OTS is charged with examining, regulating, and providing for the safe and sound operation of savings associations. 1 OTS funds its operations through assessments on savings associations and through other fees. The Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) specifically authorizes the Director to assess such fees to fund its direct and indirect expenses, as the Director deems necessary or appropriate. 2

Under 12 CFR part 502, OTS determines each institution's assessment by adding together three components reflecting the size, condition and complexity of an institution. OTS computes the size component by multiplying an institution's total assets (as reported on the Thrift Financial Report (TFR)) by the applicable assessment rate. The condition component is a percentage of the size component and is imposed on institutions that have a 3-, 4-, or 5-composite rating under the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (UFIRS) (also referred to as the CAMELS rating system). 3 OTS imposes a complexity component if: (1) A thrift administers more than $1 billion in trust assets; (2) the outstanding balance of assets fully or partially covered by recourse obligations or direct credit substitutes exceeds $1 billion; or (3) the thrift services over $1 billion of loans for others. OTS calculates the complexity component by multiplying set rates times the amounts by which an association exceeds each particular threshold.

On April 30, 2001, OTS published a proposed rule revising the condition component. 66 FR 21288 (Apr. 30, 2001). Under the existing rules, the condition component equals 25 percent of the thrift's size component for 3-rated institutions, and 50 percent of the thrift's size component for 4- or 5-rated institutions. 4 Based on the higher amount of supervisory resources demanded by 3-, 4- and 5-rated institutions, OTS proposed to raise the condition component to 50 percent for 3-rated institutions and 100 percent for 4- and 5-rated institutions.

The comment period on the proposed rule closed on May 30, 2001. OTS received one comment from a trade association.

The commenter urged OTS to carefully consider whether the revised assessment structure will push the OTS regulated industry toward other federal or state charters. OTS does not believe that the final rule will have this effect. Over 90 percent of the thrift industry is 1- or 2-rated or has not received an initial rating. This final rule should benefit these institutions because their assessments will be reduced as OTS recaptures more of its supervisory costs from low rated thrifts.

Admittedly, the assessments for 3-,4-, and 5-rated institutions will increase commensurate with their need for increased supervision. However, the assessment of a premium on such institutions is consistent with the assessments imposed by other banking regulators. 5 Moreover, our experience under the current rule indicates that the risk-adjusted premiums for 3-, 4- and 5-rated institutions have not resulted in significant defections to other charters.

The commenter also encouraged OTS to address its budget issues in a comprehensive fashion. While a wholesale review of these issues is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, OTS believes that this rule will enhance OTS budgetary efforts. In particular, this rule will permit OTS assessment revenues to automatically expand (or contract) in direct response to the supervisory demands imposed by an increased (or decreased) number of lower rated institutions.

OTS specifically sought comment whether it should consider the complexity of an institution's operations in its calculation of the condition component. The commenter urged OTS not to make such changes to the existing rule. The final rule does not make any changes in this area.

Section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (CDRIA) states that OTS rules that impose new requirements must take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date of publication of the rule. 12 U.S.C. 4802. A related provision, section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), states that a rule may not be made effective less than 30 days after publication. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Under either statute, OTS may make a rule effective on a different date, if it finds good cause.

Working together, the APA and CDRIA provisions would delay the effective date of this final rule until October 1, 2001, and OTS would be unable to use the revised calculation method for the July 31, 2001 assessment. OTS believes that this would lead to an inequitable result since 1- and 2-rated institutions would be required to subsidize the extra supervisory costs of 3-, 4- and 5-rated institutions for yet another assessment period.

Moreover, OTS does not believe that an October 1, 2001 effective date would further the purposes of CDRIA. CDRIA ensures that depository institutions will be regularly informed of new rules with which they must comply. CDRIA also ensures that depository institutions must make operational changes only four times, rather than sporadically, during a calendar year. 6 Since savings associations are not required to take any action to comply with this new rule, OTS does not believe that it is necessary to apply the CDRIA effective date provisions. For these reasons, OTS finds that there is good cause to make this rule effective on a date other than the first date of a calendar quarter. Consistent with the APA, this rule will become effective thirty days after publication.

The Director of OTS has determined that this final rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 7 OTS has evaluated the effects this final rule will have on small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. As required, OTS has prepared the following final regulatory flexibility analysis.

OTS funds its operations through assessments on savings associations and through other fees. The Director of OTS is authorized by the HOLA to impose assessments. 8 OTS is specifically authorized to assess such fees to fund the direct and indirect expenses of OTS, as the Director deems necessary or appropriate. 12 U.S.C. 1467(k).

OTS has found that there is significant increase in supervisory demands on the agency when an institution's rating moves to a “3” rating, and an even greater increase when a thrift's rating moves to a “4” or a “5” rating. Accordingly, the current OTS assessments regulation imposes a premium on these institutions to reflect the increased supervision costs.

OTS experience since 1998, when it last revised its condition component, has shown that the current premium for 3-, 4-, and 5-rated institutions does not adequately compensate it for the additional demands on its resources. Therefore, OTS has amended its rules to more closely associate its costs with its assessments.

The final rule may affect small savings associations. The final rule, however, does not affect small businesses, small organizations other than small savings associations, or small governmental jurisdictions. Small savings associations are generally defined, for Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes, as those with assets under $100 million. 9

As discussed above, the final rule imposes a premium equal to 50 percent of an association's size component for each 3-rated association, and a 100 percent of an association's size component on each 4- or 5-rated institution. OTS will assess this premium regardless of the institution's size. Based on OTS most recent data, 37 savings associations were 3-rated and had assets under $100 million. Currently, the semi-annual assessment for a 3-rated institution with$100 million in assets is $19,380, exclusive of any complexity component. Under the final rule, this institution's semi-annual assessment will be $23,256—an increase of $3,876. Other 3-rated small savings associations will see their assessments increase by lesser amounts depending on their asset size.

Based on OTS most recent data, six institutions were 4- or 5-rated and had assets under $100 million. Currently, the semi-annual assessment for a 4- or 5-rated institution with $100 million in assets is $23,256, exclusive of any complexity component. Under the final rule, this institution's semi-annual assessment will be $31,008—an increase of $7,752. Other 4- and 5-rated institutions will see their assessments increase by lesser amounts depending on their asset size.

OTS did not receive any significant comments in response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and has made no changes in the final rule.

As discussed earlier, 3-, 4- and 5-rated savings associations require more supervisory attention than 1- or 2-rated associations. Therefore, OTS has three alternatives: impose extra assessments on all 3-, 4- and 5-rated associations; impose extra assessments on some sub-category of 3-, 4- and 5-rated institutions; or require 1- and 2-rated institutions to subsidize these extra supervisory costs of 3-, 4- and 5-rated institutions.

OTS believes it is most equitable to match assessments with OTS's supervisory costs as far as possible. Therefore, it has increased the amount of the condition component for 3-, 4-, and 5-rated associations. OTS believes that requiring these institutions to pay for their extra supervisory costs provides an incentive for those institutions to improve their condition and their ratings. OTS also believes that the condition component best accomplishes OTS's objective of closely tailoring assessment rates to OTS's increased costs in supervising 3-, 4- and 5-rated institutions.

The final rule imposes no reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. Assessments will continue to be based on Thrift Financial Reports that savings associations otherwise must file with OTS. OTS will continue to use its current collection procedures. Therefore, the final rule imposes no new or additional reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements.

There are no federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L.104-4 (Unfunded Mandates Act), requires an agency to prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires an agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. OTS has determined that the final rule will not result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments or by the private sector of $100 million or more. Accordingly, this rulemaking is not subject to section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.

Part 707 of NCUA's regulations implements TISA. 12 CFR part 707. The purpose of part 707 and TISA is to assist members in making meaningful comparisons among accounts offered by credit unions and other financial institutions. Part 707 and TISA require, among other things, disclosure of yields, fees and other terms concerning share accounts to members at account opening, upon request, when changes in terms occur and in periodic statements. Many of these disclosures must be written.

