The Mexican fruit fly ( Anastrepha ludens ) is a destructive pest of citrus and many other types of fruit. The short life cycle of the Mexican fruit fly allows rapid development of serious outbreaks that can cause severe economic losses in commercial citrus-producing areas.

The Mexican fruit fly regulations, contained in 7 CFR 301.64 through 301.64-10 (referred to below as the regulations), were established to prevent the spread of the Mexican fruit fly into noninfested areas of the United States. The regulations impose restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from the regulated areas.

In an interim rule effective on January 15, 2003, and published in the Federal Register on January 21, 2003 (68 FR 2679-2680, Docket No. 02-129-1), we amended the regulations by adding a portion of San Diego County, CA, as a regulated area and restricted the interstate movement of regulated articles from that area. In a second interim rule effective on March 4, 2003, and published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2003 (68 FR 11311-11313, Docket No. 02-129-3), we amended the regulations by adding an additional portion of San Diego County, CA, to the list of regulated areas.

Based on trapping surveys by inspectors of California State and county agencies and by inspectors of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, we have determined that the Mexican fruit fly has been eradicated from the regulated area. The last finding of Mexican fruit fly in the San Diego County, CA, regulated area was May 20, 2003.

Since then, no evidence of Mexican fruit fly infestation has been found in this area. Based on our experience, we have determined that sufficient time has passed without finding additional flies or other evidence of infestation to conclude that the Mexican fruit fly no longer exists in San Diego County, CA. Therefore, we are removing the county from the list of regulated areas in § 301.64-3. With the removal of San Diego County, CA, from that list, there are no longer any areas in the State of California quarantined for the Mexican fruit fly.

Immediate action is warranted to relieve restrictions that are no longer necessary. A portion of San Diego County, CA, was quarantined due to the possibility that the Mexican fruit fly could spread from those areas to noninfested areas of the United States. Since we have concluded that the Mexican fruit fly no longer exists in that portion of San Diego County, CA, immediate action is warranted to remove the area from the list of regulated areas and to relieve the restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from that area. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this action effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

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

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

This action amends the Mexican fruit fly regulations by removing a portion of San Diego County, CA, from the list of regulated areas.

We expect that the effect of this interim rule will be minimal. Small entities located within the regulated area that sell regulated articles do so primarily for local intrastate, not interstate, movement, so the effect, if any, of this rule on these entities appears likely to be minimal. In addition, the effect on any small entities that may move regulated articles interstate has been minimized during the quarantine period by the availability of various treatments that allow these small entities, in most cases, to move regulated articles interstate with very little additional cost. Thus, just as the interim rules establishing the regulated area in San Diego County, CA, had little effect on the small growers in the area, the lifting of the quarantine in the current interim rule will also have little effect.

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

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

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

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

This rule removes regulations rendered obsolete by expiration of their statutory authority and the ending of their respective programs. Removal of the regulations will not impact any remaining disputes, issues or other matters regarding those programs, and the removed regulations remain in effect for such matters. The regulations being removed are:

The Small Hog Operation Program was established to provide benefits to hog producers under clause (3) of section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c). The program was implemented during calendar year 1998 for small hog producers who marketed hogs during the period July 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998.

The Disaster Payment Program for 1990-Crop Sugarcane, Sugar Beets, Soybeans and Peanuts was authorized by section 201(k) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1446), and the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1990 (Pub. L. 101-302; 104 Stat. 213). The program provided assistance to producers who suffered a loss of production of their 1990 crop as a result of a natural disaster in 1989.

The Tree Assistance Program was authorized by the Act Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from Natural Disasters for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1997 (Pub. L 105-18; 111 Stat. 158). The program provided assistance to owners of trees damaged by natural disasters occurring from October 1, 1996, through September 30, 1997.

The Oilseeds Program was authorized by section 202 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-224; 114 Stat. 358). The program made payments to producers who planted eligible oilseeds in 2000.

The Livestock Indemnity Program for 2000 was authorized by sections 802, 806 and 813 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 106-387, 114 Stat. 1549). The program provided assistance to producers for livestock losses occurring in the period beginning on January 1, 2000, and ending on December 31, 2000.

The Livestock Indemnity Program for Contract Growers was authorized by title I of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501), which provided an additional $10 million for the livestock assistance authorized by the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-78, 113 Stat. 1135), and specified that it could be used to provide assistance to contract growers for losses in 1999. Section 802 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549) amended Pub. L. 106-78 to extend the program to cover losses that occurred during the period January 1, 1999 through February 7, 2000.

The American Indian Livestock Feed Program operated under the authority of section 813(d)(1)(C) of the Agricultural Act of 1970 (7 U.S.C. 1427a), which gave the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to provide assistance to relieve distress caused by a natural disaster. Beginning in 1997, the program provided assistance to Federally-recognized Indian tribes to purchase livestock feed when a livestock feed emergency existed on tribal land. The program was allocated a budget of $12.5 million and operated until the funds were exhausted.

Subparts C, E and I will be removed and reserved to maintain the subpart structure for other provisions in the part.

The 2000 Peanut Marketing Assistance Program was authorized by section 204(a) of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-224; 114 Stat. 358). The program made payments to producers of 2000-crop quota and additional peanuts.

The Tobacco Loss Assistance Program 1999 was authorized by section 803 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-78, 113 Stat. 1135), which provided that $328 million of CCC funds were to be used to make payments to States on behalf of persons whose 1999 quota or acreage allotment for tobacco was reduced from the 1998 crop year level due to a drop in the national marketing quota or poundage quota for a kind of tobacco.

The Tobacco Disaster Assistance Program was authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501), which appropriated an additional $2.8 million for the Tobacco Loss Assistance Program of 1999 authorized by section 803 of the FY 2000 Agriculture Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 106-78, 113 Stat. 1135), provided that producers who suffered quality or quantity losses due to natural disasters on crops harvested and placed in a warehouse and not sold would also be eligible.

The Tobacco Loss Assistance Program 2000 was authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-224; 114 Stat. 358), which provided that $340 million of CCC funds was to be made available to make direct payments to eligible persons on a farm for which the quantity of quota of eligible tobacco allotted to the farm was reduced from the 1999 crop year to the 2000 crop year.

The Tobacco Loss Assistance Program 2001 was authorized by section 774 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 (Pub. L. 107-76). The program made payments to persons who owned, controlled or grew tobacco on a farm for which a basic quota or allotment for eligible tobacco was established for the 2001 crop year under part I of subtitle B of title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1311 et seq. ).

The Mohair Recourse Loan Program was authorized by section 1126 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) and section 801 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-78, 113 Stat. 1135). The program issued recourse loans for mohair that was produced during or before FY 1999 or 2000.

The Wool and Mohair Market Loss Assistance Program was authorized by section 204(d) of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-224; 114 Stat. 358). The program made payments to producers of wool and mohair for the 1999 marketing year.

The Wool and Mohair Market Loss Assistance Program II was authorized by section 814 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 106-387, 114 Stat. 1549A-55). The program made payments to producers of wool and mohair for the 2000 marketing year.

The Cranberry Market Loss Assistance Payment Program was authorized by section 816 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 106-387, 114 Stat. 1549). The program made payments to cranberry growers for the 1999 crop.

The 1998 Single-Year and Multi-Year Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Program was authorized by Sec. 1101 and 1102 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681). The program made payments to producers who incurred losses in quantity or quality of their crops due to disasters for losses to 1998 crops, or losses occurring in at least 3 years for which payments were received for the period 1994 through 1998.

The 1999 Crop Disaster Program was authorized by section 801 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-78, 113 Stat. 1135) and the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501). The program made payments to producers who incurred losses in quantity or quality of 1999 crops due to disasters.

The Harney County Flood Assistance program was authorized by section 207 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501). The program made payments to producers in Harney County, Oregon who suffered flood-related production losses during calendar year 1999.

This final rule is issued in conformance with Executive Order 12866, has been determined to be not significant, and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This rule does not affect any information collections.

This rule has been determined to be nonsignificant for purpose of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In addition, pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), GIPSA has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities and has determined that its provisions would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The rule will affect entities engaged in shipping grain to and from points within the United States and exporting grain from the United States. GIPSA estimates there are approximately 9,500 off-farm storage facilities and 57 export elevators in the United States that could receive official inspection services by GIPSA, delegated States, or designated agencies. Official inspection services are provided by 11 GIPSA field offices, 2 Federal/State offices, 7 GIPSA suboffices, 7 delegated States, and 49 designated agencies. Board appeal inspection services are provided by the Board of Appeals and Review. Under provisions of the Act, it is not mandatory for non-export grain to be officially inspected. Further, most users of the official inspection services and those entities that perform these services do not meet the requirements for small entities. Even though some users could be considered small entities, this rule relieves regulatory requirements and improves the efficiency of official inspection services. No additional cost is expected to result from this action.

