The Administration and Congress recognize the need to advance coverage of the NOAA Weather Radio and Alert Systems in unserved rural areas. The Administration requested, and Congress appropriated funds for this program, under section 306 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926). It has been determined that the hazardous weather early warning systems and the grant funds appropriated therefor should be administered by the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), in accordance with the authorizing legislation.

This rule relates to internal agency management. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, notice of proposed rule making and opportunity for comment are not required, and this rule is made effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register . Further, since this rule relates to internal agency management, it is exempt from the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 12866 and 12988. In addition, this action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), and, thus, is exempt from the provisions of that Act. This action is not a rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804 and thus does not require review by Congress.

Marketing Order No. 932, as amended (7 CFR Part 932), regulates the handling of olives grown in California. The marketing order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (Act), as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674).

AMS published in the Federal Register (63 FR 8014; February 18, 1999), its plan to review certain regulations, including Marketing Order No. 932, under criteria contained in section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601-612). Accordingly, AMS published a notice of review and request for written comments on the California olive marketing order in the August 5, 1999, issue of the Federal Register (64 FR 42619). No written comments were received.

The review was undertaken to determine whether the California marketing order for olives should be continued without change, amended, or rescinded to minimize the impacts on small entities. In conducting this review, AMS considered the following factors: (1) The continued need for the marketing order; (2) the nature of complaints or comments received from the public concerning the marketing order; (3) the complexity of the marketing order; (4) the extent to which the marketing order overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules; and (5) the length of time since the marketing order has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the marketing order.

Currently, there are about 1,000 olive growers in California and two handlers processing canned olives under the marketing order.

AMS has determined that the marketing order should be continued without change. The marketing order was established in 1965 to eliminate inconsistencies in and to improve the quality of canned ripe olives in the marketplace, and to assure that the growers are paid a fair return for the olives delivered by them to canners. The marketing order's regulations on the uniform application of size and quality requirements, through third party inspection continue to be beneficial to growers, canners, and end-users.

The AMS has received no complaints about the marketing order regulations. The marketing order is not unduly complex, and AMS has not identified any relevant Federal rules, or State and local regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the California olive marketing order.

AMS and the California olive industry monitor marketing operations on a continuing basis. Changes in regulations are implemented to reflect current industry operating practices, and to solve marketing problems as they occur. The goal of these evaluations is to assure that the marketing order and the regulations implemented under it fit the needs of the industry and are consistent with the Act.

Over the years, regulation changes have been made to address industry operation changes and to improve program administration.

AMS plans to continue working with the California olive industry in maintaining an effective marketing order program.

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 143 and Order No. 959, both as amended (7 CFR part 959), regulating the handling of onions grown in South Texas, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The marketing agreement and order are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, South Texas onion handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable onions beginning August 1, 2000, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.

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

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2000-2001 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.04 to $0.03 per 50-pound container or equivalent of onions.

The South Texas onion marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of the Department, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of South Texas onions. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 1999-2000 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and the Department approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by the Secretary upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to the Secretary.

The Committee, in a mail vote, unanimously recommended 2000-2001 expenses of $142,000 for personnel, office, compliance, and partial promotion expenses. These expenses were approved on July 31, 2000. The assessment rate and specific funding for research and promotion projects were to be recommended at a later Committee meeting.

The Committee subsequently met on December 27, 2000, and unanimously recommended 2000-2001 expenditures of $306,740 and an assessment rate of $0.03 per 50-pound container of onions. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $301,000. The assessment rate of $0.03 is $0.01 lower than the rate currently in effect. The Committee voted to lower its assessment rate to reduce handler costs by about $75,000 ($0.01 assessment rate reduction X 7,500,000 containers of assessable onions), and because the Committee believes the projected reserve on July 31, 2001 ($279,814), would be higher than needed to administer the program.

The Committee recently entered into an agreement with the Texas Produce Association (Association) for management services. The Association also manages the Texas citrus and melon administrative committees (7 CFR Parts 906 and 979) and several other State marketing organizations. The sharing of costs (staff, office space, and equipment) is expected to foster economy and efficiency. Each organization's share of the costs is based upon the amount of work performed and time devoted to its activities.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2000-2001 fiscal period include $117,544 for administrative expenses, $27,496 for compliance, $39,500 for promotion, and $122,200 for research projects. Budgeted expenses for these items in 1999-2000 were $97,200, $34,800, $36,000, and $133,000, respectively.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of South Texas onions. Onion shipments for the year are estimated at 7.5 million 50-pound equivalents, which should provide $225,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (currently $346,554) will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order (approximately two fiscal periods' expenses, § 959.43).

The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by the Secretary upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or the Department. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. The Department will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2000-2001 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by the Department.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

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

There are approximately 82 producers of onions in South Texas and approximately 34 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts less than $500,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $5,000,000.

Most of the handlers are vertically integrated corporations involved in producing, shipping, and marketing onions. For the 1999-2000 marketing year, the industry's 34 handlers shipped onions produced on 15,867 acres with the average and median volume handled being 168,387 and 139,237 fifty-pound bag equivalents, respectively. In terms of production value, total revenues for the 34 handlers were estimated to be $48.7 million, with average and median revenues being $1.4 million, and $1.2 million, respectively.

The South Texas onion industry is characterized by producers and handlers whose farming operations generally involve more than one commodity, and whose income from farming operations is not exclusively dependent on the production of onions. Alternative crops provide an opportunity to utilize many of the same facilities and equipment not in use when the onion production season is complete. For this reason, typical onion producers and handlers either produce multiple crops or alternate crops within a single year.

Based on the SBA's definition of small entities, the Committee estimates that all the 34 handlers regulated by the order would be considered small entities if only their spring onion revenues are considered. However, revenues from other productive enterprises would likely push a large number of these handlers above the $5,000,000 annual receipt threshold. All of the 82 producers may be classified as small entities based on the SBA definition if only their revenue from spring onions is considered. When revenues from all sources are considered, a majority of the producers would not be considered small entities because receipts would exceed $500,000.

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2000-2001 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.04 to $0.03 per 50-pound container or equivalent of onions. The Committee unanimously recommended 2000-2001 expenditures of $306,740 and an assessment rate of $0.03 per 50-pound container or equivalent. The assessment rate of $0.03 is $0.01 lower than the 1999-2000 rate. The quantity of assessable onions for the 2000-2001 fiscal period is estimated at 7.5 million 50-pound containers or equivalents.

The Committee recently entered into an agreement with the Texas Produce Association (Association) for management services. The Association also manages the Texas citrus and melon administrative committees (7 CFR Parts 906 and 979) and several other State marketing organizations. The sharing of costs (staff, office space, and equipment) is expected to foster economy and efficiency. Each organization's share of the costs is based upon the amount of work performed and time devoted to its activities. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2000-2001 fiscal period include $117,544 for administrative expenses, $27,496 for compliance, $39,500 for promotion, and $122,200 for research projects. Budgeted expenses for these items in 1999-2000 were $97,200, $34,800, $36,000, and $133,000, respectively.

