The Office of Management and Budget has waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866 for this action.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule would not preempt any state or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.

The Cotton Research and Promotion Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 12 of the Act, any person subject to an order may file with the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the plan, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and requesting a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such person is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the District Court of the United States in any district in which the person is an inhabitant, or has his principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling, provided a complaint is filed within 20 days from the date of the entry of ruling.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities and has determined that its implementation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.

There are an estimated 10,000 importers who are presently subject to rules and regulations issued pursuant to the Cotton Research and Promotion Order. This rule will affect importers of cotton and cotton-containing products. The majority of these importers are small businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration. This rule will raise the assessments paid by the importers under the Cotton Research and Promotion Order. Even though the assessment would be raised, the increase is small and will not significantly affect small businesses. The current assessment on imported cotton is $0.009833 per kilogram of imported cotton. The new assessment is $0.009965, an increase of $0.000132 or a 1.34 percent increase. From January through December 2000 approximately $20 million was collected at the $0.009833 per kilogram rate. Should the volume of cotton products imported into the U.S. remain at the same level in 2001, one could expect the increased assessment to generate approximately $20.2 million or a 1.34 percent increase from 2000.

In compliance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations (5 CFR part 1320) which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the information collection requirements contained in the regulation to be amended have been previously approved by OMB and were assigned control number 0581-0093.

The Cotton Research and Promotion Act Amendments of 1990 enacted by Congress under Subtitle G of Title XIX of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 on November 28, 1990, contained two provisions that authorized changes in the funding procedures for the Cotton Research and Promotion Program.

These provisions are: (1) The assessment of imported cotton and cotton products; and (2) termination of the right of cotton producers to demand a refund of assessments.

An amended Cotton Research and Promotion Order was approved by producers and importers voting in a referendum held July 17-26, 1991, and the amended Order was published in the Federal Register on December 10, 1991, (56 FR 64470). A proposed rule implementing the amended Order was published in the Federal Register on December 17, 1991, (56 FR 65450). Implementing rules were published on July 1 and 2, 1992, (57 FR 29181) and (57 FR 29431), respectively.

This rule will increase the value assigned to imported cotton in the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations (7 CFR 1205.510(b)(2)). This value is used to calculate supplemental assessments on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products. Supplemental assessments are the second part of a two-part assessment. The first part of the assessment is levied on the weight of cotton produced or imported at a rate of $1 per bale of cotton which is equivalent to 500 pounds or $1 per 226.8 kilograms of cotton.

Supplemental assessments are levied at a rate of five-tenths of one percent of the value of domestically produced cotton, imported cotton, and the cotton content of imported products. The agency has adopted the practice of assigning the calendar year weighted average price received by U.S. farmers for Upland cotton to represent the value of imported cotton. This is done so that the assessment on domestically produced cotton and the assessment on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products remain similar. The source for the average price statistic is “Agricultural Prices”, a publication of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) of the Department of Agriculture. Use of the weighted average price figure in the calculation of supplemental assessments on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products yields an assessment that approximates assessments paid on domestically produced cotton in the prior calendar year.

The current value of imported cotton as published in the Federal Register (65 FR 25236) on May 1, 2000, for the purpose of calculating supplemental assessments on imported cotton is $1.0847 per kilogram. This number was calculated using the annual weighted average price received by farmers for Upland cotton during the calendar year 1999 which was $0.492 per pound and multiplying by the conversion factor 2.2046. Using the Average Weighted Price Received by U.S. farmers for Upland cotton for the calendar year 2000, which is $0.504 per pound, the new value of imported cotton is $1.1111 per kilogram. The amended value is $.0264 per kilogram more than the previous value.

An example of the complete assessment formula and how the various figures are obtained is as follows:

One bale is equal to 500 pounds.

One kilogram equals 2.2046 pounds.

One pound equals 0.453597 kilograms.

A 500 pound bale equals 226.8 kg. (500 x .453597).

$1 per bale assessment equals $0.002000 per pound (1/500) or $0.004409 per kg. (1/226.8).

The 2000 calendar year weighted average price received by producers for Upland cotton is $0.504 per pound or $1.1111 per kg. (0.504 × 2.2046) = 1.1111.

Five tenths of one percent of the average price in kg. equals $0.005556 per kg. (1.1111 × .005).

The total assessment per kilogram of raw cotton is obtained by adding the $1 per bale equivalent assessment of $0.004409 per kg. and the supplemental assessment $0.005556 per kg. which equals $0.009965 per kg.

The current assessment on imported cotton is $0.009833 per kilogram of imported cotton. The amended assessment is $0.009965, an increase of $0.000132 per kilogram. This increase reflects the increase in the Average Weighted Price of Upland Cotton Received by U.S. Farmers during the period January through December 2000.

Since the value of cotton is the basis of the supplemental assessment calculation and the figures shown in the right hand column of the Import Assessment Table 1205.510(b)(3) are a result of such a calculation, the figures in this table have been revised. These figures indicate the total assessment per kilogram due for each Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number subject to assessment.

One HTS number subject to assessment pursuant to this regulation and found in the assessment table has been changed. In order to maintain consistency between HTS and the assessment table, the changes to this one number have been incorporated into the assessment table. The last two digits of this number were changed to provide for statistical reporting purposes and involve no physical change to the products they represent. The assessment rate for the one number has been applied to each of the new replacement numbers in the assessment table. The following table represents the changes:

A proposed rule with a request for comments was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 42464) on August 13, 2001. No comments were received during the period (August 13 through September 12, 2001).