Requiring all reinspections and appeal inspections for grade to include a complete review of all official factors is not needed by applicants or other parties to transactions, or by official inspection personnel. Furthermore, this requirement often reduces the efficiency of providing official inspection services and may cause unnecessary delays in elevator operations. Allowing applicants to specify which official factor(s) are to be redetermined during the reinspection or appeal inspection service will improve the efficiency of the inspection service due to the time required to analyze all official quality factors.

Prior to developing this rule change, GIPSA considered restricting the action to either appeal inspections or to reinspections. Our analysis was as follows:

1. Restrict Action to Appeal Inspections. GIPSA inspectors, who are assigned to specific GIPSA field offices, are the only ones who can perform appeal inspections. During the period of the analysis, GIPSA had fourteen field offices and less than 200 full-time GIPSA inspectors nationwide. Most domestic inspection services are provided by official agencies and not by GIPSA field offices. Therefore, applicants for service usually opt for a reinspection, rather than requesting an appeal inspection. (See Table 1.) The only applicants for service that would benefit from this alternative are those located at the few export ports where GIPSA does onsite original inspection services. GIPSA believes that restricting the action to only appeal inspections would adversely impact the cost benefits and the flexibility associated with the rule. Table 1 illustrates this point.

2. Restrict Action to Reinspections. Licensed inspectors employed by State or private official agencies perform most reinspections. GIPSA only performs reinspections at certain export port locations. GIPSA believes that if the action were limited to reinspections, more applicants for service could potentially benefit than limiting the action to appeal inspections. Some applicants, however, might be placed at a competitive disadvantage because their sales contracts require them to request appeal inspections on some or all original inspection services. Additionally, about ten percent of all reinspections are appealed. If the grading procedures for appeals are different from the preceding reinspection, the review inspection process is not similar for all levels of the review inspection process.

The review inspection process should provide all applicants the same opportunity for inspection services. Reinspection services and appeal inspection services should be similar in scope and effect. For this reason, GIPSA decided to make the regulatory change that would favorably affect both the reinspection process and the appeal inspection process.

The cost savings of the proposed action on the grain industry could be very positive. Although it is impossible to estimate an exact dollar savings, the time spent waiting for inspection results could be reduced by at least 50 percent and could, in certain circumstances, exceed 90 percent. Since grain elevators often “idle” their load-out operations until the results of a reinspection or appeal are known, domestic shippers could save several hundred dollars in operation and demurrage costs on an average 100-car unit train. The savings for exporters could reach $10,000 for some vessels. For example: If elevator X has a fixed operating cost of $500 an hour and it takes an average of 30 minutes to perform a reinspection or appeal inspection, then each reinspection or appeal will cost the elevator an additional $250 in down time. If the time required to perform the reinspection or appeal is reduced to 15 minutes, the elevator saves $125 per inspection due to the more efficient inspection service. These savings could be multiplied if the time saved on performing the reinspections or appeals allows the elevator to avoid or limit demurrage ( i.e. , a fee assessed to the elevator for failing to complete the loading of a unit train or ship within a specified period). Currently, the demurrage for railcars can range up to $50 per day per car. The demurrage on export vessels can reach $10,000 a day.

The potential revenue impact of the action on GIPSA and official agencies should not be significant. In the long run, this proposed rule may encourage slightly more reinspection and appeal inspection services because of the increased efficiencies associated with the proposal. However, GIPSA does not believe that its net revenue will significantly change. GIPSA routinely review the agency's revenue and cost of service as part of its ongoing fee review process. If inspection services and revenue from those services change significantly, GIPSA may determine a change in fees is needed and would do so as part of a fee proposal.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have a retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any state or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There are no administration procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provision of this rule.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations,” GIPSA has considered potential civil rights implications of this rule on minorities, women, or persons with disabilities to ensure that no person or group will be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability, or marital or familial status. The final rule will apply in the same manner to all persons and groups whose activities are regulated, regardless of race, gender, national origin, or disability. This rule will have no effect on protected populations.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements in part 800 have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0580-0013.

On August 21, 2002, GIPSA proposed in the Federal Register (67 FR 54133) to revise the regulations under the United States Grain Standards Act (Act), as amended, to allow interested persons to specify the quality factor(s) that would be redetermined during a reinspection or appeal inspection for grade. This proposal required comments to be received on or before October 21, 2002. On October 23, 2002, GIPSA published in the Federal Register (67 FR 65048) a notice to extend the comment period to November 21, 2002.

GIPSA had proposed this action because requiring that all quality factors be completely reexamined during a reinspection or appeal inspection is not efficient, is time consuming, and can be costly. Further, a detailed review of the preceding inspection service is not always needed to confirm the quality of the grain. GIPSA proposed that applicants for service should be allowed to specify the factor(s) that are to be redetermined as part of a reinspection or an appeal inspection service because it provides a more effective and more efficient inspection service and better meets the industry's needs. However, reinspections for grade, appeal and Board appeal inspections for grade may include a review of any pertinent factor(s), as deemed necessary by official personnel. This would assure the issuance of an accurate grade. GIPSA also solicited comments regarding the need to show a statement on the certificate that would identify which factors were determined during the review inspection(s) and which were determined on a preceding inspection. GIPSA did not propose to include a required statement as part of the proposal.

GIPSA received 7 comments regarding the proposed action. All comments supported the action. Two comments were from associations involved with graded commodities inspected under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq. ). Although their comments supported the proposed change; they asked that GIPSA extend this action to include their graded products (rice and pulses). Rice and pulse inspection is provided under the provisions of the regulations contained in 7 CFR part 868. Since the proposed action involved a change to 7 CFR part 800 and did not address the regulatory provisions of part 868, GIPSA cannot effect a change as part of this action. However, GIPSA will consider such action as part of a separate rulemaking, if deemed appropriate.

GIPSA also received a combined comment from two trade associations that generally supported the proposed revisions with an exception. Their comment expressed a concern that there were no clarifying guidelines published to implement this change which may result in differing interpretations and applications among official agencies and GIPSA field offices. They urged GIPSA to simultaneously publish with the final rule clarifying instructions to official personnel specifying the conditions under which a review of other pertinent factors (factors not requested by the applicant for service), as deemed necessary by official personnel.

In discussing the merits of the proposed rulemaking action, GIPSA noted that while various industry groups had indicated that requiring all factors to be completely reviewed on reinspections and appeal inspections is usually unnecessary and costly, others indicated that the regulation must not allow official personnel to overlook questionable factor results just because the applicant for inspection did not request that certain factors be redetermined during the course of a review inspection. We noted that both of the views had merit and that all official inspections must be accurate. We pointed out that reinspections for grade, appeal and Board appeal inspections for grade could include a review of any pertinent factor(s), as deemed necessary by official personnel. If there was an indication that a factor or factors may have been misgraded or overlooked, then the factors in question would be redetermined. The current policy for review inspections addresses this issue. GIPSA will distribute a program notice to announce the final action and reaffirm the policy.

GIPSA received only one comment regarding the proposal not to use a statement on an official inspection certificate that identifies which factors were reinspected. The comment supported GIPSA's view to not include this type of statement on the inspection certificate.

Accordingly, GIPSA is revising the regulatory text in 7 CFR 800.125 to allow requests for reinspections to be limited to one or more grade or condition factors, and is revising the regulatory text in 7 CFR 800.135 to allow requests for appeal inspections to be limited to one or more grade or condition factors.

This action is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12866 since it involves only internal Agency management. This action is not published for prior notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act since it involves only internal Agency management and publication for comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.

The catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance programs impacted by this action are as follows:

Programs with Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers 10.405, 10.407, 10.411, 10.415, 10.420, 10.421, 10.427, 10.760, 10.766, 10.767, 10.768, 10.770, and 10.854 are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

Programs with Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers 10.404, 10.406, 10.410, and 10.417 are excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. In accordance with this rule: (1) Unless otherwise specifically provided, all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule except as specifically prescribed in the rule; and (3) administrative proceedings of the National Appeals Division (7 CFR part 11) must be exhausted before litigation against the Department is instituted.

The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of 44 U.S.C. chapter 35 and were assigned OMB control number 0575-0184 in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. No person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. This rule does not impose any new information collection requirements from those approved by OMB.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the agencies to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.

This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, “Environmental Program.” The Agencies have determined that this final action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of human environment, and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

The policies contained in this rule do not have any 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. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.

In November 1997 Rural Development discontinued using the Concentration Banking System (CBS). CBS was a collection system in which Rural Development field offices would deposit loan payments and collections they received in Treasury Limited Accounts (TLA's) at local banks. Daily, the concentrator bank (Mercantile Bank in St. Louis, MO) would sweep all local bank TLA's and deposit the funds with Treasury. Rural Development field offices would send the detailed loan payment information to the Rural Development Finance Office (FO) in St. Louis, MO. The FO would reconcile the detailed loan payment data with the deposit information and credit the borrower accounts for the payment.