The Committee voted to lower its assessment rate to lower handler costs by about $75,000 and because the Committee believes the projected reserve on July 31, 2001 ($279,814), would be higher than needed to administer the program.

The Committee reviewed and unanimously recommended 2000-2001 expenditures of $306,739, which included increases in administrative and office salaries, and research programs. Prior to arriving at this budget, the Committee considered information from various sources, including the Committee's Executive Committee, the Research Subcommittee, and the Market Development Subcommittee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various research projects to the onion industry. The assessment rate of $0.03 per 50-pound equivalent of assessable onions was then determined by dividing the total recommended budget by the quantity of assessable onions, estimated at 7.5 million 50-pound equivalents for the 2000-2001 fiscal period. This is approximately $81,740 below the anticipated expenses, which the Committee determined to be acceptable.

A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the grower price for the 2001-marketing season could range between $7.00 and $12.00 per 50-pound equivalent of onions. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2000-2001 fiscal period as a percentage of total grower revenue could range between .43 and .25 percent.

This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, the assessment rate decrease reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the South Texas onion industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the December 27, 2000, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large South Texas onion handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

The Department has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

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

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The 2000-2001 fiscal period began on August 1, 2000, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable onions handled during such fiscal period; (2) this action decreases the assessment rate for assessable onions beginning on August 1, 2000; (3) handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years; and (4) this interim final rule provides a 60-day comment period, and all comments timely received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 989 (7 CFR part 989), both as amended, regulating the handling of raisins produced from grapes grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The marketing agreement and order are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

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

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

This rule continues to reduce the production cap for the 2001 RDP for NS raisins from 2.75 to 2.5 tons per acre. The cap is specified in the order. Under an RDP, producers receive certificates from the RAC for curtailing their production to reduce burdensome supplies. The certificates represent diverted tonnage. Producers sell the certificates to handlers who, in turn, redeem the certificates for reserve raisins from the RAC. The production cap limits the yield per acre that a producer can claim in an RDP. Reducing the cap for the 2001 RDP brings the figure in line with anticipated 2001 crop yields. This action was recommended by the RAC at a meeting on November 29, 2000.

The order provides authority for volume regulation designed to promote orderly marketing conditions, stabilize prices and supplies, and improve producer returns. When volume regulation is in effect, a certain percentage of the California raisin crop may be sold by handlers to any market (free tonnage) while the remaining percentage must be held by handlers in a reserve pool (reserve) for the account of the RAC. Reserve raisins are disposed of through various programs authorized under the order. For example, reserve raisins may be sold by the RAC to handlers for free use or to replace part of the free tonnage they exported; carried over as a hedge against a short crop the following year; or may be disposed of in other outlets not competitive with those for free tonnage raisins, such as government purchase, distilleries, or animal feed. Net proceeds from sales of reserve raisins are ultimately distributed to producers.

The RDP is another program concerning reserve raisins authorized under the order and may be used as a means for controlling overproduction. Authority for the program is provided in § 989.56 of the order, and additional procedures are specified in § 989.156 of the order's administrative rules and regulations.

Pursuant to these sections, the RAC must meet by November 30 each crop year to review raisin data, including information on production, supplies, market demand, and inventories. If the RAC determines that the available supply of raisins, including those in the reserve pool, exceeds projected market needs, it can decide to implement a diversion program, and announce the amount of tonnage eligible for diversion during the subsequent crop year. Producers who wish to participate in the RDP must submit an application to the RAC. Such producers curtail their production by vine removal or some other means established by the RAC and receive a certificate from the RAC which represents the quantity of raisins diverted. Producers sell these certificates to handlers who pay producers for the free tonnage applicable to the diversion certificate minus the established harvest cost for the diverted tonnage. Handlers redeem the certificates by presenting them to the RAC and paying an amount equal to the established harvest cost plus payment for receiving, storing, fumigating, handling, and inspecting the tonnage represented on the certificate. The RAC then gives the handler raisins from the reserve pool in an amount equal to the tonnage represented on the diversion certificate.

Section 989.56(a) of the order specifies a production cap of 2.75 tons per acre for any production unit of a producer approved for participation in an RDP. When the diversion tonnage is announced, the RAC may recommend, subject to approval by the Secretary, reducing the 2.75 tons per acre production cap. The production cap limits the yield that a producer can claim. Producers who historically produce yields above the production cap can choose to produce a crop rather than participate in the diversion program. No producer is required to participate in an RDP.

Pursuant to § 989.156, producers who wish to participate in a program must submit an application to the RAC by December 20. Producers must specify, among other things, the raisin production and the acreage covered by the application. RAC staff verifies producers' production claims using handler acquisition reports and other available information. However, a producer could misrepresent production by claiming that some raisins produced on one ranch were produced on another, and use an inflated yield on the RDP application. Thus, the production cap limits the amount of raisins for which a producer participating in an RDP may be credited, and protects the program from overstated yields.

On November 29, 2000, the RAC met and reviewed data relating to the quantity of reserve raisins and anticipated market needs. With a 2000-01 NS crop estimated to be the largest on record at 427,394 tons, and a computed trade demand of 233,344 tons (comparable to market needs), the RAC projected a reserve pool of 194,050 tons of NS raisins. With such a large anticipated reserve, the RAC announced that 25,000 tons of NS raisins would be eligible for diversion under the 2001 RDP. In January 2001, the RAC revised its crop estimate to 440,000 tons, which, if realized, would yield a 206,656-ton reserve. The amount of tonnage towards the RDP was increased to 96,532 tons.

At the November meeting, RAC members evaluated the 2.75 tons per acre production cap. With this year's record crop and high yields per acre, the RAC believes that the grapevines will likely produce a smaller crop next year. In addition, RAC historical data indicates that the production cap under NS raisin diversion programs has averaged 2.24 tons per acre. Thus, the RAC recommended reducing the production cap from 2.75 to 2.5 tons per acre to more accurately reflect next year's anticipated yields. Accordingly, a new paragraph (t) was added to § 989.156 of the order's rules and regulations.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

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

There are approximately 20 handlers of California raisins who are subject to regulation under the order and approximately 4,500 raisin producers in the regulated area. Small agricultural firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less that $5,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $500,000. Thirteen of the 20 handlers subject to regulation have annual sales estimated to be at least $5,000,000, and the remaining 7 handlers have sales less than $5,000,000, excluding receipts from any other sources. No more than 7 handlers, and a majority of producers, of California raisins may be classified as small entities, excluding receipts from other sources.

This rule continues to add a new paragraph (t) to § 989.156 of the order's rules and regulations regarding the RDP. Under an RDP, producers receive certificates from the RAC for curtailing their production to reduce burdensome supplies. The certificates represent diverted tonnage. Producers sell the certificates to handlers who, in turn, redeem the certificates for reserve raisins from the RAC. The order specifies a production cap limiting the yield per acre that a producer can claim in an RDP. This rule continues to reduce the cap from 2.75 to 2.5 tons per acre to accurately reflect next year's anticipated yields. Authority for this action is provided in § 989.56(a) of the order.

