A proposed rule detailing the revision was published in the Federal Register on March 1, 2000 (65 FR 10979). A 30-day comment period was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposed rule. No comments were received.

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

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

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

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. There are an estimated 35,150 cotton growers, merchants, and textile manufacturers in the U.S. who voluntarily use the AMS cotton classing services annually under the United States Cotton Standards Act, the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act, and the Cotton Futures Act. The majority of these entities are small businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR § 121.601). The change in procedure will not significantly affect small businesses as defined in the RFA because:

(1) Classification will continue to be based upon the Official Standards for Upland Cotton Color Grade established and maintained by the Department;

(2) The High Volume Instrument color measurement has been a part of the official classification record since 1991. Implementation of the revision for all cotton classification will not affect competition in the marketplace or adversely impact on cotton classification fees; and

(3) The use of cotton classification services is voluntary. For the 1999 crop, 15,825,000 running bales were produced by growers, and virtually all of them were voluntarily submitted for USDA classification. Classification services provided for merchants and manufacturers during the same period totaled approximately 404,000 bales.

In compliance with OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320) which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the information collection requirements contained in the provisions amended by this final rule have been previously approved by OMB and were assigned OMB control number 0581-0009 under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Pursuant to the authority contained in the United States Cotton Standards Act, the Secretary of Agriculture maintains official cotton standards of the United States and provides classification and testing services to cotton producers, textile manufacturers, merchants, and others in the domestic and international cotton industry. The standards are used for the classification of American upland cotton and provide a basis for the determination of value for commercial purposes. Classification services provide information on quality of cotton. The National Cotton Council represents the interests of all seven segments of the U.S. cotton industry: growers, ginners, warehousers, merchants, cooperatives, manufacturers, and cottonseed oil crushers.

High Volume Instrument classification was adopted for all USDA classification of American upland cotton in 1991. The color grade is a component of the official USDA classification. Although High Volume Instrument colormeter readings have been reported since 1991, at the request of the industry, USDA continued the procedure of determining the official color grade by human cotton classers because of the historical importance of color in determining the quality of cotton. With the passage of time, confidence in USDA High Volume Instrument measurements of fiber quality characteristics for classification of cotton grew to the extent that industry representatives requested that High Volume Instrument colormeter readings be used for the official determination of color grade.

AMS conducted a pilot project during the 1998 and 1999 cotton classing seasons to implement an adjustment to the existing High Volume Instrument color measurement so that it would more closely match the Official Cotton Standards used by classers for official color grade determination. Data from the project, which the AMS Cotton Program conducted in cooperation with the National Cotton Council's Quality Task Force, showed that the HVI color measurement closely matched the Official Cotton Grade Standards for color. Results from the 1998 and 1999 crops showed that the HVI colormeter determines Official color grades as accurately as cotton classers. In December of 1999, the National Cotton Council Quality Task Force recommended that AMS replace the cotton classer determination with the HVI colormeter determination for color grade. AMS will now use the HVI colormeter determination as the official component of classification of American Upland cotton for color grade.

For the reasons set forth above, this proposal amends the sections in Parts 28—Cotton Classing, Testing, and Standards, Subpart A—Regulations Under the United States Cotton Standards Act, which establish the procedures for determining official cotton classification based on the Official Cotton Grade Standards. Since cotton classification services under the United States Cotton Futures Act must conform to the requirements of the Cotton Standards Act, this final rule also amends the sections in Part 27—Cotton Classification Under Cotton Futures Legislation which establish the procedures for determining cotton classification for cotton submitted for futures certification.

Accordingly, under Part 27, in § 27.2 (n), the definition of the term “classification” is revised to reflect the changes in procedures made under Part 28.

Also under Part 27, § 27.31 is revised to reflect the deletion of the requirement for cotton classers to determine color grade. The revised heading and section reflect the changes made in procedures for determination of cotton quality in accordance with the official standards.

In Part 28, § 28.8 is revised to reflect the change in cotton classification procedures which replaces classer visual examinations to fix color with instrument color measurement by High Volume Instruments. Miscellaneous other changes are made to the sections to better reflect current procedures in view of color determination change. For example, those determinations made by cotton classers or by authorized Cotton Program employees will be specified.

These changes will be made effective on July 1, 2000, when classification of newly harvested 2000 crop cotton will begin.

A proposed rule detailing the revisions was published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2000 (FR 65 17609). A 30-day comment period was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposed rule. Four comments were received asking for modifications to section 28.522, explanatory terms of the proposed rule. Three comments, from ginning associations, disagreed that preparation describes the roughness or smoothness with which cotton is ginned. They argued that the statement insinuates that “preparation” is a result of the ginning of cotton, and that cotton classification can measure the nappiness or neppiness of cotton, but cannot determine the cause of that condition. They suggested that cultural practices in the growing of cotton as well as harvesting of cotton can also contribute to nappiness or neppiness. This suggestion has merit. Accordingly, the definition of “preparation” has been rewritten in section 28.522 (a) to clarify that it describes the degree of smoothness or roughness of the ginned lint (cotton) without addressing any possible cause. The fourth comment, from a merchant association, suggested that spindle twist be included on the classification record. The agency agrees with this comment and has rewritten section 28.522 (b), to add spindle twist and preparation as explanatory terms to be entered on the classification record.

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

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

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

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. There are an estimated 1,000 growers of Pima cotton in the U.S. who voluntarily use the AMS cotton classing services annually, and the majority of these entities are small businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201). The change in procedure will not significantly affect small entities as defined in the RFA because:

(1) Classification will continue to be based upon the Official Standards for American Pima Cotton established and maintained by the Department;

(2) The change in official American Pima cotton standards will be consistently implemented for all American Pima cotton classed by USDA, with each component, color and leaf, standing on its own so that its effect on end use value or processing capability can be fully and separately evaluated. Therefore, it will not adversely affect competition in the marketplace; and

(3) The use of cotton classification services is voluntary. In 1999, 645,000 bales of American Pima cotton were produced—the largest Pima crop on record, and virtually all of them were submitted by growers for USDA classification. Over the last ten years, U.S. production of Pima has averaged 440,000 bales annually.

In compliance with OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320) which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the information collection requirements contained in the provisions to be amended by this final rule have been previously approved by OMB and were assigned OMB control number 0581-0009 under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Pursuant to the authority contained in the United States Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51 et seq. ), the Secretary of Agriculture maintains official cotton standards of the United States for the grades of American Pima cotton. These standards are used for the classification of American Pima cotton and provide a basis for the determination of value for commercial purposes. American Pima cotton is extra long staple cotton—1 1/4 to 1 9/16 inches—from the botanical group Gossypium barbadense, and it accounts for only 3-5 percent of the total U.S. cotton crop each year.

The existing official cotton standards for the grades of American Pima cotton are listed and described in the regulation at 7 CFR 28.501-28.507. There are six physical standards represented by practical forms, and one descriptive standard for which practical forms are not made. The descriptive standard describes cotton which is lower in grade than that represented by the physical standards.

The first grade standards for American Pima (American Egyptian) cotton were promulgated by USDA in 1918. They have been revised several times since, mainly because of changing varietal characteristics and harvesting and ginning practices. The last complete revision of the standards was published in the Federal Register of June 18, 1985 (50 FR 25198), and became effective in 1986.

Pursuant to the United States Cotton Standards Act, any standard change or replacement to the standards shall become effective not less than one year after the date promulgated. It is anticipated that the changes proposed in this document, if adopted, would be implemented to coincide with the beginning of the 2001 crop year.

