The purpose of this regulation is to implement the portion of the National Defense Authorization Act for 1999, Public Law 105-261, that amended chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, and chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to establish a demonstration project under which certain Medicare and other eligible DoD beneficiaries can enroll in health benefit plans offered under the FEHB Program. The legislation was signed into law on October 17, 1998. The demonstration project will run for a period of three years from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2002. DoD, with OPM concurrence, has selected eight geographic areas to serve as demonstration areas. The legislation requires that between 6 and 10 geographic areas be selected. No more than 66,000 individuals can participate in the demonstration project at any one time. Beneficiaries who are provided coverage under the demonstration project will not be eligible to receive care at a military medical treatment facility or to enroll in a health care plan under DoD's TRICARE program. Individuals who disenroll or cancel enrollment from the demonstration project are not eligible to reenroll in the demonstration project. OPM will establish separate risk pools for developing demonstration project enrollee premium rates. The government contribution for demonstration enrollees will be paid by DoD and cannot exceed the maximum percentage or dollar amount that the government would have contributed had the enrollee been enrolled as a regular FEHB enrollee in the same health benefits plan and at the same level of benefits.

The legislation requires OPM and DoD to jointly produce and submit two reports to Congress designed to assess the viability of expanding access to the FEHB Program to certain Medicare and other eligible DoD beneficiaries permanently. The first report is due by April 1, 2001; the second is due by December 31, 2002. The reports will focus on enrollee participation levels, impact on Medicare Part B enrollment, premium rates and costs as compared to those for regular FEHB enrollees, impact on accessibility of care in military treatment facilities, impact on medical readiness and training in military treatment facilities, impact on the cost, accessibility, and availability of prescription drugs for DoD beneficiaries, and recommendations on eligibility and enrollment.

OPM has determined it necessary to specify certain differences from existing FEHB Program regulations because of the unique features of the demonstration project. This regulation amends Part 890 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to authorize these differences. Should the program be extended beyond the three year demonstration project period, we will regulate to address any necessary changes to these provisions.

On July 6,1999, OPM published an interim regulation in the Federal Register (64 FR 36237). OPM subsequently received one comment from a trade association representing FEHB fee-for-service/PPO plans. The commenter indicated that the regulation does not address whether FEHB carriers must issue certificates of creditable coverage required under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and asked if this was required under the demonstration project. The regulation is intended to change normal FEHB Program practice where specifically indicated. It is not intended to affect practices that have not been specifically addressed. Therefore, carriers must issue certificates of creditable coverage to meet the requirements of HIPAA for demonstration project enrollees the same as they do for regular FEHB Program enrollees.

Other minor clarifying changes have been made to the regulation.

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulation will only affect health insurance carriers under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866.

We are amending the “Domestic Quarantine Notices” in 7 CFR part 301 by adding a new subpart, “Plum Pox,” composed of new §§ 301.74 through 301.74-4 and referred to below as the regulations. These regulations quarantine portions of Adams County, PA, due to the detection of plum pox and restrict the interstate movement of certain articles from the quarantined area that present a risk of transmitting plum pox.

Plum pox is an extremely serious viral disease of plants that can affect many Prunus (stone fruit) species, including plum, peach, apricot, almond, nectarine, and sweet and tart cherry. A number of wild and ornamental Prunus species may also be susceptible to this disease. Infection eventually results in severely reduced fruit production, and the fruit that is produced is often misshapen and blemished. Plum pox virus is transmitted locally by a variety of aphid species as well as by budding and grafting with infected plant material. It spreads over longer distances through movement of infected budwood, nursery stock, and other plant parts. The strain of plum pox detected in Adams County, PA—the D strain—is not known to be transmitted by seed or fruit. This particular strain in Pennsylvania is also not known to infect cherry. There are no effective methods for treating trees or other plant material infested with plum pox. There are also no effective treatments to prevent the onset of plum pox other than eradication of nearby plant material already identified as infected. In Europe, plum pox has been present for a number of years and is considered to be the most serious disease affecting susceptible Prunus varieties.

Recent delimiting surveys of orchards have established that portions of Adams County, PA, in the area of Latimore Township and Huntington Township are infested with plum pox. Prior to this discovery, plum pox had not been detected in the United States.

Officials of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) have begun an intensive survey and eradication program in and around the infested area. The PDA has also instituted a quarantine encompassing Latimore and Huntington Townships in Adams County, PA, the area where plum pox is now known to be present. The PDA quarantine prohibits any movement of stone fruit trees (including nursery stock) and stone fruit budwood within the quarantined area as well as movement of these same regulated articles out of the quarantined area into other regions of Pennsylvania. There is no restriction on the movement of fruit since there is no evidence that the virus is spread from the fruit. Federal regulations are necessary in order to restrict the interstate movement of these same regulated articles and prevent the spread of plum pox to noninfested areas of the United States. This interim rule establishes those Federal regulations, which are described below.

Section 301.74 prohibits the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas except in accordance with the regulations.

Section 301.74-1 contains definitions of the following terms: Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Departmental permit, infestation (infested, infected), inspector, interstate, moved (move, movement), person, Plant Protection and Quarantine, plum pox, quarantined area, regulated article, and State.

Certain articles present a significant risk of spreading plum pox if they are moved from quarantined areas without restrictions. We call these articles regulated articles. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 301.74-2 list the following as regulated articles:

• All plant material and plant parts of Prunus (stone fruit) species other than P. avium, P. cerasus, P. effusa, P. laurocerasus, P. mahaleb, P. padus, P. sargentii, P. serotina, P. serrula, P. serrulata, P. subhirtella, P. yedoensis, and P. virginiana, except for seeds and fruit that is free of leaves and other plant parts. This includes, but is not limited to, trees, seedlings, root stock, budwood, branches, twigs, and leaves.

• Any other product or article that an inspector determines to present a risk of spreading plum pox when the inspector notifies the person in possession of the product or article that it is subject to the restrictions in the regulations.

Paragraph (a) of § 301.74-3 provides the criteria for the inclusion of States, or portions of States, in the list of quarantined areas. Any State or portion of a State in which plum pox is detected through inspection and laboratory testing, or in which the Administrator has reason to believe that plum pox is present, will be listed as a quarantined area. In addition, an area will be designated as a quarantined area when the Administrator considers it necessary due to the area's inseparability for quarantine enforcement purposes from localities in which plum pox has been detected.

Paragraph (a) of § 301.74-3 also provides that we will designate less than an entire State as a quarantined area if we determine that the State has adopted and is enforcing restrictions on the intrastate movement of regulated articles that are substantially the same as those imposed on the interstate movement of regulated articles and that the designation of less than the entire State as a quarantined area will prevent the interstate spread of plum pox.

The boundary lines that delimit the portion of a State to be designated as a quarantined area may vary due to factors such as the location of host material that is a source of infestation, nearby transportation centers such as bus stations and airports, the pattern of persons moving in that State, the number and patterns of transmission of plum pox, and the availability of clearly identifiable lines to serve as boundaries.

We have determined that it is not necessary to designate the entire State of Pennsylvania as a quarantined area because plum pox has not been detected in areas outside of Adams County, PA. In addition, Pennsylvania has adopted and is enforcing restrictions on the intrastate movement of regulated articles, and those restrictions are substantially the same as those we are imposing on the interstate movement of regulated articles. Therefore, in accordance with the criteria described in the previous paragraph, we have designated the following as quarantined areas: Latimore Township and Huntington Township, both of which are located in Adams County, PA.

Paragraph (b) of § 301.74-3 provides that we may temporarily designate any other area in a State as a quarantined area should we determine that the nonquarantined area meets the criteria for designation as a quarantined area described in § 301.74-3(a). In such cases, we will give the owner or person in possession of the area a copy of the regulations along with written notice of the area's temporary designation as a quarantined area, after which time the interstate movement of any regulated article from the area will be subject to the regulations. This provision is necessary to prevent the interstate spread of plum pox during the interval between the time of detection and the time a document establishing the quarantined area can be made effective and published in the Federal Register . If an area's designation as a temporary quarantined area is terminated, we will provide written notice of that termination to the owner or person in possession of the area as soon as is practicable.

This section prohibits the interstate movement of regulated articles from a quarantined area with two exceptions. First, an article can be moved by APHIS or another agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for experimental or scientific purposes. Such articles must be moved in accordance with a Departmental permit issued by the Administrator under conditions specified on the permit to prevent the spread of plum pox.

Second, articles which originate from outside the quarantine area may pass through the quarantine area as long as the shipment includes a waybill that indicates the point of origin. Such articles that are merely passing through the quarantined area must be moved in an enclosed vehicle or completely covered to prevent access by aphids while traveling through the quarantined area. Such articles must not be uncovered, unpacked, or unloaded while in the quarantined area.

The Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an emergency exists that warrants publication of this interim rule without prior opportunity for public comment. Immediate action is necessary to prevent the spread of plum pox to noninfested areas of the United States.

