Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (e) of Appendix A to 5 CFR Chapter XIV set forth the addresses, telephone numbers, and fax numbers of the headquarters offices of the Authority, the General Counsel, the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Authority, and the Federal Service Impasses Panel, respectively. 5 CFR 2416.170(c) provides for the filing of matters relating to enforcement of nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap; 5 CFR 2424.10 provides the address and telephone number of the Authority's Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Program; 5 CFR 2429.24(a) specifies the place and method of filing documents with the Authority; and 5 CFR 2471.2, 2471.4, 2472.3, and 2472.5 concern communications with the Federal Service Impasses Panel. Because of the relocation of those offices, and the change in certain telephone numbers, it is necessary to revise these provisions of the agency's regulations.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Federal Labor Relations Authority has determined that these regulations, as amended, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because they apply to federal employees, federal agencies, and labor organizations representing federal employees.

These regulatory changes will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

These rules are not major rules as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. These rules will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

These regulations contain no information collection or record keeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.)

The VWP permits nationals from designated countries to apply for admission to the United States for ninety (90) days or less as nonimmigrant visitors for business or pleasure without first obtaining a nonimmigrant visa from a U.S. consular officer abroad, provided that all statutory and regulatory requirements are met. 8 U.S.C. 1187(a). If arriving by air or sea, a VWP traveler must arrive on a carrier that signed an agreement (“signatory carrier”) guaranteeing to transport inadmissible or deportable VWP travelers out of the United States at no expense to the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1187(e).

The VWP began in 1988 as a pilot program and remained such until October 30, 2000, when the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act, Pub. L. No. 106-396, 114 Stat. 1637, made the program permanent, with some modifications. The Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act added a new requirement that the Attorney General conduct periodic evaluations of each country participating in the VWP. 8 U.S.C. 1187(c)(5)(A)(i). The evaluations must address the effect of the country's continued designation on the law enforcement and security interests of the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1187(c)(5)(A)(i)(I). The statute also requires the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to determine whether an evaluated country's designation should be continued or terminated. 8 U.S.C. 1187(c)(5)(A)(i)(II). Additionally, the statute provides that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may for any reason (including national security) . . . rescind any . . . designation previously granted under this section.” 8 U.S.C. 1187(d).

Evaluations of Belgium, Italy, Portugal, and Uruguay were conducted following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Officials from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) and Department of State participated in the evaluation process, which included visiting each individual country and meeting with representatives of each country's government. Reports summarizing the evaluations were drafted, incorporating comments from law enforcement and security agencies of the United States.

Belgium will be allowed to continue participating in the VWP on a provisional basis for one year, with another evaluation to be conducted at that time to determine whether Belgium's continued participation in the VWP is in the law enforcement and security interests of the United States. In addition, after May 15, 2003, citizens of Belgium that wish to travel to the United States under the VWP must present a machine-readable passport issued by the Government of Belgium.

During the course of the evaluation of Belgium, it became apparent that there is cause for concern as to the integrity of nonmachine-readable Belgian passports and to the inadequate reporting of lost or stolen passports by the Belgian government. In March 2001, the Government of Belgium began issuing machine-readable passports that include security features. However, there remain thousands of valid nonmachine-readable Belgian passports in circulation.

In addition, the evaluation team collected data regarding the number of stolen or lost Belgian passports, including blank passports that contain no photograph or identifying information. There is a concern that, in the past, there has not been comprehensive reporting of lost or stolen passports, and that such reporting has not been timely.

For these reasons, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1187(d), after May 15, 2003, Belgian citizens seeking to enter the United States must present a machine-readable passport in order to be admitted under the VWP. Nationals of Belgium who possess a nonmachine-readable passport who intend to travel to the United States after May 15, 2003, for legitimate business or pleasure must acquire a nonimmigrant visa at a U.S. consulate or embassy prior to their arrival in the United States. As stated, under 8 U.S.C. 1187(d), the Attorney General “may refrain from waiving the visa requirement in respect to nationals of any country which may otherwise qualify for designation. * * *” After May 15, 2003, the Attorney General will refrain from waiving the visa requirement for any citizen of Belgium who does not present a machine-readable passport at the time of the application for admission. In addition, after one year, Belgium will again be evaluated for continued participation in the VWP. The Department of State will take appropriate action to inform the Government of Belgium as to the expectations of the Government of the United States during the provisional one-year period.

Italy will continue to be designated as a VWP country without change. Overall, the efforts of the Government of Italy to advance the law enforcement, security, and extradition interests of the United States were found to be satisfactory. Abuse of the VWP by Italian nationals appears to be minor.

Portugal will continue to be designated as a VWP country. It should be noted, however, that the evaluation raised concerns about the timeliness of reporting of lost or stolen passports by the Government of Portugal. The Department of State will take appropriate action to address those concerns with the Government of Portugal.

Effective April 15, 2003, Uruguay will be terminated from the VWP because Uruguay's participation in the VWP is inconsistent with the U.S. interest in enforcing the immigration laws of the United States.

Uruguay's program designation appears to facilitate high-risk travel to the United States. Between 1998 and 2001, Uruguayan nonimmigrant travel to the United States increased approximately 15%, while the number of U.S. port-of-entry intercepts increased approximately 320%. In 2002, Uruguayan nationals were two to three times more likely than all nonimmigrants on average to have been denied admission at the border.

In Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2001, there were 16,878,477 visits to the United States from citizens of the 29 VWP countries. Of that total, 72,915 visits were from Uruguayan citizens. In FY 2001, 151 Uruguayans were denied admission to the United States. In FY 2001, the INS confirmed that 1,194 Uruguayans had overstayed before departing the U.S.

The termination of Uruguay in the VWP is based on the significant increase in the number of inadmissible Uruguayans seeking admission to the United States since Argentina was terminated from the VWP on February 21, 2002. For the past three years Uruguay has experienced a recession that has caused its citizens to seek to use the VWP to live and work illegally in the United States. Uruguayan air arrivals had an apparent overstay rate of 37%, more than twice the rate of the average apparent overstay rate for all air arrival nonimmigrants (14.9%).

In May 2001, the United States Government notified the Government of Uruguay of its concerns regarding Uruguayan abuse of the VWP. Notwithstanding the efforts of the Government of Uruguay, the number of Uruguayan nationals intercepted more than doubled from 151 in FY 2001 to 356 in FY 2002.

Accordingly, the Attorney General is terminating Uruguay's participation in the VWP under sections 217(c)(5)(A)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(c)(5)(A)(i)(II)). This section authorizes the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to terminate a country's VWP designation after the periodic evaluation. The abuse of the VWP by Uruguayan nationals seeking to remain permanently in the United States is inconsistent with the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. The Attorney General also is rescinding the designation of Uruguay under section 217(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(d)), which permits the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to rescind any designation “for any reason.”

As long as the alien lawfully gained admission under the VWP before the effective date of this termination of designation rule, and continues to be in compliance with the terms of his or her admission, he or she may remain in the United States for the period of time authorized on the date of admission.

The Department notes, however, that an alien admitted as a visitor for business or pleasure under the VWP is not eligible for change or extension of nonimmigrant status under the existing regulations.

This interim rule is effective April 15, 2003, although the Service invites post-promulgation comments and will address any such comments in a final rule. The visa waiver program statute provides that “[a] termination of the designation of a country under [8 U.S.C. 1187(c)(5)(A)(i)] shall take effect on the date determined by the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State.” 8 U.S.C. 1187(c)(5)(A)(ii). Additionally, a rescission of a designation under 8 U.S.C. 1187(d) may be made “at any time.” 8 U.S.C. 1187(d). If the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 are otherwise applicable, however, the Service finds that good cause exists for adopting this rule without the prior notice and comment period ordinarily required by 5 U.S.C. 553 for the following reasons.

Reestablishing the normal nonimmigrant visa requirements for Uruguayan nationals will have the effect of stemming the flow of unauthorized immigration to the United States by such nationals. This action must be taken as soon as possible. The effective date of the termination, April 15, 2003, will allow travelers who have travel plans in the near future to proceed with those plans and will allow the Department of State sufficient time to prepare for the additional workload resulting from the termination. Because further delaying the effective date of this interim rule is contrary to the public interest, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 to make this rule effective on April 15, 2003 without notice and comment.

The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although individuals doing business with small entities will no longer be allowed to enter the United States without having a visa, they will be able to seek admission to the United States by obtaining a nonimmigrant visa at a United States consulate or embassy prior to arrival in the United States. This action is necessary to further the law enforcement and national security interests of the United States.

This rule is considered by the Department of Justice, to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Accordingly, this rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

This rule will not 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. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

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 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat. 163, all departments are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any reporting requirements inherent in a final rule. This rule does not impose any new reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Part B of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA or Act), establishes the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles (Program). The products currently subject to this Program (“covered products”) include residential refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, the subject of today's direct final rule.

Under the Act, the Program consists of three parts: testing, labeling, and the Federal energy conservation standards. The Department, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), must amend or establish test procedures as appropriate for each of the covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293). The purpose of the test procedures is to measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use. The test procedure must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)).

If a test procedure is amended, EPCA section 323(e)(1) requires DOE to determine, in the rulemaking, to what extent, if any, the new test procedure would change the measured energy efficiency or measured energy use of any covered product as determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)). If DOE determines that the amended test procedure would change the measured energy efficiency or measured energy use of a covered product, DOE must amend the applicable energy conservation standard during the rulemaking that establishes the new test procedure. In determining the amended energy conservation standard, DOE is required to measure the energy efficiency or energy use of a representative sample of covered products that minimally comply with the existing standard. The average energy efficiency or energy use of these representative samples, tested using the amended test procedure, shall constitute the amended energy conservation or energy use standard for the applicable covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)).

Beginning 180 days after an amended or new test procedure for a covered product is prescribed or established under section 323(b) of EPCA, no manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler may make any representation with respect to the energy use, efficiency, or cost of energy consumed by such product, unless such product has been tested in accordance with such amended or new DOE procedure and such representation fully discloses the results of such testing. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)).

On November 21, 2000, Electrolux filed an application for interim waiver and a petition for waiver regarding the calculation of the long-time automatic defrost test time period in refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers having a variable defrost control function. The Department granted the interim waiver on July 30, 2001, and published its decision in the Federal Register on August 3, 2001. (66 FR 40689). In the same Federal Register notice, the Department published Electrolux's petition for waiver, and solicited comments, data, and information respecting the petition. On March 29, 2002, DOE published a notice in the Federal Register extending the interim waiver for 180 days, or until July 25, 2002, because it determined that it would seek to amend the refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test procedure and the planned amendment would eliminate any need for continuation of the waiver. (67 FR 15192). Furthermore, amendment of the test procedure would allow all manufacturers to use the amended test procedure if they have a product with a long-time automatic defrost function.

Electrolux's petition requested that the calculation of the test time period for long-time automatic defrost models be modified for its variable defrost control models. This modification would allow for the existence of a control that is capable of timing defrost to occur other than during a compressor “on” cycle, thereby taking advantage of the natural warming of the evaporator during an “off” cycle, and saving energy as a result. Technology has advanced sufficiently that it is feasible to design and build a system that no longer has to initiate defrost during a compressor run period, as did the old mechanical defrost timers. Electrolux asked to have the time before the heaters turn “on” be included in the defrost period. The evaporator is warming up during this time, with no use of electrical energy. The current test procedure does not properly account for the energy savings produced by Electrolux's timing of the defrost heater activation.

The Department received three written comments concerning the petition for waiver. All the comments supported granting the waiver, with one modification.

Maytag supported Electrolux's proposal provided that it is applicable on an industry-wide basis to all manufacturers. The Department's waiver process allows for granting of waivers for a “particular basic model,” so the waiver requested and granted applies only to the Electrolux basic models that include variable defrost control. Without a test procedure change, any manufacturer desiring to use this modification to the test procedure could do so only by petitioning the Department for its own waiver.

Fisher & Paykel, a major manufacturer of refrigerators in New Zealand, generally approved of Electrolux's petition, but argued for a somewhat different modification. It proposed that the third sentence of section 4.1.2.1 of the test procedure (which is the only sentence Electrolux sought to modify) read as follows:

Finally, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), representing the manufacturers who produce over 90% of the household refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers in the U.S., agreed in principle with Electrolux's petition, but requested a change in the wording. AHAM suggested that the four hour limitation of the test commence when the defrost heater is initiated, rather than at the beginning of the second part of the two-part test period. It stated that this change would alleviate concerns about “the possibility of being able to modify the performance of a refrigerator to such an extent that it would not recover from defrost in the four hour time period allotted within the proposed waiver.”