In September 1997, Rural Development implemented the Rural Housing Service wholesale lockbox system. The wholesale lockbox significantly reduced collections received in field offices and it was determined that CBS was no longer cost effective to continue operating. In addition, since 1997, Rural Development has expanded its use of electronic collection methods ( e.g. , Preauthorized Debits, Customer Initiated Payments, FedWire, etc. ).

The Farm Service Agency (FSA) payment collection policies are established in internal agency handbooks. While collections under some FSA programs were processed according to 7 CFR 1951, subpart B, prior to the USDA Reorganization Act, FSA no longer utilizes this subpart.

Prior to the transfer of the functions of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service) to the Department of Homeland Security in March 2003, district directors and regional commissioners of the Service made decisions on requests for recognition as an American Institution of Research. (1) Based on the findings of the former Newark District Director, the Acting Regional Director of the Eastern Region determined and ordered on September 30, 1999, that Rutgers University, the State University of New Jersey, is an American institution of research for the purpose of preserving residence in the United States for naturalization. (2) Based on the findings of the former Chicago District Director, the Regional Director of the Central Region determined and ordered on January 4, 2001, that Indiana University is an American institution of research for the purpose of preserving residence in the United States for naturalization. (3) Based on the findings of the former Boston District Director, the Regional Director of the Eastern Region determined and ordered on March 1, 2001, that Harvard University is an American institution of research for the purpose of preserving residence in the United States for naturalization.

Accordingly, the regulations are amended by adding those institutions to the list of recognized American institutions of research, thus making their qualified employees eligible to apply for the continuity of residence exemption benefits of section 316(b) of the Act.

In addition, based on the findings of the former Boston District Director, the Regional Director of the Eastern Region determined and ordered on March 1, 2001, that the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID) is no longer an American institution of research for the purpose of preserving residence in the United States for naturalization, since Harvard University had dissolved the HIID on June 30th, 2000. Employees who had been conducting research under the HIID were absorbed into other programs within Harvard University. Accordingly, the regulations are amended by removing this institution from the list of recognized American institutions of research.

This rule is being promulgated as a final rule. The Department has determined that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to make this rule effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register because prior notice and comment in this case is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The Department believes it is unnecessary because this rule consists of an update of an existing list in 8 CFR 316.20 of organizations that have already been designated by agency determinations made pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act. The updating of the list is a purely technical publication action that does not fundamentally impact any public right. Previous updates of this list have not elicited public comment, nor would any comment, if submitted, affect the composition of the list. For that reason updates of the list in 8 CFR 316.20 have always been and should continue to be published as a final rule.

To delay publication of the list as a final rule would be contrary to the public interest. Prospective applicants for naturalization whose eligibility depends on an up-to-date listing of recognized American institutions of research are in urgent need of relief because of long delays in consequence of the agency's transition from the Department of Justice to the Department of Homeland Security. Their access to the benefits of these agency designations is adversely impacted by any delay in publication of the updated list of recognized institutions. For these reasons, the Department finds that there is good cause to adopt this rule without the prior notice and comment period ordinarily required under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C 553(d)(3), the Department is making this rule final and effective upon publication because of the same good cause exception described above.

I have reviewed this regulation in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), and by approving it, I certify that the rule will not have an effect on small entities as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). This rule relates to agency management and merely updates the existing institutional listings currently contained in Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

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 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. 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 is not considered by the Department of Homeland Security, to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Accordingly, this rule does not need to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with this Executive Order.

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

What events have caused this AD? We have received reports of fuel leaks in the fuel transfer pumps on the auxiliary fuel tank installed in the baggage compartment per STC SA1608NM on Aerostar Models PA-60-600, PA-60-601, PA-60-601P, PA-60-602P, and PA-60-700P airplanes. The leaks were discovered through normal maintenance.

The problem is the result of fuel seeping through the wire insulation on the auxiliary fuel tank transfer pump and running out through the knife splice connection.

What are the consequences if the condition is not corrected? This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in fire or explosion in the cargo/passenger compartment. Such a condition could result of loss of the airplane.

Is there service information that applies to this subject? Machen Inc. has issued Service Bulletin SB76-009, dated August 1, 2003.

What are the provisions of this service information? The service bulletin includes procedures for:

What has FAA decided? We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design.

Since the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other Aerostar Models PA-60-600, PA-60-601, PA-60-601P, PA-60-602P, and PA-60-700P airplanes of the same type design with STC SA1608NM installed, this AD is being issued to detect and correct leaks in the auxiliary fuel transfer pumps, which could result in fire or explosion in the cargo/passenger compartment. Such a condition could result of loss of the airplane.

What does this AD require? This AD requires you to incorporate the actions in the previously-referenced service bulletin.

In preparation of this rule, we contacted type clubs and aircraft operators to obtain technical information and information on operational and economic impacts. We did not receive any information through these contacts. If received, we would have included, in the rulemaking docket, a discussion of any information that may have influenced this action.

How does the revision to 14 CFR part 39 affect this AD? On July 10, 2002, we published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs FAA's AD system. This regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. This material previously was included in each individual AD. Since this material is included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD actions.

Will I have the opportunity to comment prior to the issuance of the rule? This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “AD Docket No. 2003-CE-44-AD” in the subject line of your comments. If you want us to acknowledge receipt of your mailed comments, send us a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the docket number written on it; we will date-stamp your postcard and mail it back to you. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify it. If a person contacts us through a nonwritten communication, and that contact relates to a substantive part of this AD, we will summarize the contact and place the summary in the docket. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the AD in light of those comments.

Will this AD impact various entities? We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Will this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “AD Docket No. 2003-CE-44-AD” in your request.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom (UK), recently notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain RR RB211-524 series turbofan engines. The CAA received reports of LP compressor fan blade root damage due to entrapment of ceramic polishing media between the blade roots and masking boots while doing RR Repair Scheme FRS5712, subtask 72-31-11-380-119.

We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of Rolls-Royce plc Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. RB.211-72-D184, Revision 3, dated December 20, 2002, that provides procedures for inspection of blade roots of LP compressor fan blades that were repaired using RR Repair Scheme FRS5712, subtask 72-31-11-380-119, and replacement or repair of blades if damage is not within acceptable limits. The CAA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued AD 005-04-2001 in order to ensure the airworthiness of these Rolls-Royce plc engines in the UK.

This engine model is manufactured in the UK and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the findings of the CAA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Although no airplanes that are registered in the United States use these RR RB211-524 series turbofan engines, the possibility exists that these engine models could be used on airplanes that are registered in the United States in the future. The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other engines of the same type design. We are issuing this AD to prevent possible uncontained multiple LP compressor fan blade release, and damage to the airplane. This AD requires inspection of blade roots of LP compressor fan blades that were repaired using RR Repair Scheme FRS5712, subtask 72-31-11-380-119, and replacement or repair of blades if damage is not within acceptable limits. The inspections are to be performed by following a compliance schedule based on engine model and cycles accumulated.

You must use the service information described previously to perform the actions required by this AD.

Since there are currently no domestic operators of this engine model, notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary. Therefore, a situation exists that allows the immediate adoption of this regulation.

On July 10, 2002, we issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs our AD system. This regulation now includes material that relates to special flight permits, alternative methods of compliance, and altered products. This material previously was included in each individual AD. Since this material is included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD actions.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “AD Docket No. 2003-NE-33-AD” in the subject line of your comments. If you want us to acknowledge receipt of your mailed comments, send us a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the docket number written on it; we will date-stamp your postcard and mail it back to you. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify it. If a person contacts us verbally, and that contact relates to a substantive part of this AD, we will summarize the contact and place the summary in the docket. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the AD in light of those comments.

We are reviewing the writing style we currently use in regulatory documents. We are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document is clear, and your suggestions to improve the clarity of our communications with you. You may get more information about plain language at http://www.faa.gov/language and http://www.plainlanguage.gov.

You may examine the AD Docket (including any comments and service information), by appointment, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. See ADDRESSES for the location.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “AD Docket No. 2003-NE-33-AD” in your request.

History

On Tuesday, August 26, 2003, the FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71 to establish Class D airspace at Ramona, CA. (68 FR 51205). The proposal was to establish a Class D surface area within a 4-mile radius of the airport from the surface up to, but not including, 3,800 feet mean sea level (MSL). This action was due to the construction of a non-federal contract tower and to accommodate aircraft executing instrument flight procedures into and out of Ramona Airport.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9L dated September 2, 2003, and effective September 16, 2003, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 The Class D airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class D airspace at Ramona, CA, to accommodate aircraft executing instrument flight procedures into and out of Ramona Airport. The area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. This action also corrects the coordinates for Ramona published in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (68 FR 51205).

