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

The Food Stamp Program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.551. For the reasons set forth in the final rule in 7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V and related Notice (48 FR 29115), this Program is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

This rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Samuel Chambers, Jr., Administrator for the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Service, has certified that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. State agencies and their EBT service providers will be the most affected to the extent that they administer or operate EBT services for Food Stamp Program benefit delivery.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is publishing for public comment a summary of new information collection being required by interim regulations. The collection has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for emergency approval by September 18, 2000.

Comments on this document must be received by September 14, 2000. The 60-day period normally allowed for comment on a proposed collection of information has been shortened to the minimum 30 days under the emergency approval process because a longer period would likely prevent the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Department) from meeting the statutory deadline enacted under Section 7(k)(4) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (FSA), as amended by the Electronic Benefit Transfer Interoperability and Portability Act of 2000, Public Law 106-171 (hereinafter “Public Law 106-171”).

Send comments to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for FNS, Washington, DC 20503. Please also send a copy of your comments to Jeffrey N. Cohen, Chief, Electronic Benefit Transfer Branch, Benefit Redemption Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302. For further information, or for copies of the information collection, please contact Mr. Cohen at the above address.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FNS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques of other forms of information technology.

All responses to this document will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

For Further Information Contact: Jeffrey N. Cohen, (703) 305-2522.

Title: Interoperability Funding Agreement.

OMB Number: 0584-XXXX.

Type of Request: New collection.

Abstract: Under Public Law 106-171, the Secretary is required to ensure that electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems used for the issuance and redemption of Food Stamp Program (FSP) benefits are interoperable and that food stamp benefits are portable among all States by October 1, 2002, except where exemptions apply or a temporary waiver is granted. In addition, in accordance with the regulations promulgated by the Secretary, the Department is authorized to pay one hundred percent of the costs incurred by a State agency for switching and settling interstate food stamp transactions, up to an annual limit of $500,000 nationwide.

In this rule, the FSP regulations are being revised to require that State agencies requesting one hundred percent funding for interoperability costs sign an Interoperability Funding Agreement to comply with the administrative procedures established by the Department. The administrative procedures will be issued to State agencies under separate guidance and do not impose additional information collection burdens other than those announced in this notice or which are part of a collection currently approved for the Department by OMB. The signed agreement will serve as the obligating document, which will enable the Department to put aside funds for the fiscal year to pay for interoperability costs incurred by State agencies. The agreement must be signed annually because appropriations laws stipulate that funding for interoperability costs must be obligated to State agencies in the same fiscal year as such costs are incurred. This requirement will add a new information collection burden for State agencies with EBT systems that request enhanced funding for interoperability costs. The recordkeeping burden includes maintaining interoperability cost information and other documentation used to support requests for payment, including contractor bills and interoperability transaction records.

The estimated time to read, sign, and submit the Interoperability Funding Agreement is 0.5 hours per respondent. The estimated time to maintain interoperability cost information is .25 hours per respondent. Under Section 7(i) of the FSA (7 U.S.C. 2016(i)), a total of 53 State agencies are required to have statewide EBT systems by October 1, 2002. Two State agencies, Ohio and Wyoming, currently have Smart Card (off-line) food stamp EBT systems, which are currently exempt from the interoperability requirements of Public Law 106-171. Therefore, we estimate that, under nationwide EBT implementation, 51 State agencies will submit the agreement once a year to request enhanced funding for interoperability costs, for a total of 38.25 hours.

Estimates of Burden: We estimate the provisions of this interim final rule, as listed above, will take each State agency 0.75 hours on gathering, reporting, and maintaining information, for an overall burden of 38.25 hours annually.

Respondents: State agencies with EBT systems delivering Food Stamp Program benefits.

Estimated number of Respondents: 51 State agencies per year under nationwide EBT implementation.

Estimated number of Responses per respondent: One.

Estimated annual number of responses: 51.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 38.25 hours.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect unless so specified in the “Dates” paragraph of this preamble. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule or the application of its provisions, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted. In the FSP, the administrative procedures are as follows: (1) For Program benefit recipients—State administrative procedures issued pursuant to section 11(e)(1) of the FSA (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)(1)) and regulations at 7 CFR 273.15; (2) for State agencies—administrative procedures issued pursuant to Section 14 of the FSA (7 U.S.C. 2023) and regulations at 7 CFR 276.7 (for rules related to non-quality control (QC) liabilities) or 7 CFR Part 283 (for rules related to QC liabilities); and (3) for Program retailers and wholesalers—administrative procedures issued pursuant to Section 14 of the FSA (7 U.S.C. 2023) and 7 CFR 278.8.

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

This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Public Law 106-171 authorizes Federal reimbursement, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture, of the costs incurred by State agencies for switching and settling interstate transactions after the date of enactment (February 11, 2000) and before October 1, 2002, for State agencies which use standards of interoperability and portability adopted by a majority of State agencies and for such costs incurred after September 30, 2002 for State agencies using the standards adopted in this rulemaking. These regulations establish uniform standards to facilitate interoperability and portability already adopted by a majority of State agencies and lay out the funding provisions and administrative procedures for State agencies to receive payment. In order for funding to be made available for this fiscal year, these rules must be made effective as soon as possible. If the Department were to use the standard rulemaking process, issuing a proposed rule to solicit comments prior to making the rule effective, it would be unlikely that a rule would be made effective prior to the end of this fiscal year and funds could not then be obligated for this year. For this reason, it has been determined for good cause, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, that notice and prior public comment on this rule are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Department nevertheless is seeking public comment in order to improve the administration of the rule. All comments received will be analyzed, and any appropriate changes to the rule will be incorporated into the subsequent publication of the final rule.

In this rule, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Department) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is revising Food Stamp Program (FSP) regulations to require interoperability of all State Food Stamp Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Systems and portability of all electronically-issued benefits. This requirement is in accordance with the Electronic Benefit Transfer Interoperability and Portability Act of 2000, Public Law 106-171, (hereinafter “Public Law 106-171” which mandates nationwide interoperability of FSP EBT systems and portability of electronically-issued benefits and directs the Secretary to establish standards to accomplish this. In accordance with the regulations promulgated by the Secretary, the Department will pay one hundred percent of the costs incurred by a State agency for switching and settling transactions, up to an annual limit of $500,000 nationwide.

Pursuant to section 7(i) of the FSA, all State agencies must implement EBT systems for the issuance of FSP benefits by October 1, 2002. Currently, the majority of State agencies have implemented EBT systems and most others are in some stage of planning. State agencies contract individually for EBT systems with EBT service providers. These contracts vary in duration. In addition to food stamp benefits, State agencies also contract for EBT systems which deliver benefits for several cash programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and State cash benefit programs. One State also uses EBT for the delivery of benefits of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Among State-administered benefit programs, only the FSP requires that State agencies change from paper to EBT systems and only the FSP has regulations addressing EBT.

Regulations promulgated April 1, 1992 (57 FR 11218) require food stamp EBT system interoperability between States only to the extent necessary to provide retailer access to recipients along State borders. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Public Law 104-193, encouraged the development of interoperable EBT systems but did not require it. As EBT systems evolved, some State agencies opted to require that their contractors provide interoperability within regional consortiums, but not necessarily nationwide.

