider the items on the following lists as weapons, explosives, and incendiaries because of medical necessity or because they appear to pose little risk if, as is required, they have passed through screening. Therefore, passengers may carry these items as accessible property or on their person through passenger screening checkpoints and into airport sterile areas and the cabins of passenger aircraft.

A. Medical and Personal Items.

(1) Braille note taker, slate and stylus, and augmentation devices.

(2) Cigar cutters.

(3) Corkscrews.

(4) Cuticle cutters.

(5) Diabetes-related supplies/equipment (once inspected to ensure prohibited items are not concealed), including: Insulin and insulin loaded dispensing products; vials or box of individual vials; jet injectors; pens; infusers; and preloaded syringes; and an unlimited number of unused syringes, when accompanied by insulin; lancets; blood glucose meters; blood glucose meter test strips; insulin pumps; and insulin pump supplies. Insulin in any form or dispenser must be properly marked with a professionally printed label identifying the medication or manufacturer's name or pharmaceutical label.

(6) Eyeglass repair tools, including screwdrivers.

(7) Eyelash curlers.

(8) Knives, round-bladed butter or plastic.

(9) Lighters (maximum of two, fueled with non-refillable liquefied gas (Bic-type) or absorbed liquid (Zippo-type).

(10) Matches (maximum of four books, strike on cover, book type).

(11) Nail clippers.

(12) Nail files.

(13) Nitroglycerine pills or spray for medical use, if properly marked with a professionally printed label identifying the medication or manufacturer's name or pharmaceutical label.

(14) Personal care or toiletries with aerosols, in limited quantities.

(15) Prosthetic device tools and appliances (including drill, allen wrenches, pullsleeves) used to put on or remove prosthetic devices, if carried by the individual with the prosthetic device or his or her companion.

(16) Safety razors (including disposable razors).

(17) Scissors, plastic or metal with blunt tips.

(18) Tweezers.

(19) Umbrellas (once inspected to ensure prohibited items are not concealed).

(20) Walking canes (once inspected to ensure prohibited items are not concealed).

B. Toys, Hobby Items, and Other Items Posing Little Risk.

(1) Knitting and crochet needles.

(2) Toy transformer robots.

(3) Toy weapons (if not realistic replicas).

III. Items Prohibited in Sterile and Cabin Areas but that May Be Placed in Checked Baggage. Passengers may place prohibited items other than explosives, incendiaries, disabling chemicals and other dangerous items (other than individual self-defense sprays as noted below), and loaded firearms in their checked baggage, subject to any limitations provided in DOT's hazardous materials regulation. 49 CFR part 175.

(1) Pepper spray or mace. A passenger may have one self-defense spray, not exceeding 4 fluid ounces by volume, that incorporates a positive means to prevent accidental discharge. See 49 CFR 175.10(a)(4)(ii).

(2) Small arms ammunition. A passenger may place small arms ammunition for personal use in checked baggage, but only if securely packed in fiber, wood or metal boxes, or other packaging specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition. 49 CFR 175.10(a)(5).

(3) Unloaded firearms. A passenger may place an unloaded firearm or starter pistol in a checked bag if the passenger declares to the airline operator, either orally or in writing, before checking the baggage, that the passenger has a firearm in his or her bag and that it is unloaded; the firearm is carried in a hard-sided container; and the container is locked, and only the passenger has the key or combination. 49 CFR 1540.111(c).

(4) Club-like items. A passenger also may transport club-like objects and sharp objects in checked baggage, as long as they do not contain explosives or incendiaries.

(5) Self-defense spray. A passenger may have one self-defense spray (pepper spray or mace) not exceeding four fluid ounces in a checked bag if the spray container has a positive means to prevent accidental discharge. See 49 CFR 175.10(a)(4)(ii).

(6) Other items. Compressed air guns, fire extinguishers, flare pistols, and gun lighters are regulated as hazardous materials and may only be transported in checked baggage under strict limitations in quantity and packaging. 49 CFR part 175.

IV. Lists are not Exclusive. Neither the prohibited items list nor the permitted items list contains all possible items. A screener has discretion to prohibit an individual from carrying an item into a sterile area or onboard an aircraft if the screener determines that the item is a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, regardless of whether the item is on the prohibited items list or the permitted items list. For example, if a cigar cutter or other article on the permitted list appears unusually dangerous, the screener may refuse to allow it in sterile areas. Similarly, screeners may allow individuals to bring items into the sterile area that are not on the permitted items list. In addition, items may be prohibited from the cabin of an aircraft, or allowed in only limited quantities, by Department of Transportation regulations governing hazardous materials. Individuals with questions about the carriage of hazardous materials on passenger aircraft may call the Hazardous Materials Information Center at 1-800-467-4922 for more information.

This is not a substantive rule. Rather, it explains to the public, airport personnel, screeners, and airlines how the TSA interprets certain terms used in an existing rule, 49 CFR 1540.111. Generally, an interpretive rule is not likely to impose an economic impact distinct from the impact of the underlying rule. This interpretive rule does not expand the universe of items that passengers will not be allowed to bring into sterile areas or on board aircraft beyond the types of items that currently are considered prohibited weapons, explosives, and incendiaries under the underlying rule.

The resulting economic impact of this rule is non-significant. Passengers and other persons with items that may not be brought into sterile areas have several options, some of which include transporting the prohibited item in checked baggage, mailing it to a destination, or returning it to their car. These persons can also choose to voluntarily abandon the property in TSA-provided receptacles, at which point title of the property transfers to the Government. The rule does not affect manufacturers' or distributors' ability to sell items that may not be brought into sterile areas or passengers' ability to purchase them (prohibited items sold in sterile areas must be shipped to the purchaser).

While little or no adverse economic impact is expected, some unquantifiable economic benefit may result from the fact that this interpretive rule will expedite the screening process at the nation's airports by assisting passengers in deciding how to handle specified items before passengers reach the checkpoint.

Based on this analysis, this interpretative rule is not considered a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, (RFA) was enacted by Congress to ensure that small entities (small businesses, small not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) are not unnecessarily or disproportionately burdened by Federal regulations. The RFA requires agencies to review rules to determine if they have “a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Based on the analysis discussed in the section above, this interpretative rule does not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.

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

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as Public Law 104-4 on March 22, 1995, is intended to discourage imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement that assesses the effect of any Federal mandate found in a rulemaking action that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Such a mandate is identified as a “significant regulatory action.” The interpretive rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments because it does not require any action on the part of those entities.

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

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

The energy impact of this rule has been assessed in accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), Public Law 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. It has been determined that this rule is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The amount of the 2003 pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA was established as 1,222 metric tons by the interim 2003 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (67 FR 78733, December 26, 2002).

NMFS closed the directed fishery for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on January 21, 2003 (68 FR 2921, January 22, 2003).

NMFS has determined that approximately 587 mt remain in the directed fishing allowance. Therefore, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is opening directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance will be reached after 24 hours. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA effective 1200 hrs, A.l.t., February 14, 2003.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds that the need to immediately implement this action to allow full use of the amount of the 2003 interim pollock TAC specified for Statistical Area 630 of the GOA constitutes good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 50 CFR 679.20(b)(3)(iii)(A), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Similarly, the need to implement these measures in a timely fashion to allow full use of the amount of the 2003 interim pollock TAC specified for Statistical Area 630 of the GOA constitutes good cause to find that the effective date of this action cannot be delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effective date is hereby waived.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.