On August 30, 2001 (66 FR 45749), the NRC published in the Federal Register a direct final rule amending its regulations in 10 CFR part 72 by revising the NAC-MPC cask system listing within the “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks” to include Amendment No. 1 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1025. Amendment No. 1 modifies the present cask system design to permit a licensee to use an alternate fuel basket design with enlarged fuel tubes in corner locations; increase the operational time limits provided in the Technical Specifications for canister loading, closure, and transfer when canister heat loads are lower than design basis heat loads; revise the canister surface contamination limits in Technical Specifications to maintain worker dose as low as is reasonably achievable; and revise some drawings to reflect changes identified during cask and component fabrication under a general license. In the direct final rule, NRC stated that if no significant adverse comments were received, the direct final rule would become final on the date noted above. The NRC did not receive any comments that warranted withdrawal of the direct final rule. Therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled.

These regulations implement the requirements of the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-508, 80 Stat. 308) as amended by the Debt Collection Act of 1982 and the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321). These regulations are issued in conformity with the Federal Claims Collection Standards (31 CFR Ch. IX). Under these regulations, the Commission may collect debts owed to it through various methods, including administrative offset, tax refund offset, or salary offset.

Subpart A of the regulation addresses the collection of debts in general and incorporates the debt collection procedures of the Federal Claims Collection Standards (FCCS) at 31 CFR parts 900 to 904. It provides, as mandated by law, that the Commission will transfer debts that are delinquent for over 180 days to Treasury for collection or other appropriate action. It also provides that debts that are delinquent for fewer than 180 days may be referred to Treasury.

Subpart B sets forth the due process procedures the Commission will use to collect by administrative and tax refund offset pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3716 and 3720A, and 31 CFR 285.2.

Subpart C sets forth the due process procedures that the Commission will use for debts that are to be collected by salary offset. This method of debt collection is used when a Federal employee is indebted to the Federal Government. The procedures for salary offset are governed by: 5 U.S.C. 5514; 31 U.S.C. 3716; Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations at 5 CFR part 550, subpart K; and 31 CFR 285.7. Agencies are required to promulgate their own salary offset regulations, 5 U.S.C. 5514(b)(1), that must conform to OPM regulations and be approved by OPM before they become effective. 5 CFR 550.1105(a)(1). The Commission's salary offset provisions have been reviewed and approved by OPM.

Subpart D provides for administrative wage garnishment pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3720D and 25 CFR 285.11.

Because these interim rules are merely procedural in nature and implement already enacted laws on debt collection, the Commission is providing only a 30-day comment period.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires that a regulation that has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, small business, or small organizations include an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing the regulation's impact on small entities. Such an analysis is not necessary, however, if the agency certifies that the regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

The Commission has considered the impact of this interim regulation under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The debts owed to the Commission are typically those of tribes or contractors. While these are small entities, the economic impact on them is not significant because the regulations do not create a new duty to pay debts, but only provide a mechanism for collecting debts that are already due.

The Commission certifies that these regulations do not require additional reporting under the criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Commission has determined that this regulation pertains to agency practice and procedure and is interpretative in nature. The procedures contained in the interim regulation for administrative offset, salary offset, and tax refund offset are mandated by law and by regulations promulgated jointly by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice, and by the IRS. Therefore, the interim regulation is not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the requirements of the APA for a notice and comment period and for a delayed effective date. 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c). Nonetheless, the Commission requests comments from the public and will take all comments into consideration before promulgating the final regulation.

Assessment statements in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) are not required for regulations that incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law. These regulations implement specific statutory requirements. In addition, they do not include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by the private sector or by State, local, and tribal governments of, in the aggregate, $100 million or more in any one year. A statement under 2 U.S.C. 1532 is therefore not required.

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), Agencies must submit rules to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States before publication of this interim regulation in the Federal Register . This interim regulation is not a major rule as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(c) and is not a major rule as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Section 103(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) provides that, generally, interest on any State or local bond is not included in gross income. However, this exclusion does not apply to any private activity bond that is not a qualified bond.

Under section 141, a bond is a private activity bond if it is issued as part of an issue that meets either the private business use test and the private security or payment test, or the private loan financing test.

The private business use test is met if more than 10 percent of the proceeds of an issue are to be used for any private business use. Section 141(b)(6)(A) defines the term private business use as use (directly or indirectly) in a trade or business carried on by any person other than a governmental unit. For this purpose, use as a member of the general public is not taken into account.

Section 1.141-3 provides guidance regarding the private business use test. Generally, the private business use test is met only if a nongovernmental person has special legal entitlements to use the financed property under an arrangement with the issuer. The existing regulations provide the following three special rules for use by nongovernmental persons under short-term arrangements:

1. Section 1.141-3(c)(3) states that an arrangement is not treated as general public use if the term of the use under the arrangement, including all renewal options, is greater than 180 days.

2. Section 1.141-3(d)(3)(i) provides that certain arrangements are not private business use if the term of the use under the arrangement, including all renewal options, is not longer than 90 days.

3. Section 1.141-3(d)(3)(ii) provides that certain arrangements are not private business use if the term of the use under the arrangement, including all renewal options, is not longer than 30 days.

Section 1.141-3(f) contains examples that illustrate these special rules.

Comments have been received requesting that the regulations provide for additional flexibility in structuring short-term arrangements with nongovernmental persons. For example, commentators have requested that the 180-day, 90-day, and 30-day rules of § 1.141-3 be changed to accommodate six-month, three-month, and one-month arrangements, respectively (i.e., arrangements with terms of use based on months that exceed 30 days). This Treasury decision adopts this suggested modification by amending § 1.141-3(c)(3), (d)(3) and (f) to change all references to 180 days, 90 days, and 30 days to 200 days, 100 days, and 50 days, respectively.

The changes made by this Treasury decision apply to any bond sold on or after November 20, 2001. The changes made by this Treasury decision may be applied by issuers to any bond outstanding on November 20, 2001 to which § 1.141-3 applies.

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) and (d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and, because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this final regulation was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

The principal authors of these final regulations are Bruce M. Serchuk and Michael P. Brewer, Office of Chief Counsel (TE/GE), IRS. However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.

