Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32213

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 166, 450, 7711–7714,

7718, 7731, 7732, and 7751–7754; 21 U.S.C.

136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

2. A new § 319.56–2ii is added to read

as follows:

§ 319.56–2ii Administrative instructions:

conditions governing the entry of mangoes

from the Philippines.

Mangoes (fruit) (Mangifera indica)

may be imported into the United States

from the Philippines only under the

following conditions:

(a) Limitation of origin. The mangoes

must have been grown on the island of

Guimaras, which the Administrator has

determined meets the criteria set forth

in § 319.56–2(e)(4) and § 319.56–2(f)

with regard to the mango seed weevil

(Sternochetus mangiferae).

(b) Treatment. The mangoes must be

subjected to the following vapor heat

treatment for fruit flies of the genus

Bactrocera. The treatment must be

conducted in the Philippines under the

supervision of an inspector.

(1) Size the fruit before treatment.

Place temperature probes in the center

of the large fruits.

(2) Raise the temperature of the fruit

by saturated water vapor at 117.5 °F

(47.5 °C) until the approximate center of

the fruit reaches 114.8 °F (46 °C) within

a minimum of 4 hours.

(3) Hold fruit temperature at 114.8 °F

(46 °C) for 10 minutes.

(4) During the run-up time,

temperature should be recorded from

each pulp sensor once every 5 minutes.

During the 10 minutes holding time,

temperature should be recorded from

each pulp sensor every minute. During

the last hour of the treatment, which

includes the 10-minute holding time,

the relative humidity must be

maintained at a level of 90 percent or

higher. After the fruit are treated, air

cooling and/or drench cooling are

optional.

(c) APHIS inspection. Mangoes from

the Philippines are subject to inspection

under the direction of an inspector,

either in the Philippines or at the port

of first arrival in the United States.

Mangoes inspected in the Philippines

are subject to reinspection at the port of

first arrival in the United States as

provided in § 319.56–6.

(d) Labeling. Each box of mangoes

must be clearly labeled in accordance

with § 319.56–2(g).

(e) Phytosanitary certificate. Each

shipment of mangoes must be

accompanied by a phytosanitary

certificate issued by the Republic of the

Philippines Department of Agriculture

that contains additional declarations

stating that the mangoes were grown on

the island of Guimaras and have been

treated for fruit flies of the genus

Bactrocera in accordance with

paragraph (b) of this section.

(f) Trust Fund Agreement. Mangoes

that are treated or inspected in the

Philippines may be imported into the

United States only if the Republic of the

Philippines Department of Agriculture

(RPDA) has entered into a trust fund

agreement with APHIS. That agreement

requires the RPDA to pay, in advance of

each shipping season, all costs that

APHIS estimates it will incur in

providing inspection services in the

Philippines during that shipping season.

Those costs include administrative

expenses and all salaries (including

overtime and the Federal share of

employee benefits), travel expenses

(including per diem expenses), and

other incidental expenses incurred by

APHIS in performing these services. The

agreement requires the RPDA to deposit

a certified or cashier’s check with

APHIS for the amount of those costs, as

estimated by APHIS. If the deposit is not

sufficient to meet all costs incurred by

APHIS, the agreement further requires

the RPDA to deposit with APHIS a

certified or cashier’s check for the

amount of the remaining costs, as

determined by APHIS, before any more

mangoes will be treated or inspected in

the Philippines. After a final audit at the

conclusion of each shipping season, any

overpayment of funds would be

returned to the RPDA or held on

account until needed, at the RPDA’s

option.

(g) Department not responsible for

damage. The treatment for mangoes

prescribed in paragraph (b) of this

section is judged from experimental

tests to be safe. However, the

Department assumes no responsibility

for any damage sustained through or in

the course of such treatment.

Done in Washington, DC, this 8th day of

June 2001.

Bobby R. Acord,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 01–14937 Filed 6–08–01; 4:39 pm]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–U

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Part 360

[Docket No. 98–091–2]

Noxious Weeds; Permits and Interstate

Movement

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as

final rule.