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. Therefore, this regulation—(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. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, Part 902 of title 15 CFR displays control numbers assigned to NMFS information collection requirements by OMB. This part fulfills the requirements of section 3506(c)(1)(B)(i) of the PRA, which requires that agencies display a current control number, assigned by the Director of OMB, for each agency information collection requirement. Portions of 15 CFR 902.1(b) reflect expired or incorrect OMB control numbers. In some cases, the regulations cited have previously been removed from the CFR and, therefore, there are no approved OMB control numbers for those regulations. In addition, the OMB control numbers for some requirements have changed but the obsolete numbers are still reflected in the inventory. Also, when new collection-of-information requirements were previously approved, the final rule implementing the collection-of-information requirement did not update 15 CFR part 902.

Therefore, through this final rule, technical amendment, the inventory of OMB approved control numbers is corrected and updated to reflect the currently valid control numbers. All of the collection-of-information requirements displayed in § 902.1(b) have previously been submitted to OMB for approval during implementation of regulations appearing in the individual parts of title 50. Therefore, this final rule, technical amendment does not involve any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

Under NOAA Administrative Order 205-11, 7.01, dated December 17, 1990, the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere has delegated authority to sign material for publication in the Federal Register to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA).

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(B), the AA waives prior notice and opportunity for public comment because this action is a rule of agency organization, procedure or practice. Because this rule makes only minor, non-substantive changes and does not change operating practices in any fishery, it is unnecessary to provide for prior notice and opportunity for public comment. Because this final rule, technical amendment does not constitute a substantive rule, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), this final rule is not subject to the 30-day delay in effectiveness. This final rule, technical amendment makes no substantive changes to existing regulations, but rather updates OMB control numbers associated with NMFS information collections, all of which OMB has previously approved during implementation of regulations appearing in the individual parts of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 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 inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared.

This rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The events of September 11, 2001, highlighted the need to enhance the security of the U.S. food supply. Congress responded by passing the Bioterrorism Act (Public Law 107-188), which was signed into law on June 12, 2002. On October 10, 2003, FDA published in the Federal Register two interim final rules to implement sections 305 (Registration of Food Facilities) and 307 (Prior Notice of Imported Food Shipments) of the Bioterrorism Act. During the public meetings, FDA will explain the interim final rules on the registration of food facilities and prior notice of imported food shipments, and the agency will answer questions of clarification.

Information about the public meetings, contact information, and the provisions of the Bioterrorism Act under FDA's jurisdiction can be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/oc/bioterrorism/bioact.html.

The interim final rules that will be discussed at the public meetings announced in this document concern the following provisions of the Bioterrorism Act:

Section 305 : Registration of Food Facilities—The Bioterrorism Act requires the owner, operator, or agent in charge of domestic and foreign facilities that manufacture, process, pack, or hold food for human or animal consumption in the United States to register with FDA no later than December 12, 2003. Farms, restaurants, retail food establishments, nonprofit food establishments that prepare or serve food directly to the consumer, and fishing vessels not engaged in processing, as defined in 21 CFR 123.3(k), are exempt from this requirement. Also exempt are foreign facilities if the food from the facility undergoes further processing or packaging by another facility outside of the United States and such processing is of more than a de minimis nature.

Section 307 : Prior Notice of Imported Food Shipments—The Bioterrorism Act specifies that beginning on December 12, 2003, FDA must receive prior notice of each article of food imported or offered for import into the United States.

All attendees are asked to register for these meetings by submitting registration information (including name, title, firm name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, and fax number) at least 2 workdays before the particular meeting date. You may register online at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/dms/fsbtac15.html or by fax at 202-479-6801. Space is limited, and registration will be closed at a site when maximum seating capacity for that site is reached (between 100 and 200 persons per site).

If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please notify the contact person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

A list of dates, times, and addresses for the domestic meeting is provided in table 1:

The act (21 U.S.C. 301 et . seq .) established a comprehensive system for the regulation of medical devices intended for human use. Section 513 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360(e)) established three categories (classes) of devices as a function of the regulatory controls needed to provide reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness. The three categories of devices are class I (general controls), class II (special controls), and class III (premarket approval).

Under section 513 of the act, FDA refers to devices that were in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the 1976 amendments), as “preamendments devices.” FDA classifies these devices after the agency initiates the following procedures: (1) Receives a recommendation from a device classification panel (an FDA advisory committee), (2) publishes the panel's recommendation for comment, along with a proposed regulation classifying the device, and (3) publishes a final regulation classifying the device. FDA has classified most preamendments devices under these procedures.

FDA refers to devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, as “postamendments devices.” These devices are classified automatically by statute (section 513(f)) of the act) into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. Those devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless FDA initiates the following procedures: (1) Reclassifies the device into class I or II, (2) issues an order classifying the device into class I or II in accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the act, or (3) issues, under section 513(i) of the act, an order finding the device as substantially equivalent to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. As delineated in section 510(k) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and under part 870 of the regulations (21 CFR part 870), FDA determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to previously offered devices by means of premarket notification procedures. Through premarket notification procedures, a person may, without submission of a premarket approval application (PMA), market a preamendments device that has been classified into class III until FDA issues a final regulation under section 515(b) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360e(b)) requiring premarket approval.

Section 513(e) of the act governs reclassification of classified preamendments devices. This section provides that FDA may, by rulemaking, reclassify a device based on “new information.” Under section 513(e) of the act, FDA can initiate a reclassification or an interested person can petition FDA to reclassify a preamendments device. The term “new information,” as used in section 513(e) of the act, includes information developed after the date of the device's original classification. This information could include a reevaluation of the original data or information from the time of the original classification that was not presented, available, or deemed applicable. (See, e.g., Holland Rantos v. United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 587 F.2d 1173, 1174 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1978); Upjohn v. Finch , 422 F.2d 944 (6th Cir. 1970); Bell v. Goddard , 366 F.2d 177 (7th Cir. 1966).)

Reevaluation of the data previously used by FDA is an appropriate basis for subsequent regulatory action where the reevaluation is made in light of newly available regulatory authority (see Bell v. Goddard , supra , 366 F.2d at 181; Ethicon, Inc. v. FDA , 762 F.Supp. 382, 389-391 (D.D.C. 1991)), or in light of changes in “medical science.” (See Upjohn v. Finch , supra , 422 F.2d at 951.) Whether data before the FDA are past or new data, the “new information” to support reclassification under section 513(e) of the act must be “valid scientific evidence,” as defined in section 513(a)(3) of the act and § 860.7(c)(2) (21 CFR 860.7(c)(2)) (See, e.g., General Medical Co. v. FDA , 770 F.2d 214 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Contact Lens Assoc. v. FDA , 766 F.2d 592 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1062 (1985)).

FDA relies upon “valid scientific evidence” in the classification process to determine the level of regulation for devices. When reclassifying a device, FDA can only consider valid scientific evidence that is publicly available. Publicly available information excludes trade secret and confidential commercial information, e.g., the contents of a pending PMA. (See section 520(c) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360j(c).) Section 520(h)(4) of the act provides that 6 years after the date FDA has approved an application FDA may, for reclassification of a device, use certain information contained in a PMA. Useable information includes data from clinical and preclinical tests or studies that demonstrate the safety or effectiveness of the device. This information does not include descriptions of methods of manufacture, product composition, and other trade secrets.

On February 14, 2003, we published a proposed rule on filings, issuances, computation of time, and electronic means of record retention (65 FR 7454). We received no comments on the proposal and are now issuing it in final form with only minor editorial modifications.

These final rules are part of our ongoing implementation of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) and are consistent with the Office of Management and Budget directive to remove regulatory impediments to electronic transactions. They address electronic means for filings with us, issuances to third parties, and recordkeeping. They build in the flexibility needed to allow us to continue to expand the availability of electronic options as technology advances. Under these rules, much of the detailed information on permitted electronic means will be on our Web site, http://www.pbgc.gov, which will be updated from time to time.

The final rules make it easier for you to make a filing or provide an issuance on time by treating most types of submissions as filed or issued on the date sent (provided you meet certain requirements) rather than on the date received. In addition, the rules are easier to use—they are simpler, more uniform, and appear together in a single part of the regulations. The final rules make similar simplifying changes to the rules for computing periods of time.

Under this final rule, our filing, issuance, computation-of-time, and electronic record-retention rules are consolidated in new subparts A through E of part 4000.

• New subpart A tells you what methods you may use for sending a filing to us. These new rules apply to any filing with us under our regulations where the particular regulation calls for their application. For these purposes, we treat any payment to us under our regulations as a filing.

• New subpart B tells you what methods you may use to issue a notice or otherwise provide information to any person other than us. These new rules apply to any issuance (except a payment) under our regulations where the particular regulation calls for their application.

• New subpart C tells you how we determine the date you send us a filing and the date you provide an issuance to someone other than us (such as a participant). These new rules apply to any filing or issuance under our regulations where the particular regulation calls for their application.