Par. 3. Section 1.141-15 is amended as follows:

1. Paragraph (b) is redesignated (b)(1).

2. A paragraph heading for newly designated paragraph (b)(1) is added.

3. Paragraph (b)(2) is added.

The additions read as follows:

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was not published for this regulation. Good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM and for making this regulation effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This closure is not expected to have any impact on navigation because there have been no requests to open this bridge during the effective date of this closure for the past five years. Vessel traffic that uses this bridge is comprised of recreational vessels that are normally in storage during the winter months. Accordingly, an NPRM was considered unnecessary and any delay in the rule's effective date is considered contrary to the public interest because this work is necessary maintenance that must be performed without undue delay to assure safe, reliable operation of the bridge.

The Granite Avenue Bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 6 feet at mean high water and 16 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operating regulations listed at 33 CFR 117.611 require the bridge to open on signal, from May 1 through October 31, 6 a.m. to 12 midnight. At all other times the bridge shall open on signal if at least a one-hour notice is given.

The bridge owner, Massachusetts Highway Department, requested a temporary rule change to facilitate structural maintenance and replacement of the bridge roadway deck at the bridge.

This temporary rule will allow the bridge to remain in the closed position from November 19, 2001 through February 22, 2002. The Coast Guard believes this rulemaking is reasonable because navigation should not be impacted since there have been no requests to open the Granite Avenue Bridge November through February during the past five years.

This temporary final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; Feb. 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this temporary final rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge has not received any requests to open during the requested closure period for the past five years.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge has not received any requests to open during the requested closure period for the past five years.

This temporary final rule does not provide for a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Coast Guard has analyzed this temporary final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that this temporary final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this temporary final rule and concluded that, under Section 2.B.2., Figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this temporary final rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation because promulgation of changes to drawbridge regulations have been found not to have a significant effect on the environment. A written “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is not required for this temporary final rule.

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

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

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was not published for this regulation. Due to the catastrophic nature and extent of damage realized from terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001 this rulemaking is urgently necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States against future potential terrorist strikes against civilian targets. National security and intelligence officials warn that future terrorist attacks against civilian targets are possible. Due to the flammable nature of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) and the potential impact the explosion of an LPG vessel would have on Portsmouth Harbor and the surrounding area, the delay inherent in the NPRM process is contrary to public interest insofar as it would render LPG vessels in the Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine zone vulnerable to subversive activity, sabotage or attack. The delay inherent in the NPRM process is also unnecessary since this rulemaking is needed to protect the safety of the vessels, persons and others in the maritime community from the hazards associated with the transit and limited maneuverability of a large tank vessel.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The measures contemplated by the rule are intended to prevent possible terrorist attacks against LPG vessels, and to protect other vessels, waterfront facilities, the public and the Portsmouth Harbor and surrounding areas on the Piscataqua River from potential sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents or other causes of a similar nature. In addition, the zones protect persons, vessels and others in the maritime community from the hazards associated with the transit and limited maneuverability of a large tank vessel. Immediate action is required to accomplish these objectives. Any delay in the effective date of this rule is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. These zones should have minimal impact on the users of the Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine zone, Bigelow Bight, Portsmouth Harbor and the Piscataqua River, as LPG vessel transits are infrequent. Vessels have ample water to transit around the zones while vessels are transiting in Bigelow Bight, Portsmouth Harbor and the Piscataqua River. The zones established while the vessel is transiting are moving safety and security zones, allowing vessels to transit ahead, behind, or after passage of an LPG vessel. Public notifications will be made prior to an LPG transit via local notice to mariners and marine information broadcasts.

On September 11, 2001, two commercial aircraft were hijacked from Logan Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, and flown into the World Trade Center in New York, New York, inflicting catastrophic human casualties and property damage. A similar attack was conducted on the Pentagon on the same day. National security and intelligence officials warn that future terrorist attacks are likely. Due to these heightened security concerns, safety and security zones are prudent for LPG tank vessels, which may be likely targets of terrorist attacks due to the flammable nature of LPG and the serious impact on the Port of Portsmouth, New Hampshire and surrounding areas that may be incurred if an LPG vessel was subjected to a terrorist attack.

This rulemaking establishes safety and security zones in a radius around LPG vessels while the vessels are moored at the SEA-3, Inc. LPG receiving facility on the Piscataqua River in Newington, New Hampshire. It also creates a moving safety and security zone any time an LPG vessel is within Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine zone, as defined in 33 CFR 3.05-15, in the internal waters of the United States and the navigable waters of the United States. Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, navigable waters of the United States includes all waters of the territorial sea of the United States as described in Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 of December 27, 1988. This Presidential Proclamation declared that the territorial sea of the United States extends to 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law. This regulation establishes safety and security zones with identical boundaries covering the following areas of the Portland, Maine Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port, Zone: (a) All waters of the Piscataqua River within a 500-yard radius of any Liquefied Petroleum Gas vessel while it is moored at the SEA 3, Inc. LPG receiving facility on the Piscataqua River, Newington, New Hampshire; and (b) except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, in the waters of the Portland, Maine Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port, Zone, all waters one mile ahead, one half mile astern, and 1000-yards on either side of any Liquefied Petroleum Gas vessel.