On February 11, 2000, Public Law 106-171 was enacted to require State agencies to provide nationwide interoperable functionality in their EBT systems and portability for electronically-issued food stamp benefits. The purpose of this new requirement, among other things, is to enhance the flow of interstate commerce involving electronic transactions for food stamp benefits under a uniform national standard of interoperability and portability, thus enhancing service to benefit recipients. Section 7(k)(4) of the FSA, as added by Public Law 106-171, stipulates that, effective 30 days after these regulations are promulgated, any State agency entering into a new EBT contract must include provisions to implement interoperability and portability by October 1, 2002. This section further directs the Department to issue regulations which implement these provisions and establish standards to achieve interoperability and portability in order to qualify for one hundred percent federal funding subject to the $500,000 annual authorization level. Specific federal funding participation requirements are discussed in the “funding” section of this regulation.

The majority of State systems currently in use could be interoperable for both food stamps and cash by making some minor technical changes to their systems. However, most State agencies did not negotiate the cost of nationwide interoperability in their contracts. Therefore, if the law were to require interoperability midway through a contract for all State agencies, State and Federal governments could incur costs to retrofit existing EBT systems for interoperability. In order to avoid this, Public Law 106-171 amended the FSA to add section 7(k)(5), which exempts those State agencies with existing EBT system contracts that do not expire before October 1, 2002. At the same time, the statute does not preclude State agencies from modifying their contracts prior to their expiration dates to include interoperability and receive one hundred percent federal funding as specified in the “funding” section of this regulation. There are additional waiver provisions for State agencies with technical barriers to implementing interoperability by October 1, 2002, including those State agencies that operate Smart Card (off-line) EBT systems. The implementation section of the preamble provides more details on these waiver provisions.

Public Law 106-171 directs the Secretary to establish a uniform national standard of interoperability and portability that is based on the standards used by a majority of State agencies. The required Departmental standards in this rule are based on the “Quest Operating Rules” (QUEST), which have already been adopted by a majority of State agencies. The QUEST rules set forth requirements to distribute government benefits under the QUEST service mark and form the basis for contractual agreements between the various stakeholders for State agencies that choose to adopt these rules. These rules were developed by the National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA), a not-for-profit trade association that develops operating rules for various kinds of electronic payments.

In order to develop minimum standards that would be compatible with QUEST rules, the Department reviewed the QUEST rules thoroughly to determine which components of these rules were essential to ensure interoperability and portability of FSP EBT systems, without demanding unnecessary requirements of State agencies that have opted not to adopt the QUEST rules. The Department has determined that the following technical and non-technical standards are necessary to accomplish this goal: (1) Requiring the 8583 message format to standardize the information included in an EBT transaction message so that all EBT POS transaction messages are universally understood; (2) instituting Issuer Identification Number (IIN) requirements for EBT cards to facilitate transaction routing to the appropriate State authorization system, regardless of its point of origin; and (3) establishing minimum transaction sets for interoperable systems to ensure that specific types of transactions can be processed across State borders. In addition, language adapted from the QUEST rules is included in this interim rule to standardize the roles and responsibilities of State agencies or their prime contractors, designated agents, and third parties or terminal operators in the EBT system. There are also programmatic requirements which need to be adapted for interoperable circumstances. The specific standards are discussed below.

In an effort to facilitate EBT implementation for State agencies and other stakeholders, the Department developed a technical specification for EBT food stamp transactions from a Point-Of-Sale (POS) terminal in October 1995. The purpose in creating this specification was to provide one standard POS/EBT system interface that retailers could use in multi-state retail operations. The specification was also essential to facilitate interstate transactions. The majority of State agencies operating EBT systems have already adopted this message format. The EBT specification is based on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 8583 which incorporates the specific requirements of an EBT system. It also serves to standardize the information that must be contained in the message format, a key piece of information being the FNS retailer authorization number.

For purposes of interoperability, standardization is critical to effectuating communications between a State agency's issuer and retailer/third party messages from sources outside the State EBT system area. If a standard message format is not adopted, a State agency or its designated agent(s) would have to maintain connections with all FNS retailers or their third parties across the country in order to accommodate interstate transactions. In October 1995, these specifications were published in draft form as part of the American National Standards Institute's (ANSI) standards and are available from the American Bankers' Association. The Department is requiring this standard message format for all EBT systems. This interim rule amends current regulations at 7 CFR 274.12(h) which require the State agency to ensure that EBT systems comply with POS technical standards established by the ANSI or the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) where applicable.

In order for interoperability to occur, transactions must be routed to the appropriate State system for authorization, regardless of the transaction's point of origin. It is impractical from a system processing and cost perspective to require retailers or their third parties/transaction acquirers to have a direct connection to multiple State EBT systems. A system which prompts multiple connections for retailers and third parties would also be a departure from the commercial infrastructure model, which allows a transaction acquirer, as the entity which owns, operates, or controls the POS terminal(s), to manage their connections to the network based on maximizing efficiencies for their system traffic. Therefore, the Department is requiring that the Primary Account Number (PAN) on the State-issued EBT card be standardized to include State routing information. Many State agencies have already implemented this in order to allow interoperable transactions within a consortium of State EBT systems. Each State agency must obtain a number assigned by the American Bankers Association that identifies the State for purposes of transaction interchange. This number is commonly referred to as the IIN. The State agency or their prime contractor shall include the IIN as the first six digits of the PAN. The State agency or its prime contractor and other designated agents and terminal operators within the State EBT system must be able to recognize all State IIN numbers so that transactions are routed accordingly.

Current regulations at 7 CFR 274.12(h)(9) require that all EBT systems include the following minimum transaction capabilities: authorization or rejection of purchases, refunds or customer credits, voids or cancellations, key entered transactions, balance inquiries and settlement or close-out transactions. The Department is modifying this section to specify that the system must be able to complete these transactions across State borders nationwide in accordance with the standards specified in this interim rule at § 274.12 (h)(10).

The Department considered requiring manual transactions nationwide as well. In order to accomplish this, substantial standards beyond what are currently in the QUEST rules would need to be in place for handling manual vouchers. Even if standards are established for voucher processing, it will be very difficult to administer this across State borders. The critical issue is how retailers will obtain an authorization number for the transaction. There would most likely be an increased burden on training and help desk functions of EBT systems, since retailers would need to interface with virtually all State systems in order to obtain authorization information nationwide. Few, if any, third party processors currently support interoperable manual vouchers. When balancing the small percentage of these types of transactions that would occur against the burden to State agencies and retailers to implement this requirement, the Department has determined that it is neither necessary nor cost effective to require interoperable manual transactions nationwide at this time, except where necessary for border store access.

In addition to these specific technical standards, there are certain responsibilities delineated in the QUEST rules that are integral to interoperability. These responsibilities have been incorporated into the current regulations at 7 CFR 274.12(h). While the regulations assign these responsibilities to the State agency, State agencies may delegate these responsibilities to their EBT prime contractor, a designated agent of the prime contractor, or third parties/retailers as appropriate.

