Section 7(m) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(m)) (“Act”) sets forth the statutory rules with respect to SBA's microloan program which authorizes SBA to assist small businesses that need small amounts of financial assistance. Under the program, SBA makes direct and guaranteed loans available to intermediaries who use the proceeds to make microloans to eligible borrowers. SBA is also authorized to make grants to intermediaries and other qualified nonprofit entities to be used for marketing, management, and technical assistance.

Section 210 of Pub. L. 106-554 (“2000 legislation”) amended section 7(m) of the Act, and this direct final rule implements the statutory changes by conforming SBA's regulations to the statutory changes. Thus, SBA is amending § 120.701 of its regulations to define a Microloan as a loan of not more than $35,000 (formerly $25,000) by an intermediary to a small business. The definition of Specialized Intermediary is changed to mean an intermediary that maintains a portfolio of microloans averaging $10,000 (up from $7,500) or less. SBA is amending § 120.702 of its regulations to reflect that an organization, to become an intermediary, must have made and serviced short-term fixed rate loans of not more than $35,000 (up from $25,000) to newly established or growing small businesses for at least one year.

SBA is amending § 120.704 of its regulations so that in selecting intermediaries for the microloan program, SBA will give priority to applicants that maintain a portfolio of loans averaging $10,000 (up from $7,500) or less. SBA is amending § 120.705 so that a specialized intermediary would have to maintain a portfolio of microloans averaging $10,000 (up from $7,500).

SBA is amending § 120.707(b) of its regulations to reflect that an intermediary may not make a microloan of more than $20,000 (up from $15,000) unless the borrower demonstrates that it is unable to obtain credit elsewhere. In addition, § 120.707(b) is amended to show that an intermediary may not make a loan of more than $35,000 (up from $25,000), and no borrower may owe an intermediary more than $35,000 (up from $25,000) at any one time. SBA is amending § 120.707(c) to reflect the statutory change which increased the dollar amount to $10,000 (up from $7,500).

SBA is amending § 120.714(a) of its regulations so that any eligible nonprofit entity that is not an intermediary may apply to SBA for a grant for the purpose of assisting eligible businesses to obtain private sector financing in amounts of $35,000 (up from $25,000) or less. SBA is amending § 120.714(b) to reflect the statutory changes which increased the (1) number of grants it can make to non-Intermediaries each year to 55 (up from 25), and (2) amount of the grant to $200,000 (up from $125,000).

SBA is publishing this regulation as a direct final rule because SBA believes the rule is noncontroversial since it is merely implementing changes required by P.L. 106-554 without any need for interpretations by SBA. As such, SBA believes that this rule will not elicit any significant adverse comment.

For the purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this direct final rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment.

This direct final rule does not constitute a “significant” regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

SBA certifies that this direct final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This rule is merely implementing changes required by Pub. L. 106-554 without any need for interpretations by SBA. Any impact on small entities results from the 2000 legislation and not from this rulemaking.

SBA certifies that this final rule does not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., chapter 35.

For purposes of Executive Order 12988, SBA certifies that this final rule is drafted, to the extent practicable, to accord with the standards set forth in paragraph 3 of that Order.

The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), the airworthiness authority for the Federal Republic of Germany, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on Eurocopter Model EC 135 helicopters. The LBA advises of an isolated thump-like sound heard during flight followed by unusual vibrations. The inspection following this incident revealed that the attachment between the tensile stress-loaded strut on the RH side of the main transmission and the fuselage structure had ruptured. For such cases, the emergency stop, fitted to the fuselage structure to provide redundancy backup, takes over or will have already taken over the function of the strut. Under such conditions, however, there is a danger that the emergency stop could become worn and ineffective if it is kept in operation for a long period of time with an unairworthy strut.

Eurocopter has issued Alert Service Bulletin EC135-63A-002, Revision 1, dated March 12, 2001 (ASB), which specifies notifying the pilots of Model EC 135 helicopters about the contents of the ASB. The ASB also specifies inspecting the strut for a crack, marking the strut location and serial number (S/N) in the vicinity of the part number (P/N), and transferring location side of the struts at certain intervals. The LBA classified this ASB as mandatory and issued AD 2001-107, dated March 13, 2001 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in the Federal Republic of Germany.

These helicopter models are manufactured in the Federal Republic of Germany and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral agreement, the LBA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the LBA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

We have identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other Eurocopter Model EC135 P1 and EC135 T1 helicopters of the same type designs registered in the United States. Therefore, this AD is being issued to prevent failure of a strut and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

This AD requires the following for each strut, P/N L633M1001 103 and L633M1001 105:

• Before further flight, insert a copy of this AD or a statement into the Emergency Procedures section of the RFM to inform the pilot to reduce power and land as soon as practicable if a thump-like sound followed by unusual vibration occurs during flight.

• Within 10 hours TIS, visually inspect each strut with 950 or more hours TIS for a crack or a break.