The current classification system for American Pima combines color and leaf and some extraneous matter into a composite grade, complicating the individual evaluation of the two primary components of color and leaf. Separation of the composite grade into its chief components of color and leaf and removal of any extraneous matter from the component standards will permit each quality factor to be recognized clearly on its own, and its effect on end use value or processing capability will be fully and separately evaluated. Manufacturers will be able to determine the utility value of each component and any premiums and discounts. American Upland cotton has been classified by separate color and leaf grades since 1993. The success of this separation for American Upland cotton prompted the representatives of the American Pima industry to request this change in the standards for American Pima. The USDA's ability to provide useful and cost-effective cotton classification, standardization, and market news services will be enhanced by this change.

The existing official cotton standards for the grades of American Pima cotton listed and described in the regulations at (7 CFR 28.501-28.507) will be revised.

There will be established seven official cotton standards for color grades of American Pima cotton. Of these seven standards, six will be physical standards represented by practical forms and one will be descriptive for the lowest quality color for which practical forms are not made. The six practical forms will have the same color ranges as currently maintained in the corresponding physical standards for the grades of American Pima cotton for Grade No. 1, Grade No. 2, Grade No.3, Grade No. 4, Grade No. 5, and Grade No. 6 described at 7 CFR 28.501, 28.502, 28.503, 28.504, 28.505, and 28.506. The descriptive color standard for which practical forms will not be made will have the same color as currently described in the standards for the grade of American Pima cotton for Grade No. 7 at 7 CFR 28.507, which is any color inferior to Grade No. 6.

There will be established seven official cotton standards for leaf grade of American Pima cotton. Of these, six will be physical standards represented by practical forms and one will be a descriptive standard to describe the lowest quality cotton for which practical forms will not be made. The physical standards for leaf grades will each have the same leaf content ranges as currently maintained in the corresponding physical standards for the grades of American Pima cotton for Grade No. 1, Grade No. 2, Grade No.3, Grade No. 4, Grade No. 5, and Grade No. 6 described at 7 CFR 28.501, 28.502, 28.503, 28.504, 28.505, and 28.506. Grade No. 7 is described at § 28.507, and no physical standard will be made for it because it will continue to include all ranges of leaf content inferior to Grade No. 6. The standards for Grade No. 4, Grade No. 5, Grade No. 6, and Grade No. 7 will also be changed to remove the bark now present in those standards. After removal of bark from the standards, the presence of bark, which is extraneous matter, will be noted on classification records without regard to the grades assigned as any other extraneous matter is listed under the current standard. American Pima cotton will not be reduced in grade due to the presence of any extraneous matter when it is present in any grade.

For practical considerations the color standards and the leaf standards will be represented by the same set of physical samples. There will be one container for Grade No. 1 Color and Grade No. 1 Leaf, one container for Grade No. 2 Color and Grade No. 2 Leaf, one container for Grade No. 3 Color and Grade No. 3 Leaf, one container for Grade No. 4 Color and Grade No. 4 Leaf, one container for Grade No. 5 color and Grade No. 5 Leaf, and one container for Grade No. 6 Color and Grade No. 6 Leaf.

The definition of official standards in § 28.2 (p) will be changed to reflect the separation of color and leaf grades for American Upland and American Pima cotton.

A new section, § 28.521, will be added to state that Color Grade designation shall be made independently of the leaf content, and Leaf Grade designation shall be made independently of the color content. Section 28.522 will be added for explanatory terms that include preparation and extraneous matter.

The table of symbols and code numbers used in lieu of cotton grade names in 7 CFR 28.525 will be revised to reflect these changes.

The changes in this document will be implemented to coincide with the beginning of the 2001 crop year.

On April 18, 2000, the FAA published in the Federal Register a direct final rule; request for comments which revises the Class E airspace at Orange City, IA (FR Doc. 00-9548, 65 FR 20723, Airspace Docket No. 00-ACE-9). An error was subsequently discovered in the airspace designation for Orange City Municipal Airport. This action corrects that error. After careful review of all available information related to the subject presented above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require adoption of the rule. The FAA has determined that this correction will not change the meaning of the action nor add any additional burden on the public beyond that already published. This action corrects the error in the airspace designation and confirms the effective date to the direct final rule.

The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on August 10, 2000. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

In 1986, the Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) adopted Rule 17Ac2-2  1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), which requires all registered transfer agents to file an annual report of their business activities on Form TA-2. 2 Rule 17Ac2-2 and Form TA-2 have not been revised since their adoption.

On March 23, 1999, as part of the Commission's continuing efforts to improve and simplify rules and forms, the Commission proposed for comment amendments to Rule 17Ac2-2 and Form TA-2. 3 The Commission and the other appropriate regulatory agencies (ARA) have direct oversight responsibility for transfer agents, and there is no self-regulatory organization for transfer agents. 4 The receipt by ARAs of annual information about transfer agent activities is therefore an essential component of their oversight of transfer agents. The proposed amendments were intended to allow the Commission to obtain clearer and more comprehensive information from transfer agents about their activities.

To help address the problem of lost securityholders, on October 1, 1997, the Commission adopted Rules 17Ad-17 and 17a-24. 5 Rule 17Ad-17 requires transfer agents to conduct database searches in an effort to locate lost securityholders. Rule 17a-24 requires transfer agents to submit on Form TA-2 aggregate data regarding the accounts of lost securityholders. 6 The purpose of Rule 17a-24 is to gather data to assess the effectiveness of the search requirements of Rule 17Ad-17. As a result of its continuing review of the lost securityholder issue, the Commission is reviewing the information that transfer agents must submit to help the Commission assess the effectiveness of the search requirements of Rule 17Ad-17. Therefore, the Commission proposed to require transfer agents to report on Form TA-2 specific information about the results of the required database searches for lost securityholders and proposed to rescind Rule 17a-24 and its reporting requirements.

The Commission received 12 comment letters on the proposal, most of which were favorable. 7 As discussed below, the Commission has decided to adopt the amendments to Rule 17Ac2-2 and Form TA-2 and to rescind Rule 17a-24 substantially as proposed but with certain modifications suggested by the commenters.

The Commission proposed several modifications to Rule 17Ac2-2. Rule 17Ac2-2 currently provides that a transfer agent that engages a service company to perform all of its transfer and processing functions is not required to file Form TA-2. 8 As a consequence, in processing Form TA-2 filings, the Commission's staff frequently cannot determine whether a transfer agent that did not file Form TA-2 is properly using the exception or has simply neglected to file. To address this problem, we proposed to eliminate the exception and to require a transfer agent that engaged a service company to perform all of its transfer and processing functions to answer four questions on Form TA-2 about the service company relationship. 9

Two comment letters received on the elimination of the filing exception were favorable. 10 Three commenters, however, expressed concern that asking for information other than the service company's name was redundant. 11 One commenter argued that if the service company and the transfer agent for which it acts as the service agent both are required to submit data about the number of items it received for transfer, the Commission will receive duplicative information. 12

The Commission has decided that in order to strike a balance between obtaining more comprehensive information from transfer agents about their activities and not imposing unnecessary burdens on transfer agents that outsource all of their transfer agent functions, the Commission is adopting this provision with several changes. 13 As adopted, transfer agents that hire service companies to perform all of their transfer agent functions will not be required to provide the number of items it received for transfer during the reporting period. In addition, in order to obtain the most current and complete information regarding a transfer agent's use of a service company, the Commission is adopting an additional question that requires the transfer agent to state whether it has been engaged as a service company during the reporting period.