AHAM recommended that Electrolux's proposed language be changed so that revised section 4.1.2.1 of the test procedure would read as follows:

AHAM stated that it discussed this change with its members, and was not aware of any member who disagreed with its position. It specifically listed the following members as having participated in and concurred in its proposal: GE Appliances, Electrolux Home Products, Fisher & Paykel, Maytag, Sub-Zero, and Whirlpool. In summary, AHAM asserted that all commenters on Electrolux's Petition were in agreement with AHAM's proposal.

The Department consulted with the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), which agreed that the current test procedure for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers is not clear with regard to the initiation of the defrost cycle test time period in Electrolux's new product. (The current test procedure states: “The second period would start when a defrost period is initiated during a compressor “on” cycle * * *” Electrolux's new product initiates the defrost period when the compressor is “off”.) NIST informed the Department that the change proposed in the Electrolux Petition would clarify the defrost cycle initiation and more accurately measure the energy consumption of Electrolux's new product. NIST endorsed the revised language proposed by AHAM. As stated above, all commenters on the test procedure change apparently support AHAM's proposal. This proposed change has widespread support and will result in a test procedure that more accurately measures energy consumption. The application of the existing test procedure to the new product is unclear, and this amendment will clarify its application to the new product. For all these reasons, the Department has determined that it should promulgate this direct final rule and make a change to the refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test procedure.

The revised calculation of the test time period results in a small (generally about one percent) decrease in the tested energy consumption of models that incorporate the advanced defrost timing feature, a feature that delays the initiation of the defrost heater, thereby using natural warming to defrost. Section 323(e) of EPCA requires the Department, in a rulemaking, to determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would change the existing measured energy efficiency or measured energy use of any covered product under the existing test procedure. This statutory provision is designed to prevent the alteration of an existing Federal energy conservation standard that otherwise could result from a change in a test procedure. It also seeks to ensure that products in compliance with the applicable energy conservation standards under the existing test procedure will not be put out of compliance because the test procedure has been amended. When the Department considers section 323(e) of EPCA in the context of this direct final rule, the Department concludes that no change to the energy conservation standard is required. The reasons are as follows: (1) This test procedure amendment affects only products with a variable defrost control function, none of which minimally comply with the existing standard. There are, therefore, no minimally-compliant products under section 323(e) that would show any change in energy use under the amended test procedure. (2) This test procedure amendment, which was developed to give credit to an energy saving technology, will result in lowering the measured energy use. Lowering measured energy use will, of course, not raise energy use over the standard, which prescribes a ceiling on maximum energy use. Instead, lowering energy use merely removes measured energy use further from that ceiling. Therefore, this amendment does not make any compliant products non-compliant with the applicable energy conservation standard.

DOE is publishing this direct final rule without prior proposal because DOE views this amendment as noncontroversial and anticipates no significant adverse comments. However, in the event that significant adverse or critical comments are filed, DOE has prepared a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing the same amendment. This NOPR is contained in a separate document in this Federal Register publication. The direct final action will be effective May 6, 2003, unless significant adverse or critical comments are received by April 7, 2003. If DOE receives significant adverse or critical comments, the revisions will be withdrawn before the effective date. In the case of withdrawal of this action, the withdrawal will be announced by a subsequent Federal Register document. All public comments will then be addressed in a separate final rule based on the proposed rule that is also issued today. DOE will not implement a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this time. If no significant adverse comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective May 6, 2003.

In this rule, the Department promulgates a small change to the test procedure for measuring the energy consumption of household refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. The Department has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. The rule is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5, for rulemakings that interpret or amend an existing rule without changing the environmental effect, as set forth in the Department's NEPA regulations in Appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. This rule will not affect the quality or distribution of energy usage and, therefore, will not result in any environmental impacts. Accordingly, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment is required.

Today's rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, today's action is not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires that an agency prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule, for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required, that would have a significant economic effect on small entities unless the agency certifies that the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605.

Today's rule prescribes test procedures that will be used to test compliance with energy conservation standards. The rule affects refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test procedures and would not have a significant economic impact, but rather would provide common testing methods. Therefore DOE certifies that today's rule would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis is not warranted.

DOE has determined pursuant to Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not result in any takings which might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), requires that regulations, rules, legislation, and any other policy actions be reviewed for any substantial direct effects on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or in the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government. If there are substantial direct effects, then this Executive Order requires preparation of a federalism assessment to be used in all decisions involved in promulgating and implementing a policy action.

The rule published today would not regulate or otherwise affect the States. Accordingly, DOE has determined that preparation of a federalism assessment is unnecessary.

No new information or record keeping requirements are imposed by this rulemaking. Accordingly, no OMB clearance is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review required by sections 3(a) and 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, it specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE reviewed today's rule under the standards of section 3 of the Executive Order and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed regulations meet the relevant standards.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”) requires that the Department prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. The budgetary impact statement must include: (i) Identification of the Federal law under which the rule is promulgated; (ii) a qualitative and quantitative assessment of anticipated costs and benefits of the Federal mandate and an analysis of the extent to which such costs to State, local, and tribal governments may be paid with Federal financial assistance; (iii) if feasible, estimates of the future compliance costs and of any disproportionate budgetary effects the mandate has on particular regions, communities, non-Federal units of government, or sectors of the economy; (iv) if feasible, estimates of the effect on the national economy; and (v) a description of the Department's prior consultation with elected representatives of State, local, and tribal governments and a summary and evaluation of the comments and concerns presented.

The Department has determined that the action today does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to State, local or to tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector. Therefore, the requirements of sections 203 and 204 of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this action.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule or policy that may affect family well-being. Today's rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

Today's rule will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or the use of energy, and, therefore, is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of today's rule prior to its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2).

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's direct final rule.

This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description on each SIAP is contained in the appropriate FAA Form 8260 and the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent (P) Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) which are incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation's Regulations (FAR). Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction of charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR (and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number.

This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained in the content of the following FDC/P NOTAMs for each SIAP. The SIAP information in some previously designated FDC/Temporary (FDC/T) NOTAMs is of such duration as to be permanent. With conversion to FDC/P NOTAMs, the respective FDC/T NOTAMs have been canceled.

The FDC/P NOTAMs for the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these chart changes to SIAPs by FDC/P NOTAMs, the TERPS criteria were applied to only these specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.

Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the TERPS. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), (1) CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, and 8260-5. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR (and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number.

This amendment to part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center (NFDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

I. Background

In 1998, FinCEN granted a conditional exception (“the CIF Exception”) to the strict operation of 31 CFR 103.33(g) (the “Travel Rule”). See FinCEN Issuance 98-1, 63 FR 3640 (January 26, 1998). The Travel Rule requires a financial institution to include certain information in transmittal orders relating to transmittals of funds of $3,000 or more. The CIF Exception addressed computer programming problems in the banking and securities industries by relaxing the Travel Rule's requirement that a customer's true name and address be included in a funds transmittal order, so long as alternate steps, described in FinCEN Issuance 98-1 and designed to prevent avoidance of the Travel Rule, were satisfied. By its terms, the CIF Exception to the Travel Rule was to expire on May 31, 1999; however, in light of programming burdens associated with year 2000 compliance issues, FinCEN extended the CIF Exception so that it would expire on May 31, 2001. See FinCEN Issuance 99-1, 64 FR 41041 (July 29, 1999). On May 30, 2001, after first soliciting input from the law enforcement community for its views on any law enforcement burdens caused by the CIF Exception, FinCEN again extended the CIF Exception. The CIF Exception is now scheduled to expire on May 31, 2003. See FinCEN Issuance 2001-1, 66 FR 32746 (June 18, 2001). FinCEN intends to permit the CIF Exception to expire, and is soliciting comments before it does so.

FinCEN promulgated the Travel Rule in 1995. The Travel Rule requires financial institutions to include certain information in transmittal orders relating to transmittals of funds of $3,000 or more, which must “travel” with the order throughout the funds transmittal sequence. Among these requirements is that each transmittor's financial institution and intermediary financial institution include in a transmittal order the transmittor's true name and street address. See 31 CFR 103.33(g)(1)(i)-(ii) and (g)(2)(i)-(ii). Subsequently, financial institutions represented to FinCEN that their ability to comply with the Travel Rule at all depended on their ability to use their automated customer information files, known as CIFs. Although an originating institution always knew the originating customer's true name and address, the CIFs were often programmed with coded or nominee names and addresses (or post office boxes). The reprogramming tasks involved in changing the CIFs were represented to be a significant barrier to compliance with the Travel Rule. In light of these burdens, and in the interest of obtaining prompt compliance, FinCEN promulgated the conditional exception.

The conditional exception provides that a financial institution may satisfy the requirements of 31 CFR 103.33(g) that a customer's true name and address be included in a transmittal order, only upon satisfaction of the following conditions:

(1) The CIFs are not specifically altered for the particular transmittal of funds in question;

(2) The CIFs are generally programmed and used by the institution for customer communications, not simply for transmittal of funds transactions, and as so programmed generate other than true name and street address information;

(3) The institution itself knows and can associate the CIF information used in the funds transmittal order with the true name and street address of the transmittor of the order;

(4) The transmittal order includes a question mark symbol immediately following any designation of the transmittor other than by a true name on the order;

(5) Any currency transaction report or suspicious activity report by the institution with respect to the funds transmittal contains the true name and address information for the transmittor and plainly associates the report with the particular funds transmittal in question.

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11 and the passage of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (“USA Patriot Act”), Congress has emphasized the need to increase transparency across the financial sector. See Pub. L. 107-56, section 302(a)(2) (finding that defects in financial transparency are critical to the financing of global terrorism). FinCEN has implemented this congressional policy in its numerous Patriot Act rulemakings and believes that it should be reflected in existing BSA rules such as the Travel Rule as well. The financial community has had a number of years to address the technological issues posed by the Travel Rule, and the major programming issues posed by year 2000 compliance are now well behind it. Therefore, FinCEN deems it appropriate, after two extensions, to permit the CIF Exception to expire. This conclusion is buttressed by information FinCEN has received regarding the potential for abuse of the CIF Exception; for example, by private banking departments that cater to high net worth individuals' demands for increased confidentiality by using CIFs.

FinCEN invites comments on (1) the existence of any remaining technological barriers to full compliance with the Travel Rule; (2) whether financial institutions will be able to comply fully with the Travel Rule upon the expiration of the CIF Exception or whether additional time will be required to attain compliance; (3) the existence of any adverse effect on law enforcement investigations arising from the CIF Exception; and (4) the potential for or actual abuse of the CIF Exception.

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

On February 8, 2001 (AVAPCD), June 20, 2001 (MBUAPCD Rule 433), December 3, 2002 (ICAPCD and MBUAPCD Rule 415), these rule submittals were found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

AVAPCD adopted a version of Rule 701 on January 2, 1998, which EPA approved into the SIP on March 18, 1998. ICAPCD adopted a version of Rule 101 on December 11, 2001, which EPA approved into the SIP on July 8, 2002. MBUAPCD adopted a version of Rule 415 on September 1, 1974 (amended on December 13, 1984) and Rule 433 on March 26, 1986, which EPA approved into the SIP on July 13, 1987 and April 2, 1999, respectively.

AVAPCD Rule 701 has been revised to add several new definitions; replace the obsolete reference to rescinded Rule 2202; and update and rename the pollutant Standard Index to Air Quality Index.

ICAPCD Rule 101 has been revised to add a new definition of a “rainy period” as a clarification to Rule 420, Livestock Feed Yards.

MBUAPCD Rule 415 is revised to update the rule to District format. An exemption has been added for equipment installed to minimize offsite concentrations of Toxic Air Contaminants.

MBUAPCD Rule 433 is revised to distinguish applicable test methods used for water-based solvents and non-water-based solvents. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Method 31 is used to determine the quantity of exempt compounds, water and VOCs in water-based solvents subject to the rule. The rule contains applicable monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and requirements, and specifies test methods to determine compliance. The TSD has more information about these rules.

Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193).

Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate specific enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following:

1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.

2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).

3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

4. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning. EPA-450/2-77-022, November 1977.

5. Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Paint Strippers, Solvent Cleaners and Low Solids Coatings. BAAQMD Method 31.

6. Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology For Organic Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing Operations. California Air Resources Board Guidance Document, July 18, 1991.

We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

The TSD for MBUAPCD Rule 433 describes additional rule revisions that do not affect EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time that the local agency modifies the rule.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by April 7, 2003, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on May 6, 2003. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Table 2 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of these local agency VOC rules.

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

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 6, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that State air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards established by us. These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

Each State must submit these regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP.

Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be extensive, containing State regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.

In order for State regulations to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable SIP, States must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with State and Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking body.

Once a State rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the State submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the State submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by us.

All State regulations and supporting information approved by us under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at title 40, part 52, entitled “Approval and Promulgations of Implementation Plans.” The actual State regulations which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR outright but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that we have approved a given State regulation with a specific effective date.

Enforcement of the State regulation before and after it is incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a State responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in the CAA.

The CAA Amendments of 1990 require all States to develop operating permits programs that meet certain Federal criteria. In implementing this program, the States are to require certain sources of air pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements under the CAA. One purpose of the part 70 operating permits program is to improve enforcement by issuing each source a single permit that consolidates all of the applicable CAA requirements into a Federally-enforceable document. By consolidating all of the applicable requirements for a facility into one document, the source, the public, and the permitting authorities can more easily determine what CAA requirements apply and how compliance with those requirements is determined.

Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program include “major” sources of air pollution and certain other sources specified in the CAA or in our implementing regulations. For example, all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size, must obtain permits. Examples of major sources include those that emit 100 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, or PM10; those that emit 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant (HAP) (specifically listed under the CAA); or those that emit 25 tons per year or more of a combination of HAPs.

Revisions to the State and local agencies' operating permits program are also subject to public notice, comment, and our approval.

The State of Iowa has requested that EPA approve as an amendment to the Iowa SIP and part 70 Operating Permits Program recently adopted revisions to its definitions rule, construction and operating permit rules, and monitoring and measurement rule. The specific rule revisions are discussed below.

Subrule 20.3(2) has been rescinded. This rule made reference to an application form to be used when applying for a variance from the open burning rules. This form is no longer used by the department. The procedures for requesting a variance are specified in rule 21.2.

Rule 22.1, which pertains to permits required for new and existing sources, has been revised to add subparagraph 22.1(1) “c” (4). This provision clarifies the notification requirements for sources which begin construction prior to obtaining a construction permit as provided for in the rule. Subparagraph (4) requires a start construction notification within 30 days after starting construction, regardless of the permit issuance status.

Subrule 22.1(2), introductory paragraph, pertaining to exemptions, was revised to clarify that units subject to new source performance standards (NSPS), National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), for example, are not eligible for an exemption from the permitting construction rules. Subparagraph 22.1(2) “i” was revised to clarify the exemption as it relates to hazardous air pollutants. Finally, subparagraph 22.1(2) “t” was added as a new exemption category. This subparagraph exempts containers, storage tanks, or vessels, containing fluid having a maximum true vapor pressure of less than 0.75 pounds per square inch absolute (psia).

Paragraph 22.3(3) “b” was revised to clarify the permit requirement of a source to notify the department of intended startup. This revision establishes a more specific time at which notification needs to be sent, as well as what information needs to be provided. The change also makes the department's deadline consistent with the deadlines in new source performance standards.

Rule 22.100—Definitions for title V operating permits, has been revised with respect to regulated air pollutant to clarify that only the PM10 fraction of particulate matter is considered when determining if a source is a major source. It also clarifies that title V fees are not required for particulate matter (excluding PM10.)

Subrule 22.101(1), pertaining to sources subject to title V permits, was revised to correct an inconsistency between this rule and a reference to rule 22.102. This revision clarifies that all source categories listed in 22.102 are exempt from obtaining a title V permit.

Subrule 22.201(2), pertaining to voluntary operating permits, has been revised to clarify exemptions related to parts 60 and 63 sources.

Subrule 22.300(3), paragraphs “b” and “c,” have been revised to clarify when sources would no longer be eligible for coverage by the operating permit by rule for small sources if those sources are subject to NSPS or NESHAP.

Subrule 300(7), paragraph “c,” has been revised to correct a reference to the record keeping required for emission units and emission control equipment. For clarification and consistency purposes, a revision was made which changes all of the references to “emission control units” to the term “emission control equipment.”

Rule 25.1—Testing and sampling of new and existing equipment, was updated to adopt more recent Federal procedures in 40 CFR parts 60 and 75.

Further discussion and background information is contained in the technical support document prepared for this action, which is available from the EPA contact listed above.

The State submittals met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittals also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this document, the revisions meet the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110. Finally, the submittals met the substantive requirements of title V of the 1990 CAA Amendments and 40 CFR part 70.

EPA is processing this action as a direct final action because the revisions make routine changes to the existing rules which are noncontroversial. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments.

Final Action: EPA is approving as an amendment to the Iowa SIP revisions to rules 20.3, 22.1, 22.3, 22.201, 22.300, and 25.1 pursuant to section 110. EPA is also approving rules 22.100, 22.101, 22.201, and 22.300 as a program revision to the State's part 70 Operating Permits Program pursuant to part 70.

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

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 6, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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:

• Industry (NAICS 111), Crop production.

• Industry (NAICS 112), Animal production.-

• Industry (NAICS 311), Food manufacturing

• Industry (NAICS 32532), 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-2002-0345 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 May 29, 2002 (67 FR 37426-37432) (FRL-7178-3), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by FQPA (Public Law 104-170), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition PP 2F6385 by Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1333 North California Blvd., Suite 600, P.O. Box 8025, Walnut Creek, CA 94596-8025. That notice included a summary of the petition prepared by Valent U.S.A. Corporation. the registrant. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.-

The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.510 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the insecticide, pyriproxyfen, 2-[1-methyl-2-(4-phenoxyphenoxy)ethoxypyridine, in or on Brassica leafy vegetables (Crop Group 5); vegetable, cucurbit (Crop Group 9); olive and olive, oil at 2.5, 0.1, 1.0, and 3.0 parts per million (ppm) respectively.

Based on the residue data submitted, EPA has determined that the following changes to the requested tolerances listed in this document are necessary. A lower tolerance of 2.0 ppm is required for olive, oil. Brassica vegetables are devided into two subgroups. A tolerance of 0.70 is required for Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A. A tolerance of 2.0 ppm is required for Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B.-

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA 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) of the FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....”-

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

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2) of the FFDCA, for a tolerance for residues of pyriproxyfen on Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B; Vegetable, cucurbit (Group 9); olive and olive, oil at 0.70, 2.0, 0.10, 1.0, and 2.0 ppm, respectively. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies 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 pyriproxyfen are discussed in Table 1 of this unit as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies reviewed.

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

• Industry (NAICS 111), e.g., Crop Production.

• Industry (NAICS 112), e.g., Animal Production.

• Industry (NAICS 311), e.g., Food manufacturing.

• Industry (NAICS 32532), e.g., Pesticide Manufacturing.

• Industry (NAICS 32561), e.g., Antimicrobial Pesticide.--

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-2003-0037. 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.

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 November 15, 2002 (67 FR 69217) (FRL-7280-1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by the FQPA (Public Law 104 -170), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 2E6515) by Rhodia, Inc., CN 7500, Prospect Plains Rd., Cranbury, NJ 08512-7500. That notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. -

The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 1,3 benzene dicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester, sodium salt, polymer with 1,3-benzene dicarboxylic acid, 1,4-benzene dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl 1,4-benzene dicarboxylate and 1,2-ethanediol; CAS Reg. No. 212842-88-1.-

Section 408(c)(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(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA 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) of the FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the requirement of 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...” and specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the 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. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers that should present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b). The following exclusion criteria for identifying these low risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d).

1. The polymer, 1,3 benzene dicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester, sodium salt, polymer with 1,3-benzene dicarboxylic acid, 1,4-benzene dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl 1,4-benzene dicarboxylate and 1,2-ethanediol, is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.

2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its compostion the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and sulfur.

3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).

4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.

5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.

6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.

Additionally, the polymer, 1,3 benzene dicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester, sodium salt, polymer with 1,3-benzene dicarboxylic acid, 1,4-benzene dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl 1,4-benzene dicarboxylate and 1,2-ethanediol, also meets, as required, the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).

7. The polymer's minimum number average molecular weight (NAMW) of 2,580 is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.

Thus, 1,3 benzene dicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester, sodium salt, polymer with 1,3-benzene dicarboxylic acid, 1,4-benzene dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl 1,4-benzene dicarboxylate and 1,2-ethanediol meet all the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the above criteria, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to 1,3 benzene dicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester, sodium salt, polymer with 1,3-benzene dicarboxylic acid, 1,4-benzene dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl 1,4-benzene dicarboxylate and 1,2-ethanediol.

For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that 1,3 benzene dicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester, sodium salt, polymer with 1,3-benzene dicarboxylic acid, 1,4-benzene dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl 1,4-benzene dicarboxylate and 1,2-ethanediol could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational, non-dietary exposure was possible. The minimum NAMW of 1,3 benzene dicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester, sodium salt, polymer with 1,3-benzene dicarboxylic acid, 1,4-benzene dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl 1,4-benzene dicarboxylate and 1,2-ethanediol is 2,580 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since 1,3 benzene dicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester, sodium salt, polymer with 1,3-benzene dicarboxylic acid, 1,4-benzene dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl 1,4-benzene dicarboxylate and 1,2-ethanediol conform to the criteria that identify a low risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

Section 408 (b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance or tolerance exemption, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular chemical's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” The Agency has not made any conclusions as to whether or not 1,3 benzene dicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester, sodium salt, polymer with 1,3-benzene dicarboxylic acid, 1,4-benzene dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl 1,4-benzene dicarboxylate and 1,2-ethanediol share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other chemicals. However, 1,3 benzene dicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester, sodium salt, polymer with 1,3-benzene dicarboxylic acid, 1,4-benzene dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl 1,4-benzene dicarboxylate and 1,2-ethanediol conform to the criteria that identify a low risk polymer. Due to the expected lack of toxicity based on the above conformance, the Agency has determined that a cumulative risk assessment is not necessary.

Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population from aggregate exposure to residues of 1,3 benzene dicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester, sodium salt, polymer with 1,3-benzene dicarboxylic acid, 1,4-benzene dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl 1,4-benzene dicarboxylate and 1,2-ethanediol.

FFDCA 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 unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of 1,3 benzene dicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester, sodium salt, polymer with 1,3-benzene dicarboxylic acid, 1,4-benzene dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl 1,4-benzene dicarboxylate and 1,2-ethanediol, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

There is no available evidence that 1,3 benzene dicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester, sodium salt, polymer with 1,3-benzene dicarboxylic acid, 1,4-benzene dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl 1,4-benzene dicarboxylate and 1,2-ethanediol is an endocrine disruptor.

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for 1,3 benzene dicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester, sodium salt, polymer with 1,3-benzene dicarboxylic acid, 1,4-benzene dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl 1,4-benzene dicarboxylate and 1,2-ethanediol nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) been established for any food crops at this time.

Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of 1,3 benzene dicarboxylic acid, 5-sulfo-, 1,3-dimethyl ester, sodium salt, polymer with 1,3-benzene dicarboxylic acid, 1,4-benzene dicarboxylic acid, dimethyl 1,4-benzene dicarboxylate and 1,2-ethanediol from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

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, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) of the FFDCA 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) of the FFDCA, as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of the FFDCA. 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-2003-0037 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before May 6, 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 XI.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-2003-0037, 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 section 408(d) of the FFDCA 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 section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 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 section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. 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 rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

1. We redesignated § 412.23(e)(2) as § 412.23(e)(2)(ii) in the August 30, 2002 final rule, but failed to make a conforming change to existing § 412.22(h)(3)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which contains a cite to § 412.23(e)(2) instead of § 412.23(e)(2)(ii). This incorrect cite, if left uncorrected, would change our policy concerning satellite hospitals. In order to avoid this result, we are revising § 412.22(h)(3)(ii), to reference § 412.23(e)(2)(ii).

2. When we added § 412.541(d)(1), we inadvertently omitted information on outlier payments. The regulation on interim payments for hospitals not receiving periodic interim payments under the long-term care hospital prospective payment system (LTCH PPS) was designed to conform with the interim payment regulation at § 412.116(d) under the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS). As it now reads, the paragraph misrepresents CMS outlier policy for the LTCH PPS by prohibiting LTCHs from including outliers on interim bills. As revised, instead of prohibiting appropriate outlier payments for Medicare patients with unusually long lengths of stay, this regulation will now conform to the regulation at § 412.116(d) and allow appropriate outlier payments. Section 412.541(d)(1) is revised by deleting the last sentence and replacing it with the following: “Payment for the interim bill is determined as if the bill were a final discharge bill and includes any outlier payment determined as of the last day for which services have been billed.”