Because prior notice and other public procedures with respect to this action are impracticable and contrary to the public interest under these conditions, we find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 to make this action effective less than 30 days after publication. We will consider comments that are received within 60 days of publication of this rule in the Federal Register . 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 as a result of the comments.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. This rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This rule quarantines part of Adams County, PA, due to the detection of plum pox and restricts the interstate movement of certain articles from the quarantined area that present a risk of transmitting the strain of plum pox. This action is necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the spread of plum pox to noninfested areas of the United States.

The overall economic effect of this interim rule is expected to be small. The quarantine to be imposed on Latimore Township and Huntington Township prohibits the movement of most stone fruit budwood, root stock, and other plant material from the quarantined area. Since the fruit itself is not a vector of the disease, the quarantine imposes no restrictions on the movement of fruit out of the quarantined area. Therefore, growers in the quarantined area are able to sell and move their fruit production without restriction.

The quarantine does prohibit the movement of susceptible budwood and root stock. However, stone fruit growers move small quantities of plant material for commercial purposes. In 1999, there was a movement of 700 bud sticks (worth about $1 apiece) out of the quarantined area. In some years, there have been no movements.

The prohibition on the movement of susceptible plant material would also affect nurseries. There is one small nursery in the quarantined area. However, it does very little, if any, business in the products subject to regulation under the quarantine. There are two other nurseries within Adams County, PA, but outside the quarantined area that have been affected by the plum pox outbreak, although not by these regulations. Because these nurseries received plant material from the quarantined area, trees from their spring 2000 and spring 2001 peach, nectarine, plum, and apricot crop are unsalable. The losses are estimated to total $700,000. In addition, these two nurseries have also had to alter their operations due to their proximity to and association with the quarantined area where plum pox has been detected.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies specifically consider the economic effects of their rules on small entities. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a firm engaged in agriculture as “small” if it has less than $500,000 in annual receipts.

Within the quarantined area of Latimore Township and Huntington Township, there are seven peach, plum, and nectarine producers with orchards totaling approximately 800 acres. Four of these producers are known to have orchards where plum pox has been detected. None of the producers in the quarantined area would be considered small under SBA guidelines. In Adams County as a whole, there are 124 stone fruit growers. Of these, about two-thirds would be considered small under SBA guidelines.

There is one small nursery in the quarantined area. However, it does very little, if any, business in products subject to regulation under the quarantine. There are two nurseries in Adams County, PA, but outside the quarantined area, which have been affected indirectly by their proximity to plum pox detection in the quarantined area. Neither of these nurseries outside the quarantined area are considered small under SBA guidelines. Neither is affected by this rule.

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.

An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared for the plum pox program in Pennsylvania. The assessment provides a basis for the conclusion that implementing a quarantine to prevent the spread of plum pox to noninfested areas of the United States under the conditions specified in the interim rule will not have a significant impact on human health and the natural environment. Based on the finding of no significant impact, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared.

The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact were prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

Copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are available for public inspection at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to facilitate entry into the reading room. In addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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 is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 930 (7 CFR part 930) regulating the handling of tart cherries grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” This order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (Department or USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

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

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after date of the entry of the ruling.

This rule authorizes shipments of tart cherries to Japan to qualify as exempt use shipments and to be eligible for diversion credit. Currently, exports to countries other than Canada, Mexico, or Japan may receive diversion credit, and may qualify as exempt shipments. Japan has not been eligible for diversion and exemption in the past because, according to the Board, tart cherry markets were well established in that country. The Board, at its March 2, 2000, meeting, recommended allowing Japan to become an eligible export outlet for diversion credit and exempt uses in order to stimulate export sales to that country. This is because exports to Japan have greatly decreased.

The order authorizes the use of volume regulation. In years when volume regulation is implemented to stabilize supplies, a certain percentage of the cherry crop is required to be set aside as restricted tonnage, and the balance may be marketed freely as free tonnage. The restricted tonnage is required to be maintained in handler-owned inventory reserve pools. Handlers in volume regulated States may fulfill their restricted tonnage requirements with diversion credits earned by diverting cherries or cherry products. Handlers are permitted to divert (at plant or with grower-diversion certificates from growers choosing not to deliver their crop) as much of their restricted percentage (reserve pool) requirements as they deem appropriate. Handlers also may divert cherries by using cherries or cherry products for exempt purposes, including the development of export markets. Presently, these markets do not include Canada, Mexico, and Japan.

Section 930.62 of the order (Exemptions) provides that cherries which are diverted in accordance with § 930.59, which are used for new product and new market development, which are used for experimental purposes, or which are used for any other purposes designated by the Board, including cherries processed into products for markets for which less than 5 percent of the preceding 5-year average production of cherries was utilized, may be exempted from the assessment, quality control, volume regulation, and reserve provisions of the order.

Currently, § 930.162 of the rules and regulations under the order authorizes exemptions for the sale of cherries and cherry products, including the development of sales for new and different tart cherry products or the expansion of sales for existing tart cherry products, to countries other than Canada, Mexico, and Japan.

When the Board initially recommended regulations for exempt uses and handler diversion in 1997, exports to Japan were at an average of 3.0 million pounds. The industry considered Japan, as well as Canada and Mexico, to be premium markets for tart cherries, not outlets for which exemptions and diversion credit could be given. However, in 1998, sales to Japan fell to 1.6 million pounds. The Board therefore recommended that exports to Japan be eligible for diversion and exemption. This, in the Board's opinion, would provide incentive for handlers to make shipments to that country and stimulate market activity.

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities and has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) would allow AMS to certify that regulations do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, as a matter of general policy, AMS' Fruit and Vegetable Programs (Programs) no longer opt for such certification, but rather perform regulatory flexibility analyses for any rulemaking that would generate the interest of a significant number of small entities. Performing such analyses shifts the Programs' efforts from determining whether regulatory flexibility analyses are required to the consideration of regulatory options and economic or regulatory impacts.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.

There are approximately 40 handlers of tart cherries who are subject to regulation under the order and approximately 900 producers of tart cherries in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms, which include handlers, have been defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $5,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $500,000. The majority of tart cherry producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.

The principal demand for tart cherries is in the form of processed products. Tart cherries are dried, frozen, canned, juiced, and pureed. During the period 1995/96 through 1999/00, approximately 90 percent of the U.S. tart cherry crop, or 280.3 million pounds, was processed annually. Of the 280.3 million pounds of tart cherries processed, 63 percent was frozen, 29 percent was canned and 8 percent was utilized for juice. Exports to Japan in 1998 were 1.6 million pounds.

This rule authorizes tart cherry shipments to Japan to qualify as exempt use shipments and to be eligible for diversion credit. The objective of this action is to stimulate and expand sales of tart cherries to that country. Authority for this action is found in §§ 930.59 and 930.62.

The impact of this rule would be beneficial to growers and handlers. It would assist growers to market a greater proportion of their crop to handlers who have access to export markets. Handlers, instead of diverting product at-plant or in-orchard or placing product in reserves, could ship product to Japan and receive diversion certificates that could be used to offset any restricted percentage obligations. Handlers also would benefit from this action as they would be able to process greater amounts of tart cherries, as a result of receiving more product from growers for shipment to Japan, through their facilities, thus spreading their operation costs and increasing returns to growers.

One alternative to this action would be to continue to disallow exemptions and diversion credit for shipments to Japan. However, this would not be favorable to cherry growers and handlers and could cause a further decline in the Japanese market.

This rule would not impose any additional recordkeeping requirements on either small or large tart cherry handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sectors. In addition, the Department has not identified any relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.

In compliance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations (5 CFR part 1320) which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements imposed by this order have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB Number 0581-0177.

The Board's meetings were widely publicized throughout the tart cherry industry and all interested persons were invited to attend them and participate in Board deliberations. Like all Board meetings, the March 2000 meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on these issues. The Board itself is composed of 18 members, of which 17 members are growers and handlers and one represents the public. Also, the Board has a number of appointed committees to review certain issues and make recommendations.

Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at the following website: http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

This rule invites comments on authorizing Japan as an eligible export outlet for purposes of the diversion and exemption provisions under the order.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Board's recommendation, and other information, it is found that this interim final rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) This rule relaxes requirements by providing an additional opportunity for handlers to receive an exemption or diversion credit; (2) the Board needs this rule to be in place by July 1, 2000, so handlers can take advantage of this option; (3) the Board recommended this change at a public meeting and interested parties had an opportunity to provide input; and (4) this rule provides a 60-day comment period and any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

What events have caused this AD? The FAA has received a report of an incident involving an Air Tractor Model AT-401 airplane. The following describe this incident:

1. The vertical fin front spar plate cracked and caused failure of the vertical fin front spar fitting;

2. The rear spar consequently failed and the fin contacted the elevator, which caused difficulty in controlling the airplane; and

3. The front spar failure occurred in the 3/16 -inch thick aluminum fin front spar fitting across one of the bolt holes where the fitting attaches to the fuselage frame.

What are the consequences if the condition is not corrected? Fatigue cracking of the vertical fin front spar attachment fittings, if not detected and corrected, could result in structural failure of the front spar and consequently the rear spar. This could result in loss of directional control and loss of control of the airplane.