Regarding the impact of this action on affected entities, producers who participate in the 2001 RDP will have the opportunity to earn some income for not harvesting a 2001-02 crop. Producers will sell the certificates to handlers next fall for the free tonnage applicable to the diversion certificate minus the harvest cost for the diverted tonnage. Applicable harvest costs for the 2001 RDP were established by the RAC at $340 per ton.

Reducing the production cap has no impact on raisin handlers. Handlers will pay producers for the free tonnage applicable to the diversion certificate minus the $340 per ton harvest cost. Handlers will redeem the certificates for 2000-01 crop NS reserve raisins and pay the RAC the $340 per ton harvest cost plus payment for receiving, storing, fumigating, handling (currently totaling $46 per ton), and inspecting (currently $9.00 per ton) the tonnage represented on the certificate. Reducing the production cap does not impact handler payments for reserve raisins under the 2001 RDP.

Alternatives to the recommended action include leaving the production cap at 2.75 tons per acre or reducing it to another figure besides 2.5 tons per acre. However, the majority of RAC members believe that a cap of 2.5 tons per acre will more accurately reflect next year's yields.

There was some discussion at the RAC's meeting that the 2.5 tons per acre production cap was too low and would discriminate against producers with high yields. In recent years, cultural practices have evolved to where some producers' yield per acre is reportedly as high as 4 tons. However, as previously stated, the program is voluntary and producers whose vines can produce 4 tons per acre have the option to produce a raisin crop rather than apply for the RDP and be subject to the production cap.

This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large raisin handlers. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection requirement referred to in this rule (i.e., the application) has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control No. 0581-0178. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sectors agencies. Finally, the Department has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

Further, the RAC's meeting on November 29, 2000, and the RAC's Administrative Issues Subcommittee meeting on that same day but prior to the RAC meeting where this action was deliberated were public meetings widely publicized throughout the raisin industry. All interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and participate in the industry's deliberations.

An interim final rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2001 (66 FR 705). Copies of the rule were mailed by the RAC's staff to all RAC members and alternates, the Raisin Bargaining Association, handlers, and dehydrators. In addition, the rule was made available through the Internet by the Office of the Federal Register. That rule provided for a 15-day comment period that ended January 19, 2001. No comments were received.

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

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the RAC and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 98-15-17, Amendment 39-10668 (63 FR 39489, July 23, 1998), which is applicable to GE Company CF6-80A3 series turbofan engines, was published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2000 (65 FR 44997). That action proposed to require initial and repetitive visual inspections of both left hand and right hand aft engine mount link assemblies for separations, cracks, and bearing race migration. Cracked or separated parts would have to be replaced prior to further flight. If spherical bearing race migration is discovered, a borescope inspection for cracks is also proposed. If no cracks are discovered by the additional borescope inspection, assemblies would have a 75-cycle grace period for remaining in service before replacement. Finally, installation of improved aft engine mount link assemblies would constitute terminating action to the inspections.

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

The sole commenter agrees with the technical intent and content of the proposed AD. However, the commenter believes that the economic affect on his company would be considerably greater than that stated in the preamble to the proposed AD.

The comment did not, however, include any analysis to support the conclusion that the commenter's company would incur a greater adverse economic affect. The elements of the economic analysis were reviewed with the manufacturer, GE Company. The NPRM stated that 120 worldwide and 59 domestic airplanes would be affected by the AD. However, that economic data included both CF6-80A1 and CF6-80A3 engines. Since the AD applies only CF6-80A3 engines, the actual numbers of engines affected by this AD include 108 worldwide and 59 that could be installed on airplanes of US registry. The economic analysis section has been changed accordingly. The FAA also notes that the current AD already requires inspection of the left hand aft mount link at intervals considerably shorter than this AD requires. Therefore, some of the cost cited in the economic analysis has already been required by the current AD.

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

There are approximately 108 engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 59 engines that could be installed on airplanes of US registry would be affected by this proposed AD, and that the cost of replacement link assemblies is approximately $19,473 per engine. The FAA also estimates that it would take approximately 2 work hours per engine to accomplish the proposed interim inspections, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD over 3 years on US operators is estimated to be $581,533 per year.

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the 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 by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) administers regulations published in title 27, Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations are updated April 1 of each year to incorporate new or revised regulations that were published by ATF in the Federal Register during the preceding year. ATF identified several amendments that are needed to provide clarity and uniformity to the regulations in 27 CFR.

These amendments do not make any substantive changes and are only intended to improve the clarity of title 27.

The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR 1320, do not apply to this final rule because there are no recordkeeping or reporting requirements.

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) do not apply. We sent a copy of this final rule to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with 26 U.S.C. 7805(f). No comments were received.

This final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this final rule is not subject to the analysis required by this Executive Order.

Because this final rule merely makes technical amendments to improve the clarity of the regulations, it is unnecessary to issue this final rule with notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Similarly, because of the nature of this final rule, good cause is found that it is unnecessary to subject this final rule to the effective date limitation of 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

The author of this document is Nancy Kern, Regulations Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

On November 21, 2000, the Department of the Treasury published a final rule at 65 FR 69865, amending its regulations issued pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k).

The Department is making several corrections to its list of systems of records for which an exemption is claimed as published on November 21, 2000. In the table following paragraph (c)(1)(i), the system number and title of two systems of records were inadvertently combined to read “DO .212 Bank Secrecy Act Reports System.” This is being changed to properly identify the system number and name for the systems of records entitled “DO .212 Suspicious Activity Reporting System,” and “DO .213 Bank Secrecy Act Reports System.” In addition, “DO .212 Suspicious Activity Reporting System” was not included in the table following paragraph (g)(1)(i) under the heading “DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES,” and this rule will make this correction. The final rule for the “Suspicious Activity Reporting System” was published on October 31, 1997, at 62 FR 58907.

As noted in that preamble, the Department had published a final rule on November 17, 1999, at 64 FR 62585, which exempted a U.S. Customs Service system of records, CS .213-Seized Assets and Case Tracking System (SEACATS) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2). The above system of records did not appear in the tables following paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) and (g)(1)(iv) under the heading U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE. This rule corrects the oversight by adding SEACATS to the tables under the respective paragraphs.

In addition, corrections are being made to incorporate the following changes to the Department's inventory of Privacy Act systems of records in the appropriate tables:

(1) Treasury/DO .190 is renamed from “General Allegations and Investigative Records” to “Investigation Data Management System,” as published on August 31, 2000, at 65 FR 53085.

(2) “ATF .006-Internal Security Record System,” and “BEP .044-Personnel Security Files and Indices,” are deleted, as published on December 14, 2000, at 65 FR 78261.

These regulations are being published as a final rule because the amendment does not impose any requirements on any member of the public. This amendment is the most efficient means for the Treasury Department to implement its internal requirements for complying with the Privacy Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the administrative procedure provisions in 5 U.S.C. 553, the Department of the Treasury finds good cause that prior notice and other public procedure with respect to this rule are impracticable and unnecessary and finds good cause for making this rule effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register .

In accordance with Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” and, therefore, does not require a Regulatory Impact Analysis.