3. In the August 30, 2002 final rule, we incorrectly stated two wage index amounts for MSA 3810 in Table 1 on page 56065 of the rule. On page 56065 in the third column (Full wage index) of Table 1, the figure 0.8513 is corrected to read 0.9794. On page 56065 in the fourth column ( 1/5 wage index) of Table 1, the figure 0.9703 is corrected to read 0.9959. We established in the August 30, 2002 final rule (67 FR 56018) for the LTCH PPS that the wage data used in calculations for the wage index would be computed based on the same data used by inpatient acute care hospital prospective payment system (IPPS). Wage index values published in the IPPS final rule on August 1, 2002 (67 FR 50155, 50199, and 50217) have been determined to be incorrect. On September 30, 2002, a program memorandum (Transmittal A-02-092) set forth the correct values and presently a correction notice is being prepared for publication for the IPPS wage index values. Since the IPPS data upon which the LTCH wage index for MSA 810 is based has been corrected, this data change would necessarily require a correction in the LTCH wage index for MSA 3810. Publishing this correction provides the accurate wage index adjustment factor under the LTCH PPS that will disclose to providers in this metropolitan statistical area (MSA) how this adjustment will affect their payments.

1. On page 56065 in the third column (Full wage index) of Table 1, the figure 0.8513 is corrected to read 0.9794.

2. On page 56065 in the fourth column ( 1/5 wage index) of Table 1, the figure 0.9703 is corrected to read 0.9959.

1. In the August 30, 2002 final rule, we redesignated § 412.23(e)(2) as § 412.23(e)(2)(ii), but did not make a conforming change to § 412.22(h)(3)(ii). Presently, § 412.22(h)(3)(ii) cites § 412.23(e)(2) instead of § 412.23(e)(2)(ii). This error, which appears to change our policy concerning satellite hospitals, is corrected by revising § 412.22(h)(3)(ii), to reference § 412.23(e)(2)(ii).

2. In the August 30, 2002 final rule (67 FR 56055), we inadvertently omitted part of a sentence in § 412.541(d)(1). Presently, the sentence reads as “Payment for the interim bill is determined as if the bill were a final discharge bill” but does not address outlier payments. This regulation was designed to conform with the policy on billing for outliers on an interim bill of the IPPS, in § 412.116(d). The last sentence of § 412.541(d)(1) is revised to read as follows: “Payment for the interim bill is determined as if the bill were a final discharge bill and includes any outlier payment determined as of the last day for which services have been billed.”

We ordinarily publish a correcting amendment of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a correcting amendment such as this can take effect. We can waive this procedure, however, if we find good cause that a notice and comment procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest and incorporate a statement of finding and its reasons in the correcting amendment issued.

We find for good cause that it is unnecessary to undertake notice and public comment procedures because this correcting amendment does not make any substantive policy changes. This document makes technical corrections and conforming changes to the August 30, 2002 final rule (67 FR 55954). Therefore, for good cause, we waive notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). In addition, since these corrections make no substantive policy changes, LTCHs would not require additional time to prepare to implement these items. Therefore, for good cause, we find it unnecessary to delay the effective date for the changes in this correcting amendment. Consequently, we waive the 30-day delay in effective date for this correcting amendment.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by 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 reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's database at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara. You can also view and download this document by going to the webpage of the Department's Docket Management System (http://dms.dot.gov). On that webpage, click on “search.” On the next page, type in the four-digit docket number shown on the first page of this document. Then click on “search.”

Section 1012 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001, [Public Law 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 at 396, (October 26, 2001)], amended title 49 United States Code, by adding a new section 5103a, relating to limitations on issuance of licenses to individuals who operate motor vehicles transporting hazardous materials in commerce. Section 5103a(a)(1) provides that “a State may not issue to any individual a license to operate a motor vehicle transporting in commerce a hazardous material unless the Secretary of Transportation has first determined, upon receipt of a notification under subsection (c)(1)(B), that the individual does not pose a security risk warranting denial of the license.”

Section 101 of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, (ATSA)[Public Law 107-71, 115 Stat. 597, (November 19, 2001)], amended title 49 United States Code, by adding a new section 114, creating the TSA and providing that the Under Secretary shall be responsible for security in all modes of transportation, including security responsibilities not only over aviation security, but over other modes of transportation that are exercised by the Department. See 49 U.S.C. 114(d)(2). On December 28, 2001, the Secretary of Transportation issued a final rule amending Part 1 of title 49 CFR, to reflect the new DOT operating administration and its general responsibilities and on July 23, 2002, the TSA issued a final rule (49 CFR 1502.1) stating the responsibilities of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security, including security responsibilities over all modes of transportation. The Secretary's decision to transfer primary responsibility over the security determination function to TSA takes into account the statutory changes brought about by the ATSA and the HSA. However, the FMCSA will continue to have § 5103a related responsibilities under the commercial driver's license (CDL) program (49 U.S.C. 31305(a)(5)(C)). The revised delegations more accurately reflect the respective roles and responsibilities of the two administrations.

This final rule updates the delegations of authority from the Secretary to the FMCSA Administrator and the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security to reflect the organizational posture of the Department. As such, the final rule is ministerial in nature and relates only to Departmental management, organization, procedure, and practice. Since this amendment relates to departmental organization, procedure and practice, notice and comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

Furthermore, this rule does not impose substantive requirements on the public. Also, this final rule facilitates the Department of Transportation's ability to orderly transfer the functions of the TSA and the functions of the Secretary related thereto to the Department of Homeland Security pursuant to section 403 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Consequently, the Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register.

The final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). There are no costs associated with this rule.

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999. This final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on, or sufficient federalism implications for, the States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements do not apply.

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. I hereby certify this final rule, which amends the CFR to reflect a delegation of authority from the Secretary to the FMCSA Administrator and to the Undersecretary of Transportation for Security, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.

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

The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this rulemaking.

This final rule also is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register's Web site at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su--docs/aces/aces140.htm.

The IPHC has promulgated regulations governing the Pacific halibut fishery in 2003 under the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention (signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979). The IPHC regulations have been approved by the Secretary of State of the United States under section 4 of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act (Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773-773k). Pursuant to regulations at 50 CFR 300.62, the approved IPHC regulations setting forth the 2003 IPHC annual management measures are published in the Federal Register to provide notice of their effectiveness, and to inform persons subject to the regulations of the restrictions and requirements. These management measures are effective until superceded by the 2004 management measures that NMFS will publish in the Federal Register.

The IPHC held its annual meeting in Victoria, British Columbia, on January 21-24, 2003, and adopted regulations for 2003. The substantive changes to the previous IPHC regulations (67 FR 12885, March 20, 2002) include:

1. New commercial fishery opening date of March 1;

2. New commercial fishery closing date of November 15;

3. Exemption from clearance requirements in Area 4 for those vessel operators using a NMFS-approved vessel monitoring system and complying with the requirements of 50 CFR 679.28(f)(3), (f)(4), and (f)(5); receiving a confirmation number from NOAA Enforcement prior to fishing; and transmitting until all halibut caught are landed;

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

5. Revising the term “vessel” to “harvesting vessel” for purposes of allowing fillets from legally landed and retained fish to be possessed only aboard a vessel, in port, up to 1800 hours local time on the calendar day following the offload;

6. Using the term “landed” halibut rather than “delivered” halibut for purposes of meeting the requirement of retaining records by vessel operators;

7. Updating coordinates for the Cape Spencer light used for the Area 2C-3A boundary (58°11′54″ N, 136°38′24″ W) to agree with the U.S. Coast Guard light list;

8. Allowing Area 4D Community Development Quota (CDQ) harvest to be taken in Area 4E;

9. Adoption of the revised Area 2A CSP;

10. New depth-based closed areas for the Area 2A commercial directed halibut fishery, and;

11. Season dates for the Area 2A tribal fishery.

The IPHC recommended to the governments of Canada and the United States catch limits for 2003 totaling 74,920,000 lb, identical to the regulatory area catch limits in 2002. The IPHC staff reported on the assessment of the Pacific halibut stock in 2002. Some significant changes occurred in the assessment as a result of changes in the underlying data being analyzed and the persistence of smaller sizes at the same age in the central part of the halibut range. These changes created some uncertainty about differences in the biomass of the stock estimated from the current and the previous assessment. Analyses were conducted for the 2002 assessment to ensure that the stock is not in any danger of being overharvested. However, the staff needs to resolve these technical issues of the assessment over the next year. In addition, IPHC staff is investigating a new harvest policy that may result in greater stability in the yield from the fishery and insulate the process of setting catch limits from technological changes in the assessment. This harvest policy will also need to be reviewed by the IPHC. The resolution of the technical issues of the assessment may indicate a larger estimate of biomass in the central region of the stock distribution, but application of the proposed harvest policy might dictate slightly lower yields. Because these two processes may be somewhat counterbalancing, the staff wishes to complete its investigations before recommending any changes to present catch limits or the harvest policy. While the trajectory of the halibut stock biomass is downward, the biomass is still above the long-term average level and is expected to remain above this level for the next several years.

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

The PFMC's Area 2A CSP allocates the halibut catch limit for Area 2A among treaty Indian, non-treaty commercial, and non-treaty sport fisheries in and off Washington, Oregon, and California. Under the CSP, 35 percent of the Area 2A total allowable catch (TAC) is allocated to Washington treaty Indian tribes in Subarea 2A-1, and 65 percent is allocated to non-treaty fisheries in Area 2A. Treaty fisheries are divided into commercial fisheries, and ceremonial and subsistence fisheries. The allocation to non-treaty fisheries is divided into three shares, with the Washington sport fishery (north of the Columbia River) receiving 36.6 percent, the Oregon/California sport fishery receiving 31.7 percent, and the commercial fishery receiving 31.7 percent. The non-treaty commercial allocation is further divided between a directed halibut longline fishery (85 percent) and an incidental catch allowance in the salmon troll fishery (15 percent). The directed commercial fishery in Area 2A is confined to southern Washington (south of 46°53′18″ N. lat.), Oregon and California. North of Point Chehalis, WA (46°53′18″ N. lat.), halibut may be retained by longline vessels participating in the limited entry, primary sablefish fishery. Incidental halibut retention in the primary sablefish fishery is only allowable when the overall Area 2A TAC is above 900,000 lb (408.2 mt), which it is in 2003. [NOTE: New for 2003, regulations for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery require participants in the primary sablefish fishery in which halibut may be retained to follow depth-based management restrictions (i.e., closed areas) as described in a proposed rule published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2003 (68 FR 936). The final rule for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery, including depth-based management measures, will publish in the Federal Register. The CSP also divides the sport fisheries into seven geographic areas each with separate allocations, seasons, and bag limits.

For 2003, PFMC recommended changes to the CSP to modify the Pacific halibut fisheries in Area 2A in 2003 and beyond pursuant to recommendations from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). These changes to the CSP will implement closed areas for the Washington North Coast sport fishery subarea and the nontreaty commercial halibut fishery to protect yelloweye rockfish, allocate subarea halibut quota between the May and June sport seasons in Washington's North Coast subarea, cap the incidental halibut retention allocation for the primary sablefish fishery at 70,000 lb (31.8 kg) when halibut is available to that fishery, move the season ending date for Oregon sport fisheries in the North Central and South Central areas from September 30 to October 31, provide more flexibility for inseason sport fishery management, and revise the names of Oregon sport seasons.

A complete description of the PFMC recommended changes to the CSP, notice of a draft Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR), and proposed sport fishery management measures were published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2003 (68 FR 6103) with a request for public comments by February 18, 2003. No public comments were received. Therefore, NMFS has finalized the EA/RIR, made a finding of no significant impact, and approved the changes to the CSP as proposed. Copies of the complete CSP for Area 2A as modified and the final EA/RIR are available from the NMFS Northwest Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).

The ODFW held public workshops (after the IPHC set the Area 2A quota) in early February 2003, to develop recommendations on the opening dates of the sport fisheries. WDFW did not hold public meetings after the IPHC annual meeting in 2003 because the catch limit and season structure are the same as in 2002. The WDFW and ODFW sent letters to NMFS providing the following recommendations on the opening dates and season structure for managing the sport fisheries consistent with the CSP.