There are also regulation changes needed to adapt FSP specific requirements to an interoperable EBT environment. These changes will ensure the integrity of EBT transactions in authorized FNS retailers for in-state transactions as well as interstate transactions, and update the border store and conversion policies for interoperability. Specific changes are as follows:

Use of the FNS REDE System: Current regulations at 7 CFR 274.12(e)(4) require that State agencies maintain a current listing of authorized FNS retailers in their EBT systems so that FSP clients can only redeem benefits at authorized retailers. In order to accomplish this, State agencies or their designated agents must obtain retailer authorization information provided by FNS in a timely fashion and follow up on actions taken regarding any disqualification or withdrawal by an authorized food retailer from the FSP within two business days after receipt. This had previously been a manual process. FNS Field Offices used telefaxing or e-mail to send store data to State agencies or their system operators. These manual procedures were subject to errors and cumbersome to manage. In addition, manual procedures were not conducive to an interoperable environment where multiple vendors must be alerted of retailer participation changes on a daily basis. Therefore, an automated system, referred to as Retailer Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Data Exchange (REDE), was developed to improve the accuracy and efficiency of retailer operations overall. A detailed State-specific file, containing store name, address, firm type, and ownership information is provided by FNS so that the State agency or its EBT system operator can update retailer status information in its system and make the necessary equipment and connectivity arrangements. Additionally, REDE provides a complete national list of FNS authorized stores to facilitate interstate transactions.

The Department is requiring that State agencies or their designated agent access and use REDE so that the files of FNS retailers are updated on a daily basis. The EBT operator in turn would activate or deactivate retailers' EBT connections in accordance with required timeframes, install or remove Point of Sale (POS) devices as appropriate, and make other necessary information changes to the retailer authorization listing. Use of REDE is required for all State EBT systems, regardless of whether the system is interoperable, in order to maximize the efficiency of retailer data exchange between FNS and the State agency. Most State agencies have already adopted use of the REDE files. In accordance with current regulations at 7 CFR 276.2(b)(7), the State agency is strictly liable for any benefits that are improperly issued as a result of failure to meet the requirements of this provision.

Border Store Requirements: In current regulations at 7 CFR 274.12(g)(4)(C), State agencies are required to equip retailers in border States with POS devices if client shopping patterns demonstrate that these stores are necessary for food stamp household access to food stamp retailers. In accordance with these regulations, State agencies review redemption patterns for benefit recipients bordering the EBT system area to determine if any out-of-state retailers are necessary for household access. POS equipment is deployed when necessary. These retailers must also be able to participate in the neighboring State EBT system via a manual voucher process in situations where the system is down or equipment is not deployed to the store due to a waiver.

These border store requirements continue to apply for all State agencies. State agencies are required to examine household shopping patterns in order to determine if there is a need for border store equipment; however, the need for such equipment should be significantly less with interoperability. In order to avoid confusion, the Department is clarifying the current regulations at 7 CFR 274.12(g)(4)(C) to more explicitly identify State agency responsibilities for border stores. In an interoperable EBT environment, where all FNS retailers are equipped with POS devices, the need to deploy equipment outside the State is limited to neighboring states that are not interoperable due to exemptions for technological barriers or temporary waivers. State agencies are required to deploy equipment in these situations if there are border stores necessary for client access. State agencies will also need to make accommodations for retailers in interoperable border States deemed necessary for client access by ensuring that procedures are in place to process manual vouchers in instances when the system is down or for those retailers that do not have POS equipment.

Benefit Conversion: Current regulations at 7 CFR 274.12(f)(6) require State agencies to convert electronic benefits to paper coupons for those households leaving the State. Nationwide interoperability and portability would eliminate the need for this requirement. However, there may be some instances where interoperability is not implemented and benefit conversion will still be necessary to provide clients access to their benefits if they relocate. Therefore, the Department is modifying this requirement so that benefit conversion is only required when a household is relocating to a State that is not interoperable with and where electronic benefits are not portable from the household's current State of residence.

Current regulations at 7 CFR 274.12(k) detail the funding arrangements and limitations of federal financial participation for FSP EBT systems. The Department is amending this section so that State agencies may receive one hundred percent federal funding for the costs incurred by a State agency for switching and settling all food stamp interstate transactions.

The total amount of one hundred percent funding available annually nationwide is limited to $500,000. Public Law 106-171 established this limit based on a study of interoperability fees conducted by NACHA. Fees were estimated based on knowledge of the pricing structure for various regional network gateway fees. While the statute does not give the Secretary authority to set fees for this service, an assessment of “reasonableness” would be part of the Department's review of a State agency's EBT contract. Such an assessment is in accordance with Departmental regulations at 7 CFR 3015.61(f) which states that “Established procedures shall be used for determining the reasonableness, allowability and allocability of costs in accordance with cost principles. . . .” The Department would expect these costs to be the incremental charges associated with the State agency's system operator for switching and settling transactions between States.

In accordance with Public Law 106-171, the Department will pay 100 percent of the costs incurred by a State agency for switching and settling transactions. In order to qualify for this enhanced funding, the State agency's EBT system must meet certain standards of interoperability and portability. The law makes the following distinction between two sets of standards for the short-term and long-term respectively: (1) State agencies must adhere to the standard of interoperability and portability adopted by a majority of State agencies to receive enhanced funding for the period from February 11, 2000 through September 30, 2002; and (2) State agencies must adhere to the standard of interoperability and portability adopted in this regulation to receive funding for interoperability costs incurred after September 30, 2002. Therefore, those State agencies that have adopted the QUEST operating rules are automatically eligible for the enhanced funding retroactive to enactment of the Pub. L. 106-171 on February 11, 2000. At the same time, several State agencies, while not members of QUEST, have adopted standards which establish identical or equivalent provisions to those established under the QUEST rules for their EBT operations. Therefore, if a State agency has not adopted the QUEST rules but has adopted comparable standards by another name which facilitate interoperability and portability of electronic benefits, FNS will review these standards to determine whether the State agency is eligible for retroactive funding and funding prior to October 1, 2002. Retroactive interoperability costs are eligible for enhanced funding with the caveat that State agencies cannot be reimbursed for such costs with funding obligated in subsequent fiscal years, because appropriations laws stipulate that funding for interoperability costs must be obligated to State agencies in the same fiscal year as such costs are incurred. After September 30, 2002, all State agencies that comply with the standards adopted in this regulation would be eligible for the one hundred percent funding, subject to the nationwide cap of $500,000 for each fiscal year.

In order to receive enhanced funding, State agencies must sign and submit to the Department an Interoperability Funding Agreement on an annual basis, indicating that the State agency agrees to comply with the administrative procedures established by the Department. The administrative procedures will be issued by the Department under separate guidance.

The signed agreement will serve as the obligating document, which will enable the Department to set aside the funds needed to pay for 100 percent funding of interoperability costs incurred by State agencies during the fiscal year. The agreement should be submitted to the Department only if the State agency intends to request enhanced funding and must be submitted before or concurrent with the State agency's first request for payment, but no later than the last day of the fiscal year in which the interoperability costs are incurred. For example, for the first fiscal year, FY 2000, any State agency that wishes to request retroactive funding for costs incurred from February 11, 2000 through September 30, 2000 must submit the Funding Agreement before September 30, 2000. However, requests for payment may be submitted after this date, according to the quarterly schedule established by the Department at 7 CFR 274.12(K)(6)(iv) and described in the next paragraph.