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final

rule, without change, an interim rule

that amended the regulations to clearly

state that a permit is required for the

movement of noxious weeds interstate,

as well as into or through the United

States. Prior to the interim rule, the

regulations provided for the issuance of

permits for movements of noxious

weeds into or through the United States,

but did not explicitly address interstate

movements. This action is necessary to

help prevent the artificial interstate

spread of noxious weeds into

noninfested areas of the United States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The interim rule

became effective on July 29, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Alan V. Tasker, National Weed Program

Coordinator, Invasive Species and Pest

Management, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River

Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737–

1236; (301) 734–5708.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In an interim rule effective and

published in the Federal Register on

July 29, 1999 (64 FR 41007–41010,

Docket No. 98–091–1), we amended the

regulations in 7 CFR part 360 (referred

to below as the regulations) to clearly

state that a permit is required for the

movement of noxious weeds interstate,

as well as into or through the United

States. Prior to the interim rule, the

regulations provided for the issuance of

permits for movements of noxious

weeds into or through the United States,

but did not explicitly address interstate

movements.

The interim rule was necessary to

help prevent the artificial interstate

spread of noxious weeds into

noninfested areas of the United States.

The interim rule aligned our interstate

movement regulations with our import

requirements and is consistent with our

obligations under international trade

agreements.

Comments on the interim rule were

required to be received on or before

September 27, 1999. We received six

comments by that date. The comments

were from State Governments, plant and

seed producers, a trade association, and

an environmental advocacy

organization. Four of those commenters

generally supported the interim rule.

One commenter opposed the rule. One

commenter submitted data on two

Federal noxious weeds. We have

carefully considered these comments,

which are discussed below by topic.

32214 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Enforcement of the Interim Rule

Two commenters asked APHIS to

describe how it intends to enforce the

requirements in the interim rule.

APHIS faces a difficult task in

monitoring the interstate movement of

noxious weeds, and we depend on State

plant officials to identify weeds moved

into their States. In the event that

APHIS can determine that a person has

moved a noxious weed interstate

without a permit, or in contradiction to

the terms specified in a permit, APHIS

has authority to destroy or dispose of

such noxious weeds in order to prevent

their dissemination in the United States.

APHIS also has the authority to impose

criminal and civil penalties on those

persons who move noxious weeds

interstate without a permit or who

violate the terms of their permit, as

discussed in detail later in this

document. Further, if APHIS finds that

persons or companies are advertising

Federal noxious weeds for sale, we

contact the sellers and inform them that

they are prohibited from moving

noxious weeds interstate except under

permit.

Weed Classification System

One commenter requested that APHIS

consider codifying a weed classification

system, which would make the noxious

weed permitting system more

transparent. The commenter stated that

such a system would involve the

identification of ‘‘risk zones’’ based on

geographic and other climate-based

criteria, and would provide for the sale

of noxious weeds in areas where there

is no invasion potential while

prohibiting the sale and movement of

weeds in areas where there is invasion

potential.

We believe that, due to the number of

variables that would be involved, such

a system would prove problematic to

develop and implement because the risk

presented by the movement of any weed

is fairly unique to that weed and is

further dependent on the climate and

environment to which the weed is being

moved. Nonetheless, we are considering

various types of weed classification

systems, and if we determine that it is

possible to develop and maintain an

accurate system, we may make it the

subject of an upcoming rulemaking.

State Weed Lists

One commenter requested that APHIS

work to ensure that States are basing

their individual weed lists on sound

scientific research. The commenter

stated that concerns over the effects of

invasive plant species on agricultural

areas and the environment have led to

a proliferation of State and local

initiatives to control species that often

do not appear to have been sciencebased.

APHIS does not challenge weed lists

maintained by individual States.

Persons with concerns regarding States’

weed lists may have an opportunity to

comment on the scientific merit of weed

listings through the separate rulemaking

mechanisms employed by States to

create their regulations, including

regulations that contain weed lists. In

short, persons with concerns about the

scientific justification for State weed

listings should pursue the matter

directly with the appropriate State

Department of Agriculture.