Is there service information that applies to this subject? Snow Engineering Company has issued the following service information that relates to this subject:

What has FAA decided? After examining the circumstances and reviewing all available information related to the incidents described above, including the relevant service information, we determined that:

What does this AD require? This AD requires you to:

1. repetitively inspect vertical fin front spar attachment fittings for fatigue cracks; and

2. rework the vertical fin if any cracks are found.

Once you rework the vertical fin, you may discontinue the repetitive inspections.

The applicability of Snow Engineering Company Service Letter #138 refers to different airplanes than are referenced in this AD action. AD 97-14-05, Amendment 39-10063 (62 FR 38445, July 18, 1997), covers the airplanes referenced in Service Letter #138. The inspection procedures also apply for the airplanes referenced in this AD action. Therefore, Snow Engineering Company Service Letter #138 also applies to this AD, as well as AD 97-14-05. This service letter also specifies repetitive inspection intervals of 25 hours time-in-service (TIS). Paragraph (d)(2) of this AD requires the repetitive inspections at 100 hours TIS.

Will I have the opportunity to comment prior to the issuance of the rule? Because the unsafe condition described in this document could result in loss of directional control and eventual loss of airplane control, FAA finds that notice and opportunity for public prior comment are impracticable. Therefore, good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by notice and opportunity for public comment, FAA invites comments on this rule. You may submit whatever written data, views, or arguments you choose. You need to include the rule's docket number and submit your comments in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES . The FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date. We may amend this rule in light of comments received. Factual information that supports your ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether we need to take additional rulemaking action.

The FAA is re-examining the writing style we currently use in regulatory documents, in response to the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998. That memorandum requires federal agencies to communicate more clearly with the public. We are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document is clearer, and any other suggestions you might have to improve the clarity of FAA communications that affect you. You can get more information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain language initiative at http://www.plainlanguage.gov.

The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. You may examine all comments we receive before and after the closing date of the rule in the Rules Docket. We will file a report in the Rules Docket that summarizes each FAA contact with the public that concerns the substantive parts of this AD.

If you want us to acknowledge the receipt of your comments, you must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. On the postcard, write “Comments to Docket No. 2000-CE-21-AD.” We will date stamp and mail the postcard back to you.

These regulations 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. Therefore, FAA has determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. We have determined that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If FAA determines that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, we will prepare a final regulatory evaluation. You may obtain a copy of the evaluation (if required) from the Rules Docket.

This AD is the result of reports of in-flight incidents and an accident (on airplanes other than the affected Pilatus airplanes) that occurred in icing conditions where the airframe pneumatic deicing boots were not activated. The Pilatus Models PC-12 and PC-12/45 airplanes have a similar type design (as it relates to airframe pneumatic ice boots) to the incident and accident airplanes.

The information necessary to activate the pneumatic wing and tail deicing boots at the first signs of ice accumulation is critical for flight in icing conditions. If we did not take action to include this information, flight crews could experience reduced controllability of the aircraft due to adverse aerodynamic effects of ice adhering to the airplane prior to the first deicing cycle.

We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all Pilatus Models PC-12 and PC-12/45 airplanes that are equipped with pneumatic deicing boots. This proposal published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on October 8, 1999 (64 FR 54833). The NPRM proposed to require revising the Limitations Section of the AFM to include requirements for activation of pneumatic deicing boots at the first indication of ice accumulation on the airplane.

The FAA invited interested persons to participate in the making of this amendment. Following is a summary of the two comments received with FAA's response.

Pilatus requests that FAA allow the operators of the affected airplanes to use as an alternative method of compliance the most recent information for Section 2, Limitations, of the Pilatus PC12 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). This information is included in Report No.: 01973-001, page 2-12, Revision 9: September 1, 1999, and includes the following language:

We have determined that inserting this report into the Section 2, Limitations, of the Pilatus PC12 AFM provides an equivalent level of safety to the actions included in the NPRM. Therefore, we are changing the AD to include the option of incorporating into the AFM the information proposed in the NPRM or Report No.: 01973-001, page 2-12, Revision 9: September 1, 1999.

The Federal Office for Civil Aviation (FOCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Switzerland, believes that the intent of this AD is already covered in the Pilatus PC12 AFM. The FOCA's concerns are as follows:

1. The appropriate time to activate the pneumatic deice boots on the affected Pilatus airplanes is prior to entry into icing conditions, and until the airfoils are free of ice after exiting icing conditions. This information is included in Section 4.10 (Normal Procedures) of the PC12 AFM;

2. These instructions are not necessary in the Limitations Section of the AFM. The Limitations Section should only include limitations relating to speeds, environment (temperatures), or system functions (time limits or configurations). Guidance for this is in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1419-1, dated August 18, 1999. Paragraph 12(b)(2) of this AC identifies the Procedures Section as the proper place for information “. . . when the ice protection system should be activated.”

The FOCA requests FAA withdraw the NPRM.

We concur that the information is currently in the Normal Procedures section of the Pilatus PC12 AFM and that previous guidance (advisory circulars) provides information for putting this information in such a section. However, section 91.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.9) only mandates the operating limitations (Limitations Section): “no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual.”

Based upon the importance of operating the deice boots at the appropriate time, we determined that the information is mandatory. The only method FAA has of changing the Limitations Section of an AFM is through AD action, provided an unsafe condition is demonstrated.

Therefore, we do not concur that the NPRM should be withdrawn. We are not changing the AD as a result of this comment.

After careful review of all available information related to the subject presented above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for the following:

We have determined that including the AFM option and the minor corrections will not change the meaning of the AD and will not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed.

We estimate that this AD affects 100 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

There is no dollar cost impact. We estimate 1 workhour for you to insert the AFM revision. You can accomplish this action if you hold at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7). You must make an entry into the aircraft records that shows compliance with this AD, in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9). Therefore, the only cost impact of this AD is the time it will take you to insert the information into the AFM.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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) 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. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

On March 8, 1998, the FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71 (part 71) to realign Federal Airway V-517 in the vicinity of Snowbird, TN, and to establish two Federal Airways, V-347 between London, KY, and Hinch Mountain, TN, and V-384 between Livingston, TN, and Volunteer, TN (64 FR 10962).

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting comments. No comments to the proposal were received. Except for editorial changes, this rule is the same as that proposed in the notice.

This amendment to part 71 realigns V-517 in the vicinity of Snowbird, TN, by changing the origination point of the airway from the Volunteer, TN, Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) station, to the Snowbird, TN, VORTAC. Currently, V-517 extends from Volunteer, through the Miami Intersection, to London, KY, which is not a direct route. However, a direct route between Volunteer and London does exist via V-97. On the other hand, there is currently no published direct route between Snowbird and London. This amendment enhances the flow of air traffic by realigning V-517 so as to provide a direct route between Snowbird and London. This change better accommodates northwest-southeast-bound traffic in that area.

This rule also establishes two Federal airways in the Kentucky-Tennessee area: V-347 between London, KY, and Hinch Mountain, TN; and V-384 between Livingston, TN, and Volunteer, TN. These new airways provide direct routes between the affected navigation facilities which match known traffic flows, simplify flight plan filing, and reduce air traffic control communications requirements, thus resulting in enhanced service for users. These additional airways also provide air traffic controllers with more nonradar routes between Indianapolis ARTCC and Atlanta ARTCC airspace, thereby facilitating the efficient handling of nonradar-routed traffic between the two ARTCC's.

Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.9G, dated September 1, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The airways listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Background

As a result of an Air Force decision to rename Falcon AFB, CO, to Schriever AFB, CO, the using agency for R-2602 is being changed from “USAF, Air Force Space Command, 2nd Space Wing, Falcon Air Force Base, CO,” to “USAF Space Command, 2nd Space Wing, Schriever Air Force Base, CO. The USAF requested this change to correct the current description for R-2602.

This action amends 14 CFR part 73 by changing the name of the using agency for R-2602 from “U.S. Air Force Space Command, 2nd Space Wing, Falcon AFB, CO,” to “USAF Space Command, 2nd Space Wing, Schriever AFB, CO.” This administrative change will not alter the existing boundaries, altitudes, times of designation, or the activities conducted within the affected restricted area.

Therefore, since this action simply changes the using agency for the existing restricted area and does not involve a change in the dimensions or operating requirements of that airspace, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C 553(b) are unnecessary.

Section 73.26 of part 73 was republished in FAA Order 7400.8G, dated September 1, 1999.

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, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This action is a minor administrative change amending the name of the using agency for an existing restricted area. There are no changes to air traffic control procedures or routes as a result of this action. Therefore, this action is not subject to environmental assessments and procedures under FAA Order 1050.1D, “Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts,” and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On March 22, 2000, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Parade of Tall Ships Newport 2000, Newport, RI in the Federal Register (65 FR 15283). We received no comments. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.

This rule is needed to ensure the safe navigation of the Tall Ships and other smaller sailing vessels participating in a parade of sail on Sunday, July 2, 2000, as well as the safety of spectator craft. The entire parade event is scheduled to last approximately six hours, beginning at 10 a.m. and ending at 4 p.m. The parading vessels will transit outbound from Newport Harbor, then north through the East Passage, Narragansett Bay, underneath the Newport Bridge, westward around Gould Island, and then southbound out to sea.