State agencies approved to receive the enhanced funding through a contract modification approval must submit payment requests on a quarterly basis. Correspondingly, State agencies will be paid for their interoperability costs on a quarterly basis. Furthermore, because there is limited enhanced funding, it is important that requests for payments be based on actual costs. Requests for payments, therefore, must be submitted after the end of each quarter in which the interoperability costs were incurred. The due dates are February 15 (for the period October through December), May 15 (January through March), August 15 (April through June), and November 15 (July through September). If a request for payment is submitted at any time after the required date for the quarter in which the costs were incurred, the request will still be considered. However, because requests for payments will be processed only once every quarter, late requests will not be considered until all other requests submitted by the next required date are scheduled to be processed. If the $500,000 limitation is exceeded, federal financial participation would revert to the standard fifty percent program reimbursement rate and procedure. Since these interoperability costs and requests for payments are subject to audit, State agencies should maintain supporting documentation for these costs, including contractor bills and interoperability transaction records, for a minimum of three years in accordance with Departmental regulations at 7 CFR 3015.21 on record retention requirements.

This rulemaking is effective September 14, 2000. Any new contract executed after October 16, 2000, must have provisions for interoperability and portability which include an implementation date for this functionality no later than October 1, 2002. State agencies entering into contracts before October 16, 2000, are not required to re-negotiate their EBT services contract to include interoperability and portability, even if the contract expires after the October 1, 2002 deadline; such State agencies are exempt from the requirement until they re-negotiate to extend the contract or re-procure a new EBT contract. However, this does not preclude a State agency from modifying their contract to include interoperability and portability prior to the end of their contract. In addition, Smart Card systems are exempt from the requirements of this regulation until such time as the Department determines a practicable technological method is available for interoperability with on-line EBT systems. State agencies with ongoing contracts or that operate Smart Card systems do not need to submit a waiver request to receive the exemption.

At the request of a State agency, the Department may provide one waiver to temporarily exempt the State agency from complying with the requirements of this regulation if the State agency adequately demonstrates that: (1) There are unusual technological barriers to the implementation of interoperability and portability; and (2) it is in the best interest of the food stamp program to grant the waiver. Any approved waivers must specify a date by which the State agency will achieve interoperability.

If the State agency has adopted standards for interoperability and portability adopted by a majority of State agencies prior to the effective date of this rulemaking, enhanced funding for interoperability costs is retroactive to the date of enactment of Public Law 106-171, which was signed into law on February 11, 2000 or the date of implementation of such standards, whichever is later.

This is a technical correction to the final rule that the Small Business Administration (SBA) published in the Federal Register (65 FR 37689) on June 16, 2000. In that rule, the SBA established a size standard of $27.5 million in average annual receipts for all industries in General Building Contractors, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Major Group 15, and for all industries except Dredging and Surface Cleanup Activities in Heavy Construction Other Than Building Construction, SIC Major Group 16; $17.0 million for Dredging and Surface Cleanup Activities, part of SIC 1629, Heavy Construction, Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC); $11.5 million for all industries in Special Trade Contractors, SIC Major Group 17; and $10.0 million for Garbage and Refuse Collection, Without Disposal, part of SIC 4212, Local Trucking Without Storage, and Refuse Systems, SIC 4953. These size standards were published in the table without dollar signs for five of the receipt-based size standards. The omission of dollar signs for these industries will lead to businesses with receipt-based size standards believing that they have employee-based size standards. As a result, eligible businesses would consider themselves ineligible in many cases for SBA program assistance. This correction publishes a corrected table for the one that was contained in that final rule.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD for Agusta Model A109A and A109A II helicopters was published in the Federal Register on May 3, 2000 (65 FR 25692). That action proposed to require radiographic inspections of the upper and lower sides of each main rotor blade for spar corrosion. That action also proposed to require an initial radiographic inspection with recurring radiographic inspections at intervals not to exceed 24 months. If corrosion is detected at the STA 1354 centered radiographic inspection, removing the blade from service was proposed. If corrosion is detected at the STA 2825 centered radiographic inspection, additional inspections either by eddy current at intervals not to exceed 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) or by dye penetrant at intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS were proposed.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

The FAA estimates that 54 helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. It will take approximately 10 work hours for the initial radiographic inspection and 4 work hours for each eddy current inspection per helicopter and the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $343,440 assuming every helicopter requires an eddy current inspection each month for a 24-month interval and assuming that no blade will need to be replaced.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30 series airplanes was published as a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on June 12, 2000 (65 FR 36799). That action proposed to require replacement of certain ground block screws with new screws; and retermination of the circuit ground wires of the electrical power control unit (EPCU) to separate grounding points. That action also proposed to include additional airplanes in the applicability.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the two comments received.

One commenter has no objection to the proposed rule. The other commenter states that it has partially complied with the proposed AD, and will be completed within the recommended compliance period.

After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

There are approximately 104 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 21 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required replacement, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Parts will be procured from the operator's stock. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the replacement required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,260, or $60 per airplane.

The FAA also estimates that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required retermination of the circuit ground wires of the EPCU, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Parts will be procured from the operator's stock. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the retermination required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,260, or $60 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD-98-04-14, Amendment 39-10326 (63 FR 9730, February 26, 1998), applicable to Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4164, PW4168, and PW4168A series turbofan engines was published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2000 (65 FR 15878). That action proposed to require, in addition to the requirements of the current AD, initial and repetitive torque checks of front pylon mount bolts made from MP159 material, and initial and repetitive visual inspections of the primary mount thrust load path.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.

One comment suggests wording changes to the required actions in an effort to make them similar to the published service bulletins. The comment suggests that paragraph (a)(1) be modified to read “* * *, with fewer than 1,000 cycles-since-new (CSN) on the effective date of this AD, * * *”.

The FAA agrees. The proposed initial and reptitive inspections for bolts made from INCO 718 material with 1,000 or fewer cycles in service (CSN) on the effective date of the AD were added in response to a comment received following the publication of the current AD. That comment pointed out that bolts with 1,000 or fewer CSN on the effective date of that AD have no initial or repetitive inspection requirement. Since the current AD address bolts with “more than 1,000” CSN, the proposal added the younger bolt population by using the term “1,000 or fewer” CSN. The comment merely asks the FAA to adjust the dividing line between those two populations of bolts to conform to the service bulletin. Therefore, subparagraph (a)(1) has been changed to read “fewer than 1,000” CSN and the subparagraph that defines the next older population of bolts has been changed to read “1,000 or more” CSN.

Another comment recommends that subparagraph (a)(1)(ii), which reads, “Within 250 cycles-in-service (CIS) after the effective date of this AD,” be deleted.

The FAA agrees. For the population of bolts that have fewer than 1,000 CSN on the effective date of the AD, the initial inspection is generally not required until after the bolt reaches 1,000 CSN. The only exception would be if the engine were removed for cause.

Another comment recommends that proposed subparagraph (a)(4)(ii) be changed to read “thereafter, perform torque checks at intervals not less than 5,750 or greater than 6,250 CIS since last torque check, not to exceed 11,000 CSN.”