This rulemaking also temporarily suspends a safety zone for transits of tank vessels carrying Liquefied Petroleum Gas in Portsmouth Harbor, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Title 33 CFR 165.103 currently provides for safety zones during the transit of loaded LPG vessels as follows: the waters bounded by the limits of the Piscataqua River Channel and extending 1000-yards ahead and 500-yards astern of tank vessels carrying LPG vessel Liquefied Petroleum Gas while the vessel transits Bigelow Bight, Portsmouth Harbor, and the Piscataqua River to the LPG receiving facility at Newington New Hampshire until the vessel is safely moored and while the vessel transits outbound from the receiving facility through the Piscataqua River, Portsmouth Harbor and Bigelow Bight until the vessel passes the Gunboat Shoal Lighted Bell Buoy “1” (LLNR 185). This safety zone recognizes the safety concerns with transits of large tank vessels, but is inadequate to protect LPG vessels from possible terrorist attack, sabotage or other subversive acts. National security and intelligence officials warn that future terrorist attacks against civilian targets may be anticipated. Due to the flammable nature of LPG vessels and impact the ignition of this cargo would have on Portsmouth Harbor, areas along the Piscataqua River and surrounding areas, increased protection of these vessels is necessary. In comparison to 33 CFR § 165.103, this rulemaking provides increased protection for LPG vessels as follows: it establishes 500-yard safety and security zones around LPG vessels while moored at the LPG receiving facility on the Piscataqua River, Newington, New Hampshire; and it provides continuous protection for LPG vessels 1 mile ahead, 1/2 mile astern, and 1000-yards on each side of LPG vessels anytime a vessel is within the waters of the Portland, Maine Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone rather than limiting the protection to vessels carrying LPG and which are transiting to and from the facility. It also extends the zones to 1000 yards on either side of the vessel rather than limiting the zone to the limits of the Piscataqua River Channel. The increased protection provided in this rulemaking also recognizes the safety concerns associated with an unloaded LPG vessel. 33 CFR § 165.103 only establishes safety zones around loaded LPG tank vessels or while the vessel is transferring its cargo. This rulemaking establishes safety and security zones around any LPG vessels, loaded or unloaded, any time a LPG vessel is located in the Portland Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone, including the internal waters and out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline of the United States. These zones provide necessary protection to unloaded vessels, which continue to pose a safety/security hazard. This rulemaking also recognizes the continued need for safety zones around LPG vessels, which are necessary to protect persons, facilities, vessels and others in the maritime community, from the hazards associated with the transit and limited maneuverability of a large tank vessel.

No person or vessel may enter or remain in the prescribed safety and security zones at any time without the permission of the Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine. Each person or vessel in a safety and security zone shall obey any direction or order of the Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine. The Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine may take possession and control of any vessel in a security zone and/or remove any person, vessel, article or thing from a security zone. No person may board, take or place any article or thing on board any vessel or waterfront facility in a security zone without permission of the Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine. These regulations are issued under authority contained in 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1225 and 1226.

Any violation of any safety or security zone described herein, is punishable by, among others, civil penalties (not to exceed $25,000 per violation, where each day of a continuing violation is a separate violation), criminal penalties (imprisonment for not more than 10 years and a fine of not more than $100,000), in rem liability against the offending vessel, and license sanctions. In addition, this rulemaking provides for increased protection on each side of the vessel, extending the protection from the limits of the navigable channel, to 1000 yards on each side of any LPG vessel. This safety and security zone also protects vessels which are not loaded but which may continue to present a safety concern due to ignition of the vapor material.

This temporary final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary for the following reasons: This Security zone encompasses only a portion of the Portland Maine Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port, Zone around the transiting LPG carrier, allowing vessels to safely navigate around the zones without delay and maritime advisories will be made to advise the maritime community of the Security zone when in effect.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), the Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. “Small entities” may include (1) small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

For the reasons addressed under the Regulatory Evaluation above, the Coast Guard expects the impact of this regulation to be minimal and certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications for Federalism under that order.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An Unfunded Mandate is a regulation that requires a state, local or tribal government or the private sector to incur costs without the Federal government's having first provided the funds to pay those costs. This rule will not impose an Unfunded Mandate.

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

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

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

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. A rule with tribal implications has a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribe, 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.

The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this regulation and concluded that, under Figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation.

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

On June 1, 1999, the Coast Guard published an interim rule entitled Mandatory Ship Reporting Systems in the Federal Register . In that publication we solicited comments (64 FR 29229). On June 9, 1999, we corrected the end date of the comment period to read August 2, 1999. (64 FR 31037). We received four letters commenting on the interim rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.

In response to the endangered status of northern right whales (also known as North Atlantic right whales), the United States and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) have taken steps to identify and implement measures to reduce the likelihood of collisions between ships and whales. These steps have addressed the problem on three fronts: mariner awareness, identification of whale movements, and efforts to promote recovery of the whale species.

In spite of these efforts, ship collisions with endangered right whales continue to occur. Mandatory ship reporting systems help protect these endangered whales by providing direct communication of current sighting information to ships and their operators in high risk areas.

Because right whales frequent two distinct areas off the Atlantic coast of the United States, we established two reporting systems. The northeastern reporting system is located mainly off the coast of Massachusetts and comprises the right whale's main feeding grounds. The southeastern reporting system is located off the coasts of Florida and Georgia, and encompasses the only known calving grounds for the right whale.

Right whales aggregate to feed and calve in five seasonal habitats along the eastern seaboard from Florida to Nova Scotia: (a) Off the southeastern United States; (b) in the Great South Channel, Massachusetts; (c) in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, Massachusetts; (d) in the lower Bay of Fundy, Canada; and (e) over the southern Nova Scotian shelf, Canada (notably those areas referred to as Browns Bank and Roseway Basin). Portions of these areas have been designated “critical habitats” for northern right whales or as national marine sanctuaries under United States domestic law and as conservation areas under Canadian law. Northern right whale sightings also occur outside these areas as the whales migrate from one area to the other area. However, there is not enough information about the migratory corridor to establish additional reporting systems for these areas.

The interim rule created a new part 169 in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) entitled “Ship Reporting Systems.” Subpart A established general requirements for all ship reporting systems. Subpart B established specific requirements for two mandatory ship reporting systems. The statutory authority for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1230(d), which is an amendment to Section 11 of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA)(33 U.S.C. 1230(d)). Violators are subject to the penalties authorized under the PWSA.