In April 2001, The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) issued an interim rule amending its Regulation DD, which implements TISA (April 2001 Interim Rule). That rule established uniform standards for the timing and electronic delivery of disclosures required by TISA and Regulation DD, and addressed electronic advertisements. 66 FR 17795 (April 4, 2001). The Federal Reserve has stated that electronic disclosures can effectively reduce compliance costs for financial institutions and allow them to provide Regulation DD disclosures to the consumer more efficiently without adversely affecting consumer protections. Under that rule, disclosures may be sent by e-mail to an electronic address designated by the consumer, or made available at another location, such as an Internet web site. If disclosures are not sent by e-mail, consumers must receive a notice informing them that they are available elsewhere. If posted to a web site, disclosures must be available for at least 90 days to allow consumers adequate time to access them. For disclosures that must be provided before account opening, consumers are required to access them before the account is opened. Under this rule, financial institutions must make a good faith attempt to redeliver electronic disclosures that are returned as undelivered, using the address information available in their files.

These amendments conform to the E-Sign Act. 15 U.S.C. 7001. The E-Sign Act was enacted in June 2000, to encourage the continued expansion of electronic commerce. It generally provides that electronic documents and signatures have the same validity as paper documents and handwritten signatures. It provides that consumer disclosures may be provided in electronic form only if the consumer affirmatively consents after receiving information specified in the statute. The consumer consent provisions in the E-Sign Act became effective October 1, 2000. Section 101(c)(5) of the E-Sign Act provides that consumers who gave consent prior to the effective date are not subject to those consent requirements.

In September 1999, before enactment of the E-Sign Act, the Federal Reserve issued an interim rule that also amended Regulation DD (September 1999 Interim Rule). 64 FR 49846 (September 14, 1999). With the issuance of the April 2001 Interim Rule, the Federal Reserve has withdrawn the September 1999 Interim Rule.

TISA requires NCUA to promulgate regulations substantially similar to those promulgated by the Federal Reserve within 90 days of the effective date of the Federal Reserve's rules. 12 U.S.C. 4311(b). In doing so, NCUA is to take into account the unique nature of credit unions and the limitations under which they may pay dividends on member accounts. In compliance with TISA, as discussed more fully below, NCUA is issuing this interim final rule with request for comments that is substantially similar to the Federal Reserve's April 2001 Interim Rule.

The NCUA Board is issuing this rule as an interim final rule because there is a strong public interest in having in place consumer oriented rules that are consistent with those recently promulgated by the Federal Reserve. Additionally, as discussed above, NCUA is statutorily required to issue rules substantively similar to those of the Federal Reserve within 90 days of the effective date of the Federal Reserve's rules. Accordingly, for good cause, the Board finds that, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest; and, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the rule will be effective immediately and without 30 days advance notice of publication. Although the rule is being issued as an interim final rule and is effective immediately, the NCUA Board encourages interested parties to submit comments.

Section 707.3(a) is revised to reflect that the disclosures required by the newly created § 707.10 pertaining to electronic communications are subject to the same requirements as other disclosures required under part 707. Section 707.3(g) is added to provide a cross reference to other rules governing the electronic delivery of disclosures referenced in the newly created § 707.10.

Credit unions must provide account-opening disclosures to members or potential members before an account is opened or a service is provided. Credit unions may delay delivering these disclosures if the member is not present when the account is opened or service is provided. This section provides that in such cases, account-opening disclosures must be mailed or delivered no later than 20 calendar days after the account is opened or the service is provided, whichever is earlier. The corresponding section in Regulation DD permits a 10-business day delay. NCUA amends this provision to conform to the Federal Reserve's time frame.

Furthermore, this section is amended to provide that credit unions may not delay delivering account-opening disclosures when an account is opened by an “electronic communication” as defined in § 707.10. The Federal Reserve has determined that the difficulties in providing disclosures for accounts opened by mail or telephone are not present for accounts opened by electronic communication using visual text. As a result, required disclosures must be provided before an account is opened by an electronic communication. Neither TISA nor part 707 specifies when an account is considered opened. Credit unions may establish policies and procedures to address after-hours requests to open accounts to ensure that accurate disclosures are provided before the account is deemed opened by the credit union.

Section 707.4(a)(2)(i) is revised to require credit unions to mail or deliver disclosures in paper form or electronically to members or potential members who request them, but who are not present at the credit union when the request is made. The credit union has a reasonable time in which to do this. To provide disclosures electronically, the credit union must send the disclosures to the member's e-mail address, or send a notice alerting the member to the location of the disclosures, such as the credit union's web site.

Section 707.4(a)(2)(i) does not define what a “reasonable time” is for responding to requests for account information from members who are not present at the credit union at the time of the request. Section 707.4(a)(2)(i)-3 in Appendix C to part 707 is revised to provide that ten business days is a reasonable time for responding to these requests.

Section 707.4(a)(2)(i) permits credit unions to deliver requested disclosures electronically if the member provides an e-mail address where the disclosures may be sent. Section 707.4(a)(2)(i)-4 in Appendix C to part 707 is added to clarify that posting disclosures on a credit union's web site generally does not relieve the credit union's duty to provide disclosures upon request. If the member has provided an e-mail address, the credit union must either send the disclosures by e-mail or send a notice to the member pursuant to § 707.10(d)(2)(i) to inform the member where the disclosures are posted.

The E-Sign Act permits credit unions to provide disclosures to members using electronic communication, if the credit union complies with Section 101(c) of that statute. Section 101(c) of the E-Sign Act requires credit unions to provide specific information about the electronic delivery of disclosures and obtain the member's affirmative consent to receive electronic disclosures. As discussed more fully below, § 707.10(b) is adopted to set forth the general rule that credit unions may provide disclosures electronically only if the credit union complies with Section 101(c) of the E-Sign Act. This requirement applies to periodic statement disclosures.

After the Federal Reserve issued the September 1999 Interim Rule, NCUA amended § 707.6 by adding paragraph (c) to permit credit unions to deliver periodic statements electronically. 64 FR 66355 (November 26, 1999); 65 FR 21131 (April 20, 2000). With the adoption of § 707.10(b), however, § 707.6(c) is no longer current and is withdrawn.

Stating certain account terms in an advertisement for a deposit account triggers the disclosure of additional terms. If an advertisement using electronic communication displays a triggering term, such as “bonus” or “annual percentage yield”, the advertisement must clearly refer the member to the location where the additional required information begins. For example, an advertisement that includes a bonus or annual percentage yield may be accompanied by a link in close proximity that directly takes the member to the additional information. Paragraph (9) is added to § 707.8(a) in Appendix C to part 707 to reflect this interpretation.

Section 707.8(b) generally permits credit unions to state a dividend rate in addition to the annual percentage yield (APY), provided the dividend rate is stated in conjunction with, but not more conspicuously than, the APY. For advertisements using electronic communications, the member must be able to view both rates simultaneously. This requirement is not satisfied if the member can only view the APY by use of a link that connects the member to information appearing at another location. Paragraph (4) is added to § 707.8(b) in Appendix C to part 707 to reflect this interpretation.

Section 707.8(e) exempts from some requirements advertisements made through broadcast or electronic media, such as television and radio or outdoor billboards. This exemption does not apply to electronic advertisements using electronic communication, such as Internet advertisements, because they do not have the same time and space constraints as other exempted advertisements. New paragraph (1) is added to § 707.8(e)(1)(i) in Appendix C to part 707 to reflect this interpretation.

Electronic communication is defined as a message transmitted electronically between a credit union and a member in a format that allows visual text to be displayed on equipment, for example, a personal computer monitor. Equipment is not limited to personal computers, provided the visual display used to deliver the disclosures meets the “clear and conspicuous” format requirement discussed below. Credit unions that accommodate vision-impaired members by providing disclosures that do not use visual text must also provide disclosures using visual text.

The E-Sign Act permits credit unions to provide disclosures using electronic communication, if the credit union complies with the consumer consent requirements in Section 101(c) of the E-Sign Act. Section 101(c) requires credit unions to provide specific information about the electronic delivery of disclosures before obtaining the member's affirmative consent to receive electronic disclosures.

The E-Sign Act does not affect any requirement imposed under TISA other than a provision that requires disclosures to be in paper form, nor does it affect the content or timing of disclosures. Electronic disclosures are subject to the format, timing and retainability rules and the clear and conspicuous standard of part 707. This guidance is reflected generally in § 707.10(b) in Appendix C to part 707.