Current Rule 17Ac2-2 states that every registered transfer agent shall file an annual report on Form TA-2 in accordance with the instructions contained therein by August 31 of each calendar year. Most of the data reported on the pre-amended Form TA-2 is as of June 30, but some of the data reported is as of December 31. In order to have a uniform annual reporting period, the Commission proposed that the term “reporting period” mean the 12 months ended June 30 of the year for which the form was filed. The June 30 date was chosen to avoid increasing the year-end reporting burden on transfer agents.

No commenters supported June 30 as the reporting period. Three commenters suggested that it made more sense for Rule 17Ac2-2 to require that data be reported on Form TA-2 as of the end of the calendar year, or December 31. 14 For example, one commenter explained that year-end reporting would not only “coincide with the usual corporate accounting standards, it should make the information more accurate and consistent and would likely lessen the burden of creating reports from mid-stream data.”  15 This commenter pointed out that because the employees that prepare Form TA-2 are usually different from those that prepare other general corporate reporting, compiling data for Form TA-2 reporting at year-end would not create significant additional work. In response to these comments, the Commission has modified the definition of the reporting period to require that, beginning with the reporting period for the Year 2000, each transfer agent registered on December 31 must file a report on Form TA-2 by March 31  16 covering the prior calendar year. 17

Medicis Dermatologics, Inc., 4343 East Camelback Rd., suite 250, Phoenix, AZ 85018-2700, has informed FDA of a change of sponsor's address to 8125 North Hayden Rd., Scottsdale, AZ 85258. Accordingly, the agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR 510.600(c)(1) and (c)(2) to reflect the change of sponsor's address.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

Fort Dodge Animal Health, Division of American Home Products Corp., 800 Fifth St. NW., Fort Dodge, IA 50501, filed supplemental NADA 141-099 that provides for use of Cydectin® (moxidectin) 0.5 percent pouron for dairy cattle at 500 micrograms moxidectin per kilogram of body weight for treatment and control of infections and infestations of certain gastrointestinal roundworms, lungworms, cattle grubs, mites, lice, and horn flies. The supplemental NADA is approved as of November 2, 1999, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 524.1451 to reflect the approval. The basis for approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary.

In addition, the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 556.426 to add a tolerance for residues of moxidectin in milk and, editorially, to reflect current format.

In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(ii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(ii)), this approval qualifies for 3 years of marketing exclusivity beginning November 2, 1999, because the application contains substantial evidence of the effectiveness of the drug involved, any studies of animal safety or, in the case of food-producing animals, human food safety studies (other than bioequivalence or residue studies) required for approval of the application and conducted or sponsored by the applicant.

The agency has carefully considered the potential environmental effects of this action. FDA has concluded that the action will not have a significant impact on the human environment, and that an environmental impact statement is not required. The agency's finding of no significant impact and the evidence supporting that finding, contained in an environmental assessment, may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch (address above) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 667, provides that States which wish to assume responsibility for developing and enforcing their own occupational safety and health standards may do so by submitting and obtaining Federal approval of a State plan. State plan approval occurs in stages which include initial approval under section 18(c) of the Act and ultimately, final approval under section 18(e) of the Act. In the interim, between initial approval and final approval, there is a period of concurrent Federal/State jurisdiction within a State operating an approved plan. In the following States which have not received section 18(e) final approval, concurrent Federal enforcement authority remains in effect but has been suspended voluntarily in accordance with operational status agreements between OSHA and the individual States. See 29 CFR 1954.3 for guidelines and procedures. These States are: California, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Vermont and Washington. In the following States which have received final approval pursuant to section 18(e) of the Act, Federal OSHA standards and enforcement authority have been relinquished. These States are: Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. (Concurrent Federal enforcement authority is currently being exercised in the Virgin Islands. Connecticut and New York operate State plans limited in coverage to State and local government employees and are not affected by this rule.)

States ordinarily cannot exercise regulatory authority over Federal agencies or other Federal institutions or instrumentalities, unless specifically authorized by Congress. The Postal Employees' Safety Enhancement Act (Public Law 105-241) (PESEA), enacted on September 28, 1998, subjects the United States Postal Service (U.S. Postal Service or USPS) to all provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (the Act) in the same manner as a private sector employer. PESEA amends two sections of the Act to provide full private-sector coverage of the USPS. The first provision amends section 3(5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 652(5), to exclude the USPS from the existing exemption of the United States from the definition of “employer.” As a result, the USPS is now covered by OSHA in the same manner as a private sector employer. The second provision clarifies the status of the USPS under section 19 of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 668(a), which deals with Federal agency safety and health programs. The new provision affirmatively states that the USPS is not to be considered a “Federal agency” for purposes of section 19. Thus, PESEA makes the USPS subject to coverage under all provisions of the federal OSHAct which are applicable to private sector employment, including the State plan provisions of section 18 of the Act, thus granting the States with OSHA-approved State plans the authority to regulate this Federal instrumentality. (Prior to enactment, a colloquy on the floor of the House of Representatives confirmed this intent.)

Federal OSHA now regulates the working conditions of USPS employees as well as contract employees engaged in official USPS mail operations, e.g., contract mail carriers and truck drivers transporting and unloading mail. (OSHA notes that pursuant to section 4(b)(1), OSHA standards do not apply to working conditions regulated by the Department of Transportation, Office of Motor Carrier and Highway Safety.) Federal OSHA also regulates the working conditions of postal stations located in other public or commercial facilities.

In a memorandum dated October 20, 1998, OSHA offered the State plan States the opportunity to amend their State plans to extend State jurisdiction to the USPS, as authorized by PESEA, or to decline to exercise such jurisdiction, in which case coverage would remain a Federal OSHA responsibility. All 23 State plan States with private sector responsibility determined they would not assume responsibility for coverage of USPS employees and contractors engaged in USPS mail handling operations. OSHA is hereby amending pertinent sections of its regulations on approved State plans to reflect this declination of State jurisdiction and continuation of Federal OSHA enforcement authority over this occupational safety and health issue in the twenty-three (23) States operating approved State plans. This rule modifies each State's subpart at 29 CFR 1952 to document that coverage of USPS workplaces and employees is not an issue covered by the State plan and remains a Federal OSHA responsibility. Federal coverage in State plan States encompasses USPS employees, and contract employees and contractor-operated facilities engaged in USPS mail operations. State plan States will continue to exercise jurisdiction, where permitted by State law, over all other private sector contractors and employees working on USPS sites but not engaged in USPS mail operations, such as building maintenance and construction workers.

Connecticut and New York operate State plans limited in coverage to State and local government employees and are not affected by this rule

Five (5) States (California, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Vermont) include some aspects of private sector maritime operations (shipyards, longshoring, marine terminals, gear certification) within the scope of their plans. All State plans provide coverage to State and local government employees engaged in maritime activities. This rule modifies pertinent sections of 29 CFR 1952 to reflect, in more uniform language, the extent of State Plan and Federal OSHA maritime jurisdiction. This rule also makes other technical corrections and updates with regard to military jurisdiction in the State of Washington and coverage on Indian Reservations in the State of Oregon. Finally, this rule updates information in each State's subpart regarding where the plan documents for that State are made available to the public.