The FAA does not agree. The reinspection interval suggested is significantly different than the requirement proposed, which was to reinspect not less than 750 CIS or greater than 1,250 CIS since last torque check. The reinspection requirements for INCO 718 material bolts should be identical with the original AD published February 26, 1998, AD 98-04-14. The structure of the wording in the NPRM to supersede was inadvertently changed from the structure of the wording of the requirements of the original AD.

Another comment recommends that proposed paragraph (c), requiring inspections for bolts made from MP159 material, be revised to separate bolts into younger and older populations in the same manner as with bolts made from INCO 718 material.

The FAA agrees and has revised paragraph (c) to reflect two populations of bolts, those with fewer than 1,000 CSN on the effective date of the AD and those with 1,000 or more CSN on the effective date of the AD.

Another comment recommends that proposed paragraph (d), requiring inspections of the primary mount thrust load path, also reflect engines with fewer than 1,000 CSN on the effective date of the AD and those with 1,000 or more CSN on the effective date of the AD.

The FAA agrees and has revised paragraph (d) accordingly.

Lastly, a comment suggests that paragraph (d)(3) be changed to read “prior to further flight, inspect and replace mount details in accordance with paragraph 4 of the accomplishment instructions of the service bulletin, if the visual inspection indicates the secondary thrust load path was activated.”

The FAA agrees in part. The suggested wording is not specific as to what constitutes activation of the secondary thrust load path. The service bulletin uses the word “damage” while the proposed paragraph (d)(3) uses the word “crack” to be more specific. The FAA does not agree that the word “crack” should be replaced with the word “damaged.” The FAA agrees, however, that paragraph 4 of the accomplishment instructions of the service bulletin should be referenced in order to specify the manner in which cracked components must be replaced. That change has been made, but with a more specific citation to the SB referenced.

Another comment expressed no objection to the proposed rule, as there should not be any adverse operational impact.

A further review of the proposed rule has revealed the need for some additional minor changes that neither alter the scope of the rule nor change the substance of the required actions. Proposed paragraph (a)(2) provides repetitive inspections that were intended to be applicable for only those bolts inspected under paragraph (a)(1). Therefore, paragraph (a)(1) has been restructured to include both the initial and repetitive inspection requirements in a manner similar to proposed subparagraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4). Proposed subparagraph (a)(2) has been deleted and the remaining subparagraphs renumbered.

Also, proposed subparagraph (a)(5), which addresses bolts made from INCO 718 material that have 8,000 or more CSN on the effective date of the AD, has been deleted. The original AD and the NPRM included a requirement to accomplish a full system inspection as referenced in the Appendix of the SB. This requirement is not necessary because a full torque check of the bolts is required at 6,000 CSN and the bolts will be retired by 11,000 CSN. The full system inspection is part of the normal maintenance requirements for the airplane.

After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes described previously. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

There are approximately 75 engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 10 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 3 work hours per engine to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $18,832 per engine. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $190,120.

This rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this rule.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 99-17-10, Amendment 39-11258 (64 FR 44823, August 18, 1999), which applies to Schweizer Model 269A, 269A-1, 269B, 269C, 269C-1, 269D, and TH-55A helicopters, was published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2000 (65 FR 26781). That action proposed to require inspecting the shaft nut, part number (P/N) 269A6258, for looseness; inspecting the shaft, P/N 269A6049-3, for proper size; and replacing any undersized shaft with an airworthy shaft of the proper size for helicopters with equipment installed as follows:

• Shaft, P/N 269A6049-3, shipped from the factory between September 1 and December 1, 1998, and installed after the helicopter was manufactured, or

• Pitch control assembly, P/N 269A6050-5, with serial number with an “S” prefix and number 1047 through 1061.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

The FAA estimates that 28 helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. For each helicopter, it will take approximately 0.25 work hours to accomplish the 10-hour inspection and 3.6 work hours to accomplish the inspection and replacement, if necessary, at the 100-hour or annual inspection interval. The average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $1400 per helicopter. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $45,668.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 97-15-16, Amendment 39-10152 (62 FR 52653, October 9, 1997), which applies to BHTC Model 430 helicopters, was published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2000 (65 FR 26783). That action proposed a mandatory terminating action for the requirements of AD 97-15-16 of replacing the fluidlastic damper blade sets with improved sets that incorporate a pressure indicator to detect loss of damper fluid.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

The FAA estimates that 7 helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 11 work hours per helicopter to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $122,945 per set of 4. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $865,235 to replace the damper blade sets in the entire fleet.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

On June 21, 2000, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued AD 2000-13-03, amendment 39-11802 (65 FR 39539, June 27, 2000), which applies to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8 series airplanes that have been converted from a passenger to a cargo-carrying (“freighter”) configuration. That AD requires a revision to the Airplane Flight Manual Supplement to ensure that the main deck cargo door is closed, latched, and locked; inspection of the door wire bundle to detect discrepancies and repair or replacement of discrepant parts. That AD also requires, among other actions, modification of the hydraulic and indication systems of the main deck cargo door, and installation of a means to prevent pressurization to an unsafe level if the main deck cargo door is not closed, latched, and locked. That AD was prompted by the FAA's determination that certain main deck cargo door systems do not provide an adequate level of safety, and that there is no means to prevent pressurization to an unsafe level if the main deck cargo door is not closed, latched, and locked. The actions required by that AD are intended to prevent opening of the cargo door while the airplane is in flight, and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane including possible loss of flight control or severe structural damage.

The FAA inadvertently omitted a note in the final rule that reads, “[i]nstallation of National Aircraft Service, Inc. (NASI) Vent Door System STC ST01244CH, is an approved means of compliance with the requirements of paragraph (c) of this AD.” Therefore, the FAA has determined that a correction to AD 2000-13-03 is necessary to inform operators of this approved means of compliance.

This document corrects the error and correctly adds the AD as an amendment to § 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13).

The AD is reprinted in its entirety for the convenience of affected operators. The effective date of the AD remains August 1, 2000.

Since this action only corrects, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, the FAA has determined that notice and public procedures are unnecessary.

The PBGC's regulations prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits of terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets.

Three sets of interest assumptions are prescribed: (1) a set for the valuation of benefits for allocation purposes under section 4044 (found in Appendix B to Part 4044), (2) a set for the PBGC to use to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine lump-sum amounts to be paid by the PBGC (found in Appendix B to Part 4022), and (3) a set for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology (found in Appendix C to Part 4022). (See the PBGC's two final rules published March 17, 2000, in the Federal Register (at 65 FR 14752 and 14753). Effective May 1, 2000, these rules changed how the interest assumptions are used and where they are set forth in the PBGC's regulations.)

Accordingly, this amendment (1) adds to Appendix B to Part 4044 the interest assumptions for valuing benefits for allocation purposes in plans with valuation dates during September 2000, (2) adds to Appendix B to Part 4022 the interest assumptions for the PBGC to use for its own lump-sum payments in plans with valuation dates during September 2000, and (3) adds to Appendix C to Part 4022 the interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology for valuation dates during September 2000.