• New subpart D tells you how to compute time periods. These new rules apply to any time period under our regulations ( e.g. , for filings with us and issuances to third parties) where the particular regulation calls for their application.

• New subpart E tells you how to comply with any recordkeeping requirement under our regulations using electronic means.

Existing Part 4000's distribution and derivation tables, which show the changes that occurred as a result of the PBGC's July 1, 1996, reorganization and renumbering of its regulations (61 FR 32574), are removed from the PBGC's regulations but are available on the PBGC's Web site at http://www.pbgc.gov, along with similar tables showing the changes that occurred as a result of the PBGC's June 29, 1981, reorganization and renumbering of its regulations (46 FR 32574). A note at the beginning of the PBGC's regulations refers users to the PBGC's Web site for the tables.

This final rule becomes effective on November 28, 2003. When we determine your filing or issuance date:

• If you have a filing or issuance date under the old rules that is before November 28, 2003, you will keep that date, i.e. , the new rules will not apply in determining your filing or issuance date.

• If your filing or issuance date under the old rules would be on or after November 28, 2003, we will (except as provided in the special transition rule for certain premium filings) use the new rules in determining your filing or issuance date. Note that your filing or issuance date under the new rules may turn out to be earlier than November 28, 2003.

• Under the special transition rule for certain premium filings, we will use the old rules (which are set forth in our regulations in effect before November 28, 2003, and also in the 2003 Premium Payment Package) to determine the date you filed your Form 1-ES, Form 1, Form 1-EZ, and any related premium payments for the 2003 premium payment year, provided that your filing was timely under the old rules.

We are trying to provide as much flexibility as possible in filing methods. These rules allow you to file any submission with us by hand, mail, or commercial delivery service, and refer you to our Web site, http://www.pbgc.gov, for current information on electronic filing, including permitted methods, fax numbers, and e-mail addresses. The instruction booklets and forms used for certain filings with us also describe electronic and other filing methods, as appropriate, and are available on our Web site.

Under these rules, we are removing the filing addresses from our regulations and putting them on our Web site, http://www.pbgc.gov, and in the instructions to our forms; addresses are also available through our Customer Service Center, 1-800-400-7242 (for participants), or 1-800-736-2444 (for practitioners). (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to the appropriate number.) Because we have different addresses for different types of filings, you should make sure to use the appropriate address for your type of filing. For example, some filings (such as premium payments) must be sent to a bank, while other filings (such as the Standard Termination Notice (Form 500)) must be sent to the appropriate department at our offices in Washington, DC.

These rules on methods of issuance permit you to use any method of issuance, provided you use measures reasonably calculated to ensure actual receipt of the material by the intended recipient. Posting is not a permissible method of issuance under the rules of this part. (However, for certain issuances, posting is specifically permitted by the regulation governing the particular issuance.)

These rules include a safe-harbor method for providing an issuance by electronic media. The safe-harbor method generally tracks the Department of Labor's final rules (67 FR 17264 (April 9, 2002)) concerning disclosure of certain employee benefit plan information through electronic media, as set out at 29 CFR 2520.104b-1. Our safe-harbor method is available to any person using electronic media to satisfy issuance obligations under our regulations.

These rules on methods of issuance do not address compliance with the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, Pub. L. 106-229, 114 Stat. 464 (2000) (codified at 15 U.S.C. 7001-7006) (“E-SIGN”).

These rules tell you how we determine the date you file your submission with us and the date you provide your issuance to someone other than us (such as a participant). In some cases, other PBGC rules relating to issuances to third parties refer to when an issuance is received . (For instance, when there is a request for abatement (29 CFR 4207.3), interest is credited to the employer if the plan sponsor does not issue a revised payment schedule reflecting the credit or make the required refund within 60 days after receipt by the plan sponsor of a complete abatement application action.) These rules do not affect those other receipt rules for issuances to third parties. Similarly, these rules do not affect any receipt rule for filings with the PBGC, except to the extent these rules describe how to determine when a document is received (for instance, filings received by the PBGC after 5 p.m. on a business day are treated as received on the next business day).

Under these rules, we treat most types of submissions as filed on the date you send the submission to us if you comply with certain requirements. The requirements vary depending on the method of filing you use. We may ask you for evidence of when you sent a submission to us.

There are a few types of submissions to us that we always treat as filed when received (not when sent), no matter what method you use: (1) An application for benefits and related submissions (unless the instructions for the applicable forms provide for an earlier date), (2) an advance notice of reportable event (under subpart C of part 4043), (3) a notice of missed contributions exceeding $1 million (under subpart D of part 4043), and (4) a request for approval of a multiemployer plan amendment. The “filed-when-received” rule is necessary for these submissions because we may need to act quickly to provide benefit payments, to protect participants or premium payers, or to act within a statutory time frame.

In these cases, as well as cases where you do not meet the requirements for your filing date to be the date you send your submission, your filing date is the date we receive your submission. However, if we receive your submission after 5 p.m. (our time) on a business day, or anytime on a weekend or Federal holiday, we treat it as received on the next business day.

Under these rules, we treat most types of issuances to third parties as provided on the date you send the issuance if you comply with certain requirements. The requirements vary depending on the method of issuance you use. The rules for determining the date of an issuance generally track the rules for determining the date of a filing; however, there are some differences for issuances using electronic means. An electronic issuance meeting the safe harbor has the benefit of the “send-date” rule. An electronic issuance that meets the general standard for issuances ( i.e. , using measures reasonably calculated to ensure actual receipt), but not the safe harbor, is deemed issued on the date received by the intended recipient. (For a detailed discussion of how the method of delivery affects the date of a filing or issuance, see the preamble to our proposed rule (68 FR 7454).)

These computation-of-time rules tell you how to compute time periods under our regulations ( e.g. , for filings with us and issuances to third parties) where the particular regulation calls for their application. Some of our regulations contain specific exceptions or modifications to these rules. (For a detailed discussion of how the computation-of-time rules work, see the preamble to our proposed rule (68 FR 7454).)

These rules provide guidance on record maintenance and retention using electronic means. These rules generally track the Department of Labor's final rules (67 FR 17264 (April 9, 2002)) for retaining records by electronic means, set out at 29 CFR 2520.107-1.

You remain responsible for following our electronic recordkeeping rules, even if you rely on others for help. For example, if a service provider to a plan administrator creates, maintains, retains, prepares, or keeps physical custody of the plan's records, the plan administrator must ensure that the service provider complies with these rules.

The recordkeeping requirements are consistent with the goals of E-SIGN and are designed to facilitate voluntary use of electronic records while ensuring continued accuracy, integrity and accessibility of records required to be kept under our regulations. The requirements are justified by the importance of the records involved, are substantially equivalent to the requirements imposed on records that are not electronic records, will not impose unreasonable costs on the acceptance and use of electronic records, and do not require, or accord greater legal status or effect to, the implementation or application of a specific technology or technical specification for performing the functions of creating, storing, generating, receiving, communicating, or authenticating electronic records.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number. This final rule contains information collection requirements. The Office of Management and Budget has approved this information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 OMB Control Number 1212-0059; Expire 10-31-06.

The PBGC has determined, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866.

We certify under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule does not affect the underlying requirements ( e.g. , to file a submission with us, provide an issuance to a third party, or retain records) to which the rule applies. Nor does this final rule require any plan or other entity to make use of electronic media for either disclosure or recordkeeping purposes or to change the method it currently uses. Entities may avoid both any marginal cost and any beneficial impacts by simply retaining their existing paper-based or electronic methods of compliance with disclosure requirements or existing paper-based methods of compliance with recordkeeping requirements. (For those entities that already use electronic media for recordkeeping purposes, any expense associated with conforming their procedures to the minimum standards in this final rule will be marginal.) We do not expect the economic impact (if any) associated with the changes to be significant for entities of any size, and therefore certify that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply.

This file is available for download without charge in ASCII and Adobe Acrobat readable (*.PDF) formats at GPO Access. GPO Access supports HTTP, FTP, and Telnet at fedbbs.access.gpo.gov. It may also be accessed by modem dialup at 202/512-1387 followed by typing “/GO/FAC.” Paper copies of this document can be obtained by calling the Government Printing Office at 202-512-1530. Additional information concerning the programs of the Office of Foreign Assets Control is available for download from the Office's Internet Home Page at: http://www.treas.gov/ofac or via FTP at ofacftp.treas.gov. Facsimiles of information are available through the Office's 24-hour fax-on-demand service: call 202/622-0077 using a fax machine, a fax modem, or (within the United States) a touch-tone telephone.

Section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (“FCPIA Act”) (Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (“DCIA”) (Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373; 31 U.S.C. 3701 note)), requires each Federal agency with statutory authority to assess civil monetary penalties (“CMPs”) to adjust those CMPs for inflation according to a formula described in section 5 of the FCPIA Act. One purpose of the FCPIA Act is to ensure that CMPs continue to maintain their deterrent effect through periodic cost-of-living based adjustments. The DCIA amended the FCPIA Act to require that each agency, to the extent necessary, issue regulations at least every four years to adjust its CMPs for inflation.