These mandatory ship reporting systems were adopted by the IMO, and the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) at its 70th session December 7, 1998, (Resolution MSC.85(70)), it was agreed that these systems would come into force no sooner than six months after adoption. The effective date agreed to by the IMO was July 1, 1999. It was expected that the United States' actions to put a reporting program in place would be completed by that date.

The Coast Guard received four letters in response to the rule. One comment did not call for any change in the interim rule. It stated that the mandatory ship reporting systems should help decrease the probability of vessel-related right whale deaths and commended the Coast Guard for its efforts to develop and support these systems. The other comments are summarized below under two headings:

One comment stated that the interim rule is not clear on whether this rule is based on a vessel's U.S. regulatory tonnage or international tonnage. The Coast Guard agrees and has added a definition of gross tons to § 169.5 to make it clear that the regulations are based on the tonnage assigned by the flag state administrator.

Two comments indicated that the interim rule is not clear as to whether or not a barge would be required to report. The comments contend that a barge exceeding 300 gross tons may be towed by a tug of less than 300 gross tons. Only self-propelled ships greater than 300 gross tons need to report. In response to this comment, the Coast Guard has added a definition of “self-propelled” to § 169.5 and inserted self-propelled in § 169.125 for clarification.

One comment raised an objection to the regulatory process used for this rulemaking. It stated that the Coast Guard circumvented the regulatory process by engaging in rulemaking with the International Maritime Organization without giving proper notice to the public, that the public was denied an opportunity to comment before the interim rule become effective because no notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was published, and that prior notice did not appear in the Regulatory Agenda.

As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and as discussed in the interim rule, the Coast Guard found good cause for not publishing an NPRM. The delay associated with an NPRM made it impracticable and contrary to the public interest in protecting these whales, so the Coast Guard proceeded directly to an interim rule with request for comments. Furthermore, the Coast Guard conducted a public Shipping Coordinating Committee meeting before and after the sessions of the IMO. The Department of State published notices of these public meetings in the Federal Register . (62 FR 62396, November 21, 1997; 63 FR 33122, June 17, 1998). Because internal clearance procedures were not completed in time to include this rulemaking in the 1999 spring issue of the Regulatory Agenda, the first notice in the Agenda appeared after the interim rule had been published (64 FR 64739, November 22, 1999).

Two comments stated that the interim rule is not clear as to whether or not a report is required by a ship leaving a port within one of the areas. One comment was concerned about the need for a report if a vessel moved within a reporting area. Section 169.130 clearly states a vessel is required to report “upon entering the area” covered by a ship reporting system. A vessel leaving a port within a reporting area is not “entering the area” and no report is required.

One comment referred to the mandatory use of INMARSAT-C and the charges associated with use of that system. This rule does not require a ship to install or use INMARSAT C. While the Coast Guard prefers that vessels use INMARSAT C, the rule provides several options for reporting. Operators may choose the appropriate option for their ship. For commercial ships, the system options are already available, and in most cases required so the vessel can meet its obligations under other regulations. The Coast Guard will assume the costs associated with the INMARSAT transmissions.

One comment recommended the Coast Guard access data already available in the Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Rescue (AMVER) database rather than require reporting. The AMVER database contains proprietary information, which is only accessible for search and rescue purposes. The Coast Guard cannot legally access that database to replace this report. In addition, such use fails to meet the intent of this rulemaking. First, the Coast Guard needs notification at the time a vessel enters the area. Second, the Coast Guard wants to use that notice to exchange information. Projected arrival times or intended routes cannot take the place of real-time notifications.

One comment stated that the ship's officers were very aware of the possibility of ship collisions with northern right whales and are already vigilant to avoid striking whales and that further awareness could be better accomplished by identifying the two special areas on the applicable nautical charts. The Coast Guard agrees with the spirit of this comment. While many bridge-watch personnel are alert to avoid striking whales, others need to be made aware of this issue. This is the purpose of the information we provide in response to the required reports. Since the publication of the interim rule, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) nautical charts have been updated to reflect these ship reporting system areas through either notices to mariners corrections or the issuance of new chart editions.

One comment indicated that since this rule is written to meet the requirements in an IMO resolution, it should only apply to vessels certified under the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). The Coast Guard disagrees. The United States made the initial proposal applying the reporting requirement to vessels of 300 gross tons or greater, with no distinction made with regard to SOLAS or non-SOLAS vessels. IMO adopted the resolution, which was necessary to have the areas we established recognized by the international community. The IMO resolution also recognized the reporting requirement adopted by this regulation. This action by the Maritime Safety Committee reflected the international community's concern for protecting right whales.

One comment stated that there is no practicable benefit for non-seagoing vessels to report. The Coast Guard disagrees because any self-propelled ship of 300 gross tons or greater that is entering one of the reporting areas, benefits from the information exchanged. They are large enough to harm a whale and can use the information to plan their route. Also, both reporting areas include waters transited by non-seagoing vessels.

One comment recommends a ship be allowed to make a report before entering the area, rather than when entering. For example, a ship departing a loading dock in New York City should be able to make a report before getting underway. The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment because the intent of the rulemaking is to exchange information when the ship enters the reporting area. As noted, if the port is within a reporting area, no report is required under § 169.130.

One comment suggested that reports required by 33 CFR 160, subpart C, should be accepted as meeting the requirements of this rule. The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. The report mentioned is an advance notice that is required for certain cargoes bound for a U.S. port. Not all ships make that report and it will not meet the intent of exchanging information when the ship enters the reporting area.

One comment expressed concern regarding the equipment and logistics of using either voice radio communication or telephone communication. The comment recommends allowing the use of a fax (facsimile machine) for this report. The Coast Guard disagrees because ships' operators use all of the methods allowed by this rulemaking on a routine basis, including email messages by INMARSAT.