For valuation of benefits for allocation purposes, the interest assumptions that the PBGC will use (set forth in Appendix B to part 4044) will be 7.00 percent for the first 25 years following the valuation date and 6.25 percent thereafter. These interest assumptions represent a decrease (from those in effect for August 2000) of 0.10 percent for the first 25 years following the valuation date and are otherwise unchanged.

The interest assumptions that the PBGC will use for its own lump-sum payments (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022) will be 5.25 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status, 4.50 percent during the seven-year period directly preceding the benefit's placement in pay status, and 4.00 percent during any other years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. These interest assumptions represent no change from those in effect for August 2000.

For private-sector payments, the interest assumptions (set forth in Appendix C to part 4022) will be the same as those used by the PBGC for determining and paying lump sums (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022).

The PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect, as accurately as possible, current market conditions.

Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits in plans with valuation dates during September 2000, the PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

The PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

EPA Region II announces the deletion of the Warwick Landfill Site (Site), located in the Town of Warwick, Orange County, New York, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300. EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substances Superfund Response Trust Fund (Fund). Pursuant to § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, any site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions in the unlikely event that conditions at the Site warrant such action.

EPA will accept comments, concerning this document, for thirty days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses the procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Warwick Landfill Site and explains how the Site meets the deletion criteria.

The NCP establishes the criteria that the Agency uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with § 300.425(e) of the NCP, sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making this determination, EPA, in consultation with New York State, shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:

(i) Responsible or other parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required; or,

(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been implemented, and no further action by responsible parties is appropriate; or,

(iii) The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, taking remedial measures is not appropriate.

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for subsequent Fund-financed actions at the Site if future Site conditions warrant such actions. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP provides that Fund-financed actions may be taken at sites that have been deleted from the NPL. Further, deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect the liability of responsible parties or impede Agency efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts.

The following procedures are being used for the intended deletion of this Site:

(1) EPA Region II issued Records of Decision (RODs) in June 1991 and September 1995, which describe the appropriate response actions for the Site.

(2) PRPs designed, constructed and implemented the appropriate response actions at the Site. EPA and the State of New York oversaw the design and construction activities.

(3) EPA Region II issued a Final Close Out Report, dated July 28, 2000, which found that responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions.

(4) EPA Region II recommends deletion and has made all relevant documents available in the Regional office and the local information repositories.

(5) The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has concurred with the deletion decision in a letter dated July 12, 2000.

(6) A notice has been published in a local newspaper and has been distributed to appropriate Federal, State and local officials and other interested parties, announcing a thirty (30) day public comment period on EPA's Direct Final Action to Delete.

EPA is requesting public comments on the Direct Final Action to Delete. The NCP provides that EPA shall not delete a site from the NPL until the public has been afforded an opportunity to comment on the proposed deletion. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability or impede Agency efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist Agency management of Superfund sites.

EPA Region II will accept and evaluate public comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA Region II will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant comments received during the public comment period.

If EPA does not receive significant adverse or critical comments and/or significant new data submitted during the comment period, the Site will be deleted from the NPL effective October 16, 2000.

The Site is located approximately one and one-half miles northeast of the Village of Greenwood Lake in the Town of Warwick, Orange County, New York and is approximately three-quarters of a mile north of State Route #17A and fronts Penaluna Road on its western boundary between Old Tuxedo Road and Old Dutch Hollow Road.

The Warwick Landfill was owned and farmed by the Penaluna family from 1898 to the mid-1950's. The Town of Warwick leased the property from the Penaluna family and utilized it as a refuse disposal area from the 1950's until the Spring of 1977. During the Spring of 1977, the lease was turned over to Grace Disposal Inc., located in Harriman, New York. Under the operation by the Town of Warwick and Grace Disposal, both municipal and industrial wastes and sludges were disposed at the Landfill. It was during Grace Disposal's operation that most of the hazardous substances were disposed. In March 1989, the Site was listed on the NPL.

On June 27, 1991, EPA issued a ROD for Operable Unit One (OU-1), which addressed the principal threats posed by the Site by controlling the source of contamination and providing a point-of-use treatment system to local residents as an interim measure to ensure that area residents had a potable water supply.

The major components of the OU-1 selected remedy included capping of the Warwick Landfill; installation and monitoring of gas vents throughout the landfill mound; development and implementation of a residential well sampling program; provision of point-of-use treatment systems to local residential wells, as needed; development and implementation of a groundwater monitoring program; construction of fencing around the perimeter of the 25-acre leasehold; recommendations that ordinances be established or restrictions imposed on the deed to ensure that future use of the Site property will maintain the integrity of the cap; and, implementation of measures to mitigate potential disturbance of adjacent wetlands.

EPA subsequently issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) to potentially responsible parties (PRPs) on February 28, 1992 to perform the design and construction of the selected remedy. The final remedial design was completed in May 1995. Construction of the cap began in the Spring of 1996 and was completed in September 1998.

The landfill closure system was designed to prevent infiltration of precipitation into the landfill, thereby reducing leachate production and the subsequent migration of contaminants into the groundwater.

Construction activities consisted of (1) regrading and relocation of waste within the footprint of the landfill, (2) construction of a gas-venting layer consisting of geotextile, gas-venting piping, passive gas-venting wells and a layer of gas-venting sand, (3) construction of a cap, consisting of installation of a 60-mil textured geomembrane to prevent infiltration, a geocomposite layer to promote drainage, two feet of protective material, six inches of topsoil and a vegetative cover on the topsoil; (4) construction of permanent drainage swales; (5) the cleanup of the adjacent wetlands; and, (6) final Site restoration. A Remedial Action Report, dated March 23, 1999, documents the completion of this work.

A Remedial Investigation for Operable Unit Two (OU-2), performed by the PRPs under an Administrative Order on Consent, provided the basis for a September 1995 ROD, which selected No Further Action for groundwater. Environmental monitoring is being performed as part of the OU-1 remedy.

The Site is currently in the long-term operation and maintenance (O&M) phase, which is being conducted by the PRPs under the UAO. Under the O&M plan, ambient air, surface water, sediments, groundwater and landfill gas will be monitored. Regular inspections of the physical components of the capping system, which include fencing, gas vents, surface water controls and the multi-layer cover system, will be conducted. The monitoring and inspection activities will ensure that the remedy remains protective.

EPA issued a Final Close Out Report dated July 28, 2000, which documents the implementation of all response actions at the Site.

In accordance with Section 121(c) of CERCLA, as amended, the Site is subject to a five-year review of the Site remedies. The first review will be performed by May 2001. These reviews will continue into the future to ensure that the Site remains protective of human health and the environment.

The appropriate response actions selected for this Site have been implemented in accordance with the Records of Decision for OU-1 and OU-2. Therefore, no further response action is necessary, other than operation, maintenance and monitoring. The appropriate response actions have resulted in the significant reduction of any further release of contaminants from the Site. Therefore, human health and potential environmental impacts have been minimized. EPA and NYSDEC find that the appropriate response actions implemented are protective of human health and the environment.

NYSDEC concurs with EPA that the criteria for deletion of the release have been met. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.

This action will be effective October 16, 2000. However, if EPA receives significant adverse or critical comments by September 14, 2000, EPA will publish a document that withdraws this action.