Section 5 of the FCPIA Act requires that each CMP having a specified or maximum monetary amount provided for by Federal law be increased by the percentage by which the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (“CPI”), published by the Department of Labor, for the month of June of the calendar year preceding the adjustment exceeds the CPI for the month of June of the calendar year in which the amount of the CMP was last set or adjusted pursuant to law. The statute includes a mechanism for rounding penalty increases and limits the first inflation adjustment of a CMP to 10 percent of such penalty.

With regard to rounding, the FCPIA Act sets out penalty ranges, from amounts less than or equal to $100 to amounts greater than $200,000, and provides different dollar multiples for rounding the increase in each penalty range. Specifically, section 5(a) of the FCPIA Act requires that any increase in a CMP be rounded to the nearest multiple of:

1. $10 in the case of penalties less than or equal to $100;

2. $100 in the case of penalties greater than $100 but less than or equal to $1,000;

3. $1,000 in the case of penalties greater than $1,000 but less than or equal to $10,000;

4. $5,000 in the case of penalties greater than $10,000 but less than or equal to $100,000;

5. $10,000 in the case of penalties greater than $100,000 but less than or equal to $200,000; and

6. $25,000 in the case of penalties greater than $200,000.

OFAC currently is authorized to impose CMPs pursuant to five statutes: The Trading with the Enemy Act (“TWEA”) (50 U.S.C. App. 16); the International Emergency Economics Powers Act (“IEEPA”) (50 U.S.C. 1705); the Iraq Sanctions Act of 1990 (“ISA”) (Pub. L. 101-513, 104 Stat. 2049; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note); the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) (18 U.S.C. 2339B); and the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (“FNKDA”) (21 U.S.C. 1906). The current maximum CMP for each of the first four statutes was last adjusted or set by statute in 1996. The current maximum CMP under the FNKDA was set when the statute was enacted in 1999 and has not yet been adjusted for inflation.

With regard to those CMPs last adjusted or set by statute in 1996, the CPI value increased from 156.7 for June 1996 to 179.9 for June 2002, resulting in an inflation factor of 1.148 ( i.e. , a 14.8 percent increase). The CMP inflation factor for the FNKDA is 1.082 ( i.e. , an 8.2 percent increase), calculated using the CPI values of 166.2 for June 1999 and 179.9 for June 2002.

The original maximum CMP of $50,000 under TWEA was adjusted for inflation to $55,000 in 1996. Multiplying the current penalty of $55,000 by the factor of 1.148 results in $63,140, an increase of $8,140. When that number is rounded to the nearest multiple of $5,000, as required by the FCPIA Act, the maximum TWEA-based CMP per violation is increased to the inflation-adjusted amount of $65,000.

The original maximum CMP of $10,000 under IEEPA was adjusted for inflation to $11,000 in 1996. Multiplying the current penalty of $11,000 by the factor of 1.148 results in $12,628, an increase of $1,628. When that number is rounded to the nearest multiple of $5,000, as required by the FCPIA Act, the maximum IEEPA-based CMP per violation remains $11,000.

The original maximum CMP of $250,000 under ISA was adjusted for inflation to $275,000 in 1996. Multiplying the current penalty of $275,000 by the factor of 1.148 results in $315,700, an increase of $40,700. When that number is rounded to the nearest multiple of $25,000, as required by the FCPIA Act, the maximum ISA-based CMP per violation is increased to the inflation-adjusted amount of $325,000.

The maximum CMP of $50,000 under AEDPA was set by statute in 1996 and has not previously been adjusted for inflation. Multiplying the current penalty of $50,000 by the factor of 1.148 results in $57,400, an increase of $7,400. When that number is rounded to the nearest multiple of $5,000, as required by the FCPIA Act, the maximum AEDPA-based CMP per violation is increased to the inflation-adjusted amount of $55,000.

The maximum CMP of $1,000,000 under FNKDA was set by statute in 1999 and has not previously been adjusted for inflation. Multiplying the current penalty of $1,000,000 by the factor of 1.082 results in $1,082,000, an increase of $82,000. When that number is rounded to the nearest multiple of $25,000, as required by the FCPIA Act, the maximum FNKDA-based CMP per violation is increased to the inflation-adjusted amount of $1,075,000.

Because the regulations involve a foreign affairs function, Executive Order 12866 and the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date, are inapplicable. Additionally, advance notice, public comment, and delayed effectiveness are unnecessary because the regulations merely reflect adjustments in penalty rates required by law and do not substantively alter the existing regulatory framework or in any way affect the terms under which civil penalties are assessed by OFAC. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

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

On August 2, 1990, the President issued Executive Order 12722, declaring a national emergency with respect to Iraq. This order was issued under the authority of, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. ), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ), and section 301 of title 3 of the U.S. Code and imposed economic sanctions, including a complete trade embargo, with respect to Iraq. In keeping with United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 of August 6, 1990, and under the United Nations Participation Act (22 U.S.C. 287c), the President also issued Executive Order 12724 of August 9, 1990, which imposed additional restrictions. The Iraqi Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 575 (the “Regulations”), implement Executive Orders 12722 and 12724 and are administered by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”).

On May 22, 2003, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1483, which substantially lifted the multilateral economic sanctions with respect to Iraq. On May 23, 2003, OFAC issued a general license that reflected Resolution 1483 by authorizing most transactions that had been prohibited by the Regulations. This general license was published in the Federal Register on June 27, 2003, as new section 575.533 of the Regulations (68 FR 38188-38190).

Section 575.533 supercedes prior substantive licensing provisions of the Regulations. OFAC is removing and reserving previous substantive licensing provisions— i.e. , sections 575.505, 575.506, 575.507, 575.508, 575.509, 575.510, 575.511, 575.513, 575.514, 575.517, 575.518, 575.519, 575.520, 575.521, 575.522, 575.523, 575.524, 575.525, 575.526, 575.527, 575.528, 575.529, 575.530, 575.531, and 575.532—in an effort to clarify that the operative authorization now appears in section 575.533.

OFAC also is removing certain definitions that are no longer relevant because they pertain to other regulatory provisions that have been removed. The following outdated definitions are being removed: section 575.307 (defining “Government of Kuwait”), section 575.325 (defining “986 Escrow Account” and “United Nations Iraq Account,” both of which refer to a defunct account), and sections 575.327 and 575.328 (defining “Memorandum of Understanding” and “Guidelines,” both of which refer to outdated procedures for approving certain transactions involving Iraq).

OFAC expects to make other conforming amendments to the Regulations in the near future and welcomes public comments on this endeavor.

OFAC also is publishing interpretive guidance concerning the scope of section 575.533. The new section 575.419 published today describes the circumstances in which U.S. persons may trade in Iraqi commercial or sovereign debt.

Because these regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order 12866 and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) (the “APA”) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date, are inapplicable. However, because of the importance of the issues addressed in these regulations, they are being issued in interim form and comments will be considered in the development of a final rule. Accordingly, OFAC encourages interested persons who wish to comment to do so at the earliest possible time to permit the fullest consideration of their views. Comments may address the impact of the regulations on the submitter's activities, whether of a commercial, non-commercial or humanitarian nature, as well as changes that would improve the clarity and organization of the regulations.

The period for submission of comments will close December 29, 2003. The address for submitting comments appears near the beginning of this document. OFAC will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period in developing final regulations. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. OFAC will not accept public comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the submission be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. OFAC will return such a submission to the originator without considering the comments in the development of final regulations. In the interest of accuracy and completeness, OFAC requires comments in written form.

All public comments on these regulations will be a matter of public record. Copies of the public record concerning these regulations will be made available not sooner than January 26, 2004 and will be obtainable from OFAC's Web site http://www.treas.gov/ofac . If that service is unavailable, written requests for copies may be sent to Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20220, Attn: Chief, Records Division.

This document is available as an electronic file on The Federal Bulletin Board the day of publication in the Federal Register . By modem, dial 202/512-1387 and type “/GO FAC,” or call 202/512-1530 for disk or paper copies. This file is available for downloading without charge in ASCII and Adobe Acrobat readable (*.PDF) formats. For Internet access, the address for use with the World Wide Web, Telnet, or FTP protocol is fedbbs.access.gpo.gov. This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site http://www.treas.gov/ofac.

The collections of information related to these regulations can be found in 31 CFR part 501. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164.

On June 11, 2003, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Great Channel Between Stone Harbor and Nummy Island, New Jersey” in the Federal Register (68 FR 34877). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested nor held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . A 30 day delayed effective date is unnecessary because the bridge in question has not opened for vessel traffic in over five years, and has only opened twice in the last nine years. Further, there were no public comments during the 60-day comment period, and mariners have alternative routes around this drawbridge during the temporary closure.