WDFW recommended a May 8 to July 18 season for eastern Puget Sound and a May 22 to August 1 season for western Puget Sound, 5 days per week (closed Tuesday and Wednesday). The recommended number of fishing days is based on an analysis of past harvest patterns in this fishery and meets the requirements of the CSP for the overall Puget Sound sport fishery subarea. For the Washington North Coast subarea, WDFW has recommended a season opening May 1 and continuing until the May sub-quota is taken, 5 days per week (closed Sunday and Monday), and a second season opening June 18 and continuing until the remaining quota is projected to be taken, 5 days per week (closed Sunday and Monday). WDFW also recommended changing the North Coast subarea's closed area to a “C-shaped” area, known as the Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area, in accordance with (f)(1)(ii) of the CSP (see ADDRESSES). This change in the size and shape of the closed area is intended to protect yelloweye rockfish, an overfished groundfish species that coexists with Pacific halibut. The “C-shaped” area has been determined to be an area with high interception of yelloweye rockfish in recreational fisheries. This area will be closed to recreational groundfish and halibut fishing. For the Washington South Coast subarea, WDFW has recommended a season opening May 1 and continuing until the quota is taken, 5 days per week (closed Friday and Saturday) in the offshore area and 7 days per week in the nearshore area. WDFW recommendations for the Puget Sound, North Coast and South Coast Washington subareas meet the requirements of the CSP.

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

ODFW recommended starting the nearshore fishery in the Oregon Central Coast and South Coast subareas, on May 1 and continuing the season until the sub-quota for that fishery is taken, 7 days per week. For the all-depth fisheries in those subareas, ODFW recommended a 6 day spring season of May 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17, based on an analysis of past harvest rates. ODFW further recommended a 4-day summer all-depth season of August 1, 2, 8, and 9. If the spring season does not take the entire spring sub-quota for these subareas, ODFW recommended these additional potential opening dates: June 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, and 28. If the summer season does not take the entire summer sub-quota for these subareas, ODFW recommended these additional potential opening dates: August 22 and 23, September 5, 6, 19, and 20, October 17 and 18. These recommendations meet the requirements of the CSP for these subareas.

For the southernmost subarea, south of Humbug Mountain, Oregon, ODFW recommended opening this subarea on May 1 and continuing the season until September 30, 7 days per week. This recommended season meets the requirements of the CSP.

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

With this rule, NMFS will revise the Federal halibut regulations at 50 CFR 300.63, which authorize vessels with IPHC licenses that are operating in the primary sablefish longline fishery north of Pt. Chehalis to land halibut taken incidentally in that fishery. The technical correction will alter the regulations to more clearly state that no halibut taken in this fishery may be landed south of Pt. Chehalis. This is a minor clarification and has no substantive effect on the environment or the regulated community because it only clarifies where halibut taken incidentally in the primary sablefish longline fishery may be landed.

The annual management measures that follow for the 2003 Pacific halibut fishery are identical to those recommended by the IPHC and approved by the Secretary of State.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) In these Regulations,

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

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

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

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

(e) Commission means the International Pacific Halibut Commission;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(s) VMS transmitter means a NMFS-approved vessel monitoring system transmitter that automatically determines a vessel's position and transmits it to a NMFS-approved communications service provider.1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(15) The United States may suspend, revoke, or modify any license issued under this section under policies and procedures in Title 15, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 904.

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

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

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

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

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

(a) Closed areas;

(b) Fishing periods;

(c) Fishing period limits;

(d) Gear restrictions;

(e) Recreational bag limits;

(f) Size limits; or

(g) Vessel clearances.

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

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

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

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

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

(3) Area 2C includes all waters off Alaska that are east of a line running 340° true from Cape Spencer Light (58°11′54″ N. lat., 136°38′24″ W. long.) and south and east of a line running 205° true from said light;

(4) Area 3A includes all waters between Area 2C and a line extending from the most northerly point on Cape Aklek (57°41′15″ N. lat., 155°35′0″ W. long.) to Cape Ikolik (57°17′17″ N. lat., 154°47′18″ W. long.), then along the Kodiak Island coastline to Cape Trinity (56°44′50″ N. lat., 154°08′44″ W. long.), then 140° true;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Each fishing period in the Area 2A directed fishery 2 shall begin at 0800 hours and terminate at 1800 hours local time on June 25, July 9, July 23, August 6, August 20, September 3, and September 17 unless the Commission specifies otherwise.

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

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

(5) The fishing period in Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E shall begin at 1200 hours local time on March 1 and terminate at 1200 hours local time on November 15, unless the Commission specifies otherwise.

(6) All commercial fishing for halibut in Areas 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E shall cease at 1200 hours local time on November 15.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All waters in the Bering Sea north of 55°00′00″ N. lat. in Isanotski Strait that are enclosed by a line from Cape Sarichef Light (54°36′0″ N. lat., 164°55′42″ W. long.) to a point at 56°20′00″ N. lat., 168°30′00″ W. long.; thence to a point at 58°21′25″ N. latitude, 163°00′00″ W. long.; thence to Strogonof Point (56°53′18″ N. lat., 158°50′37″ W. long.); and then along the northern coasts of the Alaska Peninsula and Unimak Island to the point of origin at Cape Sarichef Light are closed to halibut fishing and no person shall fish for halibut therein or have halibut in his/her possession while in those waters except in the course of a continuous transit across those waters. All waters in Isanotski Strait between 55°00′00″ N. lat. and 54°49′00″ N. lat. are closed to halibut fishing.

(1) The total allowable catch of halibut to be taken during the halibut fishing periods specified in section 8 shall be limited to the weight expressed in pounds or metric tons shown in the following table:

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), regulations pertaining to the division of the Area 2A catch limit between the directed commercial fishery and the incidental catch fishery as described in paragraph (4) of section 8 will be promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service and published in the Federal Register.

(3) The Commission shall determine and announce to the public the date on which the catch limit for Area 2A will be taken.

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), Area 2B will close only when all Individual Vessel Quotas assigned by Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans are taken, or November 15, whichever is earlier.

(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E will each close only when all Individual Fishing Quotas and all Community Development Quotas issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service have been taken, or November 15, whichever is earlier:

(6) If the Commission determines that the catch limit specified for Area 2A in paragraph (1) would be exceeded in an unrestricted 10-hour fishing period as specified in paragraph (2) of section 8, the catch limit for that area shall be considered to have been taken unless fishing period limits are implemented.

(7) When under paragraphs (2), (3), and (6) the Commission has announced a date on which the catch limit for Area 2A will be taken, no person shall fish for halibut in that area after that date for the rest of the year, unless the Commission has announced the reopening of that area for halibut fishing.

(8) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the total allowable catch of halibut that may be taken in the Area 4E directed commercial fishery is equal to the combined annual catch limits specified for the Area 4D and Area 4E Community Development Quotas. The annual Area 4D CDQ catch limit will decrease by the equivalent amount of halibut CDQ taken in Area 4E in excess of the annual Area 4E CDQ catch limit.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any vessel to retain more halibut than authorized by that vessel's license in any fishing period for which the Commission has announced a fishing period limit.

(2) The operator of any vessel that fishes for halibut during a fishing period when fishing period limits are in effect must, upon commencing an offload of halibut to a commercial fish processor, completely offload all halibut on board said vessel to that processor and ensure that all halibut is weighed and reported on State fish tickets.

(3) The operator of any vessel that fishes for halibut during a fishing period when fishing period limits are in effect must, upon commencing an offload of halibut other than to a commercial fish processor, completely offload all halibut on board said vessel and ensure that all halibut are weighed and reported on State fish tickets.

(4) The provisions of paragraph (3) are not intended to prevent retail over-the-side sales to individual purchasers so long as all the halibut on board is ultimately offloaded and reported.

(5) When fishing period limits are in effect, a vessel's maximum retainable catch will be determined by the Commission based on:

(a) The vessel's overall length in feet and associated length class;

(b) The average performance of all vessels within that class; and

(c) The remaining catch limit.

(6) Length classes are shown in the following table:

(7) Fishing period limits in Area 2A apply only to the directed halibut fishery referred to in paragraph (2) of section 8.

(1) No person shall take or possess any halibut that

(a) With the head on, is less than 32 inches (81.3 cm) as measured in a straight line, passing over the pectoral fin from the tip of the lower jaw with the mouth closed, to the extreme end of the middle of the tail, as illustrated in Figure 2; or

(b) With the head removed, is less than 24 inches (61.0 cm) as measured from the base of the pectoral fin at its most anterior point to the extreme end of the middle of the tail, as illustrated in Figure 2.

(2) No person shall possess on board a vessel a halibut filleted or a halibut that has been mutilated, or otherwise disfigured in any manner that prevents the determination of whether the halibut complies with the size limits specified in this section, except that this paragraph shall not prohibit the possession on board a vessel:

(a) Of halibut cheeks cut from halibut caught by persons authorized to process the halibut on board in accordance with NMFS regulations published at Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 679; and

(b) Of fillets from halibut that have been offloaded in accordance with section 17 may be possessed on board the harvesting vessel in the port of landing up to 1800 hours local time on the calendar day following the offload.4

(3) No person on board a vessel fishing for, or tendering, halibut caught in Area 2A shall possess any halibut that has had its head removed.

(1) All halibut that are caught and are not retained shall be immediately released outboard of the roller and returned to the sea with a minimum of injury by:

(a) Hook straightening;

(b) Cutting the gangion near the hook; or

(c) Carefully removing the hook by twisting it from the halibut with a gaff.

(1) The operator of any vessel that fishes for halibut in Areas 4A, 4B, 4C, or 4D must obtain a vessel clearance before fishing in any of these areas, and before the landing of any halibut caught in any of these areas, unless specifically exempted in paragraphs (10), (13), (14), (15), (16), or (17).

(2) An operator obtaining a vessel clearance required by paragraph (1) must obtain the clearance in person from the authorized clearance personnel and sign the IPHC form documenting that a clearance was obtained, except that when the clearance is obtained via VHF radio referred to in paragraphs 5, 8, and 9, the authorized clearance personnel must sign the IPHC form documenting that the clearance was obtained.

(3) The vessel clearance required under paragraph (1) prior to fishing in Area 4A may be obtained only at Nazan Bay on Atka Island, Dutch Harbor or Akutan, Alaska, from an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor.

(4) The vessel clearance required under paragraph (1) prior to fishing in Area 4B may only be obtained at Nazan Bay on Atka Island or Adak, Alaska, from an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor.

(5) The vessel clearance required under paragraph (1) prior to fishing in Area 4C or 4D may be obtained only at St. Paul or St. George, Alaska, from an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor by VHF radio and allowing the person contacted to confirm visually the identity of the vessel.

(6) The vessel operator shall specify the specific regulatory area in which fishing will take place.

(7) Before unloading any halibut caught in Area 4A, a vessel operator may obtain the clearance required under paragraph (1) only in Dutch Harbor or Akutan, Alaska, by contacting an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor.

(8) Before unloading any halibut caught in Area 4B, a vessel operator may obtain the clearance required under paragraph (1) only in Nazan Bay on Atka Island or Adak, by contacting an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor by VHF radio or in person.

(9) Before unloading any halibut caught in Area 4C or 4D, a vessel operator may obtain the clearance required under paragraph (1) only in St. Paul, St. George, Dutch Harbor, or Akutan, Alaska, either in person or by contacting an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor. The clearances obtained in St. Paul or St. George, Alaska, can be obtained by VHF radio and allowing the person contacted to confirm visually the identity of the vessel.

(10) Any vessel operator who complies with the requirements in section 18 for possessing halibut on board a vessel that was caught in more than one regulatory area in Area 4 is exempt from the clearance requirements of paragraph (1) of this section, provided that:

(a) The operator of the vessel obtains a vessel clearance prior to fishing in Area 4 in either Dutch Harbor, Akutan, St. Paul, St. George, Adak, or Nazan Bay on Atka Island by contacting an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor. The clearance obtained in St. Paul, St. George, Adak, or Nazan Bay on Atka Island can be obtained by VHF radio and allowing the person contacted to confirm visually the identity of the vessel. This clearance will list the Areas in which the vessel will fish; and

(b) Before unloading any halibut from Area 4, the vessel operator obtains a vessel clearance from Dutch Harbor, Akutan, St. Paul, St. George, Adak, or Nazan Bay on Atka Island by contacting an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor. The clearance obtained in St. Paul or St. George can be obtained by VHF radio and allowing the person contacted to confirm visually the identity of the vessel. The clearance obtained in Adak or Nazan Bay on Atka Island can be obtained by VHF radio.

(11) Vessel clearances shall be obtained between 0600 and 1800 hours, local time.

(12) No halibut shall be on board the vessel at the time of the clearances required prior to fishing in Area 4.

(13) Any vessel that is used to fish for halibut only in Area 4A and lands its total annual halibut catch at a port within Area 4A is exempt from the clearance requirements of paragraph (1).

(14) Any vessel that is used to fish for halibut only in Area 4B and lands its total annual halibut catch at a port within Area 4B is exempt from the clearance requirements of paragraph (1).