Credit unions must provide electronic disclosures using a clear and conspicuous format. Also, in accordance with the E-Sign Act: (1) The credit union must disclose the requirements for accessing and retaining disclosures in that format; (2) the member must demonstrate the ability to access the information electronically and affirmatively consent to electronic delivery; and (3) the credit union must provide the disclosures in accordance with the specified requirements. Except to the extent required by part 707, disclosures do not have to be provided separately from other information. Electronically delivered disclosures must comply with existing timing requirements under TISA and part 707. Consistent with rules for paper disclosures, disclosures provided periodically by e-mail are timely if sent by the required time. Disclosures posted at an Internet web site are timely if, by the required time, the credit union makes the disclosures available at that location and sends a notice alerting the member that the disclosures have been posted. This guidance is reflected in § 707.10(b)(3)(ii) in Appendix C to part 707.

When a credit union permits a member to open an account on-line, the member must be required to access disclosures required by § 707.4 before the account is opened. A link to the disclosures satisfies this timing rule if the member cannot bypass the disclosure before opening the account, or the disclosures must automatically appear on the screen, even if multiple screens are required to view the entire disclosure. It is not sufficient for credit unions to provide a bypassable navigational tool that gives members the option of receiving disclosures. This approach reduces the likelihood that members will actually receive the disclosures. This guidance is reflected in § 707.10(b)(3)(i) in Appendix C to part 707.

Disclosures required by TISA and part 707 to be in writing must also be in a form the member can retain. Electronic disclosures are subject to this same requirement. This guidance is reflected in § 707.10(b)(4) in Appendix C to part 707.

A credit union that controls the equipment providing electronic disclosures to a member, such as a computer terminal in the credit union's lobby or a public kiosk, must ensure that the equipment satisfies part 707's requirements to provide timely disclosures in a clear and conspicuous format and in a form that the member may keep. For example, if disclosures are required at the time of an on-line transaction, the disclosures must be sent to the member's e-mail address or must be posted at another location such as the credit union's web site, unless the credit union provides a printer that automatically prints the disclosures. This guidance is reflected in § 707.10(b)(5) in Appendix C to part 707.

Under the E-Sign Act, a member must give his affirmative consent to receive from the credit union electronic disclosures “relating to a transaction” that are required to be in writing by law or regulation. Section 707.10(c) provides that disclosures related to advertisements (§ 707.8) and those that are provided upon request (§ 707.4(a)(2)) are deemed not to be “related to a transaction” for purposes of this consent requirement.

Credit unions may deliver electronic disclosures to a member's e-mail address or make them available at another location such as a web site. If the credit union makes a disclosure available at such a location, it effectively delivers the disclosure by sending a notice alerting the member when the disclosure can be accessed and making it available for at least 90 days.

For purposes of § 707.10(d), a member's electronic address is an e-mail address that is not limited to receiving communications transmitted solely by the credit union. This guidance is reflected in § 707.10(d) in Appendix C to part 707. An electronic address would not include systems that permit communication only between the member and the credit union, such as a home-banking program that allows a member to communicate directly with the credit union on-line with the use of a computer and modem. These systems, like a credit union's web site accessed via the Internet, give members access to account information at a location controlled by the credit union. In both instances, the credit union determines how long disclosures will be available to the member. Members who receive disclosures at their e-mail addresses, however, may choose when to review, and for how long to retain, account information. Members who receive disclosures by contacting a credit union's web site, however, also need to be alerted when the information is first available to ensure that they have the opportunity to access the information before it is removed. Accordingly, disclosures provided using systems such as home-banking programs are treated in the same manner as disclosures made available at a web site. They require a notice to alert the member when disclosures are posted and the notice must be sent by e-mail or to a postal address, at the credit union's option.

Section 707.10(d)(2)(i) requires that the alert notice discussed above identify the account involved and the address or other location where the disclosure is available. Section 707.10(d)(2)-1 in Appendix C to part 707 provides guidance on the level of detail required in identifying the account.

Section 707.10(d)(2)(ii) requires that disclosures provided at a web site must remain available for at least 90 days. This helps ensure that members have adequate time to access and retain a disclosure under a variety of circumstances, such as when a member may not be able for an extended period of time to access the information due to computer malfunctions, travel, or illness. The 90-day period is uniform for all disclosures, for ease of compliance. Section 707.10(d)(2)-2 in Appendix C to part 707 provides that while disclosures must be available for the entire 90-day period, the credit union has the discretion to determine whether they should be available at the same location for the entire period.

Section 707.10(d)(3) clarifies that the requirements of § 707.10(d)(2)(i) and (ii) do not apply to disclosures in certain advertisements (§ 707.8), and the requirements of § 707.10(d)(2)(ii) do not apply to disclosures made available upon a member's request(§ 707.4(a)).

Part 707 does not require a credit union to verify that electronic disclosures it has sent were actually received by its members. The cost and burden of doing so would not be warranted. When electronic disclosures are returned undelivered, however, § 707.10(e) imposes a duty on the credit union to attempt redelivery (either electronically or to a postal address) based on information in the credit union's own files. Where a credit union actually knows that the delivery of an electronic disclosure did not take place, the credit union should take reasonable steps to effectuate delivery in some way. For example, if an e-mail message to a member containing an alert notice or other disclosure is returned as undeliverable, the credit union satisfies the redelivery requirement if it sends the disclosure to a different e-mail address or postal address that it has on file. Sending the disclosure a second time to the same electronic address would not be sufficient if the credit union has a different address for the member on file. Section 707.10(e)-1 in Appendix C to part 707 provides this guidance.

This redelivery requirement is limited to instances where the electronic communication has not been delivered. It does not apply to instances where the disclosure is delivered but cannot be read by the member due to technical problems with the member's software. A credit union will have complied with timing requirements for sending a disclosure when the disclosure is initially sent in a timely manner, even though it is returned undelivered and the credit union is required to take reasonable steps to attempt redelivery.

Section 707.10(f) provides that a person other than a credit union that is required to comply with part 707 may use electronic communication in accordance with the requirements of § 707.10, as applicable.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact agency rulemaking may have on a substantial number of small credit unions. For purposes of this analysis, credit unions under $1 million in assets are considered small credit unions.

This interim final rule provides credit unions with the flexibility of using an optional and alternative method of delivering certain required disclosures. Credit unions are free to choose not to utilize this alternative. Credit unions that choose to use this alternative will likely realize a reduction in their costs of delivery as a result. The NCUA has determined and certifies that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions. Accordingly, the NCUA has determined that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.

NCUA has determined that these amendments to part 707 do not increase paperwork requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and regulations of the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. This interim final rule applies to all federally-insured credit unions, but does not have 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. NCUA has determined that this interim final rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.

NCUA has determined that this rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) provides generally for congressional review of agency rules. A reporting requirement is triggered in instances where NCUA issues a final rule as defined by Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 551. The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not a major rule for purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that is applicable to Turbomeca Artouste II and Artouste III series turboshaft engines was published in the Federal Register on May 31, 2000 (65 FR 34602). That action proposed to require installation of modification TU 24, TU 167, or TU 164, depending on the specific engine series, in accordance with Turbomeca Artouste II Service Bulletin (SB) No. 223 72 0070, dated January 21, 1999; Turbomeca Artouste III SB No. 218 80 0098, dated January 14, 1999; or Turbomeca Artouste III SB No. 218 80 0093, Revision 2, dated January 14, 1999.

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

There are approximately 3,102 Turbomeca S.A. Artouste II and Artouste III series turboshaft engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 213 engines installed on helicopters of US registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately two work hours per engine to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $630 per engine. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD on US operators is estimated to be $159,750. The manufacturer has advised the Direction Generale de L'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, that it may provide modification TU 24, TU 164, or TU 167 at no cost to the operator, thereby substantially reducing the cost impact of this proposed rule.

This final 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 final 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) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 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 .