29 CFR Part 1953 sets forth the procedures by which the Assistant Secretary will review changes to State plans approved in accordance with section 18(c) of the Act and Part 1902. Upon review of the twenty-three State plan decisions in accordance with these procedures, OSHA hereby approves these actions and amends each State's subpart in 29 CFR Part 1952 to reflect the State's determination not to extend State Plan jurisdiction to the U.S. Postal Service. Today's rule in the Federal Register further provides notice to affected employers and employees of the extent of Federal OSHA enforcement authority over the U.S. Postal Service in each of the 23 State plan States which cover private sector employment. Technical corrections with regard to the extent of State and Federal enforcement authority over safety and health issues in the maritime industry in several of the States; military jurisdiction in the State of Washington; coverage on Indian Reservations in the State of Oregon; and information on where the plan documents for the various State plans may be inspected are also approved, and the pertinent subparts of Part 1952 amended. (Note: In the interest of clarity, the full text of each of the amended sections, including unchanged provisions which reflect previously approved determinations by the affected States, is included in the following amendments to Part 1952.)

Under 29 CFR 1953.2(c), the Assistant Secretary may prescribe alternative procedures to expedite the review process or for other good cause which may be consistent with applicable laws. As these State actions impose no new responsibilities or requirements on employers, employees or the State, no opportunity for public comment is required.

OSHA certifies pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No additional burden will be placed upon the State government beyond the responsibilities already assumed as part of the approved State plan.

Executive Order 13132 on “Federalism” emphasizes consultation between Federal agencies and the States and establishes specific review procedures the Federal government must follow as it carries out policies which affect State or local governments. OSHA has included in the Supplementary Information section of today's notice a general explanation of the relationship between Federal OSHA and the State Plan States under the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the effect of the Postal Employees' Safety Enhancement Act and other issues on this relationship. OSHA has consulted extensively with the States on their individual decisions on these issues. Although OSHA has determined that the requirements and consultation procedures provided in Executive Order 13132 are not applicable to State decisions on the extent of State Plan coverage under the OSH Act which have no effect outside the particular State, OSHA has reviewed the decisions approved today and believes they have been made in a manner consistent with the principles and criteria set forth in the Executive Order.

This document was prepared under the direction of Charles N. Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. It is issued under section 18 of the OSH Act, (29 U.S.C. 667), 29 CFR Part 1902, and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033).

District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety needs of the waters within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in motion. Security zones limit access to vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities to prevent injury or damage. Special local regulations are issued to enhance the safety of participants and spectators at regattas and other marine events. Timely publication of these regulations in the Federal Register is often precluded when a regulation responds to an emergency, or when an event occurs without sufficient advance notice. However, the affected public is informed of these regulations through Local Notices to mariners, press releases, and other means. Moreover, actual notification is provided by Coast Guard patrol vessels enforcing the restrictions imposed by the regulation. Because mariners are notified by Coast Guard officials on-scene prior to enforcement action, Federal Register notice is not required to place the special local regulation, security zone, or safety zone in effect. However, the Coast Guard, by law, must publish in the Federal Register notice of substantive rules adopted. To meet this obligation without imposing undue expense on the public, the Coast Guard periodically publishes a list of these temporary special local regulations, security zones, and safety zones. Permanent regulations are not included in this list because they are published in their entirety in the Federal Register. Temporary regulations may also be published in their entirety if sufficient time is available to do so before they are placed in effect or terminated. The safety zones, special local regulations and security zones listed in this notice have been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 because of their emergency nature, or limited scope and temporary effectiveness.

The following regulations were placed in effect temporarily during the period January 1, 2000 and March 31, 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

The Wappoo Creek (SC 171) drawbridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at Charleston, has a vertical clearance of 33 feet above mean high water (MHW) and 38 feet above mean low water (MLW) measured at the fenders in the closed position. On May 22, 2000, Coastal Marine Construction, Incorporated, the contractor representing the drawbridge owner, requested a deviation from the current operating regulation in 33 CFR 117.5 which requires drawbridge to open promptly and fully when a request to open is given. This temporary deviation was requested to allow necessary repairs to the drawbridge.

The District Commander has granted a temporary deviation for the purpose of conducting repairs to the drawbridge. Under this deviation, the Wappoo Creek (SC Route 171) Drawbridge need only open one leaf of the drawbridge except when a double leaf opening is requested with a one-hour notice. The single-leaf openings are scheduled for a period of 10 days beginning on June 22, 2000 and ending on July 2, 2000 and a period of 41 days beginning on July 6, 2000 and ending on August 19, 2000.

You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at either of the following sites:

The United States Patent and Trademark Office published a final rule in the Federal Register of September 8, 1999 (64 FR 48900) entitled “Trademark Law Treaty Implementation Act Changes.” A correction of this final rule was published in the Federal Register of September 22, 1999 (64 FR 51244). This second correction revises amendatory instruction 35, amending 37 CFR 2.89.

On May 21, 1999, we published in the Federal Register (Vol. 64, page 27705) a final rule amending the regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to include the revised Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement for 1999-2000. The Arrangement governs the duties and obligations of insurers participating in the Write Your Own (WYO) program of the NFIP and the responsibilities of the Government to provide financial and technical assistance to these insurers. The 1999-2000 Arrangement ends September 30, 2000. Except for the new effective date of October 1, 2000, the Arrangement for 2000-2001 is unchanged from last year's version. (We have posted the text of the current Arrangement at http://www.fema.gov/nfip/wyoarr99. )

During July 2000 we will send a copy of the offer for the 2000-2001 Arrangement year to all private insurance companies participating under the current 1999-2000 Arrangement, together with related materials and submission instructions. Any private insurance company not currently participating in the WYO program but wishing to consider FEMA's offer for 2000-2001 may request a copy of the offer by writing: Federal Emergency Management Agency, ATTN: Federal Insurance Administrator, WYO Program, Washington, DC 20472.

We are publishing this final rule without opportunity for prior public comment under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. This final rule is a rule of agency procedure or practice that is excepted from the prior public comment requirements of § 553(b). Except as the rule revises the effective date of the Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement (“the Arrangement”) from October 1, 1999 to October 1, 2000, this rule makes no significant, substantive changes to the Arrangement between FEMA and the WYO companies.

The requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration, sec. 10.8(d)(2)(i) categorically exclude this final rule. By revising the effective date of the Arrangement, this rule is an administrative action in support of day-to-day activities. We have not prepared an environmental impact assessment.

We have reviewed this final rule under the provisions of E.O. 12866 of September 30, 1993, 58 FR 51735 and determined that it is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of section 2(f) of that executive order. The rule only revises the effective date of the existing Arrangement from October 1, 1999 to October 1, 2000, and makes no other changes to the Arrangement. In all other respects the rule adheres to the regulatory principles set forth in E.O. 12866. The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this final rule under E.O. 12866.

In accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the collections of information applicable to this final rule: OMB Number 3067-0169, Write Your Own (WYO) Program (expires March 31, 2002).

We have reviewed this rule under the provisions of under E.O. 13132, Federalism, dated August 4,1999, and have concluded that revision of the effective date of the Arrangement involves no policies that have federalism implications.

We have sent this final rule to the Congress and to the General Accounting Office under the Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking Act, Pub. L. 104-121. The rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of that Act. It is an administrative action in support of normal day-to-day activities. It does not result in nor is it likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more. It will not result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. It will not have “significant adverse effects” on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This final rule is exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act. The rule is not an unfunded Federal mandate within the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-4. It does not meet the $100,000,000 threshold of that Act, and any enforceable duties are imposed as a condition of Federal assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.