(15) Any vessel that is used to fish for halibut only in Area 4C and lands its total annual halibut catch at a port within Area 4C is exempt from the clearance requirements of paragraph (1).

(16) Any vessel that is used to fish for halibut only in Areas 4D or 4E and lands its total annual halibut catch at a port within Areas 4D, 4E, or the closed area defined in section 10, is exempt from the clearance requirements of paragraph (1).

(17) Any vessel that carries a transmitting VMS transmitter while fishing for halibut in Area 4A, 4B, 4C, or 4D and until all halibut caught in any of these areas is landed is exempt from the clearance requirements of paragraph (1) of this section, provided that:

(a) The operator of the vessel complies with NMFS' vessel monitoring system regulations published at 50 CFR sections 679.28(f)(3), (4) and (5); and

(b) The operator of the vessel notifies NOAA Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement at 800-304-4846 (select option 1 to speak to an Enforcement Data Clerk) between the hours of 0600 and 0000 (midnight) local time within 72 hours before fishing for halibut in Area 4A, 4B, 4C, or 4D and receives a VMS confirmation number.

(1) The operator of any U.S. vessel fishing for halibut that has an overall length of 26 feet (7.9 meters) or greater shall maintain an accurate log of halibut fishing operations in the Groundfish/Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Daily Fishing Longline and Pot Gear Logbook provided by NMFS, or Alaska hook-and-line logbook provided by Petersburg Vessel Owners Association or Alaska Longline Fisherman's Association, or the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) longline-pot logbook, or the logbook provided by IPHC.

(2) The logbook referred to in paragraph (1) must include the following information:

(a) The name of the vessel and the state vessel number (ADF&G or Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife or Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife or California Department of Fish and Game vessel number);

(b) The date(s) upon which the fishing gear is set or retrieved;

(c) The latitude and longitude or loran coordinates or a direction and distance from a point of land for each set or day;

(d) The number of skates deployed or retrieved, and number of skates lost; and

(e) The total weight or number of halibut retained for each set or day.

(3) The logbook referred to in paragraph (1) shall be

(a) Maintained on board the vessel;

(b) Updated not later than 24 hours after midnight local time for each day fished and prior to the offloading or sale of halibut taken during that fishing trip;

(c) Retained for a period of two years by the owner or operator of the vessel;

(d) Open to inspection by an authorized officer or any authorized representative of the Commission upon demand; and

(e) Kept on board the vessel when engaged in halibut fishing, during transits to port of landing, and until the offlanding of all halibut is completed.

(4) The log referred to in paragraph (1) does not apply to the incidental halibut fishery during the salmon troll season in Area 2A defined in paragraph (4) of section 8.

(5) The operator of any Canadian vessel fishing for halibut shall maintain an accurate log recorded in the British Columbia Halibut Fishery logbook provided by DFO.

(6) The logbook referred to in paragraph (5) must include the following information:

(a) The name of the vessel and the Department of Fisheries and Ocean's vessel number;

(b) The date(s) upon which the fishing gear is set or retrieved;

(c) The latitude and longitude or loran coordinates or a direction and distance from a point of land for each set or day;

(d) The number of skates deployed or retrieved, and number of skates lost; and

(e) The total weight or number of halibut retained for each set or day.

(7) The logbook referred to in paragraph (5) shall be:

(a) Maintained on board the vessel;

(b) Updated not later than 24 hours after midnight local time for each day fished and prior to the offloading or sale of halibut taken during that fishing trip;

(c) Retained for a period of two years by the owner or operator of the vessel;

(d) Open to inspection by an authorized officer or any authorized representative of the Commission upon demand;

(e) Kept on board the vessel when engaged in halibut fishing, during transits to port of landing, and until the offloading of all halibut is completed;

(f) Mailed to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (white copy) within seven days of offloading; and

(g) Mailed to the International Pacific Halibut Commission (yellow copy) within seven days of the final offload if not collected by an International Pacific Halibut Commission employee.

(8) The poundage of any halibut that is not sold, but is utilized by the vessel operator, his/her crew members, or any other person for personal use, shall be recorded in the vessel's log within 24-hours of offloading.

(9) No person shall make a false entry in a log referred to in this section.

(1) No person shall receive halibut from a United States vessel that does not have on board the license required by section 4.

(2) No person shall offload halibut from a vessel unless the gills and entrails have been removed prior to offloading.5

(3) It shall be the responsibility of a vessel operator who lands halibut to continuously and completely offload at a single offload site all halibut on board the vessel.

(4) A registered buyer (as that term is defined in regulations promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service and codified at Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 679) who receives halibut harvested in Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) and Community Development Quota (CDQ) fisheries in Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E, directly from the vessel operator that harvested such halibut must weigh all the halibut received and record the following information on Federal catch reports: date of offload; name of vessel; vessel number; scale weight obtained at the time of offloading, including the weight (in pounds) of halibut purchased by the registered buyer, the weight (in pounds) of halibut offloaded in excess of the IFQ or CDQ, the weight of halibut (in pounds) retained for personal use or for future sale, and the weight (in pounds) of halibut discarded as unfit for human consumption.

(5) The first recipient, commercial fish processor, or buyer in the United States who purchases or receives halibut directly from the vessel operator that harvested such halibut must weigh and record all halibut received and record the following information on state fish tickets: the date of offload, vessel number, total weight obtained at the time of offload including the weight (in pounds) of halibut purchased, the weight (in pounds) of halibut offloaded in excess of the IFQ, CDQ, or fishing period limits, the weight of halibut (in pounds) retained for personal use or for future sale, and the weight (in pounds) of halibut discarded as unfit for human consumption.

(6) The master or operator of a Canadian vessel that was engaged in halibut fishing must weigh and record all halibut on board said vessel at the time offloading commences and record on Provincial fish tickets or Federal catch reports the date, locality, name of vessel, the name(s) of the person(s) from whom the halibut was purchased; and the scale weight obtained at the time of offloading of all halibut on board the vessel including the pounds purchased; pounds in excess of Individual Vessel Quotas (IVQs); pounds retained for personal use; and pounds discarded as unfit for human consumption.

(7) No person shall make a false entry on a State or Provincial fish ticket or a Federal catch or landing report referred to in paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of section 17.

(8) A copy of the fish tickets or catch reports referred to in paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) shall be:

(a) Retained by the person making them for a period of three years from the date the fish tickets or catch reports are made; and

(b) Open to inspection by an authorized officer or any authorized representative of the Commission.

(9) No person shall possess any halibut taken or retained in contravention of these Regulations.

(10) When halibut are landed to other than a commercial fish processor the records required by paragraph (5) shall be maintained by the operator of the vessel from which that halibut was caught, in compliance with paragraph (8).

(11) It shall be unlawful to enter a Halibut Commission license number on a State fish ticket for any vessel other than the vessel actually used in catching the halibut reported thereon.

(1) Except as provided in this section, no person shall possess at the same time on board a vessel halibut caught in more than one regulatory area.

(2) Halibut caught in more than one of the Regulatory Areas 2C, 3A, or 3B may be possessed on board a vessel at the same time providing the operator of the vessel:

(a) Has a NMFS-certified observer on board when required by NMFS regulations 6 published at title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, section 679.7(f)(4); and

(b) Can identify the regulatory area in which each halibut on board was caught by separating halibut from different areas in the hold, tagging halibut, or by other means.

(3) Halibut caught in more than one of the Regulatory Areas 4A, 4B, 4C, or 4D may be possessed on board a vessel at the same time providing the operator of the vessel:

(a) Has a NMFS-certified observer on board the vessel when halibut caught in different regulatory areas are on board; and

(b) Can identify the regulatory area in which each halibut on board was caught by separating halibut from different areas in the hold, tagging halibut, or by other means.

(4) Halibut caught in Regulatory Areas 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D may be possessed on board a vessel when in compliance with paragraph (3) and if halibut from Area 4 are on board the vessel, the vessel can have halibut caught in Regulatory Areas 2C, 3A, and 3B on board if in compliance with paragraph (2).

(1) No person shall fish for halibut using any gear other than hook and line gear.

(2) No person shall possess halibut taken with any gear other than hook and line gear.

(3) No person shall possess halibut while on board a vessel carrying any trawl nets or fishing pots capable of catching halibut, except that in Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, or 4E, halibut heads, skin, entrails, bones or fins for use as bait may be possessed on board a vessel carrying pots capable of catching halibut, provided that a receipt documenting purchase or transfer of these halibut parts is on board the vessel.

(4) All setline or skate marker buoys carried on board or used by any United States vessel used for halibut fishing shall be marked with one of the following:

(a) The vessel's name;

(b) The vessel's state license number; or

(c) The vessel's registration number.

(5) The markings specified in paragraph (4) shall be in characters at least four inches in height and one-half inch in width in a contrasting color visible above the water and shall be maintained in legible condition.

(6) All setline or skate marker buoys carried on board or used by a Canadian vessel used for halibut fishing shall be:

(a) Floating and visible on the surface of the water; and

(b) Legibly marked with the identification plate number of the vessel engaged in commercial fishing from which that setline is being operated.

(7) No person on board a vessel from which setline gear was used to fish for any species of fish anywhere in Area 2A during the 72-hour period immediately before the opening of a halibut fishing period shall catch or possess halibut anywhere in those waters during that halibut fishing period.

(8) No vessel from which setline gear was used to fish for any species of fish anywhere in Area 2A during the 72-hour period immediately before the opening of a halibut fishing period may be used to catch or possess halibut anywhere in those waters during that halibut fishing period.

(9) No person on board a vessel from which setline gear was used to fish for any species of fish anywhere in Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, or 4E during the 72-hour period immediately before the opening of the halibut fishing season shall catch or possess halibut anywhere in those areas until the vessel has removed all of its setline gear from the water and has either:

(a) Made a landing and completely offloaded its entire catch of other fish; or

(b) Submitted to a hold inspection by an authorized officer.

(10) No vessel from which setline gear was used to fish for any species of fish anywhere in Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, or 4E during the 72-hour period immediately before the opening of the halibut fishing season may be used to catch or possess halibut anywhere in those areas until the vessel has removed all of its setline gear from the water and has either:

(a) Made a landing and completely offloaded its entire catch of other fish; or

(b) Submitted to a hold inspection by an authorized officer.

(11) Notwithstanding any other provision in these regulations, a person may retain and possess, but not sell or barter, halibut taken with trawl gear only as authorized by the Prohibited Species Donation regulations of the National Marine Fisheries Service.

(1) Nothing contained in these Regulations prohibits any vessel at any time from retaining and landing a halibut that bears a Commission tag at the time of capture, if the halibut with the tag still attached is reported at the time of landing and made available for examination by a representative of the Commission or by an authorized officer.

(2) After examination and removal of the tag by a representative of the Commission or an authorized officer, the halibut

(a) May be retained for personal use; or

(b) May be sold if it complies with the provisions of section 13.

The unloading and weighing of halibut may be subject to the supervision of authorized officers to assure the fulfillment of the provisions of these Regulations.

(1) Halibut fishing in subarea 2A-1 by members of United States treaty Indian tribes located in the State of Washington shall be regulated under regulations promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service and published in the Federal Register.

(2) Subarea 2A-1 includes all waters off the coast of Washington that are north of 46°53′18″ N. lat. and east of 125°44′00″ W. long., and all inland marine waters of Washington.

(3) Section 13 (size limits), section 14 (careful release of halibut), section 16 (logs), section 17 (receipt and possession of halibut) and section 19 (fishing gear), except paragraphs 7 and 8 of section 19, apply to commercial fishing for halibut in subarea 2A-1 by the treaty Indian tribes.

(4) Commercial fishing for halibut in subarea 2A-1 is permitted with hook and line gear from March 1 through November 15, or until 456,500 lb (207.0 mt) is taken, whichever occurs first.

(5) Ceremonial and subsistence fishing for halibut in subarea 2A-1 is permitted with hook and line gear from January 1 through December 31, and is estimated to take 27,000 pounds (12.2 metric tons).

(1) Customary and traditional fishing for halibut in Regulatory Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E shall be governed pursuant to regulations promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service and published in 50 CFR part 300.

(2) Customary and traditional fishing is authorized from January 1 through December 31.

(3) Section 23 is in effect only when National Marine Fisheries Service publishes subsistence (customary and traditional use) regulations in 50 CFR part 300.

(1) No person shall engage in sport fishing for halibut using gear other than a single line with no more than two hooks attached; or a spear.

(2) In all waters off Alaska:

(a) The sport fishing season is from February 1 to December 31;

(b) The daily bag limit is two halibut of any size per day per person.

(3) In all waters off British Columbia:

(a) The sport fishing season is from February 1 to December 31;

(b) The daily bag limit is two halibut of any size per day per person.