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (“1990 Act”), Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (“1996 Act”), Public Law 104-134, Title III, 31001(s)(1), April 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 1321-373, requires the inflation adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties (“CMP”) to ensure that they continue to maintain their deterrent value. The 1996 Act requires that not later than 180 days after its enactment, October 23, 1996, and at least once every 4 years thereafter, the head of each agency shall, by regulation published in the Federal Register , adjust each CMP within its jurisdiction by the inflation adjustment described in the 1990 Act. The Federal Maritime Commission (“Commission”) last adjusted each CMP subject to its jurisdiction effective November 7, 1996. (61 FR 52704).

The inflation adjustment under the 1990 Act is to be determined by increasing the maximum CMP by the cost-of-living adjustment, rounded off as set forth in section 5(a) of that Act. The cost-of-living adjustment is the percentage (if any) for each CMP by which the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”)  1 for the month of June of the calendar year preceding the adjustment, exceeds the CPI for the month of June of the calendar year in which the amount of such CMP was last set or adjusted pursuant to law. Any increased penalties shall apply only to violations which occur after the date on which the increase takes effect.

One example of an inflation adjustment of a CMP is as follows. The CPI for June 1999 (the year preceding this adjustment) was 166.2 and the CPI for June 1996 was 156.7. 2 The inflation factor, therefore, is 1.06 (166.2 divided by 156.7). Section 13 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (“1984 Act”), 46 U.S.C. app. 1712, imposes a maximum $25,000 penalty for a knowing and willful violation of the 1984 Act which was inflation adjusted in 1996 to $27,500. The maximum penalty amount after calculating the increase and applying the statutory rounding would be $30,000.

A similar calculation was done with respect to each CMP subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. In compliance with the 1990 Act, as amended, the Commission is hereby amending 46 CFR 506.4(d) of its regulations which sets forth the newly adjusted maximum penalty amounts.

This final rule has been issued without prior public notice or opportunity for public comment. The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) does not require that process “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” In this instance, the Commission finds, for good cause, that solicitation of public comment on this final rule is unnecessary and impractical. The Congress has required that the agency periodically make the inflation adjustments contained in the rule, and provided no discretion regarding the substance of the adjustments. All that is required of the Commission for determination of the amount of the inflation adjustment are ministerial computations.

The Commission certifies pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, including small businesses, small organizational units, and small governmental jurisdictions because it merely increases the maximum statutory civil monetary penalty by 6 percent for those entities that commit violations after the effective date of this rule. The Commission rarely has imposed the statutory maximum civil monetary penalty and, moreover, considers ability of a respondent to pay a civil monetary penalty in determining its amount. The size of a company necessarily enters into a determination of its ability to pay.

The rule does not contain any collection of information requirements as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended. Therefore, Office of Management and Budget review is not required.

1. The Commission amends it Schedule of Application Fees, 47 CFR Part 1, §§ 1.1102 through 1.1107 to adjust the fees for processing applications and other filings. In addition, Sections 1.1108, 1.1110, 1.1111, 1.1113, 1.1114, 1.1115, 1.1117, 1.1118 and 1.1119 are amended to reflect administrative changes. Section 8(b) of the Communications Act, as amended, requires that the Commission review and adjust its application fees every two years after October 1, 1991 (47 U.S.C. 158(b)). The adjusted or increased fees reflect the net change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPU-U of 33 percent, calculated from December 1989 to October 1999. The adjustments made to the fee schedule comport with the statutory formula set forth in Section 8(b).

2. The Schedule of Application Fees, 47 CFR Sections 1.1102 through 1.1107 are adjusted, and Sections 1.1108, 1.1110, 1.1111, 1.1113, 1.1114, 1.1115, 1.1117, 1.1118, and 1.1119 are amended to reflect administrative changes as set forth below, effective on September 11, 2000.

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) (Public Law 103-62; 107 Stat. 285) requires agencies to develop a schedule of program evaluations for inclusion in their strategic plans. In support of GPRA, the Department of Transportation (DOT) committed, in its 1997-2002 strategic plan, to conduct a review of its hazardous materials transportation programs. The objectives of the hazardous materials program evaluation (HMPE) were to (1) document current hazardous materials movements, Operating Administration programs, and program delivery; (2) assess the effectiveness of DOT's overall hazardous materials program as it affects each step in the hazardous materials transportation process; and (3) identify areas for further analysis or other actions.

During 1999, a team of DOT employees from the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, and Research and Special Programs Administration conducted the HMPE. They participated in multi-modal and individual modal administration inspections, visited package-testing facilities, observed shipper-check activities, and addressed safety conferences. To learn from DOT's stakeholders—those interested in the safe transportation of hazardous materials—the HMPE team hosted three public focus group meetings. Representatives of shippers, carriers, packaging manufacturers, hazardous materials employees, enforcement personnel, emergency responders, trade associations, and organized labor participated in the meetings.

The HMPE team's findings are set out in its March 2000 final report to the Secretary. In summary, the HMPE team made the following five findings. First, the Secretarial delegations do not provide for DOT-wide coordination or oversight of the five DOT Operating Administrations responsible for ensuring hazardous materials safety. Second, shippers of hazardous materials are a common element across the Operating Administrations, perform critical functions early in the transportation stream, and can impact safety system wide. However, shippers generally receive less attention DOT-wide than carriers. Third, human error continues to be the single greatest contributing factor in hazardous materials incidents and DOT has not been effective in changing this trend. In addition, the traveling public is largely unaware of the dangers posed by hazardous materials they may carry with them in checked or carry-on baggage. Also, the traveling public is unaware of the threat to hazardous materials transportation safety posed by passenger vehicles engaged in unsafe driving practices on the nation's highways. Fourth, DOT lacks reliable, accurate, and timely data to measure program effectiveness and make informed program delivery and resource decisions. Fifth, there are numerous cross-modal issues (issues that are relevant to more than one operating administration) and intermodal issues (issues that affect more than one mode of transportation) that require further analysis and other actions, for example, undeclared hazardous materials shipments, the complexity and adequacy of the current hazardous materials regulations, safety gaps related to hazardous materials in the U.S. mail, enhanced inspection authority, and ways to improve DOT's current performance measure.

Based on its findings, the HMPE team concluded that while DOT's hazardous materials program works reasonably well, DOT could enhance hazardous materials transportation safety by: (1) Establishing a central focal point to administer and deliver a DOT-wide hazardous materials program aimed at intermodal and cross-modal issues to provide for more effective deployment of resources; (2) developing DOT-wide strategies and actions to focus more on high-risk or problem shippers through targeted outreach activities, technical assistance, and inspections; (3) strengthening its training standard to improve industry safety practices and compliance with the hazardous materials regulations; (4) developing a coordinated national campaign to increase public awareness of the dangers of hazardous materials in transportation; and (5) improving hazardous materials census, incident, compliance, and budget data DOT-wide, improving the analysis of that data, and developing ways to increase data availability and usefulness.

To achieve a One-DOT approach to hazardous materials safety, the HMPE team concluded that DOT should establish an institutional capacity, complementary to the Operating Administrations at the Department-wide level, to facilitate program coordination and direction to provide for more effective deployment of DOT's hazardous materials resources. The institutional capacity should administer and deliver a department-wide hazardous materials program to strengthen strategic planning, program coordination, and program delivery. It should have the authority to establish DOT-wide policy, program objectives and priorities, and focus budget and resource strategies.