We made a few technical and clarification changes to the rule that were not based on comments. The authority citation was amended to include CFR authority and to limit statutory authority to the U.S.C. citation. The note for § 169.110 was amended to incorporate the section number and to reflect the removal of 50 CFR 223.32. The wording in § 169.120 was changed to clarify the annual, consecutive November through April dates of the reporting period. In § 169.135, the order of the reference to the table in § 169.140 was changed. Finally, a reference to the section number for the table in § 169.140 was added, along with a reference to the email addresses and telex numbers, and the table was amended to include an entry for the INMARSAT number and to clarify the wording of the information required.

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

For the following reasons, the Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this final rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary:

Benefits . Generally, mandatory ship reporting systems enhance mariners' awareness of the presence of northern right whales and provide them with pertinent information to avoid collisions. The increased awareness may reduce the risk of ship collisions with endangered northern right whales.

Private industry costs . The reporting requirement uses the mariner's existing equipment and will not add to the expenses of the owner/operator. The Coast Guard has assumed the cost associated with INMARSAT C calls to the email or telex numbers provided. (Current email addresses and telex numbers are published annually in the U.S. Coast Pilot.) The average communications process (transmission/reception) is five minutes. Existing personnel will be utilized to make this communication. Consequently, the use of INMARSAT C to report will not mean any additional financial costs to the impacted companies. The cost of the issuing advisory information will be borne by the Coast Guard and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Minimal ship maneuvers are expected in the avoidance of whales.

Government costs . The Coast Guard and NMFS estimated the cost of this program to be approximately $208,000 for Fiscal Year 1999 and $176,000 annually for future years. The burden of this regulation will be split equally between the Coast Guard and NMFS. Therefore, it is estimated that the cost to the Coast Guard would be $104,000 for the first year and $88,000 annually thereafter. Coast Guard personnel are not utilized; a private contractor has been hired to operate and maintain facilities.

The Coast Guard will bear the burden associated with relaying non-INMARSAT-C reports through Coast Guard radio stations. Ships not equipped with INMARSAT-C are required to report in standard format to the shore-based authority, either through narrow band direct printing (SITOR) or HF, MF, or VHF-voice communication systems.

This will add to the workload of staff currently assigned to the Coast Guard unit, but will not create an additional billet. Therefore, there is no additional expense.

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

This rulemaking will not impose a significant cost on any entity, large or small. Existing personnel will make the required communications in the course of their normal responsibilities. Consequently, companies will not incur additional financial costs.

The nature of the reports that are made is not such that a significant burden will be imposed on anyone. The Coast Guard will incur the cost with INMARSAT-C transmissions under this program. Reports will be accepted in many different forms to allow for the flexibility that many small entities require. It is anticipated very few small entities operate ships of 300 gross tons or greater. The Coast Guard has attempted to make compliance with this requirement as simple as possible.

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

This rule provides for a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). No comments regarding the collection of information were received during the interim rule comment period.

The collection involves ships reporting by radio to a shore-based authority when entering the area covered by the reporting system. The ships will receive, in return, an advisory on protection of whales and sources of additional information.

The northern right whale is an endangered species. Mortality rates attributed to ship strikes account for up to 50 percent of recorded fatalities. The purpose of establishing mandatory ship reporting systems is to reduce the likelihood of collisions between ships and northern right whales in the areas established with critical habitat designation.

Reports will be used to record ship traffic in the reporting systems and provide information to minimize interaction with northern right whales.

All ships of 300 gross tons or greater that transit the reporting systems are required to participate in the reporting systems, except government vessels exempted from reporting by regulation V/8-1(c) of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended (SOLAS).

We estimate that this information collection would affect approximately 367 respondents annually.

The frequency of response is on occasion. Owners or operators are required to respond only when entering a mandatory reporting area.

The cost burden of response is $8,448 per year.

Number of transmissions: 4,400.

Hour burden per transmission: .08 hours.

Estimated salary rate for affected personnel $24 per hour.

4,400 transmissions per year X .08 hours per transmission X

$24 per hour = $8,448 per year.

The reporting burden is 352 hours to industry.

As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), the Coast Guard submitted a copy of this rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection of information. OMB has approved the collection; the corresponding approval number from OMB is OMB Control Number 2115-0640. You are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and has determined that this rule does not have sufficient implications for federalism to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(i) of Commandant Instruction M16475.lC, this rule establishes two mandatory ship reporting systems and is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

This notice identifies the appropriate EPA Regional Offices to which you may address questions of SIP availability and SIP requirements. In response to the 110(h) requirement following the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the first notice of availability was published in the Federal Register on November 1, 1995 at 60 FR 55459. The second notice of availability was published in the Federal Register on November 18, 1998 at 63 FR 63986. This is the third notice of availability of the compilations of Federally-enforceable state implementation plans for each state.

In addition, for certain states, information on the content of EPA-approved SIPs is available on the Internet through the EPA Regional Web site. For those regions where such information is available, an address for this information is provided in the regional contacts list above.

Section 110(h)(1) of the Clean Air Act mandates that not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and every three years thereafter, the Administrator shall assemble and publish a comprehensive document for each State setting forth all requirements of the applicable implementation plan for such State and shall publish notice in the Federal Register of the availability of such documents.

Section 110(h) recognizes the fluidity of a given State SIP. The SIP is a living document which can be revised by the State with EPA approval as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the State. Therefore, EPA from time to time must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations. On May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), EPA approved, with certain exceptions, the initial SIPs for 50 states, four territories and the District of Columbia. [Note: EPA approved an additional SIP—for the Northern Mariana Islands—on November 10, 1986 (51 FR 40799)]. Since 1972, each State and territory has submitted numerous SIP revisions, either on their own initiative, or because they were required to as a result of various amendments to the Clean Air Act. This notice of availability informs the public that the SIP compilation has been updated to include the most recent requirements approved into the SIP. These approved requirements are Federally-enforceable.