Sale of Noxious Weeds in Commercial

Trade

One commenter asked what actions

APHIS is taking to keep noxious weeds

from being sold in commercial trade.

As stated earlier in this document, if

APHIS finds that persons or companies

are advertising Federal noxious weeds

for sale, we contact the sellers and

inform them that they are prohibited

from moving noxious weeds interstate

except under permit.

Federal noxious weeds that are moved

in violation of the regulations may be

seized and destroyed, and violators may

be subject to civil and criminal penalties

as discussed later in this document.

If Federal noxious weeds are found

during inspection of a retail

establishment or under other

circumstances, APHIS attempts to

determine the origin of the weeds and

whether the weeds have been imported

or moved interstate. If the weeds are

found to have been imported or moved

interstate, APHIS will determine

whether there is a permit on file

authorizing the importation or interstate

movement. If there is no permit on file,

the presence of the weeds will be

investigated as a violation of the

regulations.

APHIS’s Legal Authority

One commenter stated that APHIS

does not have the authority to impose

restrictions on the interstate movement

of noxious weeds.

APHIS believes it has clear authority

under section 412 of the Plant

Protection Act (Title IV, Pub. L. 106–

224, 114 Stat. 438, 7 U.S.C. 7712) to

regulate the movement of noxious

weeds in interstate commerce.

Specifically, the Plant Protection Act

states, in section 412, paragraph (a), that

the Secretary of Agriculture ‘‘may

prohibit or restrict the importation,

entry, exportation, or movement in

interstate commerce of any plant, plant

product, biological control organism,

noxious weed, article, or means of

conveyance, if the Secretary determines

that the prohibition or restriction is

necessary to prevent the introduction or

the dissemination of a plant pest or

noxious weed within the United

States.’’

One commenter stated that the

interim rule effectively usurps a State’s

right to decide for itself whether to

allow movement of a product (such as

a noxious weed) into the State.

When processing an application for a

permit to move a noxious weed

interstate, APHIS evaluates the effects of

the movement of the noxious weed and

shares its findings with the affected

State. If APHIS determines that

movement of a weed will not present a

significant risk of disseminating the

weed into noninfested areas of the

United States, the State has an

opportunity to comment on or suggest

revisions to the conditions of the

permit. Any decision to approve or deny

a permit application is made by APHIS

after consultation with the affected

State.

To elaborate, if a State does not want

to allow movement of a noxious weed

and has a sound, scientific basis for its

position, APHIS is unlikely to issue a

permit for the movement of the weeds.

Further, if a State wishes to allow entry

of a weed, and APHIS has determined

that the movement of the weed would

not present a significant risk of

disseminating the weed into uninfested

areas of the United States, APHIS would

grant the permit to move weeds

interstate. In the event that there is

disagreement between APHIS and a

State over whether to grant a permit, the

final decision rests with APHIS, since

permits to move weeds interstate are

Federal permits.

One commenter objected to the

interim rule on Constitutional grounds

that it unfairly interferes with free trade

among States.

We believe that this action is well

within the scope of our authorizing

legislation; as explained elsewhere in

this document.

Issuance of Permits

One commenter expressed concern

over the possibility that APHIS would

issue a permit to move certain weeds to

one State, but could refuse to issue a

permit to move weeds to another State.

APHIS believes it has authority to

allow weeds to be moved to one State

but not another, based on risk

assessment. When considering each

request for a permit to move a noxious

weed interstate, APHIS considers the

intended use of the weed and the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32215

proposed methods to be used to prevent

escape of the weed into the

environment. Since a given noxious

weed can present a different risk of

spread or infestation depending on the

climate or environment where it is

introduced, APHIS believes that it is

essential to consider whether to allow

the interstate movement of noxious

weeds on a case-by-case basis. This

could mean that APHIS could grant a

permit to move a given weed to one

State, but not another, and also that

APHIS could grant a permit to move a

given weed into one area of a State, but

not another.

Further, most permits for the

interstate movement of noxious weeds

are granted to containment facilities that

use the weeds for research purposes.