The parade of sail route extends through the East Passage of Narragansett Bay and passes through the following points: (see NOAA Charts(s) #13218, 13221, 13223).

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

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

This safety zone involves only the southeast portion of Narragansett Bay and will shut down the East passage to commercial and recreation traffic during the event. The effect of this regulation will not be significant because this rule would be in effect for only 6 hours. Recreational vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone through the West passage, and maritime advisories will be made well in advance allowing large commercial traffic to schedule around the event.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we 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.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a small portion of Narragansett Bay from 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. on July 2, 2000.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will only be in effect for 6 hours; recreational vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone through the West passage; and, before the effective period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the bay, allowing large commercial traffic ample time to schedule around the event.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. No requests for assistance were received. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of the 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 will call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.

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

This rule will not 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 the 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 concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

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

On March 22, 2000, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Fireworks Display, Naval Station Newport, Newport, RI in the Federal Register (65 FR 15285). We received one comment. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.

The safety zone is needed to protect the public from debris and other hazards associated with a fireworks display at Naval Station Newport, starting at 8 p.m. on June 30, 2000, or in the event of rain, on July 2, 2000. The event, which is sponsored by Tall Ships Newport Salute 2000, will last approximately 3 hours.

One comments was received from the sponsor, Tall Ships Newport Salute 2000, requesting that the rule include a rain date of July 2, 2000. A rain date was incorporated into the final rule.

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

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

This safety zone involves a very small area of Narragansett Bay. The effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the small area affected; all vessel traffic may safely transit around this safety zone; and the extensive marine advisories that will be made.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we 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.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Narragansett Bay from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on June 30, 2000 (rain date, July 2, 2000).

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only three hours, commercial and recreational vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone, and before the effective period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of Narragansett Bay.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (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. No requests for assistance were received. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of the 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 will call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.

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

This rule will not 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 concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of implementing this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

Section 421 of Pub. L. 104-204 added a new chapter 18 to title 38, United States Code, authorizing VA to provide certain benefits to children suffering from spina bifida who are the natural children of Vietnam veterans. VA published three sets of regulations to implement the provisions of section 421 of Pub. L. 104-204, i.e. regulations concerning monetary allowances, provision of healthcare, and provision of vocational training and rehabilitation, in the Federal Register of September 30, 1997 (62 FR 51273-51296).

Section 404 of Pub. L. 105-114, the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1997, enacted on November 21, 1997, amended chapter 18 of title 38, United States Code. This document revises VA's regulations to implement those statutory amendments. The changes concerning the definition of “Vietnam veteran,” the definition of “child,” and the submission of social security numbers concern all three sets of regulations. The other changes made by this document only concern the monetary allowance regulations.

Public Law No. 104-204 defined the term “Vietnam veteran” as a “veteran” who performed active military, naval, or air service in the Republic of Vietnam “during the Vietnam era.” Public Law No. 105-114 amended that definition to refer to an “individual” who performed active military, naval, or air service in the Republic of Vietnam “during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, without regard to the characterization of the individual's service.” We are amending 38 CFR 3.814(c)(1) of the monetary allowance regulations accordingly. This change also affects the spina bifida regulations concerning provision of healthcare (see 38 CFR 17.901) and provision of vocational training and rehabilitation (see 38 CFR 21.8012).

Public Law No. 104-204 defined the term “child” as meaning a natural child of a Vietnam veteran, regardless of age or marital status, who was conceived after the date on which the veteran first entered the Republic of Vietnam “during the Vietnam era.” Public Law No. 105-114 amended the definition of “child” by changing “during the Vietnam era” to “during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975.” We are amending 38 CFR 3.814(c)(2) of the monetary allowance regulations accordingly. This change also affects the spina bifida regulations concerning provision of healthcare (see 38 CFR 17.901) and provision of vocational training and rehabilitation (see 38 CFR 21.8012).

Public Law No. 105-114 revised 38 U.S.C. 1806 so that various administrative provisions of title 38, United States Code, including the following, are applicable to those applying for or receiving spina bifida benefits: 38 U.S.C. 5101(c), 5110(a), 5110(b)(2), 5110(g), 5110(i), 5111, 5112(a), 5112(b)(9), and 5112(b)(10). Accordingly, we are making the following changes.

• We are amending 38 CFR 3.216 to provide that anyone applying for or receiving benefits for a child suffering from spina bifida, as a condition for receipt or continued receipt of benefits, must furnish VA, upon request, his or her social security number, and the social security number of anyone based upon whom benefits are sought or received (38 U.S.C. 5101(c)).

• We are amending 38 CFR 3.814 of the monetary allowance regulations to provide that the effective date of a monthly award for a child suffering from spina bifida based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final adjudication, or a claim for increase will be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but will not be earlier than the date of receipt of the application for benefits (38 U.S.C. 5110(a)).

• We are amending 38 CFR 3.814 to provide that the effective date of an increased monthly award for a child suffering from spina bifida will be the earliest date as of which it is ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred, if application is received by VA within one year of that date (38 U.S.C. 5110(b)(2)).

• We are amending 38 CFR 3.114 to provide that any award or increase of a monthly award for a child suffering from spina bifida pursuant to any law or administrative issue will not be effective prior to the effective date of the law or administrative issue and will not be retroactive more than one year from the date of application or the date of administrative determination of entitlement, whichever is earlier (38 U.S.C. 5110(g)).

• We are amending 38 CFR 3.814 to provide that a monthly award for a child suffering from spina bifida benefits based on a disallowed claim reopened on the basis of a correction of military records will be effective on the date application was made for the correction, or the date the disallowed claim was filed, whichever is later, but not retroactive for more than one year from the reopening of the disallowed claim (38 U.S.C. 5110(i)).

• We are amending 38 CFR 3.31 to provide that the payment of a monthly award for a child suffering from spina bifida may not be made for any period before the first day of the month following the month in which the award or increase became effective (38 U.S.C. 5111).

• We are amending 38 CFR 3.814 to provide that the effective date of a reduction or discontinuance of a monthly award for a child suffering from spina bifida will be fixed in accordance with the facts found, that reduction or discontinuance of such benefits by reason of beneficiary error will be the effective date of the award, and that reduction or discontinuance of such benefits by reason of administrative error will be effective as of the date of last payment (38 U.S.C. 5112(a), (b)(9), (b)(10)).

Public Law No. 104-204 provided that the amounts of the monthly monetary allowance to a child with spina bifida are subject to adjustment under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 5312, which provides for the adjustment of certain VA benefit rates whenever there is an increase in benefit amounts payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq .). 38 U.S.C. 5312(c)(2) provides that whenever rates are so increased, the Secretary may round those rates in such manner as the Secretary considers equitable and appropriate. The Secretary has determined that since all other benefits administered under VA's adjudication regulations (38 CFR part 3) are paid in even dollar amounts, for ease of administration it is appropriate to round rate increases concerning the spina bifida monetary benefit.

Under procedures established at 38 CFR 3.29, when adjusting the annual basic benefit rates for the pension programs and parents' dependency and indemnity compensation, if the resulting amounts are not even dollar amounts, VA rounds them to the next higher dollar. In computing monthly rates from the adjusted annual rates, if the resulting amounts are not even dollar amounts, VA rounds to the next lower dollar. Since Pub. L. 104-204 authorized the monetary allowance for spina bifida at a monthly rate rather than an annual rate, it is necessary to round only one time when determining a revised rate. Under 38 CFR 3.29, if rounding is necessary after the first calculation, the resulting rate is always rounded up. We believe therefore that since only one rounding is required to revise the monetary allowance for spina bifida, it is both equitable and appropriate to round up. We are amending § 3.29 accordingly.

Public Law No. 105-114 provides that the amendments to chapter 18 of title 38, United States Code, are effective as of October 1, 1997.

This final rule reflects statutory requirements and reflects issues relating to agency management. Accordingly, there is a basis for dispensing with prior notice and comment and delayed effective date provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553.

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Even so, the Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The final rule will not directly affect any small entities. Only VA beneficiaries are directly affected.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program number is 64.127.

Citizens concerned with water quality in the Great Lakes System may be interested in this rulemaking. Also, entities potentially affected by today's action are those discharging or intending to discharge selenium to waters of the United States in the Great Lakes System. Categories and entities that may ultimately be affected include:

The Committee is amending those provisions of its regulations which state its mailing address, as the address changed on May 12, 2000. The provisions appear in the Committee's Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, and nondiscrimination regulations at 41 CFR parts 51-8, 51-9, and 51-10 respectively. This amendment is exempt under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) from notice-and-comment rulemaking because it is a matter of internal agency management.

This final rule is exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act because it does not meet the definition of a “rule” in that Act.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to this final rule because it contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements as defined in that Act and its regulations.

The Committee has been exempted from the regulatory review requirements of the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Additionally, this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in the Executive Order.

a. Section 51-8.4; and

b. Section 51-8.5(a).

Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL): http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and help.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by using a computer, modem and suitable communication software from the Government Printing Offices's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of Federal Register's home page at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's web page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

On January 28, 1992, the FHWA published a final rule (57 FR 3142) which required interstate motor carriers to mark their interstate CMVs with specific information, including the USDOT number (see 49 CFR 390.21). The final rule, however, provided an exception for motor carriers authorized by the former ICC to conduct operations as a for-hire motor carrier. These motor carriers were required to comply only with the marking provisions in former 49 CFR part 1058, now redesignated as 49 CFR 390.401, 390.403, 390.405, and 390.407 (61 FR 54706, 54710, October 21, 1996).

The ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) (Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803) was enacted on December 29, 1995, and became effective on January 1, 1996. The ICCTA abolished the ICC, amended subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code, reformed the economic regulation of transportation, and transferred the assets, personnel, and many of the duties and functions of the ICC to the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary).

On June 16, 1998, the FHWA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (63 FR 32801) to amend its regulations concerning the marking of CMVs and the submission of the Form MCS-150. The agency proposed (1) To eliminate the marking regulations of the former ICC and to require motor carriers to replace the vehicle markings specified by those requirements with markings that conform to 49 CFR 390.21; (2) to amend its current rule to require that CMVs be marked with the legal name of the business entity that owns or controls the motor carrier operation, or the “doing business as” name, and the city and State for the principal place of business as they appear on the Form MCS-150; (3) to allow motor carriers two years to comply with the marking requirement ( i.e., to display the USDOT number on both sides of their self-propelled CMVs), and five years to comply with the additional requirements to display the address of the principal place of business and the legal name, or a single trade name; (4) to amend the regulations to require all new interstate motor carriers submit a Form MCS-150 to the FMCSA before (rather than within 90 days after) commencing operations; and (5) to move the regulations that require motor carriers to submit the Form MCS-150 from 49 CFR part 385 to part 390.

The FMCSA received 196 comments in response to the NPRM.

The commenters were: the American Trucking Associations (ATA) ; the New York State Motor Truck Association Inc. (NYSMTA); the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA); the National Automobile Transporters Association (NATA); Bonanza Bus Lines; Yellow Corporation; the Association of Waste Hazardous Materials Transporters (AWHMT); ATC Leasing Company; the New Jersey Motor Truck Association; the Iowa Department of Transportation; United Parcel Service (UPS); the Missouri Division of Motor Carrier and Railroad Safety (Missouri DMCRS); Consolidated Freightways (CF); the South Carolina Trucking Association, Inc.; GROWMARK, Inc.; the Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA); the Georgia Public Service Commission; Distribution & LTL Carriers Association; the National Private Truck Council (NPTC); J.B. Hunt; ConAgra Inc.; North American Van Lines, Inc. (NAVL); the Truckload Carriers Association (TCA); the National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC); the Illinois State Police; the Colorado Department of Public Safety; Roadway Express; the American Moving and Storage Association (AMSA); the State of New York Department of Transportation; Peninsula Transport, Inc., and an additional 167 motor carriers. The following is a summary of the comments on some of the key items addressed in the notice.

Although most commenters did not oppose in principle the FMCSA's proposal to require self-propelled CMVs to be marked with a USDOT number, several of them, including the ATA, UPS, and the Distribution & LTL Carriers Association, recommended that the FMCSA delay this rulemaking pending the implementation of the congressionally mandated Unified Motor Carrier Registration System (Unified System). The Unified System is intended to provide a comprehensive foundation for registration, insurance, and safety information. The commenters asserted that the Unified System would help solve many of the problems mentioned in the NPRM, including matching the motor carrier (MC) and USDOT numbers. Commenters also suggest that the Unified System could be designed to include all of a motor carrier's DBA names and other identifying information.

The New York State DOT notes that it is participating in discussions with the U.S. DOT and others concerning the consolidation of the Unified System and the Single State Registration System (SSRS). New York believes there is conceptual agreement among the majority of SSRS States concerning assignment of USDOT numbers for both interstate and intrastate motor carriers, and asks that the FMCSA's regulation facilitate this approach. The Illinois State Police believes that many States already have the infrastructure in place to support a national motor carrier identification system.

The NASTC categorically opposes the NPRM, believing that the MC number is necessary for State and Federal officials, and the traveling public, to distinguish for-hire from private motor carriers.

Section 103 of the ICCTA, which, among other things, added 49 U.S.C. 13908, required the Secretary to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to replace the current Department of Transportation identification number system, the SSRS under 49 U.S.C. 14504, the registration/licensing system contained in 49 U.S.C. 13901-13905, and the financial responsibility information system under 49 U.S.C. 13906 with a single, online Federal system.

On August 26, 1996, the agency published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on the Motor Carrier Replacement Information/Registration System which posed several questions and requested comments on all of these issues raised by the commenters.

The FMCSA agrees there are items proposed in the Commercial Motor Vehicle Marking NPRM that are related to the Registration rulemaking. However, the FMCSA considers the requirement to mark a CMV with the USDOT number as a vehicle identification issue, not a registration issue. Therefore, the FMCSA will move forward with its requirement to mark CMVs with the USDOT number assigned to each motor carrier.

The filing of the Form MCS-150 is not considered a registration issue in the context of the Motor Carrier Replacement Information/Registration System because the agency is not changing the applicability of the regulation, only the time the document must be filed. The current requirement allows a new motor carrier to file the Form MCS-150 within 90 days after beginning operations. The FMCSA believes it is important that CMVs be properly marked before they are placed into service on the highway. Such markings will assist State officials conducting roadside inspections and accident investigations in attributing important safety data to the correct motor carrier. It will also ensure the public has an effective means to identify motor carriers operating in an unsafe manner.

The FMCSA has streamlined the process for filing the Form MCS-150 by making it available on the Internet. Motor carriers seeking a copy of Form MCS-150 may obtain it from the Internet through the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration web page at: http://www.mcs.dot.gov/factsfigs/formspubs.htm under “DOT Number—Application Form.” Motor carriers may download the Form MCS-150, complete it, and submit it by mail or by facsimile. Motor carriers may also obtain copies of the form from any of the four FMCSA Service Centers or the fifty-two Division Offices. A for-hire motor carrier should submit the Form MCS-150 along with its application for operating authority (Form OP-1) to the appropriate address referenced on that form or may submit it separately to the address mentioned on the web page.

The FMCSA has also made a determination that the USDOT number will be the number used to identify all motor carriers in the information/registration system of the future. Currently, all interstate motor carriers (both for-hire and private) are assigned USDOT numbers. Also, several States require intrastate motor carriers to complete Form MCS-150 and obtain a USDOT identification number. These motor carriers are listed in the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) as intrastate-only carriers. The addition of these motor carriers to the MCMIS enables the States to work together in determining the number of active motor carriers operating in the United States, and to monitor the safety performance of the motor carriers.

Another reason to use the USDOT number as the key identifier for all motor carriers is the role that it plays in the Performance and Registration Information Systems Management (PRISM) project. The PRISM project is a cooperative Federal/State program that makes motor carrier safety a requirement for obtaining and keeping commercial motor vehicle registration privileges. The performance of unsafe motor carriers is improved through a program of progressively more stringent sanctions leading to a possible Federal operations out-of-service order and suspension of their State issued vehicle registration privileges. The vehicle registration records contain the USDOT number as a unique identifier of the motor carrier responsible for the safety of the CMVs.

ConAgra, Inc., the ATA, the TCA, NAVL, and other commenters oppose the single trade name proposal and believe the FMCSA should allow small subsidiaries and divisions of large national carriers to maintain their own identities. They contend that local operations of national carriers want to maintain the connection to the local communities they served over the years. They claim that limiting carriers to a single trade name will dramatically impact a number of large carriers in ways that the FMCSA may not have fully considered.

The FMCSA agrees with the commenters. The FMCSA will consider requests for assignment of individual USDOT numbers to corporate divisions on a case-by-case basis. While the FMCSA does not wish to limit an organization's flexibility, or its ability to promote a trade name, we nevertheless must consider whether the assignment of multiple USDOT numbers to a single corporate entity will compromise the integrity of the collection and processing of safety data.

With regard to the proposed language concerning the requirement for motor carriers to display only the location of their principal place of business, the ATA, the NPTC, UPS, CF, Roadway Express, Yellow Corporation, NAVL, the Georgia Public Service Commission, and a number of other motor carriers and associations strongly oppose any change to the existing regulation. Most argue that the principal place of business address, being the third way to identify the motor carrier (after the USDOT number and the single trade name), does not help much if the first two are correct or incorrect. While most commenters agree that some type of number is needed to help match safety records, they don't believe that the address of the principal place of business provides the same benefit. They believe the cost to the motor carrier to accomplish the change definitely outweighs any perceived advantage.

The New York State DOT opposes the proposal because it believes that motor carriers would be prohibited from displaying the location where a CMV is customarily based. The agency cited an example of a motor carrier of passengers that has acquired various New York based carriers. New York prefers to retain the location identification to aid them in tracking the performance of the individual subsidiaries.