Cape May County Department of Public Works (CMC) owns and operates the County of Cape May Bridge across Great Channel. The bridge is located between Stone Harbor and Nummy Island, New Jersey. The current regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.720 require the draw to open on signal except from May 15 through October 15 from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., the draw need only open if at least four hours notice has been given. From October 16 through May 14, the draw need only open if at least 24 hours notice has been given.

Agate Construction Company, on behalf of CMC, has requested a temporary change to the existing regulations for the County of Cape May Bridge to facilitate necessary repairs. The repairs consist of extensive mechanical rehabilitation of the bascule span. To facilitate the repairs, the bascule span will be locked in the closed position to vessels from 8 a.m. on October 15, 2003, through 11 p.m. on May 14, 2004.

The Coast Guard reviewed the bridge logs for the last 10 years. From October 16 to May 14, the current regulation requires the draw need only open if at least 24 hours notice is given. From 1993 to 2002, the drawlogs revealed only two openings were provided between October 15 and May 14. The earliest and latest opening dates occurred May 15, 1998, and November 6, 1994, respectively. Also, the bridge is not landlocked on either side of Great Channel providing alternate vessel access to the Atlantic Ocean, to the south, and to the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, to the north. Therefore, vessels will not be negatively impacted by this proposal.

The rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

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

This conclusion was based on the fact that the change will have a very limited impact on maritime traffic transiting this area. Mariners can plan their transits by using alternate routes to gain access to larger bodies of water.

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

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

The rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because even though the rule closes this small area to mariners, they will not be land-locked at either end and will be able to plan their transits by using available alternate routes.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. In our notice of proposed rulemaking, we provided a point of contact to small entities who could answer questions concerning proposed provisions or options for compliance.

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

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

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

This rule will not 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.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 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 State of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because this rule temporarily changes the operating regulations for a drawbridge.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The Coast Guard believes that the hazards associated with the situation are so severe that immediate action is necessary to prevent loss of property, serious injury, or loss of life. 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 . Allowing for a comment period is impracticable and contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to protect mariners against potential hazards associated with the dredging and filling operations at Hatteras Island. However, notification will be made to affected mariners via marine information broadcasts, and direct contact with agents and vessels affected by this regulation.

Hurricane Isabel eroded a section of Hatteras Island, NC, in effect creating a breach allowing waters to flow between the Pamlico Sound and the Atlantic Ocean. Since the storm, local county government authorities and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) have been working to re-establish road access to the entire Island. To accomplish this goal, the ACOE is planning to conduct operations to fill the breach. These around-the-clock operations, with associated dredge piping and vessels operating will present dangers to vessels and persons operating in the area. The Captain of the Port Wilmington, NC, is creating a safety zone in order to ensure the safety of workers, and persons and vessels that might wish to transit the area. The safety zone will serve to prevent vessels and persons from entering the area, and thus serve to keep the public safe from the potential hazards associated with the dredging and filling operations.

The Coast Guard is establishing this safety zone at the new breach in Hatteras Island, NC, in order to protect vessels and persons from dangers associated with an ACOE dredging and filling project. Subsequent to Hurricane Isabel causing this new breach, boaters continue to make attempts to cross through this new opening between Pamlico Sound and the Atlantic Ocean. Having a safety zone in place would serve to keep boaters out of this area while the ACOE conducts its dredging and filling operations.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Based on the fact that this new passage between the Pamlico Sound and the Atlantic Ocean did not exist until the passage of Hurricane Isabel, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers intends to close the inlet, this rule will not have a significant impact. Any hardships experienced by persons or vessels are outweighed by the interest in protecting the public, vessels, and vessel crews from the potentially devastating consequences of the hazard presented by the dredging and filling operations.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect mainly recreational boaters who may wish to transit the new breach between the Pamlico Sound and the Atlantic Ocean. The body of water filling the breach did not exist prior to the passage of Hurricane Isabel, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers intends to close the inlet. No small entities have become accustomed to using this new body of water; therefore this rule will not have a significant impact. Any hardships experienced by persons or vessels are outweighed by the interest in protecting the public, vessels, and vessel crews from the potentially devastating consequences of the hazard presented by the dredging and filling operations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

On July 1, 1999, we published the final regional haze rule. The regional haze rule provisions appear at 40 CFR 31.308 and 40 CFR 51.309. The rule requires States to develop implementation plans that will make “reasonable progress” toward the national visibility goal. The State plans must include these visibility progress goals for each Class I area, as well as emissions reductions strategies and other measures needed to meet these goals. The rule also provides an optional approach, described in 40 CFR 51.309, that may be followed by the nine Western States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming) that comprise the transport region analyzed by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) during the 1990's. This optional approach is also available to eligible Indian Tribes within this geographic region.

On July 3, 2003, we published a direct final action (68 FR 39842) and a parallel proposal (68 FR 39888) to amend the mobile source provisions in 40 CFR 51.309. We stated in the direct final action that if we received adverse comment by August 4, 2003, we would publish a withdrawal notice in the Federal Register . We also stated that if the Agency received no adverse comments, the rule would be effective September 2, 2003. We received adverse comments from the Center for Energy and Economic Development but did not publish the withdrawal notice before September 2, 2003. In this action, EPA is removing the amendments that were published in the July 3, 2003 direct final rule. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final action on the parallel proposed rule amendment.

This removal action is a ministerial correction of the prior direct final rulemaking, which by its terms did not become effective because the Center for Energy and Economic Development commented adversely on the approval action. Therefore, EPA is invoking the good cause exception under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) because EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking of this removal action is contrary to the public interest and unnecessary. This removal action merely restores the regulatory text that existed prior to the direct final rule. Further notice-and-comment on this action is unnecessary because we are merely restoring the regulatory text that existed prior to the final rule. For the same reasons, we believe there is good cause for this removal to become effective upon publication. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final action on the parallel proposed rule amendment.

As discussed above, this removal action merely restores the regulatory text that existed prior to the direct final rule. Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to OMB review. Because this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) or sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (63 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not have federalism implications, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This action does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action also 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. ) 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 action 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 in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

On February 26, 2002, FEMA published an interim final rule at 67 FR 8844 implementing section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act or the Act), 42 U.S.C. 5165, enacted under section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, (DMA 2000) Public Law 106-390. This identified the requirements for State, tribal, and local mitigation plans necessary for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) project funding. On October 1, 2002, FEMA published a change to that rule at 67 FR 61512, extending the date that the planning requirements take effect. This rule stated that for disasters declared on or after November 1, 2004, State Mitigation Plans will be required in order to receive non-emergency Stafford Act assistance, and local mitigation plans will be required in order to receive HMGP project grants.

However, the date that local mitigation plans will be required for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program as a condition of project grant funding was left at November 1, 2003. The intent was to make grants and technical assistance available in fiscal year 2003 to assist State and local governments to develop mitigation plans and implement mitigation projects during the first year of the competitive grant program. However, because the application period for the competitive PDM program will not close until October 6, 2003, the project grants will not be awarded until after November 1, 2003. The intent of this rule change is to clarify that the November 1, 2003 effective date for the planning requirement will apply only to PDM grant funds awarded under any Notice of funding opportunity issued after that date. Essentially, for PDM grant funds made available in fiscal year 2004 and beyond, local governments must have an approved mitigation plan in order to receive a project grant under the PDM program.

In addition, this rule updates the planning requirement identified in 44 CFR part 204, Fire Management Assistance Grant Program as well as part 206, subpart H, Public Assistance Eligibility. The changes bring these sections into conformity with the existing planning rule, 44 CFR part 201.

FEMA received many thoughtful comments, and intends to address them all prior to finalizing the rule. However, in the interest of expediting these minor clarifying and conforming changes, FEMA is issuing another interim final rule. FEMA encourages comments on this interim final rule, and will make every effort to involve all interested parties, including those who commented on the original interim final planning rules, prior to the development of the Final Rule.

In general, FEMA publishes a rule for public comment before issuing a final rule, under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 533 and 44 CFR 1.12. The Administrative Procedure Act, however, provides an exception from that general rule where the agency for good cause finds the procedures for comment and response contrary to the public interest.

This interim final rule clarifies the date that local governments, as well as a tribe applying as a sub-applicant, must have a mitigation plan as a condition of receiving FEMA PDM project grant assistance. This interim final rule clarifies that the plan requirement applies only to PDM project grants awarded under any Notice of funding opportunity issued after November 1, 2003. The Notice of Availability of Funding (NOFA) for the fiscal year 2003 PDM program was not published until July 7, 2003, making it difficult to make grant awards by November 1, 2003. In order to make timely awards for the fiscal year 2003 PDM program, it is essential that the clarification of the effective date of the planning requirement be made effective as soon as possible.