The federally-enforceable SIP is indeed a complex document, containing both many regulatory requirements and non-regulatory items such as plans and inventories. Regulatory requirements include State-adopted rules and regulations, source-specific requirements reflected in consent orders, and in some cases, provisions in the enabling statutes. Following the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the first section 110(h) SIP compilation availability notice was published on November 1, 1995 (61 FR 55459). At that time EPA announced the SIP compilations, comprised of the regulatory portion of each State SIP, were available at the EPA Regional Office serving that particular State. In general, the compilations made available in 1995 did not include the source-specific requirements or other documents and materials associated with the SIP. With the second notice of availability in 1998, the source-specific requirements and the “non-regulatory” documents [ e.g., attainment plans, rate of progress plans, emission inventories, transportation control measures, statutes demonstrating legal authority, monitoring networks, etc.] were made available and will remain available for public inspection at the respective regional office listed in the ADDRESSES section above. If you want to view these documents, please make an appointment with the appropriate EPA Regional Office and arrange for a mutually agreeable time.

EPA-approved non-regulatory control measures, include control strategies (such as transportation control measures, local ordinances, state statutes, and emission inventories, or may include regulations provided on other sections of the State-specific subpart of part 52), which have been submitted for inclusion in the SIP by the state. These control measures must have gone through state rulemaking process and the public was given an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking. EPA also took rulemaking action on these control measures and those which have been EPA-approved or conditionally approved are listed along with any limitations on their approval, if any. Examples of EPA-approved documents and materials associated with the SIP include, but are not limited to, the following subject matter: SIP Narratives; PM 10 Plans; CO Plans; Ozone Plans; Maintenance plans; Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) SIP's; Emissions Inventories; Monitoring Networks; State Statutes submitted for the purposes of demonstrating legal authority; Part D plans; Attainment demonstrations; Transportation control measures (TCM's); Committal measures; Contingency Measures; Non-regulatory & Non-TCM Control Measures; 15% Rate of Progress Plans; Emergency episode plans; Visibility plans. As stated above, the “non-regulatory” documents are available for public inspection at the appropriate EPA Regional Office.

EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants, which are widespread common pollutants known to be harmful to human health and welfare. The present criteria pollutants are: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur oxides. See 40 CFR part 50 for a technical description of how the levels of these standards are measured and attained. State Implementation Plans provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS in each state. Areas within each state that are designated nonattainment are subject to additional planning and control requirements. Accordingly, different regulations or programs in the SIP will apply to different areas. EPA lists the designation of each area at 40 CFR part 81.

The State Implementation Plan (SIP) is a plan for each State which identifies how that State will attain and/or maintain the primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set forth in section 109 of the Clean Air Act and 40 Code of Federal Regulations 50.4 through 50.12 and which includes federally-enforceable requirements. Each State is required to have a SIP which contains control measures and strategies which demonstrate how each area will attain and maintain the NAAQS. These plans are developed through a public process, formally adopted by the State, and submitted by the Governor's designee to EPA. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review each plan and any plan revisions and to approve the plan or plan revisions if consistent with the Clean Air Act.

SIP requirements applicable to all areas are provided in section 110. Part D of title I of the Clean Air Act specifies additional requirements applicable to nonattainment areas. Section 110 and part D describe the elements of a SIP and include, among other things, emission inventories, a monitoring network, an air quality analysis, modeling, attainment demonstrations, enforcement mechanisms, and regulations which have been adopted by the State to attain or maintain NAAQS. EPA has adopted regulatory requirements which spell out the procedures for preparing, adopting and submitting SIP's and SIP revisions that are codified in 40 CFR part 51.

EPA's action on each State's SIP is promulgated in 40 CFR part 52. The first section in the subpart in 40 CFR part 52 for each State is generally the “Identification of plan” section which provides chronological development of the State SIP. Or if the state has undergone the new Incorporation by Reference format process (see 62 FR 27968, May 22, 1997), the identification of plan section identifies the State-submitted rules and plan elements which have been Federally approved. The goal of the State-by-State SIP compilation is to identify those rules under the “Identification of plan” section which are currently Federally-enforceable. In addition, some of the SIP compilations may include control strategies, such as transportation control measures, local ordinances, State statutes, and emission inventories, or may include regulations provided in other sections of the State-specific subpart of part 52. Some of the SIP compilations may not identify these other Federally-enforceable elements.

The contents of a typical SIP fall into three categories: (1) State-adopted control measures which consists of either rules/regulations or source-specific requirements (e.g., orders and consent decrees); (2) State-submitted “non-regulatory” components (e.g., attainment plans, rate of progress plans, emission inventories, transportation control measures, statutes demonstrating legal authority, monitoring networks, etc.); (3) additional requirements promulgated by EPA (in the absence of a commensurate State provision) to satisfy a mandatory section 110 or part D (Clean Air Act) requirement.

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, EPA is authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in section 304 of the Clean Air Act.

You should note that, when States have submitted their most current State regulations for inclusion into Federally-enforceable SIPs, EPA will begin its review process of submittals as soon as possible. Until EPA approves a submittal by rulemaking action, State-submitted regulations will be State-enforceable only; therefore, State-enforceable SIPs may exist which differ from Federally-enforceable SIPs. As EPA approves these State-submitted regulations, the regional offices will continue to update the SIP compilations to include these applicable requirements.

NAFO has established and maintains conservation measures in its Regulatory Area that include one effort limitation fishery as well as fisheries with total allowable catches and member nation quota allocations. At the 2000 NAFO Annual Meeting, the United States received allocations for several NAFO stocks, including an effort allocation for shrimp in NAFO Division 3M (only 1 vessel may fish for 100 days) and 67 metric tons of shrimp in NAFO Division 3L. NMFS published a notice summarizing the availability and procedures for harvesting these stocks (65 FR 71270, November 30, 2000), and that information is not repeated here.