The modified base flood elevations are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified base flood elevation determinations are available for inspection is provided.

Any request for reconsideration must be based upon knowledge of changed conditions, or upon new scientific or technical data.

The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. , and with 44 CFR part 65.

For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

The modified base flood elevations are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.

These modified elevations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, state or regional entities.

The changes in base flood elevations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Associate Director, Mitigation Directorate, certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required to maintain community eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

Regulatory Classification. This interim rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 12612, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

The Federal Communications Commission published a document revising part 64 of the Commission's rules in the Federal Register on June 25, 1999, (64 FR 34488). On October 18, 1999, the Commission published a document in the Federal Register correcting typographical errors. See 64 FR 56177 (October 18, 1999). This document corrects the Federal Register , FR Doc. 99-26884, published October 18, 1999, 64 FR 56177, by revising “Subpart U” to read “Subpart Y.”

In the rule changes, page 56177, in the second column, “Subpart W” is corrected to read “Subpart Y.”

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order in MM Docket No. 99-357, adopted May 24, 2000, and released May 26, 2000. The full text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-216, adopted May 17, 2000, and released May 26, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-42, adopted May 17, 2000, and released May 26, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 00-43, adopted May 17, 2000, and released May 26, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800, facsimile (202) 857-3805.

This is a summary of the Commission's First Report and Order in ET Docket No. 00-11, FCC 00-185, adopted May 22, 2000, and released May 26, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257) 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, and may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

1. In this First Report and Order (Report and Order), the Commission prescribes an improved point-to-point predictive model for determining the ability of individual locations to receive an over-the-air television broadcast signal of a specific intensity through the use of a conventional, outdoor rooftop receiving antenna. The Report and Order also provides for the model's continued refinement by the use of additional data as they become available. Under the provisions of the 1988 Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA), a household that cannot receive the over-the-air signal of a local network affiliate is eligible to receive the distant network signal through satellite carriers. In the absence of on-site measurements of signal intensity, the predictive model will provide a reliable and presumptive means for determining whether the over-the-air signal of a network affiliated television station can be received at an individual location.

2. A Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Notice) issued on January 20, 2000, 65 FR 4923 (February 2, 2000) addressed the SHVIA statutory requirement for prescribing the Individual Location Longley-Rice model, a version of Longley-Rice 1.2.2. At issue is how the basic Longley-Rice radio propagation prediction model should be refined so that it will accurately take land cover variations into account as required by the SHVIA. The Notice proposed a specific computational procedure based on a certain database of land cover variations published by the United States Geological Survey. According to this procedure, individual locations are to be identified as lying in one of 10 land use and land cover (LULC) categories ranging from open land to urban environments. The computational procedure then finds a clutter loss value (a reduction in available signal intensity) associated with this environmental class for the TV channel of interest, and subtracts that clutter loss from the signal intensity predicted by the Longley-Rice model. The Notice proposed a specific set of clutter loss values based on the results published in a recent engineering journal by Thomas N. Rubinstein.

3. There are three major issues to be resolved in this matter. These are first, whether it would improve the accuracy of the ILLR model to assign clutter loss values as a function of the LULC category of the receiving location, as proposed in the Notice. Second, whether there are specific clutter loss values that would have the desired effect of improving prediction accuracy. Third, the provisions to be made for the introduction of further improvements in prediction accuracy as additional data become available. The Report and Order also addresses certain matters of technical detail raised by the comments having to do with error flags and the surface refractivity parameter of the ILLR model. In a separate but related matter, an independent and neutral entity is designated that will in turn designate who shall conduct the objective test of received signal intensity for verification purposes in case a satellite provider and network station cannot agree on a person to conduct such a test.

4. Clutter Loss Assignment by LULC Category. The proposal to assign clutter loss values according to LULC category was supported by the major providers of direct-to-home satellite services, DIRECTV, Inc. (DIRECTV) and EchoStar Satellite Corporation (EchoStar). These organizations stated that the LULC database is a source of credible and verifiable information regarding vegetation, water and other features on the land surface, and that it is widely relied upon by the scientific and technical communities for a variety of applications. Engineering firms generally agreed that this approach has merit, at least until a more up-to-date source of land use and land clutter information with finer resolution, such as Landsat, becomes available. Commenters representing terrestrial broadcasting interests, however, argued that increased prediction accuracy will not be obtained by the approach proposed in the Notice because there are serious deficiencies with the LULC database for purposes of modifying the ILLR model. Based on analysis of these comments, the Commission finds that the assignment of clutter loss values based on LULC categories would enhance the accuracy of predictions made with the ILLR model. Therefore, although they are not ideal, the LULC categories proposed in the Notice are adopted as an integral part of the ILLR. The addition of these LULC categories will provide the ILLR with an approximate means for accounting for the reception environment of individual locations, as those environments are affected by vegetation and building structures as well as the specific terrain elevation features already accounted for by the basic Longley-Rice model. The effect of each reception environment on signal reception is dependent on the clutter loss value assigned to each of the LULC categories.

5. Clutter Loss Values. Commenters expressed strongly opposing views on the specific clutter loss values to use for improving ILLR predictions. While DIRECTV and EchoStar recommended specific values for clutter loss, namely those proposed in the Notice, parties representing the interests of the network affiliates believe that the predictions of the ILLR model in its present form already include the effects of clutter so that no prescription of additional losses is appropriate. Middle ground was found in the comments of engineering firms. These generally favored assignment of clutter loss values to be determined by further study of existing measurement data or data acquired by further measurement programs. The Commission believes that the values assigned as clutter losses should be determined by statistical study of actual measurements in the specific LULC environments to which they are to be applied. The results of a study of this type were reported in the comments of the National Association of Broadcasters and the Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. (NAB/AMSTV). The NAB/AMSTV study compared predictions of all the various proposed models with measured data to determine the relative accuracy of the models. The prediction at each of approximately 1000 locations was classified as correct, an under-prediction, or an over-prediction. A model was deemed to have made an under-prediction if it predicted that a location could not receive a signal of at least Grade B strength, when the location in fact did receive a Grade B signal; it was charged with an over-prediction if it predicted that a location could receive a signal of at least Grade B when the household in fact was measured not to receive a Grade B signal.

6. For VHF channels, the comparisons indicate that a prescription of additional losses would make the ILLR model less accurate because it already produces more under-predictions than over-predictions (a condition that favors the interests of satellite service providers). For both VHF and UHF, the ILLR model without clutter corrections proves superior to other models by making the correct prediction more often. For UHF, however, even though more correct than the competing models, the ILLR model tends to over-predict the field intensity substantially more often than it under-predicts. This is a condition that could be restored to approximate balance by assigning clutter losses. Based on the available measured data of television signals, the Commission reduced the clutter loss values from those proposed in the Notice in order to make the ILLR model more accurate. The clutter loss values for VHF channels are set to zero because the measurement data indicate that larger values produce fewer correct predictions. Thus the ILLR model is not changed for VHF. For UHF channels, small clutter loss values are set in order to obtain a better balance between under-predictions and over-predictions. Specifically, the clutter loss values are reduced to one-third of those proposed in the Notice because the Commission's assessment of the data indicates that this will produce a better balance between under-predictions and over-predictions without adversely affecting the overall percentage of correct predictions.

7. Error Flags. In the Notice it was proposed to presume lack of service in the rare instances where the output of the Longley-Rice computational procedure includes an error flag along with the predicted field strength to indicate a possible error in the prediction. No argument can be made for the accuracy of either convention, since the error flag simply indicates uncertainty in the predicted value of field strength due to the fact that the parameters presented to the ILLR are somewhat outside their proper limits. The Commission believes that the best approach is to ignore the error flag and simply accept the predicted value for comparison with the signal intensity standard. Thus, in uncertain cases the improved ILLR model will prefer neither under-prediction nor over-prediction errors.

8. Surface Refractivity. Commenters stated that it could improve the accuracy of the ILLR model to use the actual surface refractivity in the geographical region between the transmitter and individual reception point in place of the fixed median value proposed in the Notice. However, commenters did not propose a precise algorithm or particular database for determining the refractivity value to be used for individual radio paths. While it would be desirable to include surface refractivity in the ILLR model as a geographic variable, the Commission believes that the effects on the precise signal strength predictions made by the ILLR model would be too small to make a difference, as a practical matter, in the determination of served/unserved status of individual locations. Therefore, due to the lack a precise procedure and database for this proposed ILLR refinement, the fixed median value of surface refractivity is retained in the ILLR model as proposed in the Notice.

9. Provisions for Further Improvements in Prediction Accuracy. The comments indicate that improvements in the accuracy of the ILLR model beyond those specifically proposed may be possible either by obtaining additional measurement data or through further analysis of existing data. In the Report and Order the Commission declared that it will initiate a further rule making, i.e., a standard notice-and-comment procedure, to improve the accuracy of the ILLR model upon the filing of a petition for such rule making that is supported by high quality engineering studies containing conclusions based on reliable and publicly available measurement data. Changes to the ILLR model based on such additional data may be proposed by referencing the present Docket, which will be held open for this purpose.

10. Designation of Neutral and Independent Entity for Signal Tests Purposes. The SHVIA relies on the ILLR model to determine presumptively whether a subscriber is served or unserved for purposes of eligibility to receive satellite retransmission of distant network signals. The SHVIA further provides that subscribers who are denied retransmission of distant signals may request that the satellite carrier seek a waiver of the denial from the network station that is asserting that retransmission is prohibited. If the network station rejects the waiver request, the subscriber may request an on-site test. To address those circumstances in which the satellite provider and network station cannot agree on a person to conduct the test, the SHVIA requires that the Commission designate by rule an independent and neutral entity that shall in turn designate the person to conduct the test. The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) is particularly appropriate in this role since it has no commercial connection with delivery of television services, its field offices cover the United States, and its members are actively engaged in activities related to the measurement of radio field intensity. Accordingly, the Report and Order provides that the ARRL shall serve as the independent and neutral entity that shall designate the person to conduct the test.

11. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)  1 requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”  2 The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”  3 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 4 A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 5

12. In this Report and Order, the Commission prescribes a prediction technique for determining the ability of individual households to receive television signals broadcast over-the air by local stations. The prediction technique applies exclusively to the sources of data for certain engineering calculations and to the manner in which these calculations are made. Television station licensees, Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) operators, and other Direct to Home (DTH) Satellite operators may use the technique to establish the eligibility or non-eligibility of individual households for satellite delivery of distant television programming. These determinations will usually be made at the point of sale of satellite receiving equipment for homes and will tend to increase the number of eligible customers. As noted in paragraph 3 of the Report and Order, the statute requires that we increase the accuracy of the prediction model based on technical data regarding terrain and land cover variations. Thus, the prescribed prediction technique is of a purely electrical engineering, scientific nature, and the Commission's aim is to improve its scientific accuracy. Moreover, the changes prescribed in the technique are small and will have only a minor effect on the proportion of households that are eligible to receive distant network signals. The number of viewers served by network affiliate stations will not be significantly reduced, and hence the economic effect on network affiliates and satellite carriers will not be significant. Therefore, the Commission certifies that the requirements of this First Report and Order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the First Report and Order including a copy of this final certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the First Report and Order and this certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

13. Pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), and 154(j); Section 1008 of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, Appendix I; and Section 119(d)(10)(a) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10)(a), the rule changes set forth shall be effective June 26, 2000.

14. That the Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the First Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

The AIDAR is being amended to implement USAID's adoption of the NIH Contractor Performance System. As a corollary to the implementation of this system, USAID has authorized a deviation to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to:

1. recognize that USAID personal services contractors are Government personnel with respect to the restriction on the disclosure of contractor performance information in FAR 42.1503(b) when such access is required in the performance of their duties as contracting office personnel and/or in their participation on source evaluation panels; and

2. exempt USAID personal services contracts from the FAR 42.1502(a) requirement for preparing contractor performance evaluations.

The changes made by this Notice are administrative and not considered major rules as defined by E.O. 12866. This Notice will neither impact a substantial number of small entities, nor establish an information collection as contemplated by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act. Because of the nature of this Notice, use of the proposed rule/public comment approach was not considered necessary. USAID has decided to issue this Notice as a final rule; however, the Agency welcomes public comment on the material covered by this Notice or any part of the AIDAR at any time. Comments or questions may be addressed as specified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of the preamble.

The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections add certain national wildlife refuges to the list of areas open for hunting and/or sport fishing, along with pertinent refuge-specific regulations for such activities; and amend certain regulations on other refuges that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for the 1999-2000 season.

As published, an amendatory instruction contains an error which may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.

The reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

In response to a request from the Council, NMFS issued an interim rule (64 FR 71056, December 20, 1999), under section 305(c)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, that changed the management measures for the red snapper fishery in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico by (1) increasing the recreational minimum size limit to 16 inches (40.6 cm); (2) establishing a recreational season of April 21 to October 31, 2000; (3) reinstating the 4-fish bag limit for captain and crew of for-hire vessels; and (4) changing the openings of the spring red snapper commercial season from the first 15 days of each month to the first 10 days of each month, beginning February 1. This action was, and remains, necessary to address overfishing of the red snapper resource.

Under section 305(c)(3)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS may extend the effectiveness of an interim rule for one additional period of 180 days, provided the public has had an opportunity to comment on the interim rule and the Council is actively preparing proposed regulations to address the overfishing on a permanent basis. NMFS solicited public comments on the initial interim rule and received numerous comments. These comments are summarized herein along with agency responses. The Council has prepared a regulatory amendment, under the FMP's framework procedure for regulatory adjustments, that is intended to address overfishing of the red snapper resource; if approved and implemented by NMFS, the regulatory amendment would replace this interim rule. The expiration date of the interim rule is being extended because red snapper remain overfished and NMFS cannot take action to address the overfishing via the regulatory amendment by June 19, 2000.

Additional details concerning the basis for these changes to the red snapper management measures and discussion of the ongoing efforts of the Council and NMFS to evaluate and implement measures to rebuild the red snapper stock consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are contained in the preamble to the interim rule and are not repeated here.

NMFS received a total of 1,488 comments addressing the interim rule (64 FR 71056, December 20, 1999). Most of these supported the Council's request for the interim rule and were received prior to publication of the interim rule. All comments received before, during, or after the comment period are summarized and addressed below.

Comment 1 : A total of 1,359 letters supported the measures contained in the interim rule. Specifically, these letters supported the April 21-to-October 31 recreational season because this season would provide the greatest economic benefits.

Response : NMFS agrees that the measures implemented by the interim rule will provide economic benefits to the greatest number of Gulf fishers, as well as reduce overfishing and allow the recovery of the red snapper stock.

Comment 2 : A total of 179 letters opposed the interim rule. Most opposition was from fishers and organizations in south Texas who believe that the recreational season will cause economic hardship in their area. Many of those who objected to the April 21-to-October 31 recreational season requested a year-round fishery.

Response : Based on public testimony and the best available scientific information, NMFS concluded that a season from April 21 to October 31 offers the greatest benefits to Gulf anglers and is compatible with the recreational quota. A year-round fishery is expected to exceed the 2000 recreational quota.

The measures implemented by this interim rule are based, in part, on the recommendations to the Council from a stakeholder conference held in New Orleans, LA, on September 27, 1999. Stakeholders' recommendations for the 2000 recreational red snapper fishery included a 4-fish bag limit for the captain and crew of for-hire vessels, a size limit not to exceed 16 inches (40.6 cm), and a March 1-to-October 31 recreational season.

The Council attempted, to the extent possible, to implement the stakeholders' recommendations; however, based on the best available scientific information, the harvest from a March 1 to October 31 season would exceed the current recreational quota. A group of south Texas anglers who participated in the stakeholders conference submitted a minority report requesting a year-round fishery with a 4-fish bag limit and a 13-inch (33.0-cm) minimum size limit. However, the harvest from a year-round fishery, if implemented, would greatly exceed the quota and jeopardize the recovery of the stock. Therefore, the Council recommended a shorter season as close to the stakeholders' recommendation as possible.

The stakeholders discussed the request for a winter fishery from some south Texas anglers, but neither the stakeholders nor the south Texas minority report recommended a winter fishery. At its November 1999 meeting, the Council considered adding a January-February opening with a reduced bag limit to allow a winter fishery but concluded that, to do so, the reduced bag limit would substantially shorten the prime April-to-October season and, thus, increase the likelihood of illegal fishing during the closed season; such occurrence would result in a harvest that would exceed the recreational quota. Further, because other Gulf states, including Texas, would not likely enact the compatible closures required to accommodate a winter fishery, the EEZ would be closed without compatible state closures, thereby resulting in overfishing of red snapper.

The interim rule provides Texas anglers, as well as anglers in other states, the opportunity to fish during the months of the greatest historical demand. During 1996, the last year that the red snapper recreational fishery was open all year, Texas monthly recreational landings during May-October exceeded those of any other monthly period. Analyses based on recent years (1995-1998) show that, during January-March, monthly landings in Texas average 96,000 lb (43,545 kg), substantially less than during August-October when monthly landings average 137,000 lb (62,142 kg). Furthermore, the interim rule will provide economic benefits to the Texas for-hire industry by allowing the industry to operate during the months of greatest demand. Texas headboat trips during January-March average 5,000 trips per month as opposed to 8,000 trips per month during August-October. Texas charter boat trips show a similar trend, with an average of 1,200 trips per month during January-March and of 2,000 trips per month during August-October.

Comment 3 : An environmental organization and several individuals expressed concerns regarding regulatory discards, mortality rates of released fish, and the use of minimum size limits as conservation measures in the red snapper fishery.

Response : NMFS is also concerned with regulatory discards and the mortality rates of released red snapper. Based on the best scientific information available, NMFS believes that minimum size limits are an effective conservation measure in this fishery. Minimum size limits are a widely used fishery management tool designed to allow females to spawn at least once before entering the fishery. This pool of unfished mature females acts as a buffer against overfishing and recruitment failure in a severely overfished stock. The effectiveness of this strategy depends on the survival rate of released fish. NMFS' stock assessments assume a survival rate of 80 percent for released red snapper in the recreational fishery and 67 percent in the commercial fishery. NMFS is currently reviewing recent studies on the release mortality rates of red snapper and will recommend changes in management measures, if justified.

Comment 4 : One commercial fishing organization objected to the status quo total allowable catch (TAC) of 9.12 million lb (4.14 million kg) and stated that the TAC should be no greater than 6 million lb (2.72 million kg). Two individuals also expressed concerns regarding the magnitude of the TAC.

Response : The interim rule was intended to reduce overfishing by increasing the probability of achieving compatible state and Federal regulations. The Council recommended no change to the status quo TAC of 9.12 million lb (4.14 million kg); thus, this interim rule does not address or alter the current TAC.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (SFA), mandates that overfished stocks be rebuilt to a biomass level capable of producing maximum sustainable yield (MSY). On November 17, 1999, NMFS disapproved the Council's red snapper rebuilding plan, as proposed in the Generic SFA Amendment to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's Fishery Management Plans, because it specified a fishing-mortality-based rebuilding target rather than a biomass-based target and because it did not estimate the time to rebuild in the absence of fishing mortality; these are requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the national standard guidelines. The Council must submit a new red snapper rebuilding plan as soon as possible to NMFS for agency review, approval, and implementation.

The recent stock assessment included a wide range of estimates of MSY and the stock biomass associated with MSY for red snapper. NMFS recognizes that a considerable uncertainty associated with these estimates exists and that the Council has latitude to consider this uncertainty when developing a new rebuilding plan. Conditions approaching those estimated to exist for red snapper resource near MSY have not been seen in decades, and, thus, the assessment models for estimatinng MSY require assumptions regarding the productivity of the stock. The SFA requires greater reductions in the red snapper harvest and in shrimp trawl bycatch mortality of juvenile red snapper to rebuild this resource than were required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act prior to the SFA. The Council's Reef Fish Stock Assessment Panel estimate of the acceptable biological catch (ABC) of red snapper for 2000 ranges from 0 to 9.12 million lb (0 to 4.14 million kg), depending on the reduction of red snapper bycatch mortality achieved in the shrimp fishery and appropriate rebuilding parameters. The best available scientific information indicates that the status quo 9.12 million-lb (4.14 million-kg) TAC for 2000 may slow the rate of recovery in the early years of any rebuilding program but would not jeopardize recovery of the stock consistent with the rebuilding requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, particularly if greater reductions in bycatch mortality are achieved as expected. However, an immediate and significant reduction in TAC would have devastating effects upon participants in the fishery.

NMFS will continue to provide the Council with the best available scientific information regarding the status of the red snapper stock, the effectiveness of bycatch reduction devices (BRDs), and the effectiveness of the FMP's management measures in rebuilding the overfished red snapper resource. NMFS is working with the commercial shrimp fishing industry to develop new BRDs that will further reduce finfish bycatch while minimizing shrimp loss. Also, NMFS will continue to work with the Council in implementing the FMP's current red snapper stock rebuilding plan and in modifying this plan as necessary to restore the stock to a biomass level capable of producing MSY. Management options include, but are not limited to, adjustments to the fishing season, bag limit changes, quota reductions, fishing effort reduction, vessel buy-back programs, and additional measures to reduce shrimp trawl bycatch mortality.

Comment 5 : One environmental group stated that a set recreational fishing season, i.e., beginning and closing dates fixed, violates the Sustainable Fisheries Act requirement that the red snapper recreational fishery be closed once its quota is reached.