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that is applicable to GE CF6-50 turbofan engines was published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2000 (65 FR 70533). That action proposed to require removal of old high pressure compressor (HPC) air ducts and mating hardware and replacement with newly designed air ducts and reworked mating hardware in accordance with GE Aircraft Engines (GEAE) Service Bulletin (SB) CF6-50 72-1200, dated May 8, 2000; GEAE Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) CF6-50 72-A1200, Revision 1, dated July 20, 2000; or GEAE ASB CF6-50 72-A1200, Revision 2, dated November 2, 2000.Those bulletins describe procedures for removal of the HPC air duct assembly, part numbers (P/N's): 9128M36G03 / G04 / G05 / G06 / G08 / G20 / G21 or 1644M16G03 and mating hardware (rear shaft or stage 11-14 spool shaft) and replacement with the new design air duct and reworked mating hardware.

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

One commenter notes that there is a typographical error in paragraph (a) of the proposed rule. The error is in the P/N for the air duct assembly. There is no P/N 99128M36G03. The FAA agrees, and has changed the P/N reference from 99128M36G03 to 9128M36G03.

One commenter requests that the cost of the stage 3-9 spool inspections required by other AD's be included in the cost analysis for this rule as well. The FAA does not agree. The costs of the stage 3-9 spool inspections required by other AD's were accounted for in the rule making process for those rules. This AD does not require additional stage 3-9 spool inspections.

Two commenters request that the definition of shop visit for this rule be modified or clarified because they believe that the shop visit definition in the proposed rule will force incorporation of newly designed air ducts and modification of the mating hardware sooner than intended. The FAA agrees. The definition in the proposed rule would have required incorporation of the redesigned air duct at any time the HPC stage 2 disk flange was disassembled or the HPC stage 1 disk was removed, for any reason. As the commenters note, this occurs during routine maintenance and tying the replacement of the HPC air duct to that triggering event would have an unintended acceleration of the HPC air duct replacement program. Therefore, the FAA has changed the definition of HPC rotor exposure. The requirements of this AD are triggered on removal of the stage 3-9 spool from the HPC rotor structure, regardless of whether any blades, locking lugs, bolts or balance weights remain assembled to the spool. This change will achieve the intended rate of compliance for the redesigned air duct incorporation while maintaining an acceptable level of safety.

Two commenters believe that the cost analysis of the AD should be revised to reflect a higher cost due to additional maintenance or inspections that will be needed once the HPC is disassembled to piece-part level for the rework and installation of the new air duct. The FAA does not agree. The costs cited in the proposal reflect the costs for complying with this AD. Other potential costs that may be incurred for other reasons (i.e. normal maintenance or other AD required inspections) are not included in the cost analysis for the actions required by this AD.

In addition, a comment was received to Docket No. 90-ANE-25-AD in response to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published on October 12, 2000 (65 FR 60597) that proposed to revise AD 91-10-03 R1. That proposed revision was to add reworked rear shaft part numbers to the list of affected parts in AD 91-10-03 R1 to ensure that the necessary inspections were continued following rework and reidentification of the parts. The rework is required in order to use these rear shafts with the redesigned air duct, and does not address the bolt hole condition that prompted the inspection requirements of 91-10-03 R1. The commenter believed that the new effective date of the proposed revision to AD 91-10-03 R1 could be misconstrued and result in parts continuing in service without the required inspections for longer than intended by AD 91-10-03 R1.

The FAA agrees that the new effectivity date of the proposed revision to AD 91-10-03 R1 could reduce the intended level of safety. Therefore, the NPRM Docket No. 90-ANE-25-AD is being withdrawn, and the requirement to inspect the reworked shafts that was proposed by that proposed rule has instead been incorporated into this final rule. Incorporation of the air duct required by this rule also requires that the existing rear shafts be reworked and reidentified in order to be used with the new air duct design. The rework procedure requires that the rear shaft be inspected at the time of the rework, regardless of any prior inspection history. Part of that inspection includes the same fluorescent penetrant inspection required by AD 91-10-03 R1. If the part has not already received an initial inspection in accordance with AD 91-10-03 R1, it will receive the necessary inspection as part of the rework procedure. Therefore, the repetitive inspection interval of 6,000 CSLI will be added to this AD for reworked and reidentified rear shafts. The additional cost for this inspection has been added to the cost analysis for this AD.

Finally, the applicability for this AD now also reflects the reidentified rear shafts. The total number of engines affected by this AD, however, remains the same because the incorporation of the new air duct also requires modification of the rear shaft.

The FAA has added to paragraph (a) a reference to GE Aircraft Engines Alert Service Bulletin CF6-50 72-A1200, Revision 3, dated May 30, 2001, as an option by which to perform the required air duct replacement and rework of the mating hardware.

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

There are about 1,730 engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 469 engines installed on aircraft of U.S. registry would be affected by this AD, that it would take about 70 work hours per engine to disassemble and reassemble the HPC module, that it would take 19 hours to rework the mating hardware, that the repetitive inspection of each reworked rear shaft would take two hours, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Each new air duct assembly will cost $32,985. Based on these figures, the total AD cost impact on U.S. operators is estimated to be $18,030,705.

This final 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 final 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) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 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.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 2001-03-04, amendment 39-12107 (66 FR 10187, February 14, 2001), which is applicable to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2001 (66 FR 17094). The action proposed to continue to require repetitive ultrasonic inspection to detect damage of the actuator lugs of the flight spoiler center hinge; and corrective action, if necessary. The action also proposed to mandate the previously optional terminating action by requiring replacement of the flight spoilers with new improved spoilers.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

There are approximately 195 Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 series airplanes of U.S. registry that will be affected by this AD.

The inspections that are currently required by AD 2001-03-04, and retained in this new AD, take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $23,400, or $120 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The new replacement that is required by this AD will take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. The required parts will be provided by the manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the new replacement required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $46,800, or $240 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 98-25-52, amendment 39-10957 (63 FR 71214, December 24, 1998), which is applicable to all Boeing Model 747 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on November 20, 2000 (65 FR 69718). The action proposed to require, for certain airplanes, installation of improved fuel pumps, which would terminate the requirements of the existing AD.

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

One commenter requests that the FAA revise paragraph (b) of the proposed rule to clarify that compliance with the requirements of that paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (a) of the proposed rule. The commenter points out that, while paragraph (b) states that no further action is required if it is determined that the correct thrust washer is installed under the guidelines in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the proposed rule, paragraph (b) does not state that the operational limitations in paragraph (a) are no longer necessary.

The FAA concurs with the commenter's request, and has revised paragraph (b) of this AD to state that accomplishment of that paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.

One commenter requests that the FAA revise paragraph (b) to refer to the acceptable replacement parts identified in paragraph (c) of the proposed rule. The commenter states that Crane Hydro-Aire fuel pumps having thrust washers, part number 60-06561, with a date code of 9848 or higher etched on the outside diameter of the thrust washer, are acceptable. If such pumps are installed, no further action is required by this AD; thus, this guideline should be included with the others under paragraph (b). The commenter notes that this change will make the proposed rule easier to follow.

The FAA concurs, and has added a new paragraph (b)(4) to this final rule.

One commenter, the parts manufacturer, requests that the FAA revise the “Cost Impact” section of the proposed rule to remove the statement “Required parts would be provided by the manufacturer at no cost to the operators.” The commenter states that there are certain restrictions on the cost of parts to the operators, based on the date of overhaul or repair of the pumps. The commenter suggests including a new statement such as, “Modification of the fuel pump by CRANE Hydro-Aire or required parts for modification by the operator will be provided by the manufacturer'at no cost to the operator in accordance with the “Repair Options” and “Warranty” sections of the applicable CRANE Hydro-Aire Service Bulletin.”

The FAA concurs with the intent of the commenter's request. The FAA has revised the “Cost Impact” section of this final rule to include the following statement, which is more general than the statement suggested by the commenter: “The parts manufacturer has committed previously to its customers that it may bear the cost of replacement parts with certain restrictions, based on the date of overhaul or repair of the pumps.”

One commenter, the airplane manufacturer, requests that the FAA revise the proposed rule to limit the applicability to airplanes up to and including line number 1188. The commenter states that airplanes after line number 1188 have the correct thrust washers installed and, therefore, are not subject to the actions in the proposed rule. The commenter further notes that in-service pump replacements on airplanes after line number 1188 will be maintained by normal operator practices for parts control.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request to limit the applicability. Though only certain airplanes were produced with the incorrect thrust washer, the pump with the subject washer may easily be removed from one airplane and installed on another airplane. Thus, airplanes such as those with line numbers 1188 and subsequent, which were delivered with the correct thrust washer, may subsequently have had a pump with a discrepant thrust washer installed. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that paragraph (b) of the proposed rule be revised to specifically reference the accomplishment instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28-2225, dated December 3, 1998. Paragraph (b) defines conditions under which no action is required per this AD. The commenter states that including a reference to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28-2225 would make it easier for operators to track compliance for the purposes of this proposed rule.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The FAA finds that compliance may be tracked by the part number of the override or override/jettison pump, or by review of maintenance records, methods which are allowed by paragraph (b) of this AD. The FAA finds that revising paragraph (b) of this AD in the manner suggested by the commenter would provide no improvement in the clarity of the AD. However, the original issue of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28-2225, as well as Revision 3, dated March 3, 1999, were previously approved as alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) for AD 98-25-52. Accordingly, paragraph (d)(2) of this AD, states that (with one exception) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 98-25-52, amendment 39-10957, are approved as alternative methods of compliance with paragraph (a) of this AD. Airplanes on which the intent of paragraph (a) of this AD has been accomplished are not subject to paragraph (b) of this AD. Thus, no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter notes that the following statement, made in the “Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule” section of the proposed rule, indicates that the life of the thrust washer on the improved pumps has been extended from 500 hours to “more than 15,000 hours.” The commenter expresses concern that, while this may be a significant improvement in life limit, failure of the pump, whether at 15,000 hours or 500 hours, would still be catastrophic and, thus, is an unacceptable risk. The commenter states that, if the failure mode is still present in the improved pump, the commenter would not support the removal of the fuel quantity restrictions from the Airplane Flight Manual as allowed by the proposed rule.

The FAA infers that the commenter is requesting that the FAA remove the terminating action provided by paragraph (c) of this AD. The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The statement noted by the commenter was intended as a reference, not to indicate that the life of the thrust washer was 15,000 hours. Service experience has shown that the aluminum oxide coating applied to the thrust washer using a D-gun spray method lasts at least as long as the currently expected service life of the pump between overhauls. While no specific limit on the overhaul interval for the pump exists, the FAA has determined that an acceptable level of safety will be provided with respect to failure of the thrust bearing without continuing to require the AFM procedures for early pump shutoff. However, the FAA recognizes and agrees with the commenter's concern regarding the possible failure modes of fuel pumps and the current design practice of routinely allowing fuel pumps in auxiliary fuel tanks (including built-in auxiliary tanks such as the center wing tank and the horizontal stabilizer tank on Model 747-400 series airplanes) to run until the inlets are uncovered. The FAA is examining this issue and is considering issuing additional rulemaking to address fuel pump installations that are not fail-safe on existing transport airplane designs. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

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

There are approximately 1,100 Model 747 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 250 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The AFM revisions that are currently required by AD 98-25-52 take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $15,000, or $60 per airplane.

The replacements required for certain airplanes by this new AD will take approximately 25 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. The parts manufacturer has committed previously to its customers that it may bear the cost of replacement parts with certain restrictions, based on the date of overhaul or repair of the pumps. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $375,000, or $1,500 per airplane.

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

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

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

On February 13, 2001, the FAA proposed to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 71 (14 CFR part 71) by revising Class E airspace at Poplar, MT, in order to accommodate new RNAV SIAPs at Poplar Airport, Popular MT (66 FR 9989). This amendment provides Class E5 airspace at Poplar, MT, to meet current criteria standards associated with the SIAP. Interested parties were invited to participate in the rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 71 (14 CFR part 71) revises Class E airspace at Poplar, MT, in order to accommodate a new RNAV SIAPs to the Poplar Airport, Poplar, MT. This amendment revises Class E5 airspace at Poplar, MT, to meet current criteria standards associated with the RNAV SIAP. The FAA establishes Class E airspace where necessary to contain aircraft transitioning between the terminal and en route environments. This rule is designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) at the Poplar Airport and between the terminal and en route transition stages.

The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American 83. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth, are published in Paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9H dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

On January 23, 2001, the FAA proposed to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 71 (14 CFR part 71) by establishing Class E airspace at Heber City, UT, in order to accommodate a new RNAV SIAP and Departure Procedure (DP) at Heber City Russ McDonald Field, Heber City, UT (66 FR 7435). This amendment provides Class E5 airspace at Heber City, UT, to meet current criteria standards associated with the SIAPs and DP. Interested parties were invited to participate in the rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 71 (14 CFR part 71) establishes Class E airspace at Heber City, UT, in order to accommodate a new SIAP and DP to the Heber City Russ McDonald Field, Heber City, UT. This amendment establishes Class E5 airspace at Heber City, UT, to meet current criteria standards associated with the RNAV SIAP and DP. The FAA establishes Class E airspace where necessary to contain aircraft transitioning between the terminal and en route environments. This rule is designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) at the Heber City Russ McDonald Field and between the terminal and en route transition stages.

The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth, are published in Paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9H dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

We are publishing guidance  1 on the impact of E-SIGN  2 on our rules promulgated under the Securities Act, 3 Exchange Act  4 and Regulation S-T  5 that require issuers to retain signature authentication documents and certain other records for specified time periods.

E-SIGN seeks to promote electronic commerce by permitting and encouraging the use of electronic records and signatures in transactions in interstate or foreign commerce. 6 Generally, E-SIGN provides that, with respect to any transaction  7 within its scope, a signature, contract or other record relating to the transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form. 8 Similarly, E-SIGN provides that a contract relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation. 9

E-SIGN also encourages the electronic storage of records relating to business, consumer and commercial transactions. 10 Further, E-SIGN authorizes federal and state regulatory agencies to set standards and formats for the retention of these electronic records. 11

Under E-SIGN, if a statute, regulation or other rule of law requires that a contract or other record relating to a transaction be retained, that requirement is met by retaining an electronic record of the information in the contract or other record if the electronic record

• Accurately reflects the information set forth in the contract or other record; and

• Remains accessible to all persons who are entitled to access by statute, regulation or rule of law, for the period required by such statute, regulation or rule of law, in a form that is capable of being accurately reproduced for later reference. 12

E-SIGN generally supersedes pre-existing regulatory agency requirements that a record be kept on paper if that record is generated in a business, consumer or commercial transaction. 13 If, however, the record is generated principally for governmental purposes, it is not subject to E-SIGN. 14

Several of our disclosure rules require issuers to retain records related to the documents filed with us or distributed to investors. Of principal concern to us is the provision in Regulation S-T that requires issuers to retain manually-signed signature pages or other documents that signatories must execute (“authentication documents”) to authenticate, acknowledge or otherwise adopt their signatures that appear in typed form within electronically filed documents. 15 These authentication documents must be executed before or at the time an issuer makes an electronic filing. The filer must retain each authentication document for a period of five years and furnish it to us upon request. Comparable requirements exist under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act where typed, duplicated or facsimile signatures appear on a document that we permit issuers to file with us in paper form. 16

We believe that these requirements to retain authentication documents are not subject to E-SIGN because authentication documents are records generated principally for governmental purposes rather than in connection with a business, consumer or commercial transaction. 17 Moreover, these authentication documents arise in the context of a governmental filing. Governmental filings are expressly excluded from E-SIGN. 18 Accordingly, issuers subject to these retention requirements should continue to retain the paper original of all authentication documents. 19

Other rules under the Securities Act, Exchange Act and Regulation S-T that require issuers to retain records  20 do not expressly require that the records be retained in paper form. 21 Accordingly, issuers may elect to keep these records in electronic form as long as the storage method selected offers the same assurances of accuracy and accessibility as are provided by paper retention.

At this time, we do not believe that the specification of any additional standards  22 for the electronic retention of issuer records subject to E-SIGN is needed to protect investors. If questions arise about the accuracy, integrity or accessibility of electronic records in the future, we may exercise our authority to impose appropriate standards for electronic retention.

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

On November 14, 2000 (65 FR 68111), EPA proposed a full disapproval of the following rule that was submitted for incorporation into the California SIP.

Our proposed action contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.

EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received comments from the following party:

• Charles L. Fryxell, AVAPCD; letter dated December 12, 2000 and received December 14, 2000.

The comments and our responses are summarized below.

Comment I: AVAPCD disagrees with EPA that the reference to Rule 430 must be removed from Rule 461 because Rule 430 is not in the SIP and is not appropriate for the SIP. AVAPCD argues that Rule 430 was appropriately submitted to EPA as a SIP revision to support the District's title V program. AVAPCD believes that pursuant to the part 70 White Papers #1 and #2, submitted Rule 430 should be considered enforceable unless and until EPA disapproves it.

Response: Page 19 of part 70 White Paper #2 provides for Districts to write Title V permits that rely on rules that have been submitted but not approved by EPA, where the District reasonably believes that the submitted rule will be approved. This does not adequately support the comment on Rule 461 because:

(1) The White Papers do not address the case where a SIP rule, rather than a permit, references rules submitted but not approved.

(2) Based on the EPA correspondence referenced in the comment, AVACPD cannot reasonably assume that the submitted Rule 430 will be approved.

Because we believe Rule 430 will not be incorporated into the SIP and because we have identified other deficiencies in Rule 461, we believe it is appropriate to list the reference to Rule 430 as a deficiency in Rule 461. However, if AVAPCD continues to request EPA action on Rule 430, we can act on Rule 430 in a time frame consistent with District activity to revise Rule 461.

Comment II: AVAPCD comments that they removed the “Self-Compliance Program” (SCP) from Rule 461 because South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) audits showed that the SCP was ineffective. AVAPCD also comments that they intend to monitor changes that SCAQMD has made in their SCP and will consider EPA's suggested replacement program.

Response: Information collected over the last several years by CARB, SCAQMD and others show considerable VOC emissions caused by inadequately maintained vapor recovery equipment. The SCP was designed to require regular equipment inspections and upkeep to ensure reasonable emission control. While this program may be flawed, we believe it has resulted in significant emission reductions. AVAPCD's removal of the SCP requirement without equivalent replacement violates sections 110(l), 182(b)(2), and 182(b)(3) of the CAA.

Comment III: AVAPCD comments that the proposed disapproval should be a limited approval/limited disapproval, because the rule was previously approved into the SIP and portions of the proposed amendments, including the deletion of the training requirement, the conditional extension of the exemption for mobile fuelers, and a wide variety of minor changes, were acceptable to EPA.

Response: In general, we propose a limited approval/limited disapproval to SIP revisions that have minor deficiencies but strengthen the SIP overall. We believe this is not the case for the submitted Rule 461. None of the cited amendments and minor changes strengthen the SIP. The deletion of the requirement for the Self-Compliance Program weakens the SIP overall. Therefore, it is preferable to maintain the existing version of the rule in the SIP until the deficiencies are corrected.

No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a full disapproval of the submitted rule. This action retains the SIP rule in the California SIP. Sanctions will not be imposed under section 179 of the Act as described in 59 FR 39832 (August 4, 1994).

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

Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. E.O. 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” Under E.O. 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in E.O. 13132, because it merely acts on a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.”

This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

EPA's disapproval of the state request under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect state enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action acts on pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's action because it does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 20, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

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

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

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-301135. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

In the Federal Registers of June 9, 1999 (64 FR-30997) (FRL-6082-6) and June 30, 2000 (65 FR-40632) (FRL-6592-6), EPA issued notices pursuant to section 408 of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a as amended by the FQPA of 1996 (Public Law 104-170) announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 9E5060) for tolerance by Aventis CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. These notices included a summary of the petition prepared by Aventis CropScience, the petitioner. There were no comments received in response to these notices of filing.

The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.570 be amended by establishing a tolerance for the combined residues of the safener isoxadifen-ethyl, (ethyl 5,5-diphenyl-2-isoxazoline-3-carboxylate, CAS No. 163520-33-0) and its metabolites: 4,5-dihydro-5,5-diphenyl-3-isoxazolecarboxylic acid and β-hydroxy-β-benezenepropanenitrile, in or on rice, grain; and rice, straw at 0.050 and 0.20 part per million (ppm) respectively. The Agency determined that the tolerance levels should be raised and that tolerances for two additional rice commodities are appropriate due to the lack of a rice processing study. Thus, the tolerance levels for the safener isoxadifen-ethyl and its metabolites for the following commodities are: rice, grain; rice, straw; rice, hulls; and rice, bran at 0.10, 0.25, 0.50, and 0.80 ppm respectively. The tolerances will expire on June 21, 2004.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-5754-7).

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2), for a tolerance for the combined residues of isoxadifen-ethyl and its metabolites on rice, grain; rice, straw; rice, hulls; and rice, bran at 0.10, 0.25, 0.50, and 0.80 ppm respectively. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerances follow.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results on the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by isoxadifen-ethyl are discussed in the following Table 1 as well as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies reviewed.

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

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

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

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_40/40cfr180._00.html, a beta site currently under development.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-301136. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

In the Federal Register of December 6, 2000 (65 FR 76241) (FRL-6748-9), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (Public Law 104-170) announcing the filing of two pesticide tolerance petitions by Emerald BioAgriculture Corporation, 3125 Sovereign Drive, Suite B, Lansing, MI 48911-4240. This notice included a summary of the petitions prepared by the petitioner Emerald BioAgriculture Corporation. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1187 and 180.1188 be amended by establishing exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of L -glutamic acid and gamma aminobutyric acid.

New section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

Supporting data for these sections were submitted with Pesticide Petitions PP 7F4842 and 7F4843 (65 FR 76241).

In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses).

1. Food . No differences in exposure are expected when compared to those described in PPs 7F4842 and 7F4843.

2. Drinking water exposure . No differences in exposure are expected when compared to those described in PPs 7F4842 and 7F4843.

No differences in exposure are expected when compared to those described in PPs 7F4842 and 7F4843.

No differences in exposure are expected when compared to those described in PPs 7F4842 and 7F4843.

1. U.S. population . Based on its abundance in nature and long history of use by humans without deleterious effects, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the U.S. population, including infants and children, to residues of L -glutamic and gamma aminobutyric acids. This includes all dietary exposure and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. This is a reasonable conclusion because the preponderance of data from open literature supporting the safe use of L -glutamic acid in foods, that GABA does not cross the blood-brain barrier, both chemicals are consumed daily by the human population from naturally occurring sources, and the supporting acute toxicity data on AuxiGro and inconsequential exposure resulting from its application to crops.

2. Infants and children . No differences in exposure are expected compared to those in PPs 7F4842 and 7F4843.

Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) provides essentially the same process for persons to “object” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket control number OPP-301136 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before August 20, 2001.

1. Filing the request . Your objection must specify the specific provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.

Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. C400, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 260-4865.

2. Tolerance fee payment . If you file an objection or request a hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i) or request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33(m). You must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please identify the fee submission by labeling it “Tolerance Petition Fees.”

EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement “when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.” For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at tompkins.jim@epa.gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

3. Copies for the Docket . In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit IX.A., you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion in the official record that is described in Unit I.B.2. Mail your copies, identified by docket number OPP-301136, to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB described in Unit I.B.2. You may also send an electronic copy of your request via e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov. Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.

A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

This final rule establishes an exemption from the tolerance requirement under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.” This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

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

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

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr_00/Title_40/40cfr180_00. a beta site currently under development.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-301013. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

Tolerances for pyridaben on various commodities were published in the Federal Register of July 14, 2000 (65 FR 43704) (FRL-6593-1). In that document, the regulatory text incorrectly amended § 180.494(a) by adding an entry “citrus, crop group” at a tolerance level of 0.05 ppm. The entry should have read “citrus” at a tolerance level of 0.5 ppm. This technical correction re-establishes the tolerance for “citrus” at 0.5 ppm and removes the entry for “citrus, crop group” under the table in § 180.494(a). The preamble of the final rule clearly stated that the tolerance level for citrus was to remain the same. (See Unit II. of the final rule.)

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because EPA is merely re-establishing the tolerance level for pyridaben on “citrus” that was inadvertently deleted and removing the tolerance for “citrus, crop group” that was inadvertently added in the Federal Register of July 14, 2000. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For information about the applicability of the regulatory assessment requirements to the final rule that was issued on July 14, 2000 (64 FR 43704), please refer to the discussion in Unit VIII. of that document.

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

EPA Region V is publishing this direct final notice of deletion of the Tomah Fairgrounds Landfill, Superfund Site from the NPL.

The EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), sites from the NPL remain eligible for remedial actions if conditions at a deleted site warrant such action.

Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication of a notice of intent to delete. This action will be effective August 20, 2001 unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 23, 2001 on this document. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final deletion before the effective date of the deletion and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Tomah Fairgrounds Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that releases may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making a determination to delete a release from the NPL, EPA shall consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed (Hazardous Substance Superfund Response Trust Fund) response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

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

Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the deleted site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, CERCLA section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c), requires that a subsequent review of the site be conducted at least every five years after the initiation of the remedial action at the deleted site to ensure that the action remains protective of public health and the environment. If new information becomes available which indicates a need for further action, EPA may initiate remedial actions. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:

(1) The EPA consulted with Wisconsin on the deletion of the Site from the NPL prior to developing this direct final notice of deletion.

(2) Wisconsin concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL.

(3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final notice of deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel notice of intent to delete published today in the “Proposed Rules” section of the Federal Register is being published in a major local newspaper of general circulation at or near the Site and is being distributed to appropriate federal, state, and local government officials and other interested parties; the newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the notice of intent to delete the Site from the NPL.

(4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the deletion in the Site information repositories identified above.

(5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document. EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received.

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL:

The Tomah Fairgrounds Landfill Site (Site) covers approximately 15 acres within the boundaries of the 37.5-acre fairgrounds, in Tomah, Monroe County, Wisconsin. The Site is situated at the south edge of town and is a grass-covered open field that is used as a parking lot during fairground events. Land uses to the west are agricultural, to the east, commercial/industrial and to the north and south, residential.

The Site was used and operated by the City of Tomah as a disposal site from 1955 until 1960. Waste disposal methods consisted of excavating 6 to 8 feet of soil, land filling waste materials, placing a cover consisting of previously excavated topsoil and final grading. Some material disposed of in the landfill may have been burned before it was buried. No disposal records regarding the types or quantities of material buried were maintained.

In 1984, U.S. EPA's Field Investigation Team, with the assistance of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, conducted a preliminary assessment of the Site. The assessment raised concerns about the possible effects of disposal directly into an aquifer and the potential for direct contact with hazardous substances because of erosion of the landfill cap. EPA added the site to the National Priorities List on July 21, 1987.

In September, 1996, the City of Tomah signed an agreement with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources under which the City agreed to monitor groundwater for at least 10 years in order to evaluate the progress of natural attenuation; and to maintain zoning and deed restrictions so as to restrict the use of ground water and preclude residential use of the land at the Site.

EPA conducted a remedial investigation of the site in two phases. Phase 1 took place in 1993. It collected ground water and soil samples in order to characterize the nature and extent of contamination and associated exposure risks. The results of this sampling indicated that additional samples were needed to adequately characterize the site. Accordingly, EPA moved on to Phase 2 of the RI in 1995. Field investigations for the Phase 2 RI included sampling of surface soils on and off the landfill and installation of monitoring wells for sampling groundwater. The results of surface soil sampling showed no contaminants in excess of Wisconsin standards, except for one sample showing a lead level higher than the state standard. Results of groundwater sampling showed an exceedance of the maximum contaminant level for vinyl chloride in one deep well. There were also exceedances of the maximum contaminant levels for arsenic, chromium, and lead, but only in unfiltered samples, indicating that the elevated metal concentrations were on the suspended solid fraction of the samples rather than dissolved in the water.

EPA used the data collected during the RI to assess human health risks. Under the assumption that the site would continue to be used for recreational purposes, and not for residential development, and that groundwater would not be tapped for drinking water, EPA found no risks in excess of federal standards.

On September 26, 1996, the Regional Administrator signed a Record of Decision (ROD), selecting a remedy for the Tomah Fairgrounds Site. The ROD determined that “No Further Action” was appropriate due to deed restrictions limiting land use and an agreement between the WDNR and the City of Tomah requiring the City to monitor ground water to evaluate the progress of natural attenuation.

The following tables present monitoring results for vinyl chloride, the primary contaminant of concern detected above federal standards in ground water at the Tomah Fairgrounds Site. (The MCL for vinyl chloride is 2 ug/l.) The monitoring results reported here include results from EPA's Remedial Investigation and from the City of Tomah's periodic sampling. No exceedances of the MCL have occurred since 1995.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order in CC Docket No. 80-286 released on May 21, 2001. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20554.

1. Jurisdictional separations is the process by which incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) apportion regulated costs between the intrastate and interstate jurisdictions. The first step in the separations process requires carriers to assign regulated costs to various categories of plant and expenses. In the second step, the costs are apportioned between the intrastate and interstate jurisdictions. These jurisdictional allocations are based upon either a relative-use factor, a fixed allocator, or when specifically allowed in the part 36 rules, by direct assignment.

2. In 1997, the Commission initiated a proceeding seeking comment on the extent to which legislative changes, technological changes, and market changes warranted comprehensive reform of the separations process. Jurisdictional Separations Reform and Referral to the Federal-State Joint Board, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 80-286, 62 FR 59842, November 5, 1997 (NPRM). In the NPRM, the Commission noted that modern network structures are vastly different than the structure used to define the part 36 cost categories, and that the separations process codified in the current part 36 rules was developed at a time when common carrier regulation presumed that interstate and intrastate telecommunications service must be provided through a regulated monopoly.

3. In this Report and Order, we adopt rules based on a July 2000 Recommended Decision of the Federal-State Joint Board (Joint Board) on Jurisdictional Separations, 15 FCC Rcd 13160, FCC 00J-2, CC Docket No. 80-286 (released July 21, 2000). The Commission sought public comment on this Recommended Decision. See “Comment Sought on Recommended Decision Issued by Federal-State Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations,” Public Notice, CC Docket No. 80-286, DA No. 00-2433, 65 FR 67320, November 9, 2000. In its Recommended Decision, the Joint Board recommended that the Commission adopt an interim “freeze” of the jurisdictional separations process codified at part 36 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 36 et seq. , as a means to simplify and stabilize the separations process pending more comprehensive reform. Specifically, pending further reform, the Commission adopts a five-year freeze of all part 36 category relationships and jurisdictional allocation factors for price cap incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), and a freeze of all allocation factors for rate-of-return ILECs. The interim freeze shall be in effect from July 1, 2001 until June 30, 2006, or until the Commission completes comprehensive separations reform, whichever comes first. We believe that these measures will bring simplification and regulatory certainty to the separations process in a time of rapid market and technology changes, until comprehensive reform is completed.

4. In this Report and Order, we adopt rules that do the following:

• Impose a five-year interim freeze of the part 36 category relationships and jurisdictional allocation factors for price cap carriers, and the jurisdictional allocation factors only for rate-of-return carriers. Rate-of-return carriers, however, will be able to elect to freeze their category relationships at the outset of the freeze. The frozen category relationships and allocation factors will be based on data from the carriers' calendar-year 2000 separations studies. The interim freeze will be in effect from July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2006, or until the Commission has completed comprehensive reform of the part 36 separations process, whichever comes first.

• With limited exceptions for the sale and transfer of telephone exchanges, no adjustments to the frozen category relationships and allocation factors will be allowed during the freeze.

• The Report and Order does not adopt the Joint Board's recommendation to reduce local dial equipment minutes (DEM) at the outset of the freeze to compensate for the impact of the Internet on local calling patterns, because we do not believe that the record allows us to quantify with any degree of accuracy the impact of the Internet on a nationwide basis.

• Approximately two years after the implementation of the interim freeze, the Commission will seek comment on the impact of the freeze, including specific comment on the Internet-bound traffic issue. Comprehensive review of the separations process will continue during the interim freeze, and the Commission will work with the Joint Board to address certain specific issues outlined in the Joint Board's Recommended Decision.

• The ARMIS 43-04 report, which is used by incumbent LECs subject to ARMIS reporting requirements to report separations results, will be streamlined to simplify carrier reporting and reduce administrative burdens. The Common Carrier Bureau shall seek public comment on the content of the proposed streamlined ARMIS 43-04 report. This will provide interested parties, including the states, the opportunity to provide feedback on which specific accounts are needed to evaluate the freeze and consider further separations reform. The Commission will adopt specific reporting requirements for ARMIS 43-04 in a subsequent order.

5. We conclude that the effective date of the rules promulgated in this Report and Order shall be the June 20, 2001 except for § 36.3(b), which contain information collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of that section. Although the Administrative Procedure Act normally requires 30 days notice before rules become effective, the Commission, for good cause, may make rules effective with less than 30 days notice. We find such good cause based on the July 1, 2001 start of the new tariff year.

6. The action contained herein has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and found to impose new or modified reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements or burdens on the public. Implementation of these new or modified reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements will be subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date.

7. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an RFA analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Section 121.201 of the Small Business Administration regulations defines a small telecommunications entity in SIC code 4813 (Telephone Companies Except Radio Telephone) as any entity with 1,500 or fewer employees at the holding company level. As we described in the previous IRFA analysis in this proceeding, we recognize that proposals such as a freeze of the part 36 separations process will affect all incumbent local exchange carriers providing interstate services, including some entities employing 1500 or fewer employees at the holding company level.

8. In the instant Report and Order, we amend part 36 of our rules to adopt a variation of the freeze proposals set forth in the NPRM. Specifically, the Commission adopts a five-year freeze of the part 36 category relationships and allocation factors for price cap carriers and a freeze of the allocation factors only for rate-of-return carriers. The objectives of the modified rules adopted in this Report and Order are to freeze the separations process in order to ease the administrative burden of regulatory compliance and to provide greater regulatory certainty for all local exchange carriers subject to the Commission's part 36 rules, including small incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs). For the reasons described, we certify, pursuant to the RFA, that the rules adopted in this Report and Order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The interim freeze will eliminate the need for all ILECs, including ILECs with 1500 employees or fewer, to complete certain annual studies formerly required by the Commission's rules; if this action can be said to have any affect under the RFA, it is to reduce a regulatory compliance burden for small ILECs by eliminating the aforementioned separations studies and providing these carriers with greater regulatory certainty.

9. We note that we specifically considered the impact of the freeze on small ILECs (in general, rate-of-return carriers) in this Report and Order and provided them with the option to freeze their category relationships at the onset of the freeze. We recognized that some small ILECs may be harmed if subject to a categories freeze, as it may reduce their ability to recover investment and receive sufficient universal service support, while other small ILECs may benefit from the added regulatory simplification and stability provided by a categories freeze. Our action, therefore, either retains the status quo for small ILECs choosing to freeze their category relationships, or results in less regulatory burden for those opting for the categories freeze. Furthermore, we have committed to addressing the impact of Internet traffic on the separations results of all carriers, including small ILECs, in the context of the Commission's comprehensive separations reform, as we do not believe carriers are harmed by the current separations treatment of Internet traffic and will not be harmed as a result of the freeze.

10. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order, including this final certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Report and Order and this certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and will be published in the Federal Register . See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

11. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4, 201-205, 215, 218, 220, 229, 254, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, that the amendments to part 36 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Part 36, as described in this Report and Order are adopted.

12. Part 36 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 36, is amended as set forth, effective June 21, 2001 except for § 36.3(b), which contain information collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of that section.

In the Order , released May 15, 2001, the Commission adopted streamlined procedures to replace the burdensome waiver process for the carrier-to-carrier sale or transfer of subscriber bases. The Commission's new procedures provide for an acquiring carrier to simply self-certify to the Commission, in advance of the transfer, that the carrier will follow the required procedures. This will protect the interests of the affected subscribers by giving them adequate advance notice of the carrier change and ensuring that the change will not cause them financial harm. A summary of the Order was published in the Federal Register . 66 FR 28117 (May 22, 2001). The subject heading in the summary was corrected in a document published in the Federal Register . 66 FR 30334 (June 6, 2001). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the information collections contained in section 64.1120(e) on June 7, 2001. OMB. No. 3060-0973. The rules adopted in the Order will take effect on June 21, 2001.

The subsistence harvest of northern fur seals, Callorhinus ursinus , by Alaska Native residents of the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, is governed by regulations found in 50 CFR part 216, subpart F, Taking for Subsistence Purposes. These regulations require NMFS to publish every 3 years a summary of the harvest in the preceding 3 years and a discussion of the number of fur seals expected to be taken over the next 3 years to satisfy the subsistence requirements of residents of the Pribilof Islands (St. Paul and St. George). After a 30-day comment period, NMFS must publish a final notification of the expected annual harvest levels for the next 3 years.

On August 9, 2000 (65 FR 48669), NMFS published the summary of the 1997-1999 fur seal harvests and provided a 30-day comment period on proposed estimates of subsistence needs for the years 2000 through 2002. No comments were received on the proposed estimates or on draft Environmental Assessment. Final expected annual harvest levels for 2000 through 2002 are 1,645-2000 seals on St. Paul Island and 300-500 seals on St. George Island. Background information related to these estimates was included in the proposed harvest estimates on August 9, 2000.

Pursuant to section 102 (2) of the National Environmental Policy Act, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment to accompany this action and a Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the effects of the action on the human environment.

This rule has been determined to be not a significant rule under E.O. 12866. The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No comments were received regarding the economic impact of this rule. Therefore, the requirements to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis are not applicable, and none was prepared.

This action does not require the collection of information.

This action does not contain policies with federalism impacts sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under E.O. 13132 because this action does 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. Nonetheless, NMFS worked closely with local governments in the Pribilof Islands to prepare these estimates of subsistence needs.

E.O. 13084 requires that if NMFS issues a regulation that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments and imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, NMFS must consult with those governments, or the Federal government must provide the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. This action does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this action.

Nonetheless, NMFS took several steps to work with affected tribal governments to prepare and implement the action. These steps included discussions on subsistence needs and mechanisms to ensure that the harvest is conducted in a non-wasteful manner. NMFS and the Tribal Government of St. Paul are negotiating a cooperative agreement pursuant to section 119 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act to govern future harvests.

Regulations governing the spiny dogfish fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota, which is allocated into two quota periods based upon percentages of the annual quota. The period 1 commercial quota (May through October) is distributed to the coastal states from Maine through Florida as described in § 648.230.

The initial total commercial quota for spiny dogfish for the 2001 fishing year was 4,000,000 lb (1,814 mt) (66 FR 22473, May 4, 2001). The commercial quota is allocated into two periods (May 1 through October 31, and November 1 through April 30), with trip limits intended to preclude directed fishing. Quota period 1 was allocated 2,316,000 lb (1,050 mt) and quota period 2 was allocated 1,684,000 lb (764 mt) of the commercial quota, respectively.

The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) monitors the commercial spiny dogfish quota for each quota period and, based upon dealer reports, state data and other available information, determines when the commercial quota has been harvested. NMFS is required to publish a notice in the Federal Register advising and notifying commercial vessels and dealer permit holders that, effective upon a specific date, the spiny dogfish commercial quota has been harvested and no commercial quota is available for landing spiny dogfish for the remainder of a given quota period. The Regional Administrator has determined, based upon dealer reports and other available information, that the 2001 commercial period 1 quota for spiny dogfish has been harvested.

Section 648.4(b) provides that Federal spiny dogfish permit holders agree, as a condition of the permit, not to land spiny dogfish in any state after NMFS has published notification in the Federal Register that the commercial quota for the period has been harvested and that no commercial quota for the spiny dogfish fishery is available. The Regional Administrator has determined that period 1 for spiny dogfish no longer has commercial quota available. Therefore, effective 0001 hrs local time, June 22, 2001, landings of spiny dogfish in coastal states from Maine through Florida by vessels holding commercial Federal fisheries permits are prohibited through October 31, 2001, 2400 hrs local time. The fishing year 2001 quota period 2 for commercial spiny dogfish harvest will open on November 1, 2001. Effective June 22, 2001, federally permitted dealers are also advised that they may not purchase spiny dogfish from vessels issued federal spiny dogfish permits that land in coastal states from Maine through Florida.

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