Expressions of interest in harvesting the U.S. allocation for 3M shrimp from the NAFO Regulatory Area were accepted from U.S. vessel owners in possession of a valid High Seas Fishing Compliance Act permit and from U.S. fishing interests intending to make use of vessels of other NAFO Contracting Parties under chartering arrangements. U.S. vessels were given first consideration and the 3M shrimp allocation was initially awarded to a U.S. vessel. However, the vessel subsequently chose to forgo the use of the allocation and no other expressions of interest were made on behalf of U.S. vessels.

NAFO regulations permit NAFO Contracting Parties to enter into chartering arrangements with other Contracting Parties to utilize shrimp fishing days and quotas. Because no additional expressions of interest were received from U.S. vessels, on June 22, 2001, Mayflower International, Ltd., was authorized by NMFS to make use of a chartering arrangement with the Republic of Estonia to fish the 2001 U.S. effort allocation for 3M shrimp. Due to the success of this operation, Mayflower International, Ltd., has requested a continuation of the chartering arrangement with the Republic of Estonia in order to harvest the U.S. 3L shrimp quota allocation.

NMFS did not announce that the U.S. 3L shrimp allocation was available to chartering arrangements in the Federal Register notice published on November 30, 2000. However, the NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures stipulate that charter arrangements are available to only one vessel per year. Because no U.S. vessels have expressed interest in this fishery, and because the NAFO regulations prohibit additional chartering arrangements for the 2001 fishing year, NMFS has awarded the U.S. 3L shrimp quota allocation to Mayflower International, Ltd. Final approval of this transfer is contingent upon a favorable vote from the NAFO Contracting Parties and strict adherence to the NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures by the chartering operation and the Government of the Republic of Estonia.

This arrangement will continue to provide an economic benefit to Mayflower International Ltd., and its employees, while at the same time maximizing the opportunity for the United States to enhance its fishing history for the 3L and 3M shrimp stocks. Mayflower International, Ltd., has also agreed to provide further information on the characteristics and economics of this fishery. This information may prove useful to future U.S. vessels interested in participating NAFO fisheries.

Regulations governing the scup fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is allocated into three quota periods. The Winter II commercial quota (November through December) is distributed to the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the seasonal allocation is described in § 648.120.

The total commercial quota for scup for the 2001 calendar year was initially set at 4,444,600 lb (2,016,037 kg)(66 FR 12902; March 1, 2001) and subsequently adjusted downward to 3,495,261 lb (1,585,424 kg) (66 FR 47413; September 12, 2001), to account for 2002 period overages. The Winter II period quota is set at 708,469 lb (321,356 kg). Because there were no commercial overages from the 2000 Winter II period, it was not necessary to adjust the 2001 Winter II period quota.

Section 648.121 requires the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) to monitor the commercial scup quota for each quota period and, based upon dealer reports, state data, and other available information, to determine when the commercial quota has been harvested. NMFS is required to publish notification in the Federal Register advising and notifying federally permitted commercial vessels and federally permitted dealers that, effective upon a specific date, the scup commercial quota has been harvested. The Regional Administrator has determined, based upon dealer reports and other available information, that the scup commercial quota for the 2001 Winter II period has been harvested.

The regulations at § 648.4(b) provide that Federal scup moratorium permit holders agree as a condition of the permit not to land scup in any state after NMFS has published a notification in the Federal Register stating that the commercial quota for the period has been harvested and that no commercial quota for scup is available. Therefore, effective 0001 hours, November 20, 2001, further landings of scup by vessels holding Federal scup moratorium permits are prohibited through December 31, 2001. The Winter I period for commercial scup harvest will open on January 1, 2002. Effective 0001 hours, November 20, 2001, federally permitted dealers are also advised that they may not purchase scup from federally permitted vessels that land in coastal states from Maine through North Carolina for the remainder of the Winter II period (through December 31, 2001).

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

Regulations governing the spiny dogfish fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota, which is allocated into two quota periods based upon percentages of the annual quota. The period 2 commercial quota (November through April) is distributed to the coastal states from Maine through Florida as described in § 648.230.

The initial total commercial quota for spiny dogfish for the 2001 fishing year was 4,000,000 lb (1,814 mt) (66 FR 22473, May 4, 2001). The commercial quota is allocated into two periods (May 1 through October 31, and November 1 through April 30), with trip limits intended to preclude directed fishing. Quota period 1 was allocated 2,316,000 lb (1,050 mt) and quota period 2 was allocated 1,684,000 lb (764 mt) of the commercial quota, respectively.

The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) monitors the commercial spiny dogfish quota for each quota period and, based upon dealer reports, state data and other available information, determines when the commercial quota has been harvested. NMFS is required to publish a notice in the Federal Register advising and notifying commercial vessels and dealer permit holders that, effective upon a specific date, the spiny dogfish commercial quota has been harvested and no commercial quota is available for landing spiny dogfish for the remainder of a given quota period. The Regional Administrator has determined, based upon dealer reports and other available information, that the 2001 commercial period 2 quota for spiny dogfish has been harvested.

Section 648.4(b) provides that Federal spiny dogfish permit holders agree, as a condition of the permit, not to land spiny dogfish in any state after NMFS has published notification in the Federal Register that the commercial quota for the period has been harvested and that no commercial quota for the spiny dogfish fishery is available. The Regional Administrator has determined that period 2 for spiny dogfish no longer has commercial quota available. Therefore, effective 0001 hrs local time, November 21, 2001, landings of spiny dogfish in coastal states from Maine through Florida by vessels holding commercial Federal fisheries permits are prohibited through 2400 hrs local time, April 30, 2001. The fishing year 2002 quota period 1 for commercial spiny dogfish harvest will open on May 1, 2002. Effective November 21, 2001, federally permitted dealers are also advised that they may not purchase spiny dogfish from vessels issued federal spiny dogfish permits that land in coastal states from Maine through Florida.

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