The FMCSA agrees with the commenters; the motor carrier name and the unique USDOT number should be sufficient to properly identify the motor carrier. The FMCSA does not believe it is necessary to include in the final rule the requirement to display the city and State. As UPS noted, unless there is an error in the collection of the original data, there should be no instance in which two motor carriers have both the same name and the same USDOT number. The use of an address does not ensure the accurate collection of data and imposes an additional and unjustified burden on the industry.

As for the comments of the New York State DOT, the final rule does not require motor carriers to mark their motor vehicles with the city and State, but does not prohibit the practice either. The FMCSA believes that many motor carriers will continue to display the city and State for marketing purposes and to maintain a connection to the local communities they serve.

The ATA, Distribution and LTL Carriers Association, New York State DOT, and AWHMT have suggested the FMCSA require motor carriers to periodically update the information contained on the MCS-150. They say the information initially reported on the Form MCS-150 may change over time. Inasmuch as the FMCSA uses this information to calculate a motor carrier's accident rate for safety rating purposes, the commenters believe the FMCSA has a vested interest in requiring a periodic update of Form MCS-150 to ensure the integrity of the data.

The 1996 ANPRM on the unified information/registration system (61 FR 43816) addresses this issue. One of the questions included there was the same as that asked by the AWHMT, the ATA, and the New York DOT.

Section 217 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 requires the FMCSA to require motor carriers to periodically update the information they provide in the form MCS-150. An initial update is required by December 2000. Periodic updates would be required not more frequently than once every two years. The FMCSA will address this provision in a separate rulemaking action.

The AWHMT requested that the FMCSA consider if there is a potential for reciprocity between the CMV marking requirements of Canada and Mexico and those currently contained in and proposed for the FMCSRs.

UPS commented that motor carriers subject to the FMCSA's regulations that operate portions of their fleets within single jurisdictions are subject to the additional marking requirements of those jurisdictions. For example, State Public Utilities Commissions often impose their own marking requirements. UPS stated that it, as well as other motor carriers and the ATA, had filed comments in Docket MC 96-25 [Motor Carrier Replacement Information/Registration System, now DOT Docket 1997-2349] recommending that the USDOT's marking requirements be the sole method to identify CMVs operated by motor carriers under the FMCSA's jurisdiction.

The NYSMTA asked the FMCSA to consider preempting the marking requirements of State or local jurisdictions for vehicles bearing USDOT numbers that are not domiciled within that jurisdiction. The NYSMTA noted that a city requires the marking of a street address. The Missouri DMCRS requested that States be allowed to continue to require display of additional information, such as the GVW or the GVWR, on power units that are registered solely for intrastate operation.

GROWMARK was concerned that States may require different timeframes from the FMCSA for implementing a marking requirement.

The AWHMT referenced the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (Public Law 101-615, 104 Stat. 3244, November 16, 1990) safety permit provisions, not yet implemented by the FMCSA. It asked if the FMCSA might consider a requirement for displaying the USDOT number on the CMVs of motor carriers engaged in the transportation of hazardous materials in intrastate commerce as an initial step toward implementing the permit system.

Concerning reciprocal marking requirements among the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the general requirements contained in § 390.21 have been in place since 1954 for for-hire motor carriers operating in interstate commerce. They have been in place since 1988 for private motor carriers operating in interstate commerce. No other commenters raised this issue, and the FMCSA is not aware that the provisions have caused compliance difficulties for foreign-based motor carriers.

Concerning the questions raised by the NYSMTA about a local jurisdiction's requirement for listing a full street address, and the Missouri DMCSR's question about a State's requirement for the display of a GVW or GVWR on intrastate-only CMVs, any other identifying information may continue to be displayed, as long as it is not inconsistent with other § 390.21 requirements. Responding to GROWMARK's comment, the marking requirement proposed will apply only to motor carriers operating in interstate commerce. The FMCSA anticipates that States would allow these motor carriers the phase-in period established in this rulemaking action.

Finally, concerning the AWHMT's comment concerning the potential for issuing USDOT numbers to intrastate motor carriers transporting hazardous materials, the agency is continuing to address permitting in a separate rulemaking action.

The FMCSA's current regulation requires that all new motor carriers submit a Form MCS-150 to the agency within 90 days of commencing operations. The NPRM proposed that all new motor carriers submit a Form MCS-150 to the FMCSA before commencing operations. The NPRM also proposed that all CMVs added to a motor carrier's fleet on or after the effective date of the rule must display the motor carrier's USDOT number before being put into service.

The FMCSA received no adverse comments on this provision of the NPRM. The final rule will implement it as proposed.

Commenters' responses pertaining to the proposed length of time for motor carriers to comply with the marking requirements (two years for the USDOT number and five years for the principal place of business and single trade name) varied widely. Commenters suggested phase-in periods that varied from two years for some of the smaller motor carriers to seven years for those carriers having large fleets. Some commenters suggested the FMCSA consider a single date for motor carriers to meet all the requirements. Yellow Corporation, for example, suggested a conversion period of three years, claiming it would reduce the overall costs to carriers and would provide adequate time for the training of enforcement officials. Other commenters, such as the NPTC and NAVL, contended that five years was a more appropriate phase-in period because many fleets turn over their equipment over that interval. They did support the provision in the NPRM requiring vehicles added to a fleet be marked with the USDOT number when placed into service.

The FMCSA has decided to proceed with the original time frames outlined in the NPRM. The final rule requires the motor carrier to display its USDOT number within two years of the effective date of this rule and its single trade name or DBA name within five years on CMVs that are currently in service. All new CMVs entering the fleet must meet all the marking requirements before being put into service. The FMCSA believes that these time frames will allow motor carriers to meet the marking requirements without creating either an administrative or economic hardship.

As stated previously, the FMCSA will eliminate the requirement for motor carriers to display the city and State on the side of their vehicles.

The ATC Leasing Company and the NATA requested that the provisions of § 390.407, which were written specifically to recognize the unique operational needs of driveaway combinations, be left intact. These commenters claim that the elimination of this section would not provide any economic or safety benefit to the public, but would burden those carriers that operate driveaway combinations with unnecessary and costly duplication.

UPS addressed the issue of marking short-term rental CMVs. UPS noted, among other things, that § 390.21(e) does not require the use of a temporary identification device.

The FMCSA agrees with the comments submitted by ATC Leasing and the NATA on behalf of the driveaway industry. The requirements of § 390.407 concerning removable devices are being retained and incorporated into § 390.21. The FMCSA responds to UPS that the proposed language for § 390.21(e) is substantially identical to that of the current § 390.23(e), except that the agency will no longer require display of the lessor's city or community and State. Neither the current nor the proposed regulation require use of a temporary identification device on short-term rental vehicles.

The ATA, the NASTC, and approximately 170 motor carriers commented that many of their written contracts and certificates of insurance made available to the shipping public identify them by their MC number. They contend the FMCSA has not estimated the cost to the shipper and broker community of changing existing contracts to use a new system so that each motor carrier can be identified by a USDOT number. They also believe it is important for public warehousing purposes that the existing “MC number” in their contract appear on the door of the equipment making pickups. This allows verification that the freight is being tendered to the properly licensed and insured motor carrier with whom a contract was signed. The majority of the motor carriers commenting suggested the FMCSA allow “for hire” carriers to continue to use the MC number as a primary identifier for all aspects of their operation and let the private carriers continue to use the USDOT number.

There is no Federal requirement that motor carriers display their MC number on contracts or certificates of insurance. This practice was developed by the motor carrier industry for its own purposes and may be continued if the industry chooses. The regulation requires motor carriers to display the USDOT number on both sides of their power units. It does not require motor carriers to remove the MC number, although they are encouraged to refrain from displaying the MC number on new or repainted CMVs once the rule becomes final.

The FMCSA's use of the USDOT number for CMV identification is premised upon its use in a safety context. The MC number is used by the FMCSA, process agents, and insurance companies to track the process of a for-hire motor carrier's application for registration, status of insurance, and other requirements. The FMCSA's MCMIS includes both the MC and USDOT numbers, as do many other records used by motor carriers. Shippers and others can verify the identification of a for-hire motor carrier with the FMCSA online, or via telephone, using either number. Motor carriers should also make their clients aware of the change in the regulations. Taken together, these measures should aid them in verifying that the freight is being tendered to the properly licensed and insured motor carrier with whom a contract was signed.

The New York and the Iowa Departments of Transportation both commented on the States' issuance of interstate and intrastate USDOT numbers. Each State supports the use of the USDOT number as the unique identifier essential for tracking motor carrier safety performance data. In addition, both States wanted the final rule to make perfectly clear that States can issue USDOT numbers to both interstate and intrastate motor carriers. New York recommended the FMCSA provide batch filing to the States to convert intrastate carriers to a USDOT numbering system (using a unique State suffix). The NYDOT argued that the present system is too cumbersome and time consuming; it would take five years to convert all the intrastate carriers in New York to the USDOT number using the current mechanisms. New York says batch processing is an absolute must and the FMCSA should directly assist the States in converting intrastate carriers in as short a time frame as possible.

The States involved in the PRISM project have been given access to the MCMIS Census database to issue USDOT numbers to interstate carriers. As part of the project, prior to the issuance of International Registration Plan (IRP) documents, the entity registering vehicles is required to have a USDOT number and each vehicle must have a USDOT number assigned to it. If a carrier does not have a USDOT number at the time of registration, a Form MCS-150 must be provided so that the State can issue the USDOT number necessary to complete the vehicle registration process.

The FMCSA has given the States an option to issue USDOT numbers to their intrastate carriers. Currently, 11 States are adding the Form MCS-150 information for these carriers individually through direct access to the MCMIS Census database. The system issues a USDOT number as each carrier is entered into the database.

New York already has existing databases on their intrastate carriers and has requested that the FMCSA develop a process for the batch issuance of USDOT numbers. The FMCSA has developed procedures necessary to support this process and expects to begin pilot testing by mid-2000. The agency anticipates that the first test State will be New York and that the pilot test will last for several months. Assuming the pilot test is successful, other interested States will then be able to use this process.

The South Carolina Trucking Association and the New Jersey Motor Truck Association requested the FMCSA to define an intermodal container chassis as a CMV and its owner as a motor carrier engaged in interstate commerce. They believe that intermodal chassis equipment is unique enough to require the owners to display their own USDOT number, and that this requirement would go a long way towards establishing responsibility for the care, maintenance, and condition of chassis equipment.

Bonanza Bus Lines recommends that all trailers display a USDOT number on both sides and on the rear.

Maintenance of intermodal container chassis and trailers is being addressed in a separate agency action, and will not be addressed in this final rule. In response to a petition filed by the ATA and the ATA Intermodal Conference, the agency published an ANPRM (64 FR 7849, February 17, 1999). The petitioners contended that motor carriers have minimal opportunity to maintain intermodal container chassis and that the parties who do have the opportunity often fail to do so. The FMCSA agreed to consider revisions to the requirements in parts 390 and 396 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that place upon motor carriers the responsibility for maintaining this equipment. As part of this process, the FMCSA held three public hearings in late 1999 to gather information on the extent of this problem and to receive feedback on the solution proposed by petitioners, i.e. , to mandate joint responsibility between the “equipment provider” and the motor carrier for maintaining this type of intermodal equipment. The FMCSA will decide these issues and others raised by the commenters in the rulemaking involving intermodal containers, chassis and trailers. Accordingly, comments of the South Carolina Trucking Association and the New Jersey Motor Truck Association will be submitted to that docket for consideration.

With respect to Bonanza Bus Lines' comment, the NPRM did not consider marking of CMVs other than power units; extending its provisions to cover them would be beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The ICC first required self-propelled CMVs to be marked in 1954. The agency has undertaken several rulemakings concerning CMV marking in the last 12 years. Although the agency has occasionally received correspondence concerning marking of trailers, the FMCSA does not believe this additional marking is necessary.

The Georgia Public Service Commission requested the FMCSA to clarify the marking requirements applicable to smaller for-hire passenger vehicles (designed to transport 7 to 15 passengers) that are subject to the FMCSA's registration requirements, but not to the remainder of the FMCSRs.

On September 3, 1999, the agency published an NPRM (64 FR 48518) concerning the applicability of specific provisions of the FMCSRs to this class of passenger vehicles. That action responded to congressional direction contained in section 4008(a) of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21) (Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, June 9, 1999), which amended the definition of the term “commercial motor vehicle” found at 49 U.S.C. 31132 to cover vehicles “designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation.” Among other things, the September 3 NPRM proposed to require that motor carriers operating CMVs designed or used to transport between 9 and 15 passengers (including the driver) for compensation file a motor carrier identification report and mark their CMVs with a USDOT number and other identifying information ( i.e. , name or trade name and address of the principal place of business). In an interim final rule published that same day, the agency amended the statutory definition of a CMV to be consistent with the TEA-21 definition, but it exempted this class of motor carriers from the FMCSRs for six months, to allow the FMCSA time to gather additional information on this population of carriers and to complete the rulemaking action. The FMCSA is reviewing comments to that docket and plans to issue a final rule in the near future.

The Colorado Department of Public Safety suggested the FMCSA adopt a rule that it has implemented. Many pick-up trucks do not meet the definition of a CMV except when pulling a trailer. Colorado allows the trailer, instead of the power unit, to be marked if the power unit has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. This allows some farmers, contractors, and small businesses to use their vehicles for personal conveyance, such as vacations and errands. Many homeowner associations have covenants prohibiting commercial vehicles from parking in their residential areas. In many cases, this would include a pick-up subject to the present marking requirements in § 390.21.

The FMCSA believes that the power unit should carry the motor carrier identification. The motor carrier continues to have the responsibility for ensuring the trailer it accepts meets the safety requirements of the FMCSRs. Motor carriers who use their personal pick-ups for business purposes can affix temporary signs and remove them when necessary.

The TRALA stated it supported the NPRM as written. The AMSA and NAVL requested the FMCSA to consider adding a new, unique rule that would address the household goods, intermittent lease issue. The main focus would mirror the concept adopted by the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) in that a vehicle leased intermittently to a household goods carrier would be allowed to display both the agent's and the motor carrier's marking information linked by the phrase “Interleased to.”

A special provision in the marking rule for the household goods industry is not necessary. If the industry wishes to display the household goods agent's name and authority number, in conjunction with the household goods carrier's name and USDOT number, the FMCSA would not object. The rule already allows for other identifying information to be displayed on the CMV as long as it is not inconsistent with the information required in § 390.21.

The FMCSA has completed a final regulatory evaluation (FRE) comparing the projected safety benefits of a retrofitting requirement to the potential economic impact on the motor carrier industry. The following discussion summarizes the FMCSA's analysis. A copy of the complete FRE is available for review in the docket.

This rule would require all former ICC motor common and contract carriers to mark their CMVs with a “USDOT Number” and the legal name of the business entity that owns or controls the motor carrier operation, or the “doing business as” name, as they appear on the Form MCS-150. Many carriers with authority from the former ICC already include their legal, or DBA name, on the both sides of their vehicles.

The vast majority of carriers will use either stencils or decals for marking, as these are the cheapest methods. The FMCSA assumed that small carriers will use individual stencil kits, medium carriers will use larger kits, and large carriers will use individually developed decals. Price estimates are shown in table 1. We assumed that changing a name is 50 percent more expensive than changing a DOT number.

The agency estimates that the average time to affix a DOT number would be about 12 minutes. Adding a new name was also assumed to require 12 minutes.

Because this is a simple procedure, we assumed that the marking would be placed by class 3 mechanics, at an average cost of $15 per hour. Therefore, the labor cost is $3 to apply a DOT number and an additional $3 for a name change. Table 1 displays these figures, along with the total labor and material cost.

The FMCSA has determined that the opportunity cost of this rule is negligible or nonexistent, for two reasons. First, vehicles will only be placed out of service for 12 to 36 minutes, which is too brief a period to have earned any measurable amount of revenue. Second, virtually all vehicles would be available at no opportunity cost (in non-revenue producing service and not being serviced) for 12 to 36 minutes sometime in the two-year phase-in period. Therefore, the FMCSA does not believe there is an opportunity cost associated with this rule.

There are 75,737 carriers with authority from the former ICC, but the ICC did not collect information about the number of vehicles operated per carrier. However, FMCSA's MCMIS has information on the number of power units per carrier.

Table 2 shows how the agency estimated the number of power units per carrier size class. We applied the MCMIS distribution of carriers by size to the 75,737 carriers registered by the former ICC. The first column shows the breakdown of for-hire carriers by number of power units from MCMIS. The term “unspecified” means that the FMCSA has no information on the number of vehicles operated by the motor carrier. The third column from the left shows the assumed number of carriers in each size group regulated by the former ICC. The last column shows the estimated number of power units in each size class. We assumed that unspecified carriers have at least three vehicles, since the FMCSA tends to have the least information about the smaller carriers.

Motor carriers are currently required to place either the MC or the USDOT number on their vehicles. In addition, the majority of carriers already display either their legal names or their DBA names. We were unable to locate any information concerning the percent of vehicles regulated by the former ICC that currently display a USDOT number or a legal, or DBA, name. For our baseline analysis, we conservatively estimated that only 10 percent of eligible carriers already display a USDOT number, while 80 percent already display their legal, or DBA, names. Therefore, the FMCSA estimates that 90 percent of eligible carriers or 650,458 vehicles will require a new DOT number (.9 × 722,732), and 20 percent of eligible carriers or 144,546 will need a new name (.2 × 722,732). If a greater percentage of vehicles already display either a DOT number or a valid name, the cost of this rule will be lower than the FMCSA's estimate.

The total undiscounted cost of this rule is $5.7 million. With a 7 percent discount rate and assuming that 1/x of all vehicles are marked each year (where x equals the phase-in period—two years to comply with the requirement to affix the USDOT number to both sides of their CMVs, and five years to comply with the additional requirements to display the legal name or a single trade name on the CMVs currently in their fleet) the total discounted cost equals $5 million. Table 3 shows the breakdown of costs by carrier size.