In addition, this rule brings the mitigation planning requirements for the Fire Management Assistance Grant Program, and FEMA's Public Assistance Program into conformity with 44 CFR part 201. FEMA believes it is contrary to the public interest to delay the benefits of this rule. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we find good cause for the interim final rule to take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register in order to meet the needs of States, tribes, and communities by clarifying the effective date for planning requirements under 44 CFR part 201. Therefore, FEMA finds that prior notice and comment on this rule would not further the public interest. FEMA actively encourages, solicits, and will consider comments on this interim final rule from interested parties, as well as those submitted on the original interim final planning rule, in preparing the final rule. For these reasons, FEMA believes there is good cause to publish an interim final rule.

44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(ii) excludes this rule from the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, where the rule relates to actions that qualify for categorical exclusion under 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(iii), such as the development of plans under this section.

FEMA has prepared and reviewed this rule under the provisions of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993, a significant regulatory action is subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in th[e] Executive [O]rder.

The purpose of this rule is to clarify the date by which State, tribal, and local governments have to prepare or update their plans to meet the criteria identified in 44 CFR part 201. This interim final rule clarifies that local governments must have a mitigation plan approved in order to receive a project grant through the PDM program under any Notice of funding opportunity issued after November 1, 2003, in fiscal year 2004 and beyond. As such, the rule itself will not have an effect on the economy of more than $100,000,000.

Therefore, this rule is not a significant regulatory action and is not an economically significant rule under Executive Order 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866.

Environmental Justice is incorporated into policies and programs under Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994. The Executive Order requires each Federal agency to conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment, in a manner that ensures that those programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons from program participation, denying persons program benefits, or subjecting persons to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin.

No action that FEMA can anticipate under the final rule will have a disproportionately high or adverse human health and environmental effect on any segment of the population. This rule extends the date for development or update of State and local mitigation plans in compliance with 44 CFR part 201. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 12898 do not apply to this interim final rule.

This new interim final rule simply clarifies the date by which States and communities have to comply with the planning requirements, and clarifies which FEMA programs are affected by these requirements. The changes do not affect the collection of information; therefore, no change to the request for the collection of information is necessary. In summary, this interim final rule complies with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

Executive Order 13132, Federalism, dated August 4, 1999, sets forth principles and criteria to which agencies must adhere in formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, that is, regulations that have substantial direct effects on the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Federal agencies must closely examine the statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States, and to the extent practicable, must consult with State and local officials before implementing any such action.

FEMA reviewed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and concluded that the rule has no federalism implications as defined by the Executive Order. FEMA has determined that the rule does not significantly affect the rights, roles, and responsibilities of States, and involves no preemption of State law nor does it limit State policymaking discretion.

FEMA will continue to evaluate the planning requirements and work with interested parties as the planning requirements of 44 CFR part 201 are implemented. In addition, we actively encourage and solicit comments on this interim final rule from interested parties, and will consider them in preparing the final rule.

FEMA has reviewed this interim final rule under Executive Order 13175, which became effective on February 6, 2001. In this review, no “tribal implications” as defined in Executive Order 13175 were found 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. Moreover, the interim final rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor does it preempt tribal law, impair treaty rights or limit the self-governing powers of tribal governments.

FEMA sent this interim final rule to the Congress and to the General Accounting Office under the Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking Act, Public Law 104-121. The rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of that Act. It is an administrative action to extend the time State and local governments have to prepare mitigation plans required by Section 322 of the Stafford Act, as enacted in DMA 2000.

The rule will not result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. It will not have “significant adverse effects” on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

In compliance with section 808(2) of the Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. 8(2), for good cause we find that notice and public procedure on this interim final rule are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In order to make timely awards for the fiscal year 2003 PDM program, it is essential that the clarification of the effective date of the planning requirement be made effective as soon as possible. Accordingly, this interim final rule is effective on October 28, 2003.

Under the Standard Time Act of 1918, as amended by the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260-64), the Secretary of Transportation has authority to issue regulations modifying the boundaries between time zones in the United States in order to move an area from one time zone to another. The standard in the statute for such decisions is “regard for the convenience of commerce and the existing junction points and division points of common carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.”

Time zone boundaries are set by regulation (49 CFR part 71). Currently, under regulation, Mellette and Todd Counties, and the western portion of Jones County, are located in the mountain standard time zone. The eastern portion of Jones County is currently located in the central time zone.

The South Dakota legislature adopted a concurrent resolution (Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 3) petitioning the Secretary of Transportation to place all of Jones, Mellette, and Todd counties into the central time zone. The resolution was adopted by the South Dakota Senate on February 3, 2003, and concurred in by the South Dakota House of Representatives on February 7, 2003. The resolution noted, among other things, that the vast majority of residents of those counties observe central standard time, instead of mountain standard time, because their commercial and social ties are to communities located in the central time zone. It further stated that there would be much less confusion and that it would be much more convenient for the commerce of these counties if these counties were located in the central time zone. A copy of the resolution has been placed in the docket.

Under DOT procedures to change a time zone boundary, the Department will generally begin a rulemaking proceeding if the highest elected officials in the area make a prima facie case for the proposed change. DOT determined that the concurrent resolution of the South Dakota legislature made a prima facie case that warranted opening a proceeding to determine whether the change should be made. On August 11, 2003, DOT published a notice of proposed rulemaking (68 FR 47533) proposing to make the requested change and invited public comment. The NPRM proposed that this change go into effect during the next changeover from daylight saving time to standard time, which is on October 26, 2003.

Two comments were filed. One, which was filed by the South Dakota Secretary of State, supported the change. He stated that “The proposal to place all of Jones, Mellette and Todd Counties in the central time zone would eliminate confusion these counties have when elections are conducted. Eliminating this confusion will improve voter turnout in these counties. South Dakota's polling hours are from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. legal time. These counties that are legally set in mountain time follow central time for their business hours, therefore causing confusion in the past on what time zone to use for polling hours for local, state and federal elections.” The other comment objected to daylight saving time observance and suggested that all states should be in the same time zone.

We did not hold a public hearing in the area because of the unusual circumstances in this case. According to the State legislature, the vast majority of people in the affected area are already observing central time. We consulted with a variety of State, local, tribal, and federal officials to confirm the local observance and ask whether a hearing would be helpful in this case. Almost all believed that it would not.

This final rule makes the proposed change. It is effective during the next changeover from daylight saving time to standard time, which is October 26, 2003. We find good cause to make this effective with less than 30 days notice because the final rule merely conforms the regulation to the longstanding and almost universal time observance in the area.

This rule does not directly affect the observance of daylight saving time. Under the Uniform Time Act of 1966, as amended, the standard time of each time zone in the United States is advanced one hour from 2 a.m. on the first Sunday in April until 2 a.m. on the last Sunday in October, except in any State that has, by law, exempted itself from this observance.

This 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 (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). We expect 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. The rule primarily affects the convenience of individuals in scheduling activities. By itself, it imposes no direct costs. Its impact is localized in nature.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This final rule will primarily affect individuals and their scheduling of activities. Although it will affect some small businesses, not-for-profits and, perhaps, several small governmental jurisdictions, it will not be a substantial number. In addition, the change should have little, if any, economic impact. Therefore, the Office of the Secretary 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 final rule does not require any new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this final rule under E.O. 12612 and have determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and E.O. 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993) govern 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 direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those costs. This final rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.

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

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

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

This rulemaking is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.

E.O. 13175 provides that government agencies consult with tribes on issues that impact the Indian community. The Department has consulted with the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council and has informed them of this action.

On September 9,2003 (68 FR 53053), NMFS announced the reallocation of the remaining Pacific sardine harvest guideline in the exclusive economic zone off the Pacific Coast. An estimated 59,508 metric tons (mt) of the 110,908 mt harvest guideline was expected to remain unharvested on September 1, 2003. In accordance with the allocation procedures contained in the FMP, 80 percent of the 59,508 mt was allocated to Subarea B south of Pt. Arena, CA (47,606 mt) and 20 percent was allocated to Subarea A north of Pt. Arena, CA (11,902 mt). The allocation to Subarea A of 11,902 mt was reached on October 17, 2003. According to the allocation procedures in the FMP, the fishery may reopen on December 1, 2003, if any portion of the Subarea B allocation is unharvested at that time.

For the reasons stated here and in accordance with the FMP and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 660.508, the fishery for Pacific sardine north of Pt. Arena, CA was closed at 12:01 a.m. October 17, 2003. If any of the sardine allocation to Subarea B south of Pt. Arena remains unharvested on December 1, 2003, it will be available to all fisheries off the Pacific Coast until the end of the fishing season on December 31, 2003.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA), NMFS finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for comment on this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because providing prior notice and opportunity would be impracticable. It would be impracticable because this closure is necessary to comply with the allocation procedures mandated by the FMP and its implementing regulations. For these reasons, the AA finds that good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

This action is required by 50 CFR 660.509 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.