(4) In all waters off California, Oregon, and Washington:

(a) The total allowable catch of halibut shall be limited to 232,499 lb (105.4 mt) in waters off Washington and 262,001 pounds (118.8 metric tons) in waters off California and Oregon;

(b) The sport fishing subareas, subquotas, fishing dates, and daily bag limits are as follows, except as modified under the inseason actions in Section 25. All sport fishing in Area 2A is managed on a “port of landing” basis, whereby any halibut landed into a port counts toward the quota for the area in which that port is located, and the regulations governing the area of landing apply, regardless of the specific area of catch.

(i) In Puget Sound and the U.S. waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, east of a line extending from 48°17′30″ N. lat., 124°23′70″ W. long. north to 48°24′10″ N. lat., 124°23′70″ W. long., there is no quota. This area is managed by setting a season that is projected to result in a catch of 63,278 lb (29 mt).

(A) The fishing season in eastern Puget Sound (east of 123°49′30″ W. long.) is May 8 through July 18 and the fishing season in western Puget Sound (west of 123°49′30″ W. long.) is May 22 through August 1, 5 days a week (Thursday through Monday).

(B) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

(ii) In the area off the north Washington coast, west of the line described in paragraph (4)(b)(i) of this section and north of the Queets River (47°31′42″ N. lat.), the quota for landings into ports in this area is 113,915 lb (52 mt).

(A) The fishing seasons are:

(1) Commencing May 1 and continuing 5 days a week (Tuesday through Saturday) until 82,019 lb (37 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission.

(2) From June 18, and continuing thereafter for 5 days a week (Tuesday through Saturday) until the overall area quota of 113,915 lb (52 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the area is closed by the Commission, or until September 30, whichever occurs first.

(B) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

(C) A portion of this area southwest of Cape Flattery is closed to sport fishing for halibut. The “C-shaped” yelloweye rockfish conservation area that is closed to recreational halibut fishing is defined by the following coordinates in the order listed:

(iii) In the area between the Queets River, WA and Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38′10″ N. lat.), the quota for landings into ports in this area is 48,623 lb (22 mt).

(A) The fishing season commences on May 1 and continues 5 days a week (Sunday through Thursday) in all waters, and commences on May 1 and continues 7 days a week in the area from Queets River south to 47°00′00″ N. lat. and east of 124°40′00″ W. long., until 48,623 lb (22 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or until September 30, whichever occurs first.

(B) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

(iv) In the area between Leadbetter Point, WA and Cape Falcon, OR (45°46′00″ N. lat.), the quota for landings into ports in this area is 11,923 lb (5 mt).

(A) The fishing season commences on May 1, and continues every day through September 30, or until 11,923 lb (5 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the area is closed by the Commission, whichever occurs first.

(B) The daily bag limit is the first halibut taken, per person, of 32 inches (81.3 cm) or greater in length.

(v) In the area off Oregon between Cape Falcon and the Siuslaw River at the Florence north jetty (44°01′08″ N. lat.), the quota for landings into ports in this area is 230,639 lb (104.6 mt).

(A) The fishing seasons are:

(1) The first season commences May 1 and continues every day through October 31, in the area inside the 30-fathom (55 m) curve nearest to the coastline as plotted on National Ocean Service charts numbered 18520, 18580, and 18600, or until the combined subquotas of the north central and south central inside 30-fathom fisheries (19,797 lb (9.0 mt)) or any inseason revised subquota is estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, whichever is earlier.

(2) The second season is open on May 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17. The projected catch for this season is 156,835 lb (71.1 mt). If sufficient unharvested catch remains for additional fishing days, the season will reopen. Dependent on the amount of unharvested catch available, the potential season reopening dates will be: June 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, and 28. If a decision is made inseason by NMFS to allow fishing on any of these reopening dates, notice of the opening will be announced on the NMFS hotline (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825. No halibut fishing will be allowed on the reopening dates unless the date is announced on the NMFS hotline.

(3) If sufficient unharvested catch remains, the third season will open on August 1, 2, 8, and 9 or until the combined quotas for the all-depth fisheries in the subareas described in paragraphs (v) and (vi) of this section totaling 229,103 lb (103.9 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the area is closed by the Commission, whichever is earlier. An announcement will be made on the NMFS hotline in mid-July as to whether the fishery will be open on August 1, 2, 8, and 9. No halibut fishing will be allowed on these dates unless the dates are announced on the NMFS hotline. If the harvest during this opening does not achieve the 229,103 lb (103.9 mt) quota, the season will reopen. Dependent on the amount of unharvested catch available, the potential season reopening dates will be: August 22 and 23, September 5, 6, 19, and 20, October 17 and 18. If a decision is made inseason to allow fishing on one or more of these reopening dates, notice of the reopening date will be announced on the NMFS hotline (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825. No halibut fishing will be allowed on the reopening dates unless the date is announced on the NMFS hotline.

(B) The daily bag limit is the first halibut taken, per person, of 32 inches (81.3 cm) or greater in length.

(vi) In the area off Oregon between the Siuslaw River at the Florence north jetty and Humbug Mountain, Oregon (42°40′30″ N. lat.), the quota for landings into ports in this area is 18,261 lb (8.3 mt).

(A) The fishing seasons are:

(1) The first season commences May 1 and continues every day through October 31, in the area inside the 30-fathom (55-m) curve nearest to the coastline as plotted on National Ocean Service charts numbered 18520, 18580, and 18600, or until the combined subquotas of the north central and south central inside 30-fathom fisheries (19,797 lb (9.0 mt)) or any inseason revised subquota is estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, whichever is earlier.

(2) The second season is open on May 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17. The projected catch for this season is 14,609 lb (6.6 mt). If sufficient unharvested catch remains for additional fishing days, the season will reopen. Dependent on the amount of unharvested catch available, the potential season reopening dates will be: June 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, and 28. If a decision is made inseason by NMFS to allow fishing on any of these reopening dates, notice of the opening will be announced on the NMFS hotline (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825. No halibut fishing will be allowed on the reopening dates unless the date is announced on the NMFS hotline.

(3) If sufficient unharvested catch remains, the third season will open on August 1, 2, 8, and 9 or until the combined quotas for the all-depth fisheries in the subareas described in paragraphs (v) and (vi) of this section totaling 229,103 lb (103.9 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the area is closed by the Commission, whichever is earlier. An announcement will be made on the NMFS hotline in mid-July as to whether the fishery will be open on August 1, 2, 8, and 9. No halibut fishing will be allowed on these dates unless the dates are announced on the NMFS hotline. If the harvest during this opening does not achieve the 229,103 lb (103.9 mt) quota, the season will reopen. Dependent on the amount of unharvested catch available, the potential season reopening dates will be: August 22 and 23, September 5, 6, 19, and 20, October 17 and 18. If a decision is made inseason to allow fishing on one or more of these reopening dates, notice of the reopening date will be announced on the NMFS hotline (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825. No halibut fishing will be allowed on the reopening dates unless the date is announced on the NMFS hotline.

(B) The daily bag limit is the first halibut taken, per person, of 32 inches (81.3 cm) or greater in length.

(vii) In the area south of Humbug Mountain, Oregon (42°40′30″ N. lat.) and off the California coast, there is no quota. This area is managed on a season that is projected to result in a catch of less than 7,860 lb (3.6 mt).

(A) The fishing season will commence on May 1 and continue every day through September 30.

(B) The daily bag limit is the first halibut taken, per person, of 32 inches (81.3 cm) or greater in length.

(c) The Commission shall determine and announce closing dates to the public for any area in which the subquotas in this Section are estimated to have been taken.

(d) When the Commission has determined that a subquota under paragraph (4)(b) of this section is estimated to have been taken, and has announced a date on which the season will close, no person shall sport fish for halibut in that area after that date for the rest of the year, unless a reopening of that area for sport halibut fishing is scheduled in accordance with the Catch Sharing Plan for Area 2A, or announced by the Commission.

(5) Any minimum overall size limit promulgated under IPHC or NMFS regulations shall be measured in a straight line passing over the pectoral fin from the tip of the lower jaw with the mouth closed, to the extreme end of the middle of the tail.

(6) No person shall fillet, mutilate, or otherwise disfigure a halibut in any manner that prevents the determination of minimum size or the number of fish caught, possessed, or landed.

(7) The possession limit for halibut in the waters off the coast of Alaska is two daily bag limits.

(8) The possession limit for halibut in the waters off the coast of British Columbia is three halibut.

(9) The possession limit for halibut in the waters off Washington, Oregon, and California is the same as the daily bag limit.

(10) The possession limit for halibut on land in Area 2A is two daily bag limits.

(11) Any halibut brought aboard a vessel and not immediately returned to the sea with a minimum of injury will be included in the daily bag limit of the person catching the halibut.

(12) No person shall be in possession of halibut on a vessel while fishing in a closed area.

(13) No halibut caught by sport fishing shall be offered for sale, sold, traded, or bartered.

(14) No halibut caught in sport fishing shall be possessed on board a vessel when other fish or shellfish aboard the said vessel are destined for commercial use, sale, trade, or barter.

(15) The operator of a charter vessel shall be liable for any violations of these regulations committed by a passenger aboard said vessel.

(1) The Regional Administrator, NMFS Northwest Region, after consultation with the Chairman of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the Commission Executive Director, and the Fisheries Director(s) of the affected state(s), or their designees, is authorized to modify regulations during the season after making the following determinations.

(a) The action is necessary to allow allocation objectives to be met.

(b) The action will not result in exceeding the catch limit for the area.

(c) If any of the sport fishery subareas north of Cape Falcon, OR are not projected to utilize their respective quotas by September 30, NMFS may take inseason action to transfer any projected unused quota to another Washington sport subarea.

(d) If any of the sport fishery subareas south of Leadbetter Point, WA are not projected to utilize their respective quotas by their season ending dates, NMFS may take inseason action to transfer any projected unused quota to another Oregon sport subarea.

(2) Flexible inseason management provisions include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) Modification of sport fishing periods;

(b) Modification of sport fishing bag limits;

(c) Modification of sport fishing size limits;

(d) Modification of sport fishing days per calendar week; and

(e) Modification of subarea quotas north of Cape Falcon, OR.

(3) Notice procedures.

(a) Actions taken under this section will be published in the Federal Register.

(b) Actual notice of inseason management actions will be provided by a telephone hotline administered by the Northwest Region, NMFS, at 206-526-6667 or 800-662-9825 (May through September) and by U.S. Coast Guard broadcasts. These broadcasts are announced on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz at frequent intervals. The announcements designate the channel or frequency over which the notice to mariners will be immediately broadcast. Since provisions of these regulations may be altered by inseason actions, sport fishers should monitor either the telephone hotline or U.S. Coast Guard broadcasts for current information for the area in which they are fishing.

(4) Effective dates.

(a) Any action issued under this section is effective on the date specified in the publication or at the time that the action is filed for public inspection with the Office of the Federal Register, whichever is later.

(b) If time allows, NMFS will invite public comment prior to the effective date of any inseason action filed with the Federal Register. If the Regional Administrator determines, for good cause, that an inseason action must be filed without affording a prior opportunity for public comment, public comments will be received for a period of 15 days after publication of the action in the Federal Register.

(c) Any inseason action issued under this section will remain in effect until the stated expiration date or until rescinded, modified, or superseded. However, no inseason action has any effect beyond the end of the calendar year in which it is issued.

(5) Availability of data. The Regional Administrator will compile, in aggregate form, all data and other information relevant to the action being taken and will make them available for public review during normal office hours at the Northwest Regional Office, NMFS, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA.

(1) A vessel that fishes in Area 2A may participate in only one of the following three fisheries in Area 2A:

(a) The sport fishery under Section 24;

(b) The commercial directed fishery for halibut during the fishing period(s) established in Section 8 and/or the incidental retention of halibut during the primary sablefish fishery described at 50 CFR 660.323(a)(2); or

(c) The incidental catch fishery during the salmon troll fishery as authorized in Section 8.

(2) No person shall fish for halibut in the sport fishery in Area 2A under Section 24 from a vessel that has been used during the same calendar year for commercial halibut fishing in Area 2A or that has been issued a permit for the same calendar year for the commercial halibut fishery in Area 2A.

(3) No person shall fish for halibut in the directed halibut fishery during the fishing periods established in Section 8 and/or retain halibut incidentally taken in the primary sablefish fishery in Area 2A from a vessel that has been used during the same calendar year for the incidental catch fishery during the salmon troll fishery as authorized in Section 8.