The regulation 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.

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) do not apply.

In accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the Department of the Treasury has determined that this final rule will not impose new record-keeping, application, reporting, or other types of information collection requirements.

The 207 Street (University Heights) Bridge, at mile 6.0, across the Harlem River, has a vertical clearance of 26 feet at mean high water, and 30 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.789(c).

The bridge owner, the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT), requested a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operating regulations to facilitate emergency electrical repairs at the bridge. This deviation from the operating regulations allows the bridge owner to require a twenty-four hour notice for bridge openings from March 2, 2001 through April 15, 2001.

Thirty days notice to the Coast Guard for approval of this emergency repair was not given by the bridge owner and was not required because this work involves vital, unscheduled maintenance that must be performed without undue delay.

Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times during the closed period.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Atlantic Beach Bridge, mile 0.4, across the Reynolds Channel has a vertical clearance of 25 feet at mean high water, and 30 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(e).

The bridge owner, the New York State Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the operating regulations to facilitate necessary maintenance at the bridge. This deviation to the operating regulations allows the owner of the Atlantic Beach Bridge to open only one of the two bascule spans for bridge openings from March 15, 2001 through May 11, 2001. Vessels that require both bascule spans to be opened for passage through the bridge shall provide at least a one-hour advance notice by calling the number posted at the bridge. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times.

The bridge owner provided less than 30 days notice to the Coast Guard of its request to deviate from the drawbridge regulations because various contingencies that dictate commencement of this vital phase of maintenance such as weather conditions and the necessary completion of other phases of the ongoing bridge maintenance frustrate scheduling that far in advance.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

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. Because we have 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 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). On January 1, 2001, Executive Order 13084 was superseded by Executive Order 13175; however, this rule was developed during the period when Executive Order 13084 was still in force, and so tribal considerations were addressed under Executive Order 13084. This action 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). This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

This action does not involve technical standards; 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. This action also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In taking this action, we have 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). We have complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of this action 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 action 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 EPA's compliance with these statutes and Executive Orders for the underlying standards and guidelines is discussed in the December 1, 2000, Federal Register notice promulgating the final standards and guidelines (65 FR 75338).

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, we have made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore. The EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 rules in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(a).

Section 301, in conjunction with sections 110 and 111(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act as amended November 15, 1990, authorize EPA to delegate authority to implement and enforce the standards set out in 40 CFR part 60, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

All current NSPS categories are delegated with the exception of the following sections within those subparts that may not be delegated. Future NSPS regulations will contain a list of sections that will not be delegated for that subpart.

After a thorough review of the request, the Regional Administrator determined that such a delegation was appropriate for all source categories. All sources subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 60 will now be under the jurisdiction of the appropriate above mentioned agency.

Since review of the pertinent laws, rules, and regulations for the State agency has shown them to be adequate for implementation and enforcement of the NSPS, EPA hereby notifies the public that it is approving adoption-by-reference as the mechanism for delegation of the NSPS source categories upon publication of this Federal Register document.

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”

The Congressional Review Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), 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. However, 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, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefor, and established an effective date of [insert date of publication]. 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).

In FR Doc. 00-27833 of November 1, 2000, (65 FR 65376), there were a number of technical errors that are identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section below. Additionally there are various revisions to Addenda B and C. The provisions in this correction notice are effective as if they had been included in the document published November 1, 2000, that is, January 1, 2001.

1. While we had proposed revisions to the work relative work units (RVUs) for observation care codes (CPT 99234 through 99236) on page 44196 of the July 17, 2000 proposed rule, we indicated in the November 1, 2000 final rule we were not proceeding with the revisions to the work RVUS. Unfortunately, the work RVUs published in the November 1, 2000 rule continued to reflect the proposed reductions. The following entries on page 65555 are corrected: CPT code 99234, CPT code 99235, and CPT code 99236. These corrections are reflected in correction number 9 to follow. In addition, since no change was made to the RVUs for these codes, they should not be included on page 65585 of Addendum C. Therefore, they have been deleted from Addendum C.

2. On page 65568 of Addendum B, the value assigned to HCPCS code G0105 under the column labeled “Year 2001 Transitional Non-facility Total” is incorrect. The corrected value is reflected in correction number 10 to follow.

3. On page 65569 and 65570 of Addendum B, the short descriptor to HCFA Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes G0179 and G0190 are listed incorrectly. The corrected descriptor is reflected in correction number 11 to follow.

4. On page 65569 of Addendum B and page 65585 of Addendum C, the short descriptor for HCPCS code G0184 is listed incorrectly. The corrected descriptor is reflected in correction number 12 to follow.

5. On page 65246 of the November 1, 2000, we stated that HCPCS codes G0195 and G0196 will be assigned RVUs and inputs for practice expense. However, Addenda B and C incorrectly indicate that these codes are carrier priced. Entries on the following pages are corrected: pages 65570 and 65585 for HCPCS codes G0195 and G0196. These corrections are reflected in corrections number 13 to follow.

6. In Addendum B, we assigned incorrect status indicators for the following CPT codes: page 65517 for CPT codes 76934, 76934-26, 76934-TC, 76938, 76938-26, 76938-TC; page 65518 for CPT codes 76960, 76960-26, 76960-TC; page 65536 for CPT codes 87145 and 87208; page 65544 for CPT code 92525, page 65545 for CPT codes 92597 and 92598; page 65556 for CPT codes 99375 and 99378; page 65556 for HCPCS codes A0030, A0040, A0050, A0225, A0300, A0302, A0304, A0306, A0308, A0310, A0320, A0322, A0324, A0326, A0328, A0330, A0340, A0342, A0344, A0346, A0348, A0350, A0360, A0362, A0364; page 65557 for HCPCS codes A0366, A0368, A0370, A0380 and A0390; and page 65577 for HCPCS code Q0186. These corrections are reflected in correction number 14 to follow.

7. In Addendum B, page 65548, we assigned incorrect status indicators and RVUs to CPT codes 93662-26 and 93662-TC. Corrections are made in correction number 15 to follow.

8. In Addendum B. page 65491, we assigned incorrect work and practice expense RVUs to CPT codes 59150 and 59151. We have corrected these RVUs in correction number 16 to follow.

9. In Addendum B, page 65514, we assigned incorrect malpractice RVUs to CPT code 76012. A correction is reflected in correction number 17 to follow.

10. In Addendum B the work RVUs for the following codes were incorrect due to a technical error in the payment calculations: page 65503 for CPT code 70540; page 65504 for CPT codes 70540-26, 70542, 70542-26, 70543, and 70543-26; on page 65505 for CPT codes 71550, 71550-26, 71551, 71551-26, 71552, and 71552-26; on page 65506 for CPT 72195, 72195-26, 72196, 72196-26, 72197, and 72197-26; on page 65508 for CPT code 73218, 73218-26, 73219, 73219-26, 73220, 73220-26, 73221, 73221-26, 73222, 73222-26, 73223, and 73223-26; on page 65509 for CPT codes 74181, 74181-26, 74182, 74182-26, and 74183; and on page 65510 for CPT code 74183-26. Corrections are made in correction number 18 to follow.

In FR Doc. 00-27833 of November 1, 2000, (65 FR 65376), make the following corrections:

1. On page 65383, column three, under “Comments on Response Rate”, in the third full paragraph labeled “Response”, in the third from the last line, delete the words “divided by the mean,”.

2. On page 65385, column two, under “Result of Evaluation of Comments”, second bullet, first paragraph, line eleven, delete the words “divided by the mean,”.

3. On page 65425, column two, under Medical Nutrition Therapy (CPT codes 97802 through 97804) in the first paragraph, fourth sentence, replace “Diabetic” with “Dietetic”.

4. On page 65427, column two, section V. “Physician Fee Schedule Update and Conversion Factor for Calendar Year 2001”, in the second sentence of the first paragraph, the anesthesia conversion factor should be corrected to read 17.83.

5. On page 65432, column one, first paragraph, the parenthetical contained in the note should read “(that is, 1.019 × 1.009 × 1.027 × 1.000 = 1.056).”

6. On page 65437, in the table labeled “Impact of This Final Rule Only on Payment for Selected Codes,” for CPT code 99236, replace the values under “Old facility” and “New facility” columns with “225.72” and the value under the percent change column with a “0”.

7. On page 65440 in column three, add the following after the entry for status code “G”:

“H” = Deleted modifier (code used to have modifier of TC and PC)

“I” = Code not valid for Medicare purposes. Medicare does not recognize codes assigned this status. Medicare uses another code for the reporting of, and payment for, these services. This indicator is treated in the same manner as status indicator “G”. Its use allows for more efficient processing of Medicare claims.

8. On page 65441, in the second and third columns of the key describing Addenda B and C, the year 2000 was incorrectly referenced. The references to “2000” in items 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 14 should be corrected to “2001.”

9. In the Table of Addendum B the following CPT codes are corrected to read as follows:

This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission”s Order on Reconsideration, FCC 01-78, in CC Docket No. 96-238, adopted on February 26, 2001, and released on March 7, 2001. The full text of this Order on Reconsideration is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission”s copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Martha Contee at (202) 418-0260 or TTY (202) 418-2555.

(1) In the Order on Reconsideration, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) considered petitions for reconsideration and/or clarification of various parts of the First Report and Order (12 FCC Rcd 22497 (1997), 63 FR 990 (January 7, 1997)) and Second Report & Order (13 FCC Rcd 17018 (1998), 63 FR 41433 (August 4, 1998)) issued in this proceeding. In the First Report and Order , the Commission adopted rules designed, inter alia , to expedite the resolution of formal complaints filed against common carriers pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”). In the Second Report & Order , the Commission established “Accelerated Docket” procedures to help spur the development of competition by adjudicating certain complaints within relatively short timeframes.

(2) Four parties filed petitions for reconsideration and/or clarification of various rules adopted in the First Report and Order. MCI Telecommunications Corp. (“MCI”) requested reconsideration of certain discovery rules. AirTouch Paging (“AirTouch”), America's Carriers Telecommunication Association (“ACTA”), and MCI requested that the Commission reconsider its interpretation of the scope of the new five-month deadline for resolving certain formal complaints set forth in section 208(b)(1) of the Act. ACTA proposed additional requirements regarding the service of complaints. AT&T Corp. (“AT&T”) requested that the Commission clarify that pre-filing settlement letters should be sent to certain representatives of the defendant. Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies (“Bell Atlantic”), BellSouth Corporation (“BellSouth”), and Telecommunications Resellers Association (“TRA”) filed comments in response to the petitions.

(3) One party, BellSouth, filed a petition for reconsideration and clarification of the Accelerated Docket rules adopted in the Second Report & Order . BellSouth requested that the Commission reconsider: (1) the rule requiring the automatic production of documents; and (2) the ex parte implications of the requirement for staff-supervised, pre-filing settlement negotiations. BellSouth also requested that the Commission routinely grant requests for extensions of time in Accelerated Docket proceedings. BellSouth also sought clarification on whether staff-supervised pre-filing meetings are required for all Accelerated Docket matters. SBC Communications Inc. (“SBC”) and TRA filed comments in response to BellSouth's petition.

(4) Elimination of Self-Executing Discovery. The Commission rejects MCI's request that we reinstate the former rules granting self-executing discovery and permitting “extraordinary” discovery. The Commission fully addressed this issue in the First Report and Order , and neither the petitioners nor the commenters offer any new information or arguments on this issue to persuade us that our decision was erroneous. Moreover, the new discovery rules have worked well in streamlining proceedings while allowing the parties access to sufficient information to support their claims and defenses. Thus, the Commission denies MCI's petition for reconsideration of the discovery rules in formal complaint proceedings.

(5) Section 208(b)(1) of the Act. AirTouch, ACTA, and MCI urge the Commission to interpret section 208(b)(1) of the Act so that the five-month deadline provided therein will apply to all formal complaints filed pursuant to section 208, not just to formal complaints concerning the lawfulness of tariff provisions. The Commission fully addressed this issue in the First Report and Order , and neither the petitioners nor the commenters offer any new arguments or information to persuade us that our decision was erroneous. Thus, the Commission denies petitioners' request for reconsideration of our interpretation of section 208(b)(1).

(6) Rules Regarding Service of Process . The Commission adopted rules requiring each carrier to designate an agent in the District of Columbia to accept service of Commission process on behalf of the carrier, and permitting each carrier to designate other service agents outside the District of Columbia. Moreover, the Commission adopted a rule requiring the complainant to serve the complaint by hand delivery on either the named defendant or one of the named defendant's registered agents. ACTA maintains that the complaint should also be served, by overnight mail or facsimile, on any other designated service agents. We decline to adopt such a requirement. Additional notification is not necessary to enable defendants to file answers in a timely manner and would impose on a complainant an unduly burdensome task of identifying and serving agents throughout the country. Thus, the Commission denies ACTA's petition for reconsideration of our rules regarding service of process.

(7) Automatic Production of Documents in Accelerated Docket Proceedings. BellSouth, supported by SBC, requests reconsideration of the Accelerated Docket rules requiring automatic production of documents, especially by defendants. The Commission fully addressed this issue in the Second Report & Order , and the parties offer no new information or arguments to persuade us that the decision was erroneous. Thus, the Commission denies reconsideration of the rules requiring automatic production of documents in Accelerated Docket proceedings.

(8) Extensions of Time in Accelerated Docket Proceedings. We reject BellSouth's and SBC's contention that the Commission should routinely grant requests for extensions of time in Accelerated Docket proceedings. Parties should not ordinarily need extensions of time, because they should have a sufficient amount of time during pre-filing discussions to begin preparing their cases in the event a complaint subsequently is filed on the Accelerated Docket. Routinely granting extensions of time in Accelerated Docket proceedings would eviscerate the expedited mechanism that the Commission crafted. In any exceptional case that turns out to be unexpectedly complicated, the staff has discretion to grant extensions of time or modify the process in other respects. Thus, the Commission denies reconsideration of the time requirements for the Accelerated Docket.

(9) Ex Parte Rules and Accelerated Docket Pre-Filing Procedures. We reject BellSouth's and SBC's concerns regarding the propriety of “ ex parte ” discussions in the pre-filing stage of cases being considered for the Accelerated Docket. As the Commission explained in the Second Report & Order , our ex parte rules restrict the actions of parties only after a complaint has been filed. Staff-supervised settlement discussions that take place prior to the filing of a complaint do not implicate the ex parte rules. Moreover, staff involvement during pre-filing meetings will not taint the complaint process or have a chilling effect on settlement discussions. It is the Commission's role to act as an impartial entity during all formal complaint proceedings, including Accelerated Docket proceedings. We also are not persuaded by BellSouth's argument that staff members who have contact with parties during the pre-filing phase of a proceeding could later become witnesses subject to deposition. Staff would not permit any party to abuse the Commission's rules by attempting to introduce into complaint proceedings individual representations made in settlement discussions. Thus, the Commission denies reconsideration of the pre-filing requirements for the Accelerated Docket.

(10) AT&T's Petition for Clarification of the Formal Complaint Rules Regarding Pre-Filing Letters . In the First Report and Order , the Commission required complainants to engage in good faith settlement discussions with the defendant prior to filing a formal complaint, including mailing to the defendant a certified letter outlining the allegations that form the basis of the complaint it anticipates filing with the Commission. AT&T argues that the Commission should clarify that the pre-filing letter must be sent to: (1) The defendant's registered agent in the District of Columbia, and (2) the defendant's representative that, to the best of the complainant's knowledge, has decision making authority over the disputed matters or has been designated as the defendant's attorney regarding those matters. We decline to clarify the rules in such a manner. The Commission deliberately left the determination of the appropriate recipient of the letter to the discretion of the complainant, who must exercise such discretion reasonably and in good faith. If the complainant does know who the defendant has designated as the decision maker or the attorney regarding the disputed matter, we would generally expect the complainant to serve that person. We also share TRA's concerns that AT&T's proposal could make a complainant's choice of correspondent a matter of routine contention. We do believe, however, that our service rule regarding pre-filing settlement letters should mirror our rule regarding service of complaints. The latter rule permits a complainant to serve a complaint on either “the named defendant or one of the named defendant's registered agents for service of process * * *.” (47 CFR 1.735(d)). Therefore, to promote consistency and thereby minimize confusion, we amend § 1.721(a)(8) of our rules to permit a complainant to serve the pre-filing settlement letter on the defendant carrier or one of the defendant's registered agents for service of process. (See § 1.721(a)(8)).

(11) BellSouth's Petition for Clarification Regarding Accelerated Docket Pre-Filing Settlement Conferences . We grant BellSouth's request for clarification of whether every Accelerated Docket proceeding must involve staff-supervised, pre-filing settlement conferences. We clarify that, before a matter is accepted onto the Accelerated Docket, the parties must participate in staff-supervised settlement negotiations. This does not mean, however, that all requests for inclusion on the Accelerated Docket will result in a staff-supervised settlement conference. Instead, only those matters actually under active consideration for inclusion on the Accelerated Docket must ultimately have such a conference. We also strongly encourage disputing parties to contact Commission staff to assist in the resolution of matters prior to filing any formal complaint, regardless of whether the parties wish to have such complaint placed on the Accelerated Docket. Thus, the Commission grants BellSouth's Petition for Clarification regarding Accelerated Docket pre-filing settlement conferences.

(12) The Commission has closely monitored the effectiveness of the amended formal complaint rules. We believe, on reconsideration on our own motion, that a few additional modifications to the rules are appropriate to promote further the expedited resolution of formal complaints.

(13) The Rule Governing Answers Is Modified. We amend § 1.724(d) of our rules, which currently states that “averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damages, are deemed to be admitted when not denied in this responsive pleading.” (47 CFR 1.724 (d)(emphasis added).) We find that requiring a defendant to respond specifically to all averments in a complaint, including those regarding damage amounts, will enhance the ability of Commission staff to resolve complaints more efficiently. Accordingly, we amend § 1.724(d) to specify that defendants are required to respond to any and all averments raised in both initial and supplemental complaints, including averments relating to damage amounts. Failure by the defendant to respond to any averment in the complaint or supplemental complaint will result in the averment being admitted as true. In addition, we amend § 1.724(b) to require that denials based on information and belief are expressly prohibited unless made in good faith and accompanied by an affidavit explaining the basis for the defendant's belief and why the defendant could not reasonably ascertain the facts from the complainant or any other source. (See § 1.724(b).) This new requirement regarding denials in answers mirrors an existing requirement regarding averments in complaints. (47 CFR 1.721(a)(5).) This will promote diligence on defendants' part in gathering all of the relevant facts and documentation, and thereby expedite the development of a complete and substantial record on which the Commission can resolve the dispute.

(14) The Rule Governing Replies Is Modified. We amend § 1.726(a) of our rules, which currently permits a complainant to include in a reply only “statements of relevant, material facts that shall be responsive to only those specific factual allegations made by the defendant in support of its affirmative defenses.” (47 CFR 1.726(a)) (emphasis added).) We find that permitting a complainant to include in the reply both factual statements and legal arguments that respond to both the factual allegations and the legal arguments made by a defendant in support of affirmative defenses will enhance the ability of Commission staff to resolve complaints more efficiently. Therefore, we amend § 1.726(a) to permit complainants to include in replies both factual statements and legal arguments that respond to both the factual allegations and the legal arguments made by defendants in support of their affirmative defenses. (See § 1.726(a).)

(15) The Payment Verification Requirement is Modified. In the First Report and Order, the Commission adopted a rule requiring the complainant to include with the complaint a “verification of the filing payment * * *.” (12 FCC Rcd at 22524, ¶ 56). To implement this rule, the Commission explained that a complainant should attach to its complaint a photocopy of its fee payment. We have found, however, that this photocopy requirement does not serve its verification purpose in all cases. This is largely because, where the complainant pays by wire transfer or with a credit card, there exists no paper record of the transaction that can be contemporaneously photocopied. Thus, in order to create a uniform method of payment verification that will work in all cases, we amend the payment verification requirement set forth in the First Report and Order and § 1.721(a)(13) as follows: The complaint shall include a declaration, under penalty of perjury, by complainant or complainant's counsel describing the amount, method, and date of the complainant's payment of the filing fee, and the complainant's 10-digit FCC Registration Number (FRN), if any. (See § 1.721(a)(13).)

(16) The Rules Governing Supplemental Complaints for Damages Are Modified. Our rules enable complainants, and Commission staff under certain circumstances, to bifurcate formal complaints into two separate complaints: (1) An initial complaint for liability and any prospective relief, and (2) a supplemental complaint for damages. Our experience in implementing the rules regarding supplemental complaints for damages indicates that certain revisions are appropriate to clarify and modify how the supplemental complaint process operates.

(17) First, we amend § 1.722 of our rules (47 CFR 1.722), to state expressly what the Commission concluded in the First Report and Order: In a proceeding to which no statutory deadline applies, the Commission may, on its own motion, bifurcate the proceeding so that only liability and prospective relief issues are before the Commission initially, and damage issues come before the Commission only if the complainant prevails and later chooses to initiate a separate proceeding seeking damages. (See § 1.722(c).) Consistent with that amendment, we further amend § 1.722 of our rules to clarify that the procedures set forth therein apply to all supplemental complaints for damages, regardless of whether bifurcation was made upon the Commission's own motion or the complainant's request. (See § 1.722(d) through 1.722(i).)

(18) Second, § 1.722(b)(1) presently permits a prevailing complainant to file a subsequent complaint for damages arising from the same facts alleged in the first complaint, even if the first complaint made no mention whatsoever of any intent to seek damages. Upon further consideration of this provision, we believe that it should be stricken, because it conflicts with the principles of efficiency, notice, and fairness to defendants that underlie the doctrine of res judicata. To promote those principles, defendants and the Commission should know as soon as possible whether a dispute may ultimately involve a resolution of damages. Therefore, we amend § 1.722 of our rules to state that, in order to preserve the option of filing a supplemental complaint for damages, a complainant must include in its initial complaint a notice of intent to file such a supplemental complaint, in accordance with the requirements of our rules. (See § 1.722(d).)

(19) Third, we amend § 1.722 to clarify that, except where otherwise stated, the rules governing initial formal complaint proceedings govern supplemental complaint proceedings, as well. (See § 1.722(j)). Fourth, our experience in applying § 1.722 of our rules reveals that its wording can be improved. Accordingly, we modify much of the language of § 1.722, intending to clarify rather than change its meaning (except the intended changes described previously). (See § 1.722(a)-(i).)

(20) Other rules require revisions, as well, because our experience with supplemental complaints indicates that some confusion exists as to whether, and to what extent, the format and content requirements for initial complaints apply to supplemental complaints for damages. We now recognize that our current rules seek more and different information than is needed to evaluate a supplemental complaint for damages. Accordingly, we amend, in relevant part, §§ 1.721 and 1.735 of our rules to specify what is required in supplemental damage complaints. As described further, these changes will streamline the supplemental complaint process by eliminating unnecessary or redundant information, reducing paperwork, and clarifying that additional filing fees are not required.

(21) We amend § 1.735 of our rules to make clear that (1) a filing fee need not be paid in conjunction with filing a supplemental complaint for damages pursuant to § 1.722 of our rules, and (2) a complainant may serve a supplemental complaint for damages in accordance with § 1.735(f) rather than § 1.735(d) of our rules. (See § 1.735(g).) Moreover, we amend the rules so that §§ 1.720(b) and 1.721(a)(4), (5), (8), (9), (12), and (13) do not apply to supplemental complaints for damages filed pursuant to § 1.722 of our rules. (See § 1.721(e)(i).) Thus, supplemental complaints for damages are not required to include the following: (1) A full description of the statutory violation described previously in the initial complaint; (2) a statement regarding whether a separate action has been filed with the Commission, any court, or another government agency based on the same claim; (3) a formal complaint intake form; or (4) verification of the payment of a filing fee.

(22) We further amend our rules to make clear, however, that a supplemental complaint for damages filed pursuant to § 1.722 must provide a complete statement of facts which, if proven true, would support the complainant's calculations of damages in each category of damages for which recovery is sought. This statement of facts must include a detailed explanation of all matters relevant to the calculation of damages and the nature of any injury alleged to have been sustained by the complainant. Moreover, relevant affidavits and documentation must support this statement of facts. (See § 1.721(e)(ii).)

(23) In addition, although we change the rules so that the requirement of pre-filing settlement efforts set forth in § 1.721(a)(8) does not apply to supplemental complaints, we add a new rule imposing essentially the same requirement on supplemental complainants tailored to the particular deadlines applicable to supplemental complaints. Specifically, the complainant must mail to each defendant, within 30 days of the release of the order on liability, a certified letter describing, inter alia, the basis for the damages to be sought in a supplemental complaint. (See § 1.721(e)(iii).) We believe that the order on liability usually will give the parties a strong incentive to resolve on their own any outstanding damages issues, and a 30-day deadline for formally initiating settlement efforts should ensure that the parties have sufficient time to reach a resolution before the 60-day deadline for filing a supplemental complaint. Finally, we note that supplemental complaints must continue to meet the requirements of § 1.722 of our rules.

(24) The Parties' Initial Pleadings Must Contain All of the Parties' Supporting Facts, Legal Arguments, and Documentation. In the First Report and Order, the Commission explained at length that, under the amended formal complaint rules, the parties' initial pleadings should not merely provide bare notice of their claims and defenses, but rather should set forth in detail all of the parties' supporting facts, legal arguments, affidavits, and documentation. We reiterate that point here. Complaints and answers filed at the Commission pursuant to section 208 of the Act should not resemble their counterparts filed in federal courts under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Instead, if anything, complaints and answers filed here should resemble a combination of complaints/answers filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, motions to dismiss (and oppositions thereto) filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), and motions for summary judgment (and oppositions thereto) filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. In other words, the parties' initial pleadings should contain every allegation, fact, argument, affidavit, and supporting paper that the parties can muster at that time. Moreover, the parties should support each and every factual statement in their initial pleadings (and in their replies and briefs) with a specific citation to an affidavit(s) and to all other relevant portions of the record. When parties submit such comprehensive initial pleadings, the Commission can resolve the parties' disputes more expeditiously.

(25) Certain Parties' Practices in Submitting Answers Merit a Few Additional Observations. First, our rules require the answer to “admit or deny the averments on which the complainant relies and state in detail the basis for admitting or denying such averment. ” (47 CFR 1.724(b) (emphasis added).) Bald denials and/or refraining from responding to a complaint's averment on the grounds that the averment asserts a legal conclusion are improper. Denials in answers must be accompanied by a thorough explanation of their basis; and if a complaint asserts a legal conclusion, then the answer's corresponding denial should fully explain why the legal conclusion is erroneous. Moreover, in its answer, a defendant must provide affidavits (as well as all supporting documents, data compilations, and tangible things) to support all of the facts on which the answer relies.

(26) Motions To Dismiss Are Rarely Necessary. Some defendants file motions to dismiss as separate pleadings. We find this practice of filing a separate motion to dismiss to be unnecessary in virtually all cases. The grounds for a motion to dismiss ordinarily should be raised in the answer alone rather than in a separate pleading.

(27) The Joint Statement Filed Before the Initial Status Conference Must Be Detailed and Comprehensive. Parties to a formal complaint must submit a joint statement of stipulated facts, disputed facts, key legal issues, discovery matters, and proposed pleading schedules two days prior to a staff-supervised, initial status conference. The purpose of this procedure is to promote settlement, narrow and sharpen the relevant factual and legal issues, and otherwise expedite the Commission's resolution of the dispute. In some cases, however, parties have frustrated the accomplishment of this goal by submitting separate statements or joint statements that are vague, cursory, and/or incomplete. We reiterate here that the parties must together file a single, joint statement that is comprehensive, detailed, and specific, providing a thorough description of all stipulated and disputed facts, as well as a productive summary of key legal issues. Finally, in our view, if the parties work together with sufficient diligence, they should be able to stipulate to the bulk of relevant facts and key legal issues in most cases. Therefore, we urge parties to devote substantial and cooperative effort in arriving at stipulated facts and key legal issues.