These facilities use or grow the weeds

under controlled conditions that

provide assurance that the weeds will

not be disseminated into natural or

agricultural areas. Some persons seeking

permits to move noxious weeds

interstate do not intend to grow the

weeds in containment facilities. For

these permit requests, APHIS considers

whether or not the weed is already

present in the State. If the weed is

present in the State and the State

concurs with permit issuance, APHIS

will issue a permit. If the weed does not

occur in the State, APHIS evaluates the

potential effects of the weed on the

particular environment to which it

would be moved, and confirms its

findings with the State. APHIS may

deny a permit request based on the

possibility that the weeds could be

disseminated into agricultural and

natural areas where they could affect

crop production or crowd out native

species, or otherwise pose a high risk of

becoming established.

Clarification of the Effects of the

Interim Rule

One commenter asked that we answer

six specific questions about the interim

rule. Those questions and our responses

follow.

Question: Does the interim rule apply

to seeds shipped from a State where the

seed is ‘‘legal and certified’’ under U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

standards to another State where the

seed is ‘‘legal and certified’’ under the

same USDA standards?

Response: A person moving noxious

weeds or noxious weed seeds interstate

must have a valid Federal permit,

regardless of the State where weeds or

seeds originate or their intended

destination State. Only one person (i.e.,

either the person moving the weed or

seed or the person receiving the weed or

seed) needs to obtain a permit for a

single movement of noxious weeds. In

most cases, the recipient of the noxious

weeds would be granted a permit to

receive noxious weeds from another

State. When many recipients in a

particular State or a defined area within

the State are authorized to receive the

noxious weed, the original shipper may

be granted a permit to move seeds to the

defined area. In both cases, the

movement is authorized only under the

conditions specified in the permit.

Question: Does the rule apply to

adjoining States that both allow

production and plantings?

Response: Again, either the person

receiving noxious weeds from another

State or the person sending noxious

weeds interstate must have a permit that

allows the weeds or seeds to be moved

from one State to another, regardless of

whether the States allow production or

planting of noxious weeds.

Question: Does the rule apply to

States exporting to foreign countries

when the shipment has to cross State

lines to the port of export?

Response: A person who wishes to

move noxious weeds from one State to

another State so that they can be

exported must have a permit stating that

the weeds or seeds may be moved into

the area of export in the exporting State.

The person who obtains the permit

should be the recipient in the weeds’

destination State (in this case, the

exporter of seeds). Further, if a person

has a permit to move weeds from one

State to another, but the movement

requires that the weeds transit other

States en route to their destination, the

permit would specify relevant

safeguarding measures that need to be

applied to ensure that the weeds do not

pose a risk of being disseminated into

the States that they are transiting.

Question: Does this rule give USDA

jurisdiction over noxious weeds

growing in States where the crop is

legal, certifiable, and widespread?

Response: This rule only affects

persons moving noxious weeds or seeds

interstate.

Question: How does USDA plan to

administer thousands of small lot orders

of 100 to 500 pounds of certified Federal

noxious weed seed on a daily basis

going to and from States where it is legal

and accepted?

Response: APHIS’ permitting policy

requires that a person wishing to move

certain weeds interstate to a single State

would need only one permit, typically

valid for 4 years, to move an unlimited

number of lots of weeds to that State.

However, a person wishing to move a

single weed to several States would

need a permit for each destination State.

Further, some APHIS permits may

specify that weeds can only be moved

within a defined area in the destination

State in order to prevent dissemination

of the weed into noninfested areas.

Question: Does this new rule carry

any different penalties than the rule it

updates?

Response: Since the publication of the

interim rule, Congress passed the Plant

Protection Act (Title IV, Pub. L. 106–

224, 114 Stat. 438, 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772).

Under the Plant Protection Act, the

Secretary of Agriculture has the

authority to hold, treat, or destroy, at the

owner’s expense, noxious weeds that

are moving or have moved interstate

without a valid permit or in

contradiction to the terms specified in a

permit. The Secretary also has the

authority to assess civil penalties

against persons who violate the terms of

permits issued for the interstate

movement of noxious weeds. Cases in

which persons are believed to

knowingly violate the terms of their

permit can be referred to the

Department of Justice for criminal

prosecution.