(4) No person shall fish for halibut in the directed commercial halibut fishery and/or retain halibut incidentally taken in the primary sablefish fishery in Area 2A from a vessel that, during the same calendar year, has been used in the sport halibut fishery in Area 2A or that is licensed for the sport charter halibut fishery in Area 2A.

(5) No person shall retain halibut in the salmon troll fishery in Area 2A as authorized under Section 8 taken on a vessel that, during the same calendar year, has been used in the sport halibut fishery in Area 2A, or that is licensed for the sport charter halibut fishery in Area 2A.

(6) No person shall retain halibut in the salmon troll fishery in Area 2A as authorized under Section 8 taken on a vessel that, during the same calendar year, has been used in the directed commercial fishery during the fishing periods established in Section 8 and/or retain halibut incidentally taken in the primary sablefish fishery for Area 2A or that is licensed to participate in these commercial fisheries during the fishing periods established in Section 8 in Area 2A.

Non-treaty commercial vessels operating in the directed commercial fishery for halibut in Area 2A are required to fish outside of a closed area, known as the Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA), that extends along the coast from the U.S./Canada border south to 40°10′ N. lat. The closed area follows approximate depth contours. Coordinates for the specific boundaries that approximate the depth contours are as follows:

(1) Between the U.S./Canada border and 46°16' N. lat., the eastern boundary of the RCA extends to the shoreline.

(2) Between 46°16′ N. lat. and 40°10′ N. lat., the RCA is defined along an eastern, inshore boundary approximating 27 fm (49 m). The 27 fm depth contour used between 46°16′ N. lat. and 40°10′ N. lat. as an eastern boundary for the RCA is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:

(3) Between the U.S./Canada border and 40°10′ N. lat., the RCA is defined along a western, offshore boundary approximating 100 fm (183 m). The 100 fm depth contour used north of 40°10′ N. lat. as a western boundary for the RCA is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated:

These regulations shall supersede all previous regulations of the Commission, and these regulations shall be effective each succeeding year until superseded.

Because approval by the Secretary of State of the IPHC regulations is a foreign affairs function, the notice-and-comment and delay-in-effective date requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this notice of the effectiveness and content of the IPHC regulations, 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Because prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be provided for these portions of this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable.

An EA/RIR was prepared on the proposed changes to the CSP. NMFS has determined that the proposed changes to the CSP and the management measures implementing the CSP contained in these regulations will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and the preparation of an environmental impact statement on the final action is not required by 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act or its implementing regulations.

At the proposed rule stage, the Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No comments were received on this certification or on the economic impacts of the rule. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

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

The AA finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide a 30-day delay in effectiveness (5 U.S.C. 553(d)) because it is contrary to the public interest to delay the effectiveness date of this rule for 30 days. This rule must be made effective for the opening of the 2003 Pacific halibut fishing season on March 1, 2003. Delaying the opening of the fishing season is contrary to the public interest because it would cause unnecessary economic burden on fishery participants due to loss of fishing opportunity. Because the annual quotas and management measures are ultimately determined by an international commission, the IPHC, the AA is constrained and cannot respond by publishing the final rule until after the IPHC has adopted the annual quotas and management measures for the year. NMFS's implementation of changes to the CSP could not begin until after January 24, 2003, when the IPHC adopted annual quotas and management measures for 2003. There was not enough time between when the IPHC adopted the annual quotas and management measures for 2003 and the scheduled March 1, 2003, start of the fishing season to publish the regulations in the Federal Register with enough time for a 30-day delay in effectiveness. In addition, good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for the minor technical amendment to 50 CFR 300.63 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) because this amendment only clarifies the regulatory language and does not include a substantive change to the regulations.

The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cero, cobia, little tunny, dolphin, and, in the Gulf of Mexico only, bluefish) is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

Based on the Councils' recommended total allowable catch and the allocation ratios in the FMP, on April 30, 2001 (66 FR 17368, March 30, 2001) NMFS implemented a commercial quota of 2.25 million lb (1.02 million kg) for the eastern zone (Florida) of the Gulf migratory group of king mackerel. That quota is further divided into separate quotas for the Florida east coast subzone and the northern and southern Florida west coast subzones. On April 27, 2000, NMFS implemented the final rule (65 FR 16336, March 28, 2000) that divided the Florida west coast subzone of the eastern zone into northern and southern subzones, and established their separate quotas. The quota implemented for the southern Florida west coast subzone is 1,040,625 lb (472,020 kg). That quota is further divided into two equal quotas of 520,312 lb (236,010 kg) for vessels in each of two groups fishing with hook-and-line gear and run-around gillnets (50 CFR 622.42(c)(1)(i)(A)(2)(i)).

In accordance with 50 CFR 622.44(a)(2)(ii)(B)(2), from the date that 75 percent of the southern Florida west coast subzone's quota has been harvested until a closure of the subzone's fishery has been effected or the fishing year ends, king mackerel in or from the EEZ may be possessed on board or landed from a permitted vessel in amounts not exceeding 500 lb (227 kg) per day.

NMFS has determined that 75 percent of the quota for Gulf group king mackerel for vessels using hook-and-line gear in the southern Florida west coast subzone will be reached on March 4, 2003. Accordingly, a 500-lb (227-kg) trip limit applies to vessels in the commercial hook-and-line fishery for king mackerel in or from the EEZ in the southern Florida west coast subzone effective 12:01 a.m., local time, March 5, 2003. The 500-lb (227-kg) trip limit will remain in effect until the fishery closes or until the end of the current fishing year (June 30, 2003), whichever occurs first.

The Florida west coast subzone is that part of the eastern zone south and west of 25°20.4' N. lat. (a line directly east from the Miami-Dade County, FL boundary). The Florida west coast subzone is further divided into northern and southern subzones. The southern subzone is that part of the Florida west coast subzone that, from November 1 through March 31, extends south and west from 25°20.4' N. lat. to 26°19.8' N. lat.(a line directly west from the Lee/Collier County, FL, boundary), i.e., the area off Collier and Monroe Counties. From April 1 through October 31, the southern subzone is that part of the Florida west coast subzone that is between 26°19.8' N. lat. and 25°48' N. lat.(a line directly west from the Monroe/Collier County, FL boundary), i.e., the area off Collier County.

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 reduce the trip limit constitutes good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Similarly, there is a need to implement these measures in a timely fashion to prevent an overrun of the commercial quota of Gulf group king mackerel, given the capacity of the fishing fleet to harvest the quota quickly. Any delay in implementing this action would be impractical and contradictory to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and the public interest. NMFS finds for good cause that the implementation of this action cannot be delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effective date is waived.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.44(a)(2)(iii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the domestic groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) under the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.

In October 2002, the Council adopted a proposed regulatory amendment to implement a seasonal closure to directed fishing for groundfish by vessels using trawl, pot, or hook-and-line gear in a portion of the waters off Cape Sarichef in the Bering Sea subarea. The purpose of this action is to support a NMFS research project investigating the effect of commercial fishing on Pacific cod abundance in localized areas. This study is an integral part of a NMFS comprehensive research program designed to evaluate effects of fishing on the foraging behavior of Steller sea lions. The western distinct population segment (DPS) of Steller sea lions is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act and is likely to be adversely affected by the Atka mackerel, pollock, and Pacific cod fisheries. Steller sea lion protection measures are currently implemented to ensure that the pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod fisheries are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of or adversely modify or destroy critical habitat for the western DPS of Steller sea lions (68 FR 204, January 2, 2003).

Currently, the information available to evaluate alternative methods for protecting Steller sea lions and their critical habitat is very limited. Improved information could enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of existing protection measures. NMFS and other management agencies and organizations have undertaken numerous research initiatives to learn more about Steller sea lions and interactions with their environment, including fishery related effects potentially associated with the ongoing decline of the western DPS of Steller sea lions.

The goal of the study is to evaluate the effects of commercial trawl fishing on Pacific cod and to test a localized depletion hypothesis. This hypothesis states that the commercial fisheries by depleting the local Steller sea lion prey may adversely affect the critical habitat of Steller sea lions. This study is designed as a comparison between sites within the area subject to intensive seasonal trawling and control sites within a nearby zone where trawling is prohibited and requires that experimental pot gear be deployed before and after the period of intense trawl fishing for Pacific cod. NMFS will deploy pot fishing gear in the restriction area during March 15 through March 31, a time period that historically includes a less intense rate of fishing during the winter trawl fishery for Pacific cod. This time period would reduce the risk of trawl gear disturbing the experimental pot gear. Pot loss or displacement would lead to economic losses to NMFS and would reduce the quality of the information gathered in the study. The commercial pot and hook-and-line gear closures are necessary to ensure that observed fishing effects are due to trawl fishing and not to additional fishing effort by hook-and-line and pot vessels moving into the area due to the trawl closure. A concern also exists that pot and hook-and-line vessels would enter areas historically fished by trawl gear. A complete description of the study is available in the EA/RIR/IRFA for this action (see ADDRESSES).

This final rule imposes a seasonal ban on all directed groundfish fishing by vessels using trawl, pot, or hook-and-line gear in waters located outside the existing 10-nm no-trawl area around Cape Sarichef and inside the boundary of the following coordinates joined in order by straight lines:

54°30' N lat., 165°14' W long.;

54°35' N lat., 165°26' W long.;

54°48' N lat., 165°04' W long.;

54°44' N lat., 164°56' W long.; and,

54°30' N lat., 165°14' W long.

Cape Sarichef is located at coordinates 164°56.8' W long. and 54°34.30' N lat. See Figure 21 in the regulatory language below.

This fishing restriction will be in effect annually during the period of March 15 through March 31 in the years 2003 through 2006. The Council will review the experimental results after March 2003 to decide whether any changes to the rule are needed in 2004 through 2006.

The proposed rule for this action was published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2003 (68 FR 3225). No comments were received during the 15-day public review and comment period, and no changes are made from the proposed rule in the final rule.

NMFS has determined that the seasonal adjustments of fishery closure this rule implements is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

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

Nothing in this action results in any changes in reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

Species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are present in the action area. According to an informal consultation completed on November 25, 2002, no listed species are likely to be adversely affected by this action.

The analysis for this action did not reveal any existing Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

An IRFA was prepared prior to publication of the proposed rule. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2003 (68 FR 3225), and included a summary of the IRFA. The public comment period ended on February 7, 2003. No comments were received on the IRFA. The entities that will be regulated by this action are the catcher vessels and catcher processors that would have fished in the treatment area in the second half of March, and that will not be able to do so from 2003 through 2006. These include vessels using trawl, hook-and-line, and pot gear. The numbers of small and large entities active in Alaskan statistical area 655430 in the second half of March for each year from 1998 through 2001 ranged between 21 in 2000 and 57 in 1998. This regulation does not impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on the regulated small entities.

NMFS considered three alternatives to the proposed action. The status quo would not have accomplished the objectives of this action. A second alternative would have restricted trawling activities during the same period in an “arc” shaped treatment area that overlaps the treatment area in the preferred alternative. However, because of some differences in shape, the area in this alternative restricts trawling activity more than is necessary to increase the experimental results. Closing the area to trawling, but allowing an influx of hook-and-line and pot gear, may confound the experimental results and may lead to gear conflicts when the treatment area is reopened to trawling in early April. These negative impacts are mitigated by the preferred alternative which adjusts the area of the arc to avoid certain areas of particular concern to fishermen and prevents new entry by other gear users. A third alternative would have used the same treatment area as the second alternative, but would have restricted hook-and-line and pot activity as well as trawl activity. However, because of some differences in shape, the area in this alternative restricts trawling activity more than is necessary to increase the experimental results. This negative impact is mitigated by the preferred alternative which adjusts the area of the arc to avoid areas of particular concern to fishermen.

This action must be effective by March 15, 2003, to facilitate NMFS' experiments to evaluate the effects of commercial trawl fishing on Pacific cod and to help determine whether commercial fisheries adversely affect the critical habitat of Steller sea lions by depleting the local Steller sea lion prey. The 16-day closure is necessary to ensure the quality of the information gathered, to prevent losses to NMFS from gear interactions, and to minimize disruption to trawl fishermen who have historically used this area. NMFS selected the time period from March 15 - 31 for this experiment because it is historically a period of reduced fishing activity between the two periods of intense trawling activity. This time period also is expected to minimize gear conflicts. NMFS worked with the affected industry at the October 2002 Council meeting to tailor the closed area to minimize disruptions to fishing activity while accomplishing the goals of the experiment. Delaying this action for 30 days would unnecessarily jeopardize the experiment by preventing the collection of data during this 16-day trawling period. Accordingly, the need to publish this measure in a timely manner constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.

Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

3. Figure 21 to part 679 is added to read as follows: