What events have caused this AD? The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, recently notified FAA that an unsafe condition might exist on certain Valentin Model 17E sailplanes. The LBA reports:

What are the consequences if the condition is not corrected? This condition, if not corrected, could result in the wing separating from the sailplane, which could cause loss of control of the sailplane.

Is there service information that applies to this subject? Valentin has issued Service Bulletin KOCO 05/818, issue 2, and Korff Work Instructions AW-KOCO-05/818, issue 2, both dated 16 January 2001. The service bulletin and work instructions include procedures for:

What action did LBA take? The LBA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued German AD 2000-392, dated December 15, 2000, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these sailplanes in Germany.

Was this in accordance with the bilateral airworthiness agreement? These sailplane models are manufactured in Germany and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement.

In carrying out this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LBA has kept FAA informed of the situation described above.

What has FAA decided? The FAA has examined the findings of the LBA; reviewed all available information, including the service information referenced above; and determined that:

What does this AD require? This AD requires you to do the actions previously specified in accordance with Korff + Co. KG Service Bulletin KOCO 05/818, issue 2, and Korff Work Instructions AW-KOCO-05/818, issue 2, both dated 16 January 2001.

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

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

Are there any specific portions of the AD I should pay attention to? The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might require a change to the rule. You may look at all comments we receive. We will file a report in the Rules Docket that summarizes each FAA contact with the public that concerns the substantive parts of this rule.

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

How can I be sure FAA receives my comment? If you want us to acknowledge the receipt of your comments, you must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. On the postcard, write “Comments to Docket No. 2001-CE-05-AD.” We will date stamp and mail the postcard back to you.

Does this AD impact various entities? These regulations will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, FAA has determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Does this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket (otherwise, an evaluation is not required). A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket.

On January 13, 2000, the FAA issued AD 2000-02-01, amendment 39-11518 (65 FR 3794, January 25, 2000), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8 series airplanes, to require detailed visual and eddy current inspections of the lower wing skin at the 3 outboard fasteners of stringer 64 end fitting to detect cracks; and corrective actions, if necessary. The actions required by that AD are intended to prevent fatigue cracking of the lower wing skin, which could reduce structural integrity and loss of fail-safe capability of the airplane.

Since the issuance of AD 2000-02-01, the FAA has received a report indicating that certain serial numbers of the affected airplanes were inadvertently omitted from McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8-57-100, Revision 01, dated August 26, 1998 (which was referenced in AD 2000-02-01 as the appropriate source of service information). These additional airplanes are subject to the addressed unsafe condition.

The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC8-57-100, Revision 02, dated June 21, 2000. The detailed visual and eddy current inspections and corrective actions are identical to those described in Revision 01 of the service bulletin. Revision 02 of the service bulletin expands the effectivity listing to include additional airplanes and clarifies information about a non-destructive testing reference standards and test equipment. Accomplishment of the actions specified in either of the service bulletins is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, this AD is being issued to prevent fatigue cracking of the lower wing skin, which could reduce structural integrity and loss of fail-safe capability of the airplane. This AD requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin (either revision level) described previously.

None of the Model McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-33, -42, -55, and -61 series airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. All airplanes included in the applicability of this rule currently are operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign registry; therefore, they are not directly affected by this AD action. However, the FAA considers that this rule is necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed in the event that any of these subject airplanes are imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future.

Should an affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would require approximately 4 work hours to accomplish the required actions, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD would be $240 per airplane.

Since this AD action does not affect any airplane that is currently on the U.S. register, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, prior notice and public procedures hereon are unnecessary and the amendment may be made effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by notice and opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES . All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-254-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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 86-20-08, amendment 39-5434 (51 FR 35502, October 6, 1986), which is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on May 10, 2000 (65 FR 30028). The action proposed to continue to require an eddy current inspection(s) to detect cracks of the lower front spar caps of the wings at the attachment holes of the leading edge assembly between stations Xfs=515.000 and Xfs=526.760, and corrective actions, if necessary. The action also proposed to require accomplishment of the previously optional terminating action and a follow-on inspection. In addition, the action proposed to expand the applicability of the existing AD to include additional airplanes that are subject to the identified unsafe condition of this AD and to increase the interval for the repetitive eddy current inspections.

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

Two commenters point out that the proposed AD incorrectly references

AD 86-20-06 as the AD being superseded instead of AD 86-20-08. The FAA finds that the commenters are correct and has revised the final rule accordingly.

One commenter requests that the proposed AD also supersede AD 90-16-05, amendment 39-6614 (55 FR 31818, August 6, 1990), as it pertains to McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 57-90, Revision 2, dated March 1, 1991. The commenter states that superseding AD 90-16-05 would ensure that there is no conflict between the inspection and modification requirements of both AD's.

The FAA partially agrees. We acknowledge that there is a conflict between the eddy current inspection requirements of the proposed AD and AD 90-16-05 with respect to the revision level of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin (SB) DC8-57-090 (formerly numbered 57-90). We find that accomplishment of the eddy current inspection(s) required by this AD per Revision 05 of SB DC8-57-090 constitutes compliance with the inspection(s) required by paragraph A. of AD 90-16-05, as it pertains to SB 57-90, Revision 2. However, accomplishment of the eddy current inspection(s) does not terminate the remaining requirements of AD 90-16-05, as it applies to other service bulletins. Operators are required to continue to inspect and/or modify per the other service bulletins listed in that AD. Therefore, we have revised the final rule to include a new paragraph (h) to specify this information.

One commenter requests that either paragraph (b) or the applicability of the proposed AD be reworded to exclude airplanes modified per McDonnell Douglas DC-8 Service Bulletin 57-90, original issue, dated October 3, 1983, or that note 5 be revised to include the original service bulletin. The commenter states that some airplanes have done the optional terminating modification specified in AD 86-20-08, which referenced the original issue of SB 57-90 as the appropriate source of service information, or the modification specified in paragraph (f) of the proposed AD. The commenter states that it is not clear which paragraphs of the proposed AD are applicable to airplanes that have been modified per the original issue of SB 57-90.

The FAA agrees that paragraph (b) and note 5 of the proposed AD should be revised as the commenter requests. We find that the applicability of paragraph (b) is unclear. Our intent was that paragraph (b) of the AD apply to all affected airplanes listed in Revision 05 of SB DC8-57-090 that are not listed in the original issue of that service bulletin (approximately 140 additional airplanes), and on which the modification specified in any of the following McDonnell Douglas DC-8 service bulletins has not been done:

We have revised paragraph (b) of the final rule accordingly. Also, see the change below under the heading “Explanation of Change to Applicability of Paragraph (a) of the AD” and “Explanation of Change to note 5 of the AD.”

One commenter asks if the compliance time in paragraph (e) of the proposed AD was intended to be before 100,000 “total” flight hours. No justification was given by the commenter. The FAA finds that the compliance time identified in the proposed AD is not consistent with the compliance time of related AD 90-16-05, which requires the modification to be completed before the airplane accumulates 100,000 “total” flight hours. Therefore, we have revised the compliance time of paragraph (e) of the final rule to state that the modification must be done before the accumulation of 100,000 “total” flight hours.

The FAA has determined that the applicability of paragraph (a) of the proposed AD should be revised. We have approved the modification described in the service bulletins listed in the table above (under the heading “Request to Exclude Certain Airplanes or Give Credit for Doing a Certain Modification”) for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD. Therefore, we have added an identical table in paragraph (a) of the final rule (i.e., Table 1. Applicable Service Bulletins for Preventative Modification) and revised the applicability of that paragraph to exclude airplanes on which the modification specified in any of the service bulletins listed in that table has been done.

Note 5 of the proposed AD contained a typographical error. Accomplishment of the modification specified in note 5 of the AD is considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (e) of the AD, not paragraph (d). In addition, modification of the lower front spar cap accomplished before the effective date of this AD per McDonnell Douglas DC-8 Service Bulletin 57-90, dated October 3, 1983, in addition to the other revision levels specified in note 5, is considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (e) of the AD. The FAA has revised note 5 of the final rule accordingly.

The FAA considers that the compliance time in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD is not clear as it is currently worded, and that operators may misinterpret when the follow-on inspection must be done. Our intent was that the follow-on inspection be done within 32,900 flight hours after accomplishing the modification (reference Service Bulletin DC8-57-090 or 57-90) required by AD 86-20-08, AD 90-16-05, or either paragraph (d)(1) or (e) of the proposed AD; all of these modifications are identical.

Note 5 of the proposed AD gives operators credit for accomplishing the subject modification before the effective date of the AD (i.e., operators that accomplished the subject modification specified in AD 86-20-08, which was optional in that AD). Paragraph (f) of the proposed AD also gives operators credit for accomplishing the subject modification per paragraph B. of AD 90-16-05. If an operator takes credit for accomplishing the modification in note 5 or paragraph (f) of the AD, it was our intent in the proposed AD that the operator do the follow-on inspection and corrective actions, if necessary, per paragraph (g) of the AD. Therefore, for clarification purposes, we have revised the compliance time of paragraph (g) of the final rule to “within 32,900 flight hours after accomplishing the modification * * * ” and to reference the modification specified in AD's 86-20-08 and 90-16-05.

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 previously described. 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 294 Model DC-8 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 251 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

It will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspection at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $30,120, or $120 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

It will take approximately between 12 and 14 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required modification at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately between $303 and $1,202 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $256,773, or $512,542, or between $1,023, or $2,042 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 action, 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.

The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all Airbus Model A330 and A340 series airplanes. The DGAC advises that fatigue tests on the test wing revealed cracks propagating from fastener holes in the top wing skin and the rear spar flange between wing ribs 2 and 11. Cracks were also found at the cover plate of the torsion box of the aft passenger/crew door at frame (FR) 73A and FR75A. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in reduced structural capability of the airplane.

Airbus has issued the following service bulletins:

Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletins is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. The DGAC classified these service bulletins as mandatory and issued the following French airworthiness directives to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France:

These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of § 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.19) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, this AD is being issued to prevent propagation of fatigue cracking of the top wing skin and the torsion box of the aft passenger/crew doors, which could lead to reduced structural capability of the airplane. This AD requires replacing, with oversize fasteners, the interference fit fasteners between ribs 2 and 7 and between ribs 9 and 11; and reinforcing the cover plate of the torsion box of the aft passenger/crew doors. The actions are required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletins described previously, except as discussed below.

Operators should note that, although the service bulletins specify that the manufacturer may be contacted for disposition of certain repair conditions, this AD requires the repair of those conditions to be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by either the FAA, or the DGAC (or its delegated agent). In light of the type of repair that would be required to address the identified unsafe condition, and in consonance with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, the FAA has determined that, for this AD, a repair approved by either the FAA or the DGAC would be acceptable for compliance with this AD.

None of the airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. All airplanes included in the applicability of this rule currently are operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign registry; therefore, they are not directly affected by this AD action. However, the FAA considers that this rule is necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed in the event that any of these subject airplanes are imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future.

Should an affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the following cost estimates to comply with the requirements of this AD would apply:

Since this AD action does not affect any airplane that is currently on the U.S. register, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, prior notice and public procedures hereon are unnecessary and the amendment may be made effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by notice and opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket 2000-NM-119-AD.” The postcard will be date-stamped and returned to the commenter.

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.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 series airplanes. TCCA advises that electrical arcing between the integrated drive generator (IDG) cable and an engine cowl door has been reported. Such arcing has been attributed to chafing of the IDG cable against the structure and engine cowl doors, due to wear. This condition, if not corrected, could result in a possible ignition source and consequent fire and/or loss of electrical power on the airplane.

The manufacturer has issued Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-24-103, Revision B, dated January 26, 2001, which describes procedures for the following:

• Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions: A visual inspection to find chafing or damage of the IDG cables between the service pylon connections to the cable harness assembly of the left and right engines, and follow-on actions (below).

• Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions: Installation of a protective conduit on the IDG cable harness assembly if there is no damage found or if there is damage to the outer core of the cable only.

• Part C of the Accomplishment Instructions: Replacement of damaged (inner core damage, or damaged/broken conductor strands) IDG cables with new cables.

Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. The TCCA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2001-02, dated January 17, 2001, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada.

This airplane model is manufactured in Canada and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of § 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the TCCA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, this AD is being issued to prevent chafing or damage of the IDG cables, which could result in electrical arcing between the cable and an engine cowl door, creating a possible ignition source and consequent fire and/or loss of electrical power on the airplane. This AD requires a one-time general visual inspection to find chafing or damage of the IDG cables between the service pylon connections to the cable harness assembly of the engines, and follow-on actions. The actions are required to be accomplished per the service bulletin described previously.

Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES . All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.

• Include justification ( e.g., reasons or data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2001-NM-32-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

The FAA has received a report that, during flight testing of Boeing Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes, the elevator hinge plates at elevator hinges 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 experienced higher-than-expected loads due to buffeting by the spoiler. The higher loads reduce the service life of the elevator hinge plates. Reduced service life of the elevator hinge plates could lead to fatigue cracking of the elevator hinge plates in service. Such cracking could lead to the loss of the attachment of the elevator to the horizontal stabilizer, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1067, dated October 19, 2000, which describes instructions for the following:

• Repetitive detailed visual inspections of the elevator hinge plate lugs (three locations) at elevator hinges 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

• Repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) and detailed visual inspections of the hinge plate at elevator hinge 4. (Analysis has shown that the hinge plate at elevator hinge 4 is most critical; therefore, in addition to the detailed visual inspection, an HFEC inspection is necessary for elevator hinge 4.)

• Corrective actions, which entail replacement of the hinge plate with a new part, if any crack or unusual wear is found on a hinge plate. (For the purposes of this AD, unusual wear is defined as elongated holes, loose or missing nuts or bolts, or missing primer or finish.)

• Replacement of the elevator hinge plates at hinges 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, with new, improved hinge plates, and modification of the elevator upper skin, the upper and lower hinge covers, and the upper and lower closure panels, as applicable. Doing these actions eliminates the need to do the repetitive inspections.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, this AD is being issued to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the elevator hinge plates, which could lead to the loss of the attachment of the elevator to the horizontal stabilizer, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. This AD requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.

Operators should note that the service bulletin recommends doing the inspections prior to the accumulation of 7,000 total flight cycles on the airplane. The FAA finds that such a compliance time could put some airplanes out of compliance as of the effective date of this AD if the airplane already has accumulated more than 7,000 total flight cycles before the effective date of the AD. Therefore, this AD provides a grace period of 90 days after the effective date of this AD for the inspection for airplanes that are close to or over the threshold of 7,000 total flight cycles.

Operators also should note that, although the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for wear limits during replacement of elevator hinge plates, this AD requires that such wear limits be obtained from the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings.

This is considered to be interim action. The service bulletin recommends the replacement of elevator hinge plates prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles, or within 5 years since date of delivery of the airplane, whichever occurs first. This AD provides for the replacement as optional. The FAA is currently considering requiring the replacement of the elevator hinge plates with new parts, which is described in the service bulletin and which would constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD action. However, the planned compliance time for the replacement is sufficiently long so that notice and opportunity for prior public comment will be practicable.

Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES . All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.

• Include justification ( e.g. , reasons or data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2001-NM-19-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 revises the Class E airspace at Bay City, TX. The development of a NDB SIAP, at Bay City Municipal Airport, Bay City, TX, has made this rule necessary. This action is intended to provide adequate controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface for IFR operations to Bay City Municipal airport, Bay City, TX.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9H, dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR § 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and therefore is issuing it as a direct final rule. A substantial number of previous opportunities provided to the public to comment on substantially identical actions have resulted in negligible adverse comments or objections. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document will be published in the Federal Register . This document may withdraw the direct final rule in whole or in part. After considering the adverse or negative comment, we may publish another direct final rule or publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES . All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action is needed.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this action will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2001-ASW-05.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

Further, the FAA has determined that this regulation is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments and only involves an established body of technical regulations that require frequent and routine amendments to keep them operationally current. Therefore, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Polices and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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. Since this rule involves routine matters that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis because the anticipated impact is so minimal.

On January 17, 2001, the FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace area at Kaunakakai/Molokai HI (66 FR 3887). Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is needed to contain aircraft executing the RNAV (GPS)-B SIAP at Kaunakakai/Molokai Airport, Molokai, HI. This action will provide adequate controlled airspace for aircraft executing the RNAV (GPS)-B SIAP to Kaunakakai/Molokai Airport, Molokai, HI.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments to the proposal were received. Class E airspace designations for airspace extending from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 off FAA Order 7400.9H dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E airspace area at Molokai, HI. The development of an RNAV (GPS)-B SIAP has made this action necessary. The effect of this action will provide adequate airspace for aircraft executing the RNAV (GPS)-B SIAP at Kaunakakai/Molokai Airport, Molokai, HI.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involved an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This document announces the effective date in Federal waters for the Revised Designation Document expanding the boundary of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS or Sanctuary) and the final regulations that implement the boundary expansion, establish and implement the Tortugas Ecological Reserve, and that make certain revisions to the Sanctuary regulations. The expansion of the Sanctuary boundary encompasses an area of the State of Florida waters and Federal waters at the far western end of the Florida Keys, and the submerged lands thereunder. The Federal Register document publishing those regulations also contained the Revised Designation Document and summarized the final supplemental management plan for the Sanctuary. The Revised Designation Document sets forth the geographical area included within the Sanctuary, the characteristics of the area that give it conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, education, or esthetic value, and the type of activities subject to regulation. The supplemental management plan details the goals and objectives, management responsibilities, research activities, interpretive and educational programs, and enforcement activities of the area. As stated in the preamble to the final rule, the regulations become effective after the close of a review period of 45 days of continuous session of Congress beginning on the day on which the final rule was published unless the Governor of the State of Florida certifies to the Secretary of Commerce that the designation or any of its terms is unacceptable, in which case the designation or any unacceptable terms shall not take effect in State of Florida waters unless and until approved by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida. The Congressional review period ended on March 7, 2001. On March 6, 2001, the Governor of the State of Florida certified to the Secretary of Commerce that the revised designation, the supplemental management plan, and the regulations implementing the Tortugas Ecological Reserve were unacceptable unless and until approved by the Board of Trustees. The Governor further advised the Secretary that the State of Florida is committed to the protection of the Tortugas area and its resources and that it is expected that the Board of Trustees will consider the proposed designation, ecological reserve, and the implementing regulations within a reasonable time.

Accordingly, the designation of the Sanctuary and the regulations implementing that designation became effective in Federal waters on March 8, 2001. The regulations will not take effect in Florida State waters until approved by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida. This Federal Register document announces the effective date of the Revised Designation Document and the final regulations as March 8, 2001.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is issuing an order addressing requests for rehearing of Order No. 642, a final rule updating the filing requirements applications filed under Part 33 of the Commission's regulations, including public utility mergers. 1 The rehearing order denies rehearing but provides clarification on these issues.

Pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), Commission authorization is required for public utility acquisitions or dispositions of jurisdictional facilities, including public utility mergers and consolidations. 2 Since 1996, the Commission has approved such transactions if they are consistent with the public interest under guidelines established in the Merger Policy Statement. 3 The Policy Statement sets out three factors the Commission will generally consider when analyzing a merger proposal: effect on competition, effect on rates, and effect on regulation.

Order No. 642 revised the filing requirements in Part 33 of the Commission's regulations to enable applicants and intervenors to address more effectively and predictably the types of issues that have arisen in applications filed since the issuance of the Policy Statement, as well as issues that we anticipate may arise as the energy industry continues to make the transition to more competitive markets. Order No. 642 was also designed to implement the Policy Statement and provide detailed guidance to applicants for preparing applications under section 203 of the FPA. The revised filing requirements are designed to assist the Commission in determining whether applications are consistent with the public interest, and to provide more certainty and expedite the Commission's handling of such applications.

Among other things, Order No. 642 codifies the Commission's screening approach to mergers that may raise horizontal competitive concerns, provided specific filing requirements consistent with Appendix A of the Commission's Merger Policy Statement, established guidelines for vertical competitive analysis, and set forth filing requirements for mergers that potentially raise vertical market power concerns. Order No. 642 also streamlined and eliminated outdated and unnecessary Part 33 filing requirements, and reduced the information burden for dispositions of jurisdictional facilities that raise no competitive concerns.

Requests for rehearing were filed by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) and jointly by the American Public Power Association and the Transmission Access Policy Study Group (APPA/TAPS). As discussed below, the Commission denies rehearing, but clarifies certain aspects of the filing requirements in Order No. 642.

NRECA and APPA/TAPS are concerned that Order No. 642 relies too heavily on the Appendix A competitive screen analysis and improperly shifts the burden of proof regarding a disposition's competitive effects from applicants to intervenors. This, they argue, reverses the Policy Statement without adequate explanation. Specifically, Petitioners are concerned about Order No. 642's declaration that:

APPA/TAPS contend that, if the foregoing is read literally, the Commission will treat passing the screen as creating a “nearly irrebuttable” presumption that intervenors may overcome only by “a convincing case that the merger has anti-competitive effects.” This, they argue, flips the statutory burden of proof from applicants to intervenors by requiring intervenors to make a “convincing case” of competitive problems, a standard that was not proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR). APPA/TAPS point to the standard in the Policy Statement, which stated:

While APPA/TAPS understand the “substantial and specific” standard articulated in the Policy Statement to be consistent with the assignment of the burden of proof under the FPA, they assert that the “convincing case” terminology used in Order No. 642 suggests application of an unlawfully heavier burden.

Therefore, Petitioners argue that the Commission should clarify that the applicant bears the ultimate burden of proof to demonstrate that the transaction is consistent with the public interest. In addition, APPA/TAPS state that it is not clear whether, if applicants take advantage of the safe harbors outlined in Order No. 642, intervenors may be left with the impossible task of “making a convincing case” based on other factors, in less than the 60 day period for comments, without the benefit of the information required in an Appendix A analysis.

Moreover, NRECA points out that the statement “the horizontal analysis stops there” is ambiguous. This deviates from the Policy Statement, Petitioners state, and abandons the Commission's statutory duty to be pro-active regarding mergers. They note that the Policy Statement made clear that the screen was just one factor to be considered in setting a case for hearing and described the screen as a tool, allowing mergers of concern to be identified based on facts not fully reflected in or completely outside the screen. APPA/TAPS reiterate that the Policy Statement instructed intervenors to provide specific concerns, not generalized claims, consistent with the “substantial and specific” standard.

APPA/TAPS also cite past instances where the Commission looked beyond the screen, such as the hearing order for the merger between American Electric Power Company and Central and South West Corporation. 5 Thus, Petitioners contend that the Commission must clarify that it will look beyond the screen at other market power concerns which may arise. NRECA also requests that the Commission clarify that, even absent an intervenor making a clear and convincing case, the Commission has the authority and the duty to inquire further into a merger's competitive effects.

The Commission believes that Order No. 642 does not reverse the PolicyStatement. Rather, Order No. 642 implements the Policy Statement and sets forth filing requirements that are consistent with the Policy Statement. 6 APPA/TAPS' concern that under Order No. 642, passing the screen creates an irrebuttable presumption which can be overcome only with “a convincing case” that the merger has anti-competitive effects is misplaced. The term “convincing case” is consistent with the Policy Statement, to which APPA/TAPS themselves cite:

Given the foregoing, we also disagree with NRECA's claim that the phrase “the horizontal analysis stops there” is ambiguous. To the contrary, it makes clear that the Commission will be satisfied that there is no need for further investigation on this issue if the criteria for passing the screen are met. As stated in Order No. 642, these criteria include: (1) Intervenors do not make a convincing case ( i.e., they do not raise substantial and specific claims) that the merger has anticompetitive effects  8 and (2) the evidence as to the lack of effect on competition is convincing and verifiable. 9 In crafting Order No. 642 to be consistent with the Policy Statement, the Commission was cognizant of the value of the screen as “* * * a standard, generally conservative check to allow the Commission, applicants and intervenors to quickly identify mergers that are unlikely to present competitive problems.”  10 However, to ensure that mergers with potential competitive problems will be appropriately identified and analyzed, the Commission was also careful to state in Order No. 642 that “[the] horizontal screen is not meant to be a definitive test of the likely competitive effects of a proposed merger.”  11

Therefore, we do not agree with Petitioners that Order No. 642 reverses the Policy Statement and we deny their request for rehearing on this issue.

APPA/TAPS argue that the abbreviated filing requirements specified in Order No. 642 are inappropriate because: (1) They are erroneously based on whether applicants are actual or potential competitors in each other's geographic markets; (2) they create strong incentives to craft potentially anti-competitive combinations that can be portrayed to qualify for abbreviated filing requirements; and (3) the procedures allow less than 60 days for interventions, giving intervenors (whom the Commission relies on as a critical source of information) less time and information to accomplish the task of making a “convincing case” that a corporate disposition has anti-competitive effects. APPA/TAPS urge the Commission to impose the same (non-abbreviated) filing requirements on all applicants under section 203 and, absent that, to require a competitive analysis if the applicants would own or control 5,000 MWs or more of generation. Petitioners also urge the Commission not to shorten the 60-day intervention period. At a minimum, APPA/TAPS suggest the Commission automatically grant extensions to a 60-day notice period if any intervenor requests additional time to prepare its case.

As stated in Order No. 642, the abbreviated filing requirements apply when it is relatively easy to determine that a disposition will not harm competition. 12 In cases where this determination is not obvious, as also explained in Order No. 642, the Commission would be unlikely to consider merger applications for review under the abbreviated filing requirements, but would make such decisions after examining the specifics of each case. 13 Given the foregoing, Petitioners' proposals regarding the 60-day notice period are unnecessary, and defeat the purpose of the abbreviated filing requirements. In addition, APPA/TAPS have not demonstrated why non-abbreviated filing requirements should be required of all applicants that own or control 5,000 MW or more of generation.

APPA/TAPS' concern that the Commission will overlook market power issues in abbreviated filings if applicants do not have a pre-merger presence in each other's geographic markets is based on a misreading of Order No. 642. As explained in Order No. 642, to be eligible for an abbreviated filing, applicants must demonstrate that the merging entities do not currently operate in the same geographic markets, or if they do, that the extent of such overlapping operation is de minimis. 14 Relevant geographic markets include, but are not limited to, Applicants' own geographic markets. In the case of a horizontal merger, the overlapping relevant markets in question would be downstream electricity markets and in a vertical merger case, they would be upstream input and downstream electricity markets. 15 As such, the abbreviated filing requirements do not overlook either horizontal or vertical market power issues. We therefore deny Petitioners' request for rehearing on this issue.

Petitioners object to the presumption of confidentiality for applicant's “market strategy” information unless intervenors can show that denying disclosure would violate intervenors' due process rights. NRECA believes that this provision creates an incentive to shield large classes of information by labeling it “market strategies.” APPA/TAPS point out that there is a constitutional dimension to the burden placed upon requests for secrecy, and there is also long-established Commission precedent placing an exacting standard on those seeking to justify confidential treatment. NRECA also points out that the Commission's existing discovery rules provide procedures for invoking privilege to limit discovery of specific information. APPA/TAPS argue that due process and the Commission's ex parte rules require disclosure in all cases to intervenors willing to abide by reasonable protective orders and that denying intervenor access to that information even under a protective order directly conflicts with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Petitioners suggest that the Commission clarify that merger applicants are subject to a heavy burden to demonstrate that confidential treatment is required and that to the extent information is treated as confidential, it will be made available to intervenors willing to execute protective agreements. Absent this, NRECA argues that the Commission should clarify that the confidentiality provision applies only to “market strategy” information voluntarily submitted by applicants in response to intervenor concerns about perceived potential competition but not to data or information labeled by applicants as “market strategies” but submitted for other reasons or obtained through discovery.

As we explained in Order No. 642, the Commission's treatment of confidential information in merger applications will be consistent with the Commission's long-standing rules governing the protection of any documents filed at the Commission for which the confidentiality privilege is claimed. 16 Under these regulations, applicants may claim confidentiality for certain information included in their merger applications at the time the application is filed, and parties to the proceeding may seek access to that information pursuant to § 388.107 of the Commission's regulations. 17 At that time, we will review the documents to determine whether the information falls within the exemption from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.” 18 We therefore deny Petitioners' request for rehearing on this issue.

APPA/TAPS allege that Order No. 642 fails to address their concern that the data collected for merger analysis may be inadequate. In their comments on the NOPR, APPA/TAPS explained the need for data and information obtained through a “second request” issued by the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission. APPA/TAPS argue that despite the Commission's claim that it can request additional data, the Commission has not demonstrated that it has the time or resources to do so. Therefore, APPA/TAPS argue that “second request”-type data should be submitted automatically with the merger filing and be made available to intervenors when they execute the appropriate confidentiality agreements. Alternatively, APPA/TAPS suggest that the Commission should permit intervenors to obtain limited discovery during the initial intervention period.

We disagree with Petitioners that Order No. 642 does not addresses their concern that data collected for merger analysis may be inadequate. To the contrary, Order No. 642 sets forth data and information requirements sufficient to ensure comprehensive review of applications under section 203. Moreover, as we stated several times in Order No. 642, the Commission retains the right to request additional information that we deem necessary to evaluate the economic and regulatory impacts brought about by a prospective corporate disposition. 19 Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, the Commission has requested additional information in a number of instances and intervenors have benefitted from that information. 20 Thus, we believe that expanding the data requirements to cover all contingencies is unnecessary. We will therefore deny Petitioners' request for rehearing on this issue.

Petitioners argue that Order No. 642 fails to adequately consider the effect of mergers by limiting the Commission's review of retail markets to only those situations where “a state lacks authority in these kinds of circumstances and asks us to do so.” APPA/TAPS argue that the Commission is responsible for considering the impact of its actions and ensuring that those actions further the public interest, which includes an analysis of retail markets. NRECA argues that state merger evaluation standards are not necessarily related to those required under the FPA, and that the Commission should not substitute state determinations (or lack thereof) for its own determination.

We stated in Order No. 642 that we will look at retail competitive impacts only when a state lacks authority and asks us to do so. 21 The petitions for rehearing offer no reasoned basis for changing our policy. Accordingly, we will deny Petitioners' request for rehearing on this issue.

Petitioners claim that Order No. 642 should impose certain generic conditions on mergers. APPA/TAPS claim that all mergers should be generically conditioned on: (1) The requirement (as APPA/TAPS originally proposed in their comments on the NOPR) that applicants take service to meet their retail load under their Open Access Transmission Tariffs and “treat their own dispatch comparably with service to others;” (2) participation in a properly structured Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) prior to the consummation of the merger; and (3) continued or expanded reserve sharing, or equivalent mechanisms. NRECA also argues that if merger applicants voluntarily commit to join an RTO, the Commission's regulations should include provisions to enforce that commitment. APPA/TAPS also argues that Order No. 642 should provide for other conditions—such as financial disincentives—to address the improper use of merger-related market power.

Order No. 642 does not specifically address APPA/TAPS' proposal that mergers be generically conditioned on applicants taking service to meet their retail load under their Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). However, we did explain in Order No. 642 that while there are numerous mitigation measures that may be effective, the adequacy of specific mitigation proposals must still be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 22 Petitioners have not supported the need for generic mitigation measures such as participation in an RTO, expanded reserve sharing requirements or the use of financial disincentives, and we deny rehearing on this issue.

With regard to the RTO issue raised by NRECA, we note that when voluntary commitments to join Commission-approved RTOs are recognized in our approval of mergers, we expect applicants to honor such commitments.

Petitioners claim that Order No. 642 fails to adequately explain why the Commission rejected a moratorium on large utility mergers. They cite recent events in electricity markets around the country, including California, as support for just such a moratorium. Absent a moratorium, APPA/TAPS contend that mergers should be approved only if merger-related benefits are shown to be sufficient to offset harm to actual or potential competition.

We will deny Petitioners' request for rehearing on this issue. As we explained in Order No. 642, regulatory safeguards are in place to prevent such adverse competitive effects, regardless of the size of a merger. 23 Moreover, in implementing the Policy Statement, Order No. 642 states that we will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a merger will adversely affect competition. We disagree with Petitioners' proposals that applicants should be required to demonstrate that merger-related benefits offset competitive harm. Such a specific requirement would conflict with the flexibility embedded in Order No. 642 and the Policy Statement, which provide that merger applicants failing the competitive analysis screen should propose mitigation or go on to evaluate the following four factors: (1) The potential adverse competitive effects of the merger; (2) whether entry by competitors can deter anticompetitive behavior or counteract adverse competitive effects; (3) the effects of efficiencies that could not be realized absent the merger; and (4) whether one or both of the merging firms is failing and, absent the merger, the failing firm's assets would exit the market. 24 This is consistent with our finding that a transaction taken as a whole must be consistent with the public interest. 25

Elanco Animal Health, A Division of Eli Lilly & Co., Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN 46285, filed supplemental NADA 12-491 that provides for use of TYLAN® (40 or 100 grams per pound (g/lb) tylosin phosphate) Type A medicated articles to make liquid Type B medicated feeds. The tylosin liquid Type B medicated feeds are, in turn, used to make dry Type C medicated feeds for reduction of the incidence of liver abscesses caused by Fusobacterium necrophorum and Actinomyces ( Corynebacterium ) pyogenes in beef cattle. Elanco Animal Health also filed supplemental NADA 104-646 that provides for use of RUMENSIN® (20, 30, 45, 60, 80, or 90.7 g/lb monensin activity as monensin sodium) and TYLAN® Type A medicated articles to make liquid combination drug Type B medicated feeds. The combination drug liquid Type B medicated feeds are, in turn, used to make dry Type C medicated feeds used for improved feed efficiency and reduction of the incidence of liver abscesses caused by F. necrophorum and A . ( Corynebacterium ) pyogenes in cattle fed in confinement for slaughter. The supplemental NADA’s are approved as of February 2, 2001, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 558.355 and 558.625 to reflect the approval.

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that these actions are of a type that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

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

2. Section 558.355 is amended in paragraph (f)(3)(ii)( b ) by adding a new sentence after the second sentence to read as follows:

The final and temporary regulations that are the subject of these corrections are under section 864 and 904 of the Internal Revenue Code.

As published, the final and temporary regulations contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

The information collection requirements contained in Regulations, 29 CFR part 9, were previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511) and assigned OMB Control Number 1215-0190.

Executive Order 12933 of October 20, 1994—“Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Certain Contracts,” provided that workers on a building service contract for a public building be given the right of first refusal for employment with a successor contractor if they would otherwise lose their jobs as a result of termination of the contract. The implementing regulations, 29 CFR part 9, were promulgated in accordance with the terms of Executive Order 12933 and were published in the Federal Register of May 22, 1997 (62 FR 28176). On February 17, 2001, President Bush signed Executive Order 13204—Revocation of Executive Order on Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Certain Contracts (66 FR 11228; February 22, 2001). Executive Order 13204 directs the Secretary of Labor to terminate any investigations or other compliance actions based on Executive Order 12933, and to “promptly move to rescind any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies implementing or enforcing Executive Order 12933 of October 20, 1994 * * *.” Since the authority for these regulations no longer exists, the Department for good cause hereby finds that it is unnecessary and impracticable to afford notice and comment procedures on the rescission of the regulations at 29 CFR part 9, and that such rescission should be effective upon publication. As provided in Executive Order 13204, the revocation of Executive Order 12933 and the rescission of these regulations extend to all investigations or other compliance actions based on Executive Order 12933.

This document was prepared under the direction and control of Thomas M. Markey, Acting Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, pursuant to the delegated authority of Secretary's Order No. 5-96 (62 FR 107, January 2, 1997), and Employment Standards Order No. 97-1, dated April 8, 1997.

We are making corrections to the final rule published on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 (65 FR 79582). The final rule redesignated former § 773.13 as § 773.6. In amendatory language revising a cross-reference contained in the newly designated paragraph § 773.6(a)(3)(ii), we made a typographical error by citing the paragraph as “§ 773.5(a)(3)(ii).” The instruction should have read “newly designated § 773.6(a)(3)(ii).”

The final rule also redesignated former paragraph § 773.15(d) as section § 773.16. Former paragraph § 773.15(d) began with the paragraph heading “ Performance bond submittal .” Inadvertently, we failed to instruct the Federal Register to delete the paragraph heading for § 773.15(d) and to use it as the section heading for § 773.16.

The Rio Vista drawbridge, mile 12.8, over the Sacramento River, Sacramento County, CA, provides 17.8 feet vertical clearance above Mean High Water when closed. On March 1, 2001, the Coast Guard received the request from the California Department of transportation for the temporary deviation from the existing operating regulation in 33 CFR 117.5, which requires drawbridge to open promptly and fully when a request to open is given.

This deviation has been coordinated with commercial operators and various marinas on the waterway. No objections were received. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work shall be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. This deviation from the normal operating regulations in 33 CFR 117.5 is authorized in accordance with the provisions of 33 CFR 117.35.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was not published for this regulation. Good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM. The Coast Guard mailed letters to all known waterway users advising of the proposed single span operation. No objections or negative comments were received. No vessels known to use the waterway would be precluded from navigation during single span operation. Accordingly, an NPRM was deemed unnecessary. Additionally, conclusive information from the bridge owner confirming the start date for this single span bridge operation was not provided to the Coast Guard until February 26, 2001. As a result, it was impracticable to draft or publish a NPRM or a final rule in advance of the requested start date for this necessary maintenance. Any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date would be contrary to the public interest.

The Pulaski Bridge, at mile 0.6, across Newtown Creek between Brooklyn and Queens has a vertical clearance of 39 feet at mean high water and 43 feet at mean low water. The existing regulations require the draw to open on signal at all times.

The bridge owner, New York City Department of Transportation, requested a single bascule span operation in order to facilitate sandblasting and painting at the bridge. The Coast Guard contacted all known users by letter advising of this proposed single span operation. No objections or negative comments were received.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will continue to open at all times for navigation.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will continue to open on signal at all times for navigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation because promulgation of changes to drawbridge regulations have been found to not have a significant effect on the environment. A written “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is not required for this rule.

On August 29, 2000, the Postal Service announced in the Federal Register that the NetPost Mailing Online experiment is the third of an expected four-step process that will culminate in the establishment of a permanent NetPost Mailing Online service (See 65 FR 52308-52303, (August 29, 2000)). The Postal Service first conducted an operations test from March through September 1998, with a number of customers. That was followed by a one-year market test with limited customer participation conducted from October 1998 through October 1999, pursuant to the Postal Rate Commission's Docket No. MC98-1 Opinion and Recommended Decision issued on October 7, 1998, and approved by the Postal Service Governors on October 16, 1998. In that docket, the Postal Service also requested authorization to conduct an experiment, which request was later withdrawn by Board of Governors Resolution No. 99-5 (May 3, 1999).

The NetPost Mailing Online service is similar to the Mailing Online service that was offered during the market test. Users access the service by means of the Postal Service's main corporate Website, (USPS.com). The service is available nationwide.

NetPost Mailing Online provides an affordable, convenient option that makes using the mails easier for Postal Service customers, especially those running small offices or home offices who do not currently use more traditional mailing services. It employs advanced technology that benefits customers who otherwise might not have access to sophisticated digital printing technology or to list management and presort software necessary to qualify for lower automation rates. The Postal Service batches all submitted jobs and sends them via dedicated lines to one or more commercial digital printing contractors who then print the documents, finish them according to customer specifications, place them in envelopes bearing a delivery point barcode, and enters them as mail at a Business Mail Entry Unit. Mailings are accepted and verified using manifesting documentation and procedures specified in Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) P910.

The experiment currently allows small-volume customers to create First-Class Mail and Standard Mail mailings and have them entered at the automation basic rates. There is no minimum or maximum volume requirement. The service is ideally suited for newsletters, flyers, statements, invoices, and small direct mailings. Customers can mail both letters and flats using a number of different document format, binding, and envelope options.

In a single Website visit to (USPS.com), a NetPost Mailing Online customer is able to upload a word processing document and a list of addresses to a postal data center. The NetPost Mailing Online system presorts and distributes the mailing electronically to contract printers for printing and entry into the mail at a local postal facility. Additional features of the service include online document proofing, a “file cabinet” that retains customer jobs for 30 days and offers document and mailing list management capabilities, real-time status reports of jobs submitted, and a quick calculator that provides immediate price quotations.

This final rule announces the expansion of the NetPost Mailing Online service for mailings of letters and flats at Nonprofit Standard Mail automation rates effective with the date shown above. For additional information concerning system specifications, payment procedures, user assistance, and mail matter classification assistance see 65 FR 52308-52313 (August 29, 2000), and DMM G091.

The Nonprofit Standard Mail option applies to eligible mail matter sent by authorized organizations as listed and defined in DMM E670.2.0 and E670.3.0. Mail matter eligible to be sent at Nonprofit Standard Mail rates by authorized parties is defined in DMM E670.5.0.

This final rule contains the DMM standards adopted by the Postal Service to implement the Nonprofit Standard Mail option. It also corrects a previous omission by adding “cards” to “letters” and “flats” as First-Class Mail options.

On December 1, 2000, the Postal Service published in the Federal Register proposed changes to the shipping label requirements (65 FR 75210). No comments were received so the Postal Service is adopting the following requirements.

To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Alternatively, the Agency's implementation of this action without opportunity for public comment, effective immediately upon publication today in the Federal Register , is based on the good cause exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3). Seeking public comment is impracticable, unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The temporary 60-day delay in effective date is necessary to give Agency officials the opportunity for further review and consideration of new regulations, consistent with the Assistant to the President's memorandum of January 20, 2001. Given the imminence of the effective date, seeking prior public comment on this temporary delay would have been impractical, as well as contrary to the public interest in the orderly promulgation and implementation of regulations. The imminence of the effective date is also good cause for making this rule immediately effective upon publication.

Today, EPA is approving nine Emission Trading Agreement and Orders that will allow facilities in Connecticut to generate and or use emission credits for compliance with the NO X emission limits that were established as part of Connecticut's strategy to lower ozone levels.

On May 19, 2000, Connecticut submitted to EPA a formal request to revise its State Implementation Plan (SIP).

The SIP revision consists of approving Trading Agreement and Order Nos. 8094 (Ogden Martin's facility in Bristol); 8095 (American Ref-Fuel Company of Southeastern Connecticut in Preston); 8100 (Bridgeport Resco Company in Bridgeport); 8116 (Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority in Hartford); 8176 (Wisvest's New Haven Station Unit No. 1 in New Haven); 8177 (Wisvest's Bridgeport Harbor Unit No. 3 in Bridgeport); 8178 (Wisvest's New Haven Harbor auxiliary boiler in New Haven); 8179 (Wisvest's Bridgeport Harbor Unit No. 4); and 8187 (Wisvest's Bridgeport Harbor Unit No. 2) into Connecticut's SIP.

The Trading and Agreement Orders listed above can be grouped into four categories. First, Order Nos. 8094, 8095, 8100, and 8116 change the dates the subject facilities are allowed to generate NO X emission credits from December 14, 1999 to December 19, 2000.

Second, Order Nos. 8178 and 8179 contain the procedure that the subject sources must follow in order to determine if the facility's need to obtain NO X emission credits in order to comply with NO X RACT. These Orders allow each facility to obtain credits, as necessary, until May 1, 2003.

Third, Order Nos. 8176 and 8177 contain the procedure to generate future credits and also contain previously quantified emission reduction credits. Order No. 8176 grants 15 tons of non-ozone season NO X credits to Wisvest's New Haven Harbor facility. Order No. 8177 grants 42 tons of non-ozone season NO X credits to Wisvest's Bridgeport Harbor facility.

Lastly, Order No. 8187 creates 816 tons of NO X credits annually at Wisvest's Bridgeport Harbor facility Unit No. 2. Since these credits represent a permanent reduction in actual NO X emission from Bridgeport Harbor that are not required by the Clean Air Act, the credits can be used as offsets in the nonattainment new source review program. Offsets are used by new or modified facilities in ozone nonattainment areas where the construction results in an increase of NO X emissions into the air.

The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This action will be effective May 22, 2001 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by April 23, 2001.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on May 22, 2001 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

Final Action: EPA is approving the SIP revision submitted by Connecticut on May 19, 2000 as a revision to the SIP.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same reason, this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 22, 2001. Interested parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the comment period allowed for in the proposal. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Throughout this document whenever “we, us, or our” is used, we mean EPA.

This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards established by us. These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally enforceable SIP.

Each Federally approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.

In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the Federally enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking body.

Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by us.

All state regulations and supporting information approved by us under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, part 52, entitled “Approval and Promulgations of Implementation Plans.” The actual state regulations which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR outright but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that we have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date.

Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is incorporated into the Federally approved SIP is primarily a state responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in the CAA.

The CAA Amendments of 1990 require all states to develop operating permits programs that meet certain Federal criteria. In implementing this program, the states are to require certain sources of air pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements under the CAA. One purpose of the part 70 operating permits program is to improve enforcement by issuing each source a single permit that consolidates all of the applicable CAA requirements into a Federally enforceable document. By consolidating all of the applicable requirements for a facility into one document, the source, the public, and the permitting authorities can more easily determine what CAA requirements apply and how compliance with those requirements is determined.

Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program include “major” sources of air pollution and certain other sources specified in the CAA or in our implementing regulations. For example, all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size, must obtain permits. Examples of major sources include those that emit 100 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, or PM 10 ; those that emit 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant (HAP) (specifically listed under the CAA); or those that emit 25 tons per year or more of a combination of HAPs.

Revisions to the state and local agencies' operating permits program are also subject to public notice, comment, and our approval.

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has requested that EPA approve as a revision to the Missouri SIP and part 70 Operating Permits Program, recently adopted revisions to rules 10 CSR 10-6.020, Definitions and Common Reference Tables, and 10 CSR 10-6.065, Operating Permits.

Revisions to the Definitions rule, which became state effective on May 30, 2000, are: (1) Section (2)(B)(2) corrects a reference to the Air Increment Table in the definition for “baseline area”; (2) section (2)(C)(26) adds a definition for “criteria pollutant.” This new definition reads, “Air pollutants for which air quality standards have been established in 10 CSR 10-6.010.” (the latter state rule tracks the criteria pollutants for which EPA has set standards under 40 CFR part 50); (3) section (2)(N)(2) adopts by reference the EPA definition for “net emission increase” at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(3) in place of the previous extemporaneous definition; and (4) section (2)(N)(5)(C), the definition for the St. Louis carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area, was deleted since the area has recently been redesignated to attainment for CO.

The revisions to the Operating Permits rule, which became state effective on May 30, 2000, are: (1) Section (1)(B), the definition for “basic state installations,” was revised to add clarifying language and to correct typographical errors; (2) sections (1)(D) and (1)(D)(6) were revised to correct typographical errors; (3) section (1)(D)(7) was revised to make it consistent with EPA requirements pertaining to the application of part 70 requirements for sections 111 and 112 sources; (4) section (3)(D) was revised to add clarifying language pertaining to exempt installations; (5) section (3)(E) was amended for clarification and then incorporated into section (3)(D) (section (3)(E) has been renumbered as sections (3)(D)(15) through (3)(D)(19)); and (6) sections (4)(J) and (4)(M) were revised for clarification.

Further discussion and background information are contained in the technical support document (TSD) prepared for this action, which is available from the EPA contact listed above.

The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the TSD which is part of this document, the revisions meet the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations, and the substantive requirements of Title V of the CAA and 40 CFR part 70.

EPA is processing this action as a direct final action because the revisions make routine changes to the existing rules which are noncontroversial. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments.

Final action: EPA is approving an amendment to the Missouri SIP relevant to rules 10 CSR 10-6.020, Definitions and Common Reference Tables, and 10 CSR 10-6.065, Operating Permits, pursuant to section 110. EPA is also approving these rules as a program revision to the state's Part 70 Operating Permits Program pursuant to Part 70. This direct final rule is effective on May 22, 2001 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 23, 2001. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same reason, this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, our role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), we have no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, we have taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. We will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 22, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that we are now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in § 63.1580 of the rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

World Wide Web (WWW). The text of today's document will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules http//www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

On October 26, 1999 (64 FR 57573), we published the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Publicly Owned Treatment Works final rule. Today's action consists of editorial, cross-reference, and clarifying corrections to the promulgated rule. These corrections will become effective immediately (without further rulemaking action) on March 23, 2001. We have determined that it is unnecessary to provide prior notice and opportunity to comment on these corrections.

As stated, we are correcting typographical, grammatical, and cross-reference errors in the promulgated rule with this action. For example, as promulgated, we incorrectly use the word “reconstructed” in the last sentence of § 63.1586(a) when referring to a defined term. The correct and intended term is “reconstruction,” and not “reconstructed,” which is not defined. For another example, in § 63.1589(a), we incorrectly cross reference performance standard provisions (i.e., § 63.1586(b)) in lieu of intended equipment standard provisions (i.e., § 63.1586(a)). We are correcting these errors with this action.

Other examples of corrections we are making consist of revising the rule to include greater cross-reference specificity to increase the clarity of the rule. For example, § 63.1589(a)(3), as promulgated, refers the reader to the provisions of § 63.1588(a) for instances where repair of a defect is delayed. For clarity and consistency of specificity within the rule, we are clarifying that such provisions are found in § 63.1588(a)(3). These cross-reference specificity amendments eliminate the need for the reader to look at all of paragraph (a) for the specified provisions.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Because the EPA has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of the UMRA. This action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This action does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This final rule corrects grammatical, typographic, formatting, and cross-reference errors.

This correction action does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing these corrections, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of these rule amendments in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. These rule amendments do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). The EPA's compliance with these statutes and Executive Orders for the underlying rule is discussed in the October 26, 1999 final POTW rule.

The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the Congressional Review Act if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). As stated previously, the EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefor, and established an effective date of March 23, 2001. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes are provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_40/40cfr180_00.html, a beta site currently under development.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-301112. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

EPA published in the Federal Register of September 29, 1999 (64 FR 52450) (FRL-6382-1), a final rule establishing a tolerance in § 180.377 for diflubenzuron on pears at 0.5 ppm. The expiration date was listed in the document as 3/31/01, but was incorrectly carried as 3/31/00 in the regulatory text table at the end of the document.

In the Federal Register of May 24, 2000 (65 FR 33691) (FRL-6043-1), a final rule was published revising § 180.377. The May 2000 revision was based upon text taken from the 1998 version of the CFR instead of the 1999 version of the CFR. The text listing the time-limited tolerance for pears was incorrectly removed and paragraph (b) was reserved. Also, by using text from the 1998 version of the CFR, the tolerance status and residue levels for rice, grain and rice, straw appearing in paragraph (a)(2) were incorrectly revised to be a temporary tolerance in or on rice grain at 0.01 ppm.

EPA issued a final rule to correct the expiration date for pears in the Federal Register of September 27, 2000 (65 FR 57956) (FRL-6741-3). However, it was brought to EPA's attention that the document published on May 24, 2000, incorrectly removed and reserved paragraph (b).

This document withdraws the correction published on September 27, 2000, and revises paragraph (a)(2) and adds text to paragraph (b), with the correct expiration date for the time-limited pear tolerance of 3/31/01, and the correct level and status of tolerance for rice grain and rice straw.

With the technical corrections contained in this document, the CFR will accurately present the requirements for diflubenzuron tolerance residues.

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because EPA is correcting the expiration date for the tolerance of diflubenzuron on pears to March 31, 2001, which was incorrectly given as March 31, 2000. This rule is also correcting the tolerance status and residue levels of diflubenzuron on rice grain and rice straw. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

This final rule implements a technical correction to the CFR, and it does not otherwise impose or amend any requirements. As such, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that a technical correction is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by OMB under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Nor does this final rule contain any information collection requirements that require review and approval by OMB pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Because this action is not economically significant as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action will not result in environmental justice related issues and does not, therefore, require special consideration under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since the Agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA or any other statute (see Unit II.B.), this action is not subject to provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA.

This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States or on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the national government and the States or one or more Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal government and Indian tribes. As such, this action have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), or any “federalism implications” as described in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

This action does not involve any technical standards that require the Agency's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

In issuing this final rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, entitled Civil Justice Reform (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996).

EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630, entitled Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988), by examining the takings implications of this rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order.

For information about the applicability of the regulatory assessment requirements to the final rule that was issued on September 29, 1999 (64 FR 52450), please refer to the discussion in Unit VIII. of that document.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq ., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This is a summary of the Commission's Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-45 released on March 14, 2001. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

1. The Commission denies AT&T's Petition for Reconsideration at this time to adopt a proposal to base contributions on current revenues. The Commission concludes that under this proposal, the contribution factor is set using prior-year revenues, but carriers contribute based on application of this contribution factor to their current revenues. This proposal would increase reporting burdens on carriers by requiring carriers to file revenue information 13 times per year within very short timeframes. We agree with the majority of commenters that this proposal would be unduly burdensome on carriers, particularly smaller carriers. We also have concerns that the adoption of this proposal might affect the sufficiency of the universal service fund and require the collection of a reserve fund to protect against a fund shortfall. For these reasons, we decline to adopt this proposal at this time and deny AT&T's petition.

2. The Commission will send a copy of this Order in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register . See 5 U.S.C. 604(b).

3. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 254, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, this Order on Reconsideration is adopted.

4. The Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 1, 2000 by AT&T is denied.

5. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center shall send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-45 released on March 14, 2001. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

1. In this Order, we modify the existing methodology used to assess contributions that carriers make to the federal universal service support mechanisms. Specifically, we modify the existing contribution methodology to reduce the interval between the accrual of revenues and the assessment of universal service contributions based on those revenues. Currently, contributions to the federal universal service support mechanisms are based on carriers' interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues from the prior year. With this modification, we shorten the interval between the accrual of revenues and assessment based on those revenues by six months.

2. By reducing the interval between the accrual and assessment of revenues for contributions to the universal service fund, the revised methodology will improve upon the existing methodology by basing assessments on revenue data that are more reflective of current market conditions. As a result, the revised contribution methodology will prevent the possibility that certain carriers will be at a competitive disadvantage as market conditions change. By our action today, we ensure that the assessment of contributions to the federal universal service support mechanisms remains competitively neutral, and that the mechanisms continue to meet the statutory requirement of section 254(d) to be specific, predictable, and sufficient.

3. Although the action we take today improves the operation of the current universal service assessment methodology, we believe that more fundamental modifications may be warranted to simplify the way in which carriers contribute to the universal service mechanisms. Accordingly, very shortly we intend to initiate a proceeding to seek comment on whether and how to modify our rules related to carriers' recovery of their universal service contribution obligations to simplify the process for carriers and consumers and ensure that the universal service fund remains sufficient and predictable.

4. We modify the existing contribution methodology to significantly reduce the current interval between the accrual of revenues and the assessment of universal service contributions based on those revenues. Although we continue to believe that the current methodology is competitively neutral and satisfies the requirements of the Act, we conclude that reducing this interval will be superior to the current methodology by basing assessments on revenue data that are more reflective of current market conditions, without significantly increasing administrative costs for carriers and USAC. The shortened interval will allow contributions to better reflect market trends influencing carriers' revenues, such as the entry of new providers into the interstate marketplace. As a result, the revised methodology will further the Commission's goal of maintaining competitive neutrality.

5. We adopt, with minor modifications, the contribution methodology proposal set forth in the Contribution Further Notice , 65 FR 67322 (November 9, 2000), to reduce the interval between the accrual of revenues by carriers and assessment of universal service contributions based on those revenues. This revised methodology will reduce the interval from 12 months to an average interval of six months.

6. The revised contribution methodology will operate in a manner similar to the current methodology with only minor differences. The Commission will continue to set contribution factors on a quarterly basis using the same timeframes as under the current methodology. Carriers will continue to file Form 499-A in April to report their annual revenues from the prior year. Under the revised methodology we adopt today, carriers will also file on a quarterly basis the new Form 499-Q to report their revenues from the prior quarter. We direct USAC to provide revenue data to the Commission at least thirty days before the start of each quarter. The Commission and USAC will use the revenue information from a particular quarter to set the contribution factor for the second following quarter. For example, contributions in the third quarter will be assessed based on revenues accrued in the first quarter. Accordingly, the revised methodology reduces to six months the average interval between the accrual of revenues and the assessment of universal service contributions based on those revenues. The specific timelines for implementation and transition are detailed.

7. USAC will use the revenue data provided by carriers in the FCC Form 499-A to perform annual true-ups to the quarterly revenue data submitted by carriers during the prior calendar year. As necessary, USAC will then refund or collect from carriers any over-payments or under-payments. If the combined quarterly revenues reported by a carrier are greater than those reported on its annual revenue report (Form 499-A), then a refund will be provided to the carrier based on an average of the two lowest contribution factors for the year. If the combined quarterly revenues reported by a carrier are less than those reported on its annual revenue report (Form 499-A), then USAC shall collect the difference from the carrier using an average of the two highest contribution factors from that year. We believe this will provide an incentive for carriers to accurately report their quarterly revenues.

8. By reducing the interval between the accrual and assessment of revenues for contribution to the universal service fund, the revised methodology improves upon the existing methodology by basing assessments on revenue data more reflective of current market conditions. As a result, the revised contribution methodology ensures that contributions to the universal service support mechanisms continue to operate in a competitively neutral manner. The shortened interval between accrual of revenues and assessment of contributions will allow the revised methodology to reflect more accurately trends in telecommunications conditions, such as new carriers entering the interexchange market, or declining revenue bases for carriers that are losing market share. We conclude that the shortened interval will constitute a significant enhancement to the current methodology. Because it is similar to the existing contribution methodology, however, the methodology that we adopt herein will also be relatively easy to administer and implement. Similarly, we conclude that USAC will be able to continue to monitor carrier submissions to ensure that such submissions are accurate and timely without substantial changes in its auditing authority or the adoption of additional enforcement rules.

9. We decline to adopt at this time the proposal to base contributions on current revenues as set forth in the Contribution Further Notice . Under this proposal, the contribution factor is set using prior-year revenues, but carriers contribute based on application of this contribution factor to their current revenues. This proposal would increase reporting burdens on carriers by requiring carriers to file revenue information 13 times per year within very short timeframes. We agree with the majority of commenters that this proposal would be unduly burdensome on carriers, particularly smaller carriers. We also have concerns that the adoption of this proposal might affect the sufficiency of the universal service fund and require the collection of a reserve fund to protect against a fund shortfall.

10. We also decline to adopt the alternative contribution methodologies suggested by some commenters in this proceeding, such as having carriers base contributions on projected revenues, or permitting carriers to have the option of using more than one contribution methodology. We reject these proposals because we conclude that the costs they impose would outweigh any potential benefits. We have concerns that these proposals would create incentives for carriers to under-report revenues or otherwise encourage carrier gaming of the contribution system. We also conclude that some of these proposals would unduly increase the costs of administering the universal service mechanisms. Accordingly, we decline to adopt these proposals at this time. Moreover, we do not preclude the possibility of adopting at some later date a surcharge methodology to recover contributions to the universal service mechanisms. Such a methodology may satisfy the goals of section 254(d) to be specific, predictable, and sufficient, while protecting consumers from excessive or confusing universal service charges on their telephone bills. We do not, however, have an adequate record at this time to adopt such a proposal. Therefore, we intend to seek further comment on this issue in the very near future.

11. We direct USAC to begin implementation of the revised contribution methodology effective for the second quarter of 2001 ( i.e ., April through June of 2001). To ensure a smooth transition for second quarter 2001, during the month of April 2001, certain aspects of the existing contribution methodology will remain unchanged. As currently required under the existing methodology, on April 2, 2001, carriers will file the Form 499-A, reporting revenues billed from January through December 2000. Also as required under the existing methodology, carriers' April 2001 contributions will be calculated based on their reported revenues from January through June 2000 ( i.e ., revenues reported on the 2000 Form 499-S).

12. Beginning in May 2001, for the entire second quarter 2001, USAC shall calculate carriers' contributions based on revenues that approximate the revenues earned in fourth quarter 2000. Specifically, we direct USAC to derive the fourth quarter 2000 revenue by subtracting the revenues reported by carriers in the Form 499-S (January through June 2000) from the revenues reported in the April 2001 Form 499-A (January through December 2000). USAC must then divide this revenue amount by two, to approximate carrier revenues for the fourth quarter of 2000. We direct USAC to include this revenue information in its quarterly filing due on May 2, 2001. Based on this fourth quarter 2000 revenue information, the Commission will determine whether to modify the contribution factor accordingly.

13. We direct USAC to calculate carriers' contributions for the second quarter 2001 using the fourth quarter 2000 revenue information, as discussed. For each carrier, USAC shall compare this amount with the amount the carrier would have paid under the existing methodology. USAC shall then make appropriate adjustments to individual carriers' bills in May and June 2001 to: (1) Reflect the revised contribution amounts for second quarter, and (2) true-up any amounts that a carrier may have over- or underpaid in the April 2001 bill. For example, if during the second quarter of 2001 Carrier A would have paid $12,000 using the existing methodology, but would only have paid $9,000 using the revised methodology, Carrier A would be billed for the second quarter of 2001 in the following manner. For April, Carrier A would pay $4,000 ( i.e ., one-third of $12,000). For May and June, however, Carrier A would pay $2,500 each month. Under the revised methodology, Carrier A owes $3,000 per month. But because Carrier A overpaid $1,000 in April, this amount shall be refunded in equal amounts to Carrier A during May and June (in the form of $500 credit each month).

14. After this initial transition period, the contribution methodology will operate as follows. Carriers will file Form 499-Q on May 11, 2001, reporting revenue data from the first quarter of 2001. On June 1, 2001, USAC shall file revenue data from the first quarter 2001. Using this revenue data and the projected program demand data supplied by USAC in its quarterly filing in May, the Commission will calculate a new contribution factor for the third quarter of 2001. Carriers will be billed in accordance with the new contribution factor for the third quarter. Thereafter, carriers will file Form 499-Q, reporting their revenues for the prior quarter, by the beginning of the second month in each quarter ( i.e ., February 1, May 1, August 1, and November. 1). Carriers will continue to receive annual true-ups when they file their Forms 499-A in April of each year. USAC will file projected program demand data at least 60 days prior to the start of a quarter and total contribution base revenue data at least 30 days prior to the start of a quarter. The Commission delegates authority under § 54.711(c) to the Common Carrier Bureau to take whatever additional steps are necessary to implement the contribution methodology adopted herein.

15. In addition, the Commission directs USAC and the other fund administrators to devise an appropriate cost allocation plan for the additional costs for collecting, validating, and distributing the contributor data provided in the Form 499-Q.

16. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Contribution Further Notice . The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Contribution Further Notice , including comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

17. The Commission issues this Report and Order (Order) as a part of its implementation of the Act's mandate that “[e]very telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services shall contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, to the specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms established by the Commission to preserve and advance universal service.” In light of significant recent developments in the interstate telecommunications marketplace, such as the entry of Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) into the interexchange services market under section 271, the Commission sought comment on whether the existing contribution methodology provides or will provide a competitive disadvantage to certain carriers in the marketplace. This Order modifies the existing assessment methodology to determine carriers' contributions to the federal universal service support mechanisms. Currently, contributions to the federal universal service mechanisms are based on carriers' interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues from the prior year. In this Order, we shorten the interval between accrual of revenues and assessment based on those revenues by six months. In so doing, we ensure that assessment of contributions to the federal universal service support mechanisms remains competitively neutral, and that the mechanisms continue to meet the statutory requirement of section 254(d) to be specific, predictable, and sufficient.

18. We received no comments directly in response to the IRFA in this proceeding. Some comments generally addressed the potential administrative burdens of the various proposals set forth in the Contribution Further Notice to modify the universal service contribution methodology. These commenters express concern that the administrative costs associated with increasing the number of revenue filings may outweigh the benefits associated with reducing the contribution interval between the accrual of revenues by carriers and the assessment of contributions to the universal service support mechanisms.

19. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations. “Small governmental jurisdiction” generally means “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000.” As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United States. This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000. The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (91 percent) are small entities. In this Order, we stated that the modifications adopted will affect all providers of interstate telecommunications and interstate telecommunications services. We further describe and estimate the number of small business concerns that may be affected by the modifications to the universal service contribution methodology adopted in this Order.

20. The SBA has defined a small business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (Radiotelephone Communications) and 4813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they have no more than 1,500 employees. We first discuss the number of small telephone companies falling within these SIC categories, then attempt to refine further those estimates to correspond with the categories of telecommunications companies that are commonly used under our rules.

21. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of common carrier and related providers nationwide, including the numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the Commission publishes annually in its Trends in Telephone Service report. According to data in the most recent report, there are 4,144 interstate carriers. These carriers include, inter alia , incumbent local exchange carriers, competitive local exchange carriers, competitive access providers, interexchange carriers, other wireline carriers and service providers (including shared-tenant service providers and private carriers), operator service providers, pay telephone operators, providers of telephone toll service, wireless carriers and services providers, and resellers.

22. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As noted, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia , meets the pertinent small business size standard ( e.g ., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

23. Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected . The United States Bureau of the Census (“the Census Bureau”) reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at least one year. This number contains a variety of different categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, PCS providers, covered SMR providers, and resellers. It seems certain that some of those 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs because they are not “independently owned and operated.” It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are small entity telephone service firms or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the decisions and rules adopted in this Order.

24. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. SBA has developed a definition of small entities for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone companies. The Census Bureau reports that, there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to SBA's definition, a small business telephone company other than a radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1,500 persons. All but 26 of the 2,321 non-radiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported to have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 non-radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of wireline carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 2,295 small entity telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the decisions and rules adopted in this Order.

25. Local Exchange Carriers, Interexchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers, Operator Service Providers, Payphone Providers, and Resellers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition particular to small local exchange carriers (LECs), interexchange carriers (IXCs), competitive access providers (CAPs), operator service providers (OSPs), payphone providers or resellers. The closest applicable definition for these carrier-types under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of these carriers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). According to our most recent data, there are 1,395 incumbent LECs, 349 CAPs, 204 IXCs, 21 OSPs, 758 payphone providers and 541 resellers. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of these carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,395 incumbent LECs, 349 CAPs, 204 IXCs, 21 OSPs, 758 payphone providers, and 541 resellers that may be affected by the decisions and rules adopted in this Order.

26. Cellular Licensees. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities applicable to cellular licensees. The applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone (wireless) companies. This provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons. According to the Bureau of the Census, only twelve radiotelephone firms from a total of 1,178 such firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees. Even if all twelve of these firms were cellular telephone companies, nearly all cellular carriers were small businesses under the SBA's definition. In addition, we note that there are 1,758 cellular licenses; however, a cellular licensee may own several licenses. According to the most recent Telecommunications Industry Revenue data, 808 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either cellular service or Personal Communications Service (PCS) services, which are placed together in the data. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cellular service carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. We estimate that there are fewer than 808 small cellular service carriers that may be affected by the decisions and rules adopted in this Order.

27. 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase I Licensees. The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such non-nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such licensees that are small businesses, we apply the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Radiotelephone Communications companies. This definition provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons. According to the Bureau of the Census, only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees. If this general ratio continues in the context of Phase I 220 MHz licensees, we estimate that nearly all such licensees are small businesses under the SBA's definition.

28. 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase II Licensees. The Phase II 220 MHz service is a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, 62 FR 16004 (April 3, 1997), we adopted criteria for defining small and very small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. We have defined a small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. A very small business is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these definitions. An auction of Phase II licenses commenced on September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998. Two auctions of Phase II licenses have been conducted. In the first auction, nine hundred and eight (908) licenses were auctioned in 3 different-sized geographic areas: Three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold. Companies claiming small business status won: One of the Nationwide licenses, 67% of the Regional licenses, and 54% of the EA licenses. The second auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses. Fourteen companies claiming small business status won 158 licenses.

29. Private and Common Carrier Paging. In the Paging Third Report and Order, we adopted criteria for defining small businesses and very small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. We have defined a small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a very small business is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these definitions. An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area (MEA) licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 985 licenses auctioned, 440 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won. At present, there are approximately 24,000 Private-Paging site-specific licenses and 74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses. According to the most recent Telecommunications Industry Revenue data, 172 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either paging or “other mobile” services, which are placed together in the data. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and therefore are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of paging carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 172 small paging carriers that may be affected by the decisions and rules adopted in this Order. We estimate that the majority of private and common carrier paging providers would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.

30. Broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS). The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into six frequency designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined “small entity” for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an additional classification for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with their affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These regulations defining “small entity” in the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved definition bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40% of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. On March 23, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses; there were 48 small business winning bidders. Based on this information, we conclude that the number of small broadband PCS licensees will include the 90 winning C Block bidders and the 93 qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, plus the 48 winning bidders in the re-auction, for a total of 231 small entity PCS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as small or very small businesses.

31. Narrowband PCS. To date, two auctions of narrowband PCS licenses have been conducted. Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41 licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. For purposes of the two auctions that have already been held, small businesses were defined as entities with average gross revenues for the prior three calendar years of $40 million or less. To ensure meaningful participation of small business entities in the auctions, the Commission adopted a two-tiered definition of small businesses in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order, 65 FR 35875 (June 6, 2000). A small business is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $40 million. A very small business is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. These definitions have been approved by the SBA. In the future, the Commission will auction 459 licenses to serve MTAs and 408 response channel licenses. There is also one megahertz of narrowband PCS spectrum that has been held in reserve and that the Commission has not yet decided to release for licensing. The Commission cannot predict accurately the number of licenses that will be awarded to small entities in future auctions. However, four of the 16 winning bidders in the two previous narrowband PCS auctions were small businesses, as that term was defined under the Commission's Rules. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this IRFA, that a large portion of the remaining narrowband PCS licenses will be awarded to small entities. The Commission also assumes that at least some small businesses will acquire narrowband PCS licenses by means of the Commission's partitioning and disaggregation rules.

32. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a definition of small entity specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems (BETRS). We will use the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the SBA's definition.

33. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a definition of small entity specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. We will use the SBA's definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small under the SBA definition.

34. Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR). Pursuant to 47 CFR 90.814(b)(1), the Commission has defined “small business” for purposes of auctioning 900 MHz SMR licenses, 800 MHz SMR licenses for the upper 200 channels, and 800 MHz SMR licenses for the lower 230 channels on the 800 MHz band, as a firm that has had average annual gross revenues of $15 million or less in the three preceding calendar years. The SBA has approved this small business size standard for the 800 MHz and 900 MHz auctions. Sixty winning bidders for geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band qualified as small business under the $15 million size standard. The auction of the 525 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels began on October 28, 1997, and was completed on December 8, 1997. Ten winning bidders for geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard. An auction of 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the General Category channels began on August 16, 2000 and was completed on September 1, 2000. Of the 1,050 licenses offered in that auction, 1,030 licenses were sold. Eleven winning bidders for licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small business under the $15 million size standard. In an auction completed on December 5, 2000, a total of 2,800 EA licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were sold. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed small business status. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licenses on the 800 and 900 MHz band.

35. We do not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. We assume, for purposes of this FRFA, that all of the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.

36. For geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band, there are 60 who qualified as small entities. For the 800 MHz SMR's, 38 are small or very small entities.

37. In this Order, we adopt modifications to the federal universal service contribution methodology that will require carriers to report their interstate end-user telecommunications revenues on a quarterly basis. In addition, carriers will continue to file annually FCC Form 499-A reporting total interstate end-user telecommunications revenues from the prior calendar year, as they are currently required to do. Carriers will, however, no longer be required to file FCC Form 499-S. In order to comply with the quarterly filing requirements, it may be necessary for some carriers to adopt additional or accelerated recordkeeping procedures to report their quarterly revenues in a timely and accurate manner.

38. The Commission has considered a number of proposals, both in the Contribution Further Notice, and in response to commenter suggestions for revising the existing universal service contribution methodology. In an effort to minimize the economic impact on all carriers, particularly small carriers, that are required to contribute to the universal service mechanisms, the Commission has taken into consideration the benefits of reducing the contribution interval against any corresponding increase in administrative burdens on carriers. For example, we rejected an alternative proposal that would have increased the number of filings that carriers are required to file annually to as many as 13 per year. We have concluded that the administrative cost of compliance on carriers, particularly smaller carriers, would outweigh the corresponding benefit of reducing the contribution interval under this proposal. We have also taken into consideration alternative proposals that would not have increased the existing reporting requirements. As discussed, these alternative proposals were rejected because they failed to significantly reduce the contribution interval or impose significant alterations to the existing contribution methodology that would create substantial uncertainty in ensuring the continued predictability and sufficiency of the universal service fund. Although the revised contribution methodology adopted herein will increase carrier filings from two to five filings per year, the Commission has taken into consideration the corresponding benefit of substantially reducing the contribution interval. As discussed, we believe that carriers will benefit from a specific, predictable, and sufficient contribution methodology that ensures that all carriers, including small carriers, continue to be assessed contributions in a competitively neutral manner.

39. The Commission will send a copy of this Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register . See 5 U.S.C. 604(b).

40. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the rule changes adopted herein shall take effect April 23, 2001.

41. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 254, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, this Report and Order is adopted.

42. Part 54 of the Commission's rules, is amended as set forth, effective April 23, 2001.

43. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center shall send a copy of this Report and Order to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) published a summary of the Commission's Third Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration ( Third Report and Order ) in CC Docket No. 94-129, which was released on August 15, 2000. This summary also contained amendments and modifications to the Third Report and Order that were adopted in an Order released on February 22, 2001. As published, the final regulations contain errors that need to be corrected.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The first seasonal apportionment of the 2001 halibut bycatch allowance specified for the BSAI trawl rock sole/flathead sole/“other flatfish” fishery category, which is defined at § 679.21(e)(3)(iv)(B)(2), is 498 metric tons (66 FR 7276, January 22, 2001).

In accordance with § 679.21(e)(7)(v), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the first seasonal apportionment of the 2001 halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl rock sole/flathead sole/“other flatfish” fishery in the BSAI has been caught. Consequently, the Regional Administrator is closing directed fishing for species in the rock sole/flathead sole/“other flatfish” fishery category by vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI.

Maximum retainable bycatch amounts may be found in the regulations at § 679.20(e) and (f).

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds that the need to immediately implement this action to avoid exceeding the halibut bycatch allowance for rock sole/flathead sole/“other flatfish” fishery category constitutes good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 50 CFR 679.20(b)(3)(iii)(A), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Similarly, the need to implement these measures in a timely fashion to avoid exceeding the halibut bycatch allowance for rock sole/flathead sole/“other flatfish” fishery category constitutes good cause to find that the effective date of this action cannot be delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effective date is hereby waived.

This action is required by 50 CFR 679.21 and is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.