Not surprisingly, the cost per carrier increases with carrier size. This rule would cost the smallest carriers (those with fewer than six power-units) about $27 and the largest carriers approximately $2,150. The same pattern is evident within each size class ( i.e. , carriers with one vehicle pay less than those with six). As a result of this, small carriers, which compose 65 percent of all carriers regulated by the former ICC, bear approximately 20 percent of the total cost of this rule.

Given the relatively modest cost of this rule, only a small number of accidents would need to be prevented to make it cost beneficial. We estimate that this rule would cost carriers $5.7 million (undiscounted), with the cost spread through the five years following promulgation. The DOT guidelines mandate use of a threshold value per fatality prevented of $2.7 million. Thus, the benefits of this rule would approximately equal the costs if two fatalities were prevented over five years. Other combinations of crashes avoided (fatality, injury, and property-damage-only) could also drive the benefits of this rule above its costs, with the precise figures depending on the severity of the non-fatality accidents. The FMCSA believes that this rule is based on a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the cost. The FMCSA also believes that this rule could lead to the prevention of a small number of accidents, and thus prove cost beneficial.

The benefits of this rule, although significant, are difficult to quantify. The primary benefit would be an improvement in the FMCSA's ability to identify problem carriers and take action to reduce the potential for harm to the public from these carriers. The action taken would depend upon the severity of the problem. Extremely dangerous carriers, such as those with a consistently high out-of-service (OOS) rate or with a greater than expected number of accidents, could be forced to discontinue operations. Carriers with less severe problems could be targeted for educational outreach and other enforcement actions. While the FMCSA programs cannot entirely eliminate the threat from unsafe carriers, we believe they can help reduce the negligent behavior that leads to accidents. The extreme action of taking a carrier out of business would eliminate the dangerous behavior of risky carriers entirely.

The FMCSA is not aware of any alternatives which accomplish the same goals with less burden. The goal of this regulation is to improve the agency's ability to assign inspections and crashes to the correct motor carriers. To accomplish this goal, the agency must be able to correctly identify the operator of a motor vehicle during an inspection or after a crash. High tech identification methods exist, but they require vehicles to be equipped with a transponder that broadcasts a unique “fingerprint.” The cost of these units is significantly higher than the cost of adding a USDOT number or a new name to a power-unit. In addition, transponder readers would be needed to identify a vehicle's owner. While it would be possible (albeit expensive) to provide all inspectors with readers, this would be prohibitively expensive for accident investigators, given the large number of crashes, their geographic dispersion, and the number of police officers who report only a small number of crashes.

As an alternative to marking both sides of the CMV with the USDOT number, the agency also considered allowing a driver to maintain the required information on paper inside the vehicle. While this would be less expensive, there were several problems with this approach. First, drivers already maintain a number of documents with similar information, and they may have an incentive to provide an investigating officer with the incorrect document (or maintain that they do not have the appropriate document) under some circumstances. In addition, during crashes investigators may not have access to an onboard document due to such things as fires, jammed doors due to a crash, or a hazardous material spill.

In order to minimize the impact of this rule, the FMCSA is requiring a two-year phase-in period for the USDOT number requirement and a five-year phase-in for the legal name or single trade name requirement. This will give small carriers (and others) ample time to comply with the marking rule without significantly disrupting their operations.

The FMCSA's intention is not only to improve safety, but to achieve consistency and uniformity and lower the cost of enforcement and compliance for the government, the motor carrier industry, and the general public.

The FMCSA has determined that this action is a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and significant within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The FMCSA has prepared a final regulatory evaluation of the economic impact the regulatory changes will have on the motor carrier industry. A copy of the final regulatory evaluation is included in the docket file.

Prior to the elimination of the ICC, most for-hire motor carriers were required to obtain ICC authority in order to operate in interstate commerce. Carriers which were granted ICC operating authority were also given an ICC docket number, which they were required to display on both sides of each power unit.

Carriers are also required to display their name and address (city and State) on both sides of their power units. A carrier may display any name under which it operates. The address must be the principal place of business or the terminal where the vehicle is located.

The FMCSA uses the USDOT number to track carrier performance, primarily via the MCMIS, a mainframe computer system. It contains motor carrier data from a variety of sources: roadside inspections, accident reports, safety and compliance reviews, and enforcement actions.

The MCMIS is the linchpin of a number of the FMCSA's programs. Federal and State field personnel use the MCMIS to initiate enforcement actions and educational outreach programs. By using the data, potentially unsafe carriers can be targeted for attention, often including compliance reviews. Carriers could be flagged as unsafe if a high percentage of their vehicles were placed out-of-service during a roadside safety inspection, or if they experience an above average number of accidents. The FMCSA analysts and managers use the database for analysis purposes, including monitoring overall trends and evaluating program effectiveness.

In order to connect information from disparate sources, a unique identifier is required. For MCMIS, the USDOT number serves as the unique identifier. Without this number, there is no way to assign accidents, inspections, and other events to the correct motor carrier.

The existence of two identification numbers, the ICC/MC and the USDOT numbers, combined with a lack of consistency in the names displayed on vehicles, limits the effectiveness of the FMCSA's safety programs. Identification problems (such as those listed above) could result in a failure of the FMCSA to attribute a crash, or an OOS inspection, to the correct carrier. In FY 1996, the FMCSA was unable to match 12 percent of roadside inspections to the correct motor carrier. For accidents, the non-match rate was 30 percent. This failure rate means that the FMCSA is unaware of some carriers' poor safety records, and these carriers do not receive the attention their safety record merits, such as a safety review or educational assistance. As a result, crashes occur that this oversight might have forestalled.

In order to eliminate these problems and improve safety and the well-being of the public, the FMCSA is requiring all for-hire interstate carriers formerly regulated by the ICC to display their USDOT number on their vehicles (private carriers are already subject to this requirement). This rule would require all commercial motor vehicles, new or used, added to a motor carrier's fleet to have a USDOT number displayed after the effective date of this final rule. Owners of these vehicles would also be required to place either their legal name, or a single trade name, on their vehicles.

Existing vehicles which do not undergo a change in ownership would be required to display a USDOT number within two years of the effective date of this rule. Owners of existing vehicles would have five years to comply with the name requirements.

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the agency has evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities. The economic impacts of this rule are discussed in the regulatory flexibility analysis, a copy of which is in the docket. Based on its analysis, the FMCSA believes that this rule will affect a substantial number of small entities, but will not have a significant economic impact on them. In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the FMCSA certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The FMCSA estimates that 41,800 carriers with six or fewer power units will be covered by this regulation, as will another 7,600 with 7 to 20 power units. Our estimates indicate motor carriers with fewer than six power-units would absorb about 26 percent of all costs. This rule would cost the smallest carriers (those with fewer than six power-units) about $27 per vehicle. Those small motor carriers with 7 to 20 vehicles would incur a cost of $21 per vehicle. As a result of this, the smallest carriers, which compose 65 percent of all carriers regulated by the former ICC, bear approximately 20 percent of $5,696,036, the total cost of this proposal. The FMCSA does not see this as a substantial financial burden on small entities.

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. It has been determined that this rulemaking does not have a substantial direct effect on States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in this document directly preempts any State law or regulation.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor Carrier Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this program.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. An analysis of this rule has been made by the FMCSA, and it has been determined that it will affect the approved form (MCS-150) associated with a currently-approved information collection covered by OMB Control No. 2126-0013 (formerly 2125-0544). The wording in the Notice section of the MCS-150 will change; burden hours and numbers of respondents will not change as a result of this Final Rule. However, a revised estimate that reflects more accurate numbers of respondents and the time to complete the MCS-150 was done and submitted to the OMB in June 1999. The OMB approved that revision to the information collection on October 4, 1999; the approval period runs through October 31, 2002.

The NPRM that was published on June 16, 1998, solicited public comments on these information collection requirements as a component of the NPRM action. A summary of the comments that addressing the MCS-150 was previously provided to the OMB. Comments were neutral to favorable; in fact, several commenters asked the FMCSA to consider requiring motor carriers to provide regular updates of information contained in the MCS-150. A single State commenter contended that the MCS-150 contains superfluous information, discouraging States from using it to identify intrastate motor carriers. However, that State did not cite specific examples of data elements or information categories it believed to be confusing or redundant.

Section 390.19(a) changes the requirement of when Form MCS-150 must be filed from “within 90 days after beginning operations” to “before commencing operations.” This change will be reflected on Form MCS-150 in the Notice section on the form; however, it will not affect the burden hours for this information collection.

The NPRM also included a proposed requirement that certain motor carriers submit an updated Form MCS-150 to the FMCSA within 90 days from the effective date of the rule. This proposed, updated form would only have been required from those motor carriers that were using a name for their business that was not one of the two names on the MCS-150 had filed with the agency. The FMCSA has eliminated this proposed requirement from the final rule, along with the additional burden hours it would have created.

Number of respondents: 50,000 @ 20 minutes per respondent.

Burden Hours: 16,667.

The agency has analyzed this rulemaking for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined that this action does not have any effect on the quality of the environment.

This rule does not impose a Federal mandate resulting in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. “2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ”

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

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

A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.