Based on the HMPE team's findings and recommendations, the Secretary has decided to place the focal point for intermodal and cross-modal DOT hazardous materials program issues with the Associate Deputy Secretary and Director, Office of Intermodalism (Associate Deputy Secretary). That office will be responsible for implementing the HMPE team's recommendations, including the items identified as needing further analysis. Specifically, that office will:

(1) Serve as the principal adviser to the Secretary on all intermodal and cross-modal hazardous materials matters;

(2) Act as the focal point for review of hazardous materials policies, priorities, and objectives;

(3) Provide oversight for planning and budgeting strategies for all departmental hazardous materials activities;

(4) Resolve disputes among Operating Administrations on hazardous materials issues;

(5) Provide external reviews and continual monitoring of all departmental hazardous materials activities;

(6) In coordination with the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, direct that the Operating Administrations apply resources to specific cross-modal initiatives;

(7) Coordinate DOT-wide hazardous materials outreach and data activities; and

(8) Address other regulatory and programmatic cross-modal issues related to hazardous materials, as warranted.

In addition to carrying out the HMPE team's recommendations, the Secretary has delegated to the Director of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics the authority to work with the Operating Administrations to determine data needs, collections strategies, and analytical techniques appropriate for implementing DOT's hazardous materials program. This authority is to be exercised in coordination with the Associate Deputy Secretary.

Finally, to clearly establish the hazardous materials primacy of the Associate Deputy Secretary, the Secretary has made complementary changes to the delegations to the five Operating Administrations with hazardous materials responsibilities. Each Operating Administration's hazardous materials delegation (with the exception of certain single-mode functions) has been made subject to the delegations to the Associate Deputy Secretary. Further, their delegations have been broadened to allow them to use their resources for DOT-wide purposes, such as inspections of shippers by all modes of transportation. Minor revisions are also being made to 49 CFR part 1 to update statutory authority citations where necessary.

This final rule updates the delegations of authority from the Secretary of Transportation to other Departmental officials to represent the organizational posture of the Department. As such, the final rule is ministerial in nature and relates only to Departmental management, organization, procedure, and practice. Since this amendment relates to departmental organization, procedure and practice, notice and comment on it are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

Furthermore, this rule does not impose substantive requirements on the public and the Department does not expect to receive substantive comments on the rule. Also, this final rule expedites the Department of Transportation's ability to meet the statutory intent of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127. Consequently, the Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register .

This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). There are no costs associated with this rule.

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This final rule does not adopt any regulation that:

(1) Has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government; (2) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments; or (3) preempts state law. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires an agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. I hereby certify this final rule, which amends the CFR to reflect delegations of authority from the Secretary of Transportation to Departmental officers and Operating Administrations, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.

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

The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this rulemaking.

NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) under the fishery management plans (FMPs) for groundfish in the respective areas. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared, and NMFS approved, the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR 600.

NMFS also has statutory authority to promulgate regulations to enforce provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. The ESA requires that each Federal agency shall ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such species.

On July 19, 2000, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order that granted a motion for a partial injunction of the North Pacific groundfish fisheries. Greenpeace et al. v. NMFS , No. C98-4922 (W.D. Wash.). This motion, filed by Greenpeace, American Oceans Campaign, and the Sierra Club (hereafter the Plaintiffs), requested injunctive relief until NMFS issues a legally adequate biological opinion addressing the combined, overall effects of the North Pacific groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions and their critical habitat pursuant to the ESA. The population of Steller sea lions west of 144°W. long. (hereafter western population) is listed under the ESA as endangered, while the population of Steller sea lions east of 144°W. long. is listed as threatened.

This rule, promulgated under the authority of Section 11(f) of the ESA and in compliance with the Court's injunction, prohibits all groundfish trawl fishing, as the term fishing is defined at 16 U.S.C. 1802(15) and authorized pursuant to the Fishery Management Plans for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska, within Steller sea lion critical habitat listed in Tables 1 and 2 to 50 CFR 226.202 that is in federally regulated waters west of 144°W. long., as well as the three special aquatic foraging areas defined at 50 CFR 226.202. For the convenience of the affected public, all areas closed to groundfish trawling pursuant to the court order are described below. Please refer to regulations at 50 CFR § 226.202 and § 223.202 for further details concerning designated critical habitat and threatened marine and anadromous species. Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat Sites Closed:

Critical habitat includes the Shelikof Strait area in the Gulf of Alaska and consists of the area between the Alaska Peninsula and Tugidak, Sitknak, Aiaktilik, Kodiak, Raspberry, Afognak and Shuyak Islands (connected by the shortest lines); bounded on the west by a line connecting Cape Kumlik (56° 38′N/157° 27′W) and the southwestern tip of Tugidak Island (56° 24′N/154° 41′W) and bounded in the east by a line connecting Cape Douglas (58° 51′N/153° 15′W) and the northernmost tip of Shuyak Island (58° 37′N/152° 22′W).

Critical habitat includes the Bogoslof area in the Bering Sea shelf and consists of the area between 170° 00′W and 164° 00′W, south of straight lines connecting 55° 00′N/170° 00′W and 55° 00′N/168° 00′W; 55° 30′N/168° 00′W and 55° 30′N/166° 00′W; 56° 00′N/166° 00′W and 56° 00′N/164° 00′W and north of the Aleutian Islands and straight lines between the islands connecting the following coordinates in the order listed: 52° 49.2′/169° 40.4′W; 52° 49.8′N/169° 06.3′; 53° 23.8′N/167° 50.1′W; 53° 18.7′N/167° 17.2′W; 54° 02.9′N/166° 03.0′W; 54° 07.7′N/165° 40.6′W; 54° 08.9′N/165° 38.8′W; 54° 11.9′N/165° 23.3′W; and 54° 23.9′N/164° 44.0′W.

Critical habitat includes the Seguam Pass area and consists of the area between 52° 00′N and 53° 00′N and between 173° 30′W and 172° 30′W.

Research activities conducted by scientific research vessels, as defined 50 CFR 600.10, are exempted from the closure specified in this emergency rule.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that this rule is necessary to comply with a court order and is authorized by the ESA.

Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , do not apply to this action.

This emergency rule has been determined to be significant under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. NMFS estimates that the potential economic losses in closing critical habitat to pollock trawling from June through December 2000 could be as high as $88 million. Industry has estimated that if the injunction remains in place through the A/B seasons, loses could be as high as $250 mission. This rule has been determined to be major for purposes of the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq. The delay in effective date normally required for major rules under the Congressional Review Act is inapplicable to this rule closing a commercial fishery pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 808(1).

NMFS finds that there is good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment pursuant to authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures are unnecessary. This action complies with a United States District Court order and is non-discretionary. Delaying the effectiveness of this interim rule to provide prior notice and opportunity for comment would prevent NMFS from complying with the Court's order, which requires that critical habitat be closed to groundfish trawling by 12:00 noon Pacific time, August 8, 2000. Additionally, pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30 day delay in effective date and makes this rule effective immediately in order to meet the time and date specified in the court's order.