(28) We Encourage Disputing Parties To Seek Mediation From Commission Staff Before Filing A Formal Complaint. Parties seeking placement of their dispute on the Accelerated Docket must participate in a staff-supervised, pre-filing settlement negotiation meeting. These pre-filing discussions have resulted in a substantial number of disputes being resolved without the parties having to resort to litigation. In light of the staff's success in helping parties achieve settlements, we highly recommend that parties avail themselves of the opportunity to use staff-supervised mediation and settlement negotiations prior to filing any formal complaint.

(29) The Commission Generally Will Rule on Interlocutory Appeals of Staff Rulings Only in Conjunction with Ruling on the Merits. We emphasize that the Commission generally will not consider applications for review of interlocutory staff rulings pursuant to § 1.115 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.115) in the context of section 208 complaint proceedings except in conjunction with ruling on the merits of the complaint. In the event, however, that the ruling on the merits of the complaint is made pursuant to delegated authority, the application for review will not be considered until after the Enforcement Bureau, acting on delegated authority, has issued its final ruling on the merits of the complaint. This will maximize the efficient use of limited administrative resources.

(30) This Order on Reconsideration has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the “1995 Act”) and found to impose slightly modified information collection requirements on the public. 1 These rules contain information collections that have not yet been approved by OMB. The Commission will release a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of the rules.

(31) Written comments by the public on the modified information collections are due on or before April 26, 2001. Written comments by OMB on the modified information collections are due on or before May 29, 2001. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the modified information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Edward Springer, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, or via the Internet to edward.springer@omb.eop.gov.

(32) The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”)  2 requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings. In the First Report and Order and Second Report & Order, the Commission included a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  3 and a supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 4 respectively. In this Order, however, neither the clarifications to the rules nor the rule changes adopted on our own motion require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

(33) Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 208, 260, 271, 274, and 275 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 208, 260, 271, 274, and 275, and § 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, that the petitions for reconsideration filed by AirTouch Paging, America's Carriers Telecommunication Association, and MCI Telecommunications Corporation are Denied, the Petition for Clarification filed by AT&T Corporation is Denied, and the Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification filed by BellSouth Corporation is Granted in Part and Denied in Part.

(34) Sections 1.721, 1.722, 1.724, 1.726, and 1.735 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.721, 1.722, 1.724, 1.726, and 1.735, Are Amended as set forth in the rules changes. These rules contain information collections that have not yet been approved by OMB. The Commission will release a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of the rules.

This contains a correction to the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration (“ MO&O ”), MM Docket No. 99-339, FCC 01-7; 66 FR 8521 (February 1, 2001). This document corrects the Federal Register as it appeared in rule FR Doc. 01-2754. The Commission is correcting § 79.3(c)(2) of its rules.

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

NMFS’ determination of the status of a stock relative to “overfishing” and an “overfished” condition is based on both the removal of fish from the stock through fishing (the exploitation rate) and the current stock size. When the exploitation rate jeopardizes the capacity of a stock to produce its maximum sustainable yield (MSY) on a continuing basis, overfishing occurs. The exploitation rate (i.e., rate of removal of fish from a population by fishing) is usually expressed in terms of an instantaneous fishing mortality rate (F). Another important factor for classifying the status of a resource is the current stock level. If a stock's biomass falls below its minimum stock size threshold (MSST), the capacity of the stock to produce MSY on a continuing basis is jeopardized, and the stock is said to be in an overfished condition. Refer to NMFS' National Standard Guidelines for further information regarding these terms and concepts (final rule issued May 1, 1998; 63 FR 24212).

NMFS has made a determination regarding the status of the Gulf of Mexico greater amberjack stock relative to overfishing and to an overfished condition based on the 2000 greater amberjack stock assessment conducted by NMFS' Southeast Fisheries Science Center and on the December 2000 Report of the Council's Reef Fish Stock Assessment Panel (RFSAP). These most recent analyses indicate that the stock is overfished but is not undergoing overfishing due to presumed recent reductions in F. The NMFS' stock assessment used a calibrated Virtual Population Analysis (VPA) to obtain estimates of population abundance and mortality rates based on data through 1998. Inputs to the assessment were obtained from the following sources: Data on catch-at-age and selectivity; an index of abundance from private vessels and charter boats; and indices of abundance from the headboat and handline fisheries. Sensitivity analyses included (a) examinations of various combinations of the three indices for tuning; (b) truncation of the time series for the three indices to a period in which size limits were generally constant; (c) examination of alternatives for the F ratios for the terminal age group (fixing or estimating F); (d) two alternative stock-recruitment relationships; and (e) several assumed levels of natural mortality (i.e., 0.15, 0.25, 0.35).

Based on all the stock assessment options presented, the RFSAP chose four options for further consideration. These four options comprised best available scientific advice to the Council; all four combinations indicated that the greater amberjack stock was overfished in 1998 based on the Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST) status determination criterion. The best estimate of stock size in 2000 showed that the stock is at less than one-half of MSST. The assessment results also indicate that reductions in fishing mortality are required to eliminate overfishing. The assessment, however, did not take into account recent (1998) management actions that the RFSAP believes are adequate to achieve the required reductions in F. The RFSAP recognizes that the most recent (as of 1997) estimates of F will not reflect any effects of the closed season (started in 1998), greater amberjack bag limit, and bag and size limits presently in place for lesser amberjack/rudderfish (often mistaken for greater amberjack). If these recently instituted measures have reduced fishing mortality for greater amberjack as expected, then this resource is no longer experiencing overfishing.

Section 304(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that within 1 year of being notified of the identification of a stock as being overfished, the affected Regional Fishery Management Council must develop measures to end overfishing and rebuild the stock. On February 9, 2001, the Acting Regional Administrator, NMFS Southeast Region, notified the Council of the overfished status of the Gulf of Mexico greater amberjack and requested that the Council take appropriate action. The letter to the Council reads as follows:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (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 pollock TAC in the West Yakutat District, Statistical Area 640, was established by the Final 2001 Harvest Specifications and Associated Management Measures for the Groundfish Fisheries Off Alaska (66 FR 7276, January 22, 2001) as 2,235 metric tons (mt). The West Yakutat District pollock fishery was closed under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on March 15, 2001, (66 FR 15359, March 19, 2001) and reopened on March 21, 2001 (reopening filed by the Office of the Federal Register on March 21, 2001).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the TAC of pollock in the West Yakutat District will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 2,035 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 200 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance will soon be reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in the West Yakutat District of the GOA.

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 prevent exceeding the pollock TAC in the West Yakutat District constitutes good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and 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 prevent exceeding the pollock TAC in the West Yakutat District 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 § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.