Response : NMFS disagrees. The SFA requires that the Gulf of Mexico red snapper recreational fishery be closed when the quota is reached. To comply with this requirement, NMFS works jointly with the Council to implement management measures and establish closure dates that, based upon the best available scientific information, are likely to result in annual catches that approximate the quota within the margin of error of the harvest projections. NMFS uses a computer simulation model to assess the future status of the red snapper stock. The model integrates estimates of stock abundance with fishing effort to project estimates of how many fish will be caught for various time periods. This projection assumes that the current year's fishing effort will be similar to that of previous years. In-season data are not used to establish or adjust closure dates; instead, closure is based entirely on projections. This is the only practicable method of setting closure dates because the NMFS Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) is not designed for real-time quota monitoring. MRFSS data are available only in 2-month blocks, referred to as waves, and landings are not available until 5 weeks after the end of a wave. Thus, there is a time lag of at least 3 months before even preliminary MRFSS landings data can be evaluated; consequently, NMFS cannot determine the closure date based on real-time fishery data. In projecting recreational fishery harvest rates, NMFS attempts to approximate the quota in the long term, while recognizing that annual variations in the catch are inevitable.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), after considering all public comments received on the interim rule, has determined that this extension of the interim rule is necessary to reduce overfishing of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This extension of the interim rule is not subject to review under E.O. 12866.

This extension of the interim rule is exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the initial interim rule was issued without opportunity for prior public comment.

NMFS prepared an economic analysis of the expected regulatory impacts of the interim rule. NMFS analyzed commercial fishing derbies during the last decade to determine the probable economic consequences of commercial spring and fall seasons consisting of a series of 10-day mini derbies during the year 2000. NMFS concluded that compared to 15-day openings, a series of 10-day commercial derbies conducted under a 9.12 million-lb (4.14 million-kg) TAC could measurably increase the average total and net revenues for the year. Shorter mini-seasons during 1998-99 reduced landings per month, supported higher ex-vessel prices, and extended domestic supplies. The expected economic consequences for the recreational sectors are less definite because of uncertainties regarding the recreational catch that may be realized versus recreational catches that can be forecast with available data.

If the changes in the recreational fishery regulations, which include an April 21 to October 31 season and an increase in the size limit to 16 inches (40.6 cm), result in catches that are no greater than the recreational quota, then NMFS expects an increase in net benefits for all portions of the recreational fishery in aggregate. However, if the realized catches exceed the quota, then longer term benefits will be reduced because stock recovery will be slowed by an indeterminate amount. In theory, if the management measures in this interim rule are very different from the management measures preferred by the Gulf states, it is unlikely that the Gulf states will adopt compatible regulations. Under incompatible Federal and state regulations, harvests will probably continue in state waters after Federal closures. These harvests will impede stock rebuilding efforts. Under the existing management scheme, for example, harvests during the Federal closures could exceed 600,000 lb (272,155 kg) during a fishing year. The Gulf states are more likely to adopt any scenario approximating the Council's requested season of April 15-October 31, thus reducing the negative effects of incompatible Federal and state rules.

Copies of the economic analysis are available upon request (see ADDRESSES ).

This extension of the interim rule will help to ensure that management measures necessary to address the overfishing of the red snapper resource will remain in effect until a more permanent regulatory solution can be implemented. In the past, the lack of compatible management of the red snapper fishery by most Gulf states resulted in continued fishing in state waters after Federal waters were closed. This contributed to quota overruns and overfishing. NMFS anticipates that four of the five Gulf states will adopt measures compatible with the measures of the interim rule. This will enhance the effectiveness of the closed seasons and will significantly reduce the probability of overfishing. The increase in the recreational minimum size limit will reduce the harvest rate and, in combination with the bag limit and closed seasons, will help ensure that the recreational quota is not exceeded and that overfishing does not occur. Reducing the openings of the commercial fishery from 15 days per month to 10 days per month will slow the harvest rate and reduce the probability of exceeding the commercial quota and overfishing. Reinstating the 4-fish bag limit for captain and crew of for-hire vessels relieves a restriction on that sector of the fishery. The majority of public comments received on the interim rule supported the rule. None of the relatively few comments opposing various aspects of the interim rule warranted a revision of any measures in the interim rule. Delaying action to reduce overfishing in the red snapper fishery of the Gulf of Mexico to provide further notice and an opportunity for public comment would increase the likelihood of a loss of long-term productivity from the fishery and increase the probable need for more severe restrictions in the future. Furthermore, the Council has submitted for Secretarial review a regulatory amendment that contains the measures implemented by this interim rule; an opportunity for public comment on the proposed rule for the regulatory amendment will be provided. Accordingly, under authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the AA finds, for good cause, namely the reasons set forth above, that providing prior notice and the opportunity for prior public comment would be contrary to the public interest. For these same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the AA finds for good cause that a 30-day delay in the effective date of this interim rule would be contrary to the public interest.

The President has directed Federal agencies to use plain language in their communications with the public, including regulations. To comply with this directive, we seek public comment on any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this interim rule. Such comments should be directed to NMFS Southeast Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ).

Regulations governing the black sea bass fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is allocated into four quota periods based upon percentages of the annual quota. The Quarter 2 commercial quota (April through June) is distributed to the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota is described in § 648.140.

The initial total commercial quota for black sea bass for the 2000 calendar year was set equal to 3,024,742 lb (1,372,000 kg) (65 FR 33486, May 24, 2000). The Quarter 2 period quota, which is equal to 29.26 percent of the annual commercial quota, was set at 885,040 lb (401,447 kg).

Section 648.141 requires the Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), to monitor the commercial black sea bass quota for each quota period that is based upon dealer reports, state data, and other available information to determine when the commercial quota has been harvested. NMFS is required to publish a notification in the Federal Register advising and notifying commercial vessels and dealer permit holders that, effective upon a specific date, the black sea bass commercial quota has been harvested and no commercial quota is available for landing black sea bass for the remainder of the Quarter 2 period, north of 35°15.3′ N. lat. The Regional Administrator has determined, based upon dealer reports and other available information, that the black sea bass commercial quota for the 2000 Quarter 2 period has been harvested.

The regulations at § 648.4(b) provide that Federal black sea bass moratorium permit holders agree as a condition of the permit not to land black sea bass in any state after NMFS has published a notification in the Federal Register stating that the commercial quota for the period has been harvested and that no commercial quota for the black sea bass is available. The Regional Administrator has determined that the Quarter 2 period for black sea bass no longer has commercial quota available. Therefore, effective 0001 hrs local time, June 9, 2000, further landings of black sea bass in coastal states from Maine through North Carolina, north of 35°15.3′ N. lat. by vessels holding commercial Federal fisheries permits are prohibited through June 30, 2000, 2400 hrs local time. The Quarter 3 period for commercial black sea bass harvest will open on July 1, 2000. Effective June 9, 2000, federally permitted dealers are also advised that they may not purchase black sea bass from federally permitted black sea bass moratorium permit holders that land in coastal states from Maine through North Carolina for the remainder of the Quarter 2 period (through June 30, 2000).

The regulations at § 648.4(b) also provide that, if the commercial black sea bass quota for a period is harvested and the coast is closed to the possession of black sea bass north of 35°15.3′ N. lat., any vessel owners who hold valid commercial permits for both the black sea bass and the NMFS Southeast Region Snapper-Grouper fisheries may surrender their Black Sea Bass moratorium permit by certified mail addressed to the Regional Administrator (see Table to § 600.502) and fish pursuant to their Snapper-Grouper permit, as long as fishing is conducted exclusively in waters, and landings are made, south of 35°15.3′ N. lat. A moratorium permit for the black sea bass fishery that is voluntarily relinquished or surrendered will be reissued upon the receipt of the vessel owner's written request after a minimum period of 6 months from the date of cancellation.

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