With regard to criminal penalties, the

Act provides that violators may be fined

in accordance with Title 18, U.S. Code,

imprisoned for a period not exceeding 1

year, or both. With regard to civil

penalties, the Act provides that violators

may, after notice and opportunity for a

hearing on the record, be assessed a

civil penalty by the Secretary that does

not exceed the greater of: (1) $50,000 in

the case of any individual (except that

the penalty may not exceed $1,000 in

the case of an initial violation by a

person moving noxious weeds or seeds

not for monetary gain), $250,000 in the

case of any partnership, corporation,

association, joint venture, or other legal

entity, $500,000 for all violations

adjudicated in a single proceeding; or

(2) twice the gross gain or gross loss for

any violation that results in the person

deriving pecuniary gain or causing

pecuniary loss to another.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the

interim rule and in this document, we

are adopting the interim rule as a final

rule without change.

This action also affirms the

information contained in the interim

rule concerning Executive Orders 12372

and 12988.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866. The rule has

been determined to be significant for the

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and,

therefore, has been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget.

32216 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we

have performed a final regulatory

flexibility analysis, which is set forth

below, regarding the economic effects of

this rule on small entities. The

discussion also serves as a cost-benefit

analysis. Based on the information we

have, there is no basis to conclude that

this rule will result in any significant

economic effects on a substantial

number of small entities.

In accordance with section 412 of the

Plant Protection Act (Title IV, Pub. L.

106–224, 114 Stat. 438, 7 U.S.C. 7712),

the Secretary of Agriculture is

authorized to prohibit or restrict the

importation, entry, exportation, or

movement in interstate commerce of

any plant, plant product, biological

control organism, noxious weed, article,

or means of conveyance, if the Secretary

determines that the prohibition or

restriction is necessary to prevent the

introduction or dissemination of a plant

pest or noxious weed within the United

States.

This rule specifically requires that a

permit is necessary for the interstate

movement of Federal noxious weeds.

Prior to the interim rule, the regulations

provided for the issuance of permits for

movements of noxious weeds into or

through the United States, but did not

explicitly address interstate movements.

As part of our analysis of the

economic effects of this action, we

compared the expected benefits of

restricting the interstate movement of

Federal noxious weeds with the

expected costs to the private sector

associated with the new restrictions.

Effects of Noxious Weeds

Noxious weeds affect both crops and

native plant species in the same way—

by out-competing for light, water, and

soil nutrients. Noxious weeds cause

estimated crop losses of $2 to $3 billion

annually. These losses are attributed to:

(1) Decreased quality of agricultural

products due to high levels of

competition from noxious weeds; and

(2) decreased quantity of agricultural

products due to noxious weed

infestations.

Further, noxious weeds can

negatively affect livestock and dairy

producers by making forage unpalatable

to livestock, thus decreasing livestock

productivity and potentially increasing

producers’ feed costs. Increased costs to

agricultural producers are eventually

borne by consumers of their products.

Noxious weeds also grow in aquatic

habitats and may clog waterways and

block irrigation and drainage canals,

thus negatively affecting fish and

wildlife resources and recreational use

of these areas.

Infestations of noxious weeds can

have a potentially disastrous impact on

biodiversity and natural ecosystems, as

evidenced by the case of the

Mediterranean clone of Caulerpa

taxifolia, a listed aquatic Federal

noxious weed. The clone was

introduced into the Mediterranean in

1984 and has since spread along the

French and Italian coasts, covering

10,000 acres of the coastal sea floor, and

crowding out many native seaweeds, sea

grasses, and invertebrates such as coral,

sea fans, and sponges.

In order to combat the negative effects

of noxious weeds on crop lands, grazing

lands, and waterways, herbicidal and

other weed control strategies can be

implemented at further costs to

producers. Such costs would then likely

be passed on to consumers, who would

pay more for products due to increased

producer costs.

The interim rule is expected to benefit

any entities referred to above by curbing

the spread of Federal noxious weeds

and thereby eliminating potential new

costs resulting from infestations.

Entities Potentially Affected by the

Interim Rule

Any person involved in moving

Federal noxious weeds interstate will be

affected by the interim rule because they

will have to obtain a permit prior to the

interstate movement. Those likely to be

affected are nursery stock catalog firms

and individual backyard producers who

distribute Federal noxious weeds.

We have found that at least 61 nursery

stock catalog companies list some

Federal noxious weeds, in the form of

either seeds or plants, in their inventory

of available products. Available data

suggests, however, that sales of Federal

noxious weeds (and seeds) make up a

small fraction of the total receipts for

these businesses. In our initial

regulatory flexibility analysis, we

invited any persons engaged in the sale

of Federal noxious weeds, including

seeds, to provide us with additional

economic data regarding revenue

generated by those sales. We received

no data in response to our request.

There are entities in some States that

import noxious weed seeds under

permit and grow them under conditions

specified in permits granted by APHIS.

We are aware that, in isolated cases,

entities that import Federal noxious

weeds and seeds under permit may also

wish to move them interstate. Under

this rule, those entities are required to

obtain another permit from APHIS for

any movement of noxious weeds that is

not authorized in the original permit.

Further, APHIS has the authority to

deny such a permit if it determines that

the movement of such Federal noxious

weeds may cause dissemination of the

weed into noninfested areas of the

United States. This means that, based on

the risk of dissemination, APHIS may

grant a permit for the movement of a

Federal noxious weed into one State,

but not into another, or may grant a

permit for the movement of one species

of Federal noxious weed, but not

another. It is possible that this rule

could negatively affect sales of noxious

weeds because APHIS may refuse to

allow movement of weeds to areas

where they present a risk of becoming

established and infesting agricultural

and natural areas. However, the benefits

of reducing the probability of a large

new infestation of noxious weeds that

became established after being moved

interstate would far exceed the losses

that affected individuals may bear from

the rule.

Also among the entities potentially

affected by this rule are individual

backyard producers. Some listed

Federal noxious weeds are known to be

valued among certain groups as

vegetable crops and are grown in small

garden plots for personal use and sale at

informal markets. The total number of

such entities is not available. However,

since most of these entities probably do

not depend upon the production of

noxious weeds for their livelihood, this

rule should have a very limited

economic effect on them. In our initial

regulatory flexibility analysis, we

invited the public to submit any

available data on such entities that are

affected by this rule. No data was

received.

We are also aware that there are

producers of Ipomoea aquatica (Chinese

water spinach—a listed Federal noxious

weed and a food valued by some

groups) in some counties in Florida,

California, and Hawaii who raise the

weed as a cash crop for interstate sale

to metropolitan and other markets. The

exact number of such farms and their

size is not available, but most holdings

are believed to be as small as an acre or

less. Under this rule, persons wishing to

move I. aquatica interstate will be

required to obtain a permit from APHIS.

We realize that this may result in a new

burden on sellers and purchasers of I.

aquatica, and we intend to address the

situation in an upcoming rulemaking.

Alternatives Considered

The only significant alternative to this

rule that we considered was to make no

changes in the regulations, i.e., to not

restrict the interstate movement of

noxious weeds. We have rejected this

alternative because of the potential

adverse economic and ecological

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32217

consequences that we believe could

result if listed Federal noxious weeds

are disseminated into noninfested areas

of the United States.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.), the information collection and

recordkeeping requirements in the

interim rule have been approved by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB). The assigned OMB control

number is 0579–0054.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 360

Imports, Plants (Agriculture),

Quarantine, Transportation, Weeds.

PART 360—NOXIOUS WEED

REGULATIONS

Accordingly, we are adopting as a

final rule, without change, the interim

rule that amended 7 CFR part 360 and

that was published at 64 FR 41007–

41009 on July 29, 1999.

Authority: Title IV of Pub. L. 106–224, 114

Stat. 438, 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772; 7 CFR 2.22,

2.80, and 371.3.

Done in Washington, DC, this 8th day of

June 2001.

Bill Hawks,

Under Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory

Programs.

[FR Doc. 01–14867 Filed 6–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

19 CFR Part 206

Investigations Relating to Global and

Bilateral Safeguard Actions, Market

Disruption, and Review of Relief

Actions

AGENCY: International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Interim rule with request for

comments and opportunity for

objection.

SUMMARY: The United States

International Trade Commission

(Commission) is amending on an

interim basis part 206 of its Rules of

Practice and Procedure. The amendment

will have the effect of providing for

disclosure of confidential business

information under administrative

protective order in certain proceedings,

and is prompted by a party request. The

Commission requests comments on the

interim amendment. The Commission

also is providing parties to two

currently-pending investigations the

opportunity to object to application of

the amendment to the investigation to

which they are a party.

DATES: Effective Date: The interim

amendment will take effect, as to both

pending and new investigations, on

June 14, 2001.

Comment Date: Comments are due on

or before 5:15 p.m. August 13, 2001.

Objection Date: Objections are due on

or before 5:15 p.m. June 21, 2001.

ADDRESSES: A signed original and 14

copies of each set of comments or

objections should be mailed or hand

delivered to Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary, United States International

Trade Commission, 500 E. Street, SW.,

Room 112, Washington, DC 20436.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William W. Gearhart, Esq., Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. International

Trade Commission (telephone 202–205–

3091). Hearing-impaired individuals are

advised that information on this matter

can be obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal at 202–

205–1810. General information

concerning the Commission may also be

obtained by accessing its Internet server

(http://www.usitc.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

335 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.

1335) authorizes the Commission to

adopt such reasonable procedures,

rules, and regulations as it deems

necessary to carry out its functions and

duties. Section 202 of the Trade Act of

1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) provides for the

Commission to promulgate regulations

concerning access to confidential

business information (CBI) under

administrative protective order (APO) in

safeguard investigations. The interim

amendment set out herein concerns

rules of agency organization, procedure,

and practice.

A party to Inv. No. TA–204–6, Certain

Steel Wire Rod, has requested disclosure

of CBI under APO. The Commission’s

Rules of Practice and Procedure do not

currently provide for such disclosure.

The investigation is subject to statutory

deadlines and is scheduled to be

completed in a relatively short period of

time. Consequently, the Commission

cannot pursue the normal notice-andcomment rulemaking schedule called

for in the Administrative Procedure Act,

under 5 U.S.C. 553, and has good cause

for making its rule amendment effective

on publication. Therefore, the

Commission is amending its rules on an

interim basis, effective on the date of

publication of this notice.

The Commission is amending section

206.52 of the Commission’s Rules (19

CFR 206.52) to add a new paragraph (c)

that corresponds to the existing

paragraph (e) in section 206.54. This

change will permit the disclosure of CBI

under APO in monitoring proceedings

addressed in section 206.52.

Because of the emergency nature of

the amendment, the Commission is

providing each party to one of the two

currently-pending investigations, Inv.

No. TA–204–6, Certain Steel Wire Rod

and Inv. No. TA–204–5, Circular

Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe, the

opportunity to object to application of

the amendment to the investigation to

which it is a party. Any such objection

must be filed no later than 7 calendar

days after the date of publication of this

notice.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the

Commission certifies pursuant to 5

U.S.C. 605(b), that the amendment set

forth in this notice will not, if

promulgated, have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The

amendment will clarify current

Commission procedures, and does not

substantially increase the burden of

appearing or practicing before the

Commission.

Executive Order 12866

The Commission has determined that

the amendment does not meet the

criteria described in section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,

October 4, 1993) (E.O.) and thus does

not constitute a significant regulatory

action for purposes of the E.O., since the

revisions will not result in (1) an annual

effect on the economy of $100 million

or more, (2) a major increase in costs or

prices for consumers, individual

industries, Federal, State, or local

government agencies, or geographic

regions, or (3) significant adverse effects

on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

on the ability of United States-based

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or foreign

markets. Accordingly, no regulatory

impact assessment is required.

Executive Order 13132

The amendment does not contain

federalism implications warranting the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment

pursuant to E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 4, 1999).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

The amendment will not result in the

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more