• Before accumulating 1000 hours TIS for each strut with less than 950 TIS and within 50 hours TIS for each strut with 950 or more hours TIS, inspect for a crack or a break using a 6-power or higher magnifying glass.

• Replace any cracked or broken strut with an airworthy strut before further flight.

• Enter the details of each inspection in the helicopter's historical or equivalent record.

The short compliance time involved is required because the previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the controllability and structural integrity of the helicopter. Therefore, before further flight, insert a copy of this AD or a statement into the Emergency Procedures section of the RFM to inform the pilot to reduce power and land as soon as practicable if a thump-like sound followed by unusual vibration occurs during flight. Also, because visually inspecting each strut with 950 or more hours TIS for a crack or break is required within 10 hours TIS, and, if a cracked or broken part is found, replacing any unairworthy part with an airworthy part is required before further flight, this AD must be issued immediately.

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

The FAA estimates that 38 helicopters will be affected by this AD. The FAA also estimates approximately 1/2 work hour to do a flashlight and mirror inspection and 2.5 work hours to re-mark, relocate, inspect with a 6-power or higher magnifying glass, and replace each strut as necessary. The average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $2400 per helicopter. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $98,040.

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their mailed comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2001-SW-19-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

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

The FAA has received several reports of in-flight binding and/or stiff operation of the rudder trim control system on McDonnell Douglas Model 717 series airplanes. Subsequent investigation indicates that approximately 60 rudder trim and load-feel actuators were manufactured with insufficient clearance between the actuator support seal tube and spring capsule assembly, and these actuators were installed on Model 717 series airplanes. Moisture condensing in the area of those components could freeze and cause stiff operation, binding, or jamming of the rudder trim control system. Such conditions could result in consequent jamming of the rudder and adversely affect directional control of an airplane.

The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-27A0016, including Appendix, dated April 9, 2001, which describes procedures for a one-time inspection of the support seal tubes of the rudder trim and load-feel actuator assembly of the rudder trim control system, located in the aft accessory compartment, for proper clearance between the actuator support seal tube and spring capsule assembly, and applicable follow-on/corrective actions. The Boeing service bulletin refers to BFGoodrich Aerospace Service Bulletin DL4528M1-27-20, dated April 3, 2001, as an additional source of service information. The inspection and follow-on/corrective actions include the following procedures:

• Condition 1: For a 5-inch support seal tube, as specified in the Boeing service bulletin, reidentify the rudder trim and load-feel actuator assembly, and apply a nylon or polyurethane clear coating.

• Condition 2: For a 6-inch support seal tube, as specified in the Boeing service bulletin, modify and reidentify the actuator assembly, and install the modified and reidentified actuator assembly. Modification action includes removing sealant from around the screw heads and flange of the support seal tube; removing safety wire from screws; removing the support seal tube; cleaning any excess sealant compound from the support seal tube, cover, and front cap; applying sealing compound to the support tube at certain locations; installing and securing a new support seal tube, using six screws having a specified torque value and securing them with safety wire; reidentifying the actuator identification plate; and applying a clear coating to the flange of the support seal tube.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other McDonnell Douglas Model 717 series airplanes of the same type design, this AD is being issued to detect and correct the accumulation of moisture in the rudder trim and load-feel actuator of the rudder trim control system. Such moisture could freeze and result in stiff operation, binding, or jamming of the rudder trim control system and consequent jamming of the rudder; and adversely affect directional control of an airplane.

This AD requires accomplishment of the actions specified by the previously referenced Boeing service bulletin, except as discussed below.

Operators should note that the BFGoodrich Aerospace service bulletin, which is referenced by the Boeing service bulletin as an additional source of information, specifies the application of a nylon or polyurethane clear coating “or equivalent.” However, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to specify the use of a nylon or polyurethane clear coating in paragraph (a)(1) of this AD.

Operators also should note that the reporting requirement in paragraph (b) of this AD also includes an additional requirement to identify whether a 5-inch or a 6-inch support seal tube is found installed on the airplane during the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD.

This is considered to be interim action until final action is identified, at which time the FAA may consider further rulemaking.

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

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

Submit comments using the following format:

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

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

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2001-NM-230-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

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

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-301 series airplanes. TCCA advises that a report was received that during a routine inspection an operator questioned the conformity of the wing access panels located between stations Y42 and Y139 of the upper wing. Investigation revealed that the panels were not built per the design drawing specifications. The panels were manufactured per the design specifications of the DHC-8-100; therefore, the doublers on the panels were manufactured with less than the required thickness. Structural analysis done by the manufacturer indicates that, if the affected panels are exposed to critical design loads during flight, the attachment holes in the panels may elongate, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wings.

De Havilland Dash 8 Maintenance Manual, Product Support Manual 1-83-2, Chapter 57-30-10, dated March 31, 1995, describes procedures for removal and replacement of the access panels of the left and right wings with new panels. TCCA issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-99-27, dated September 28, 1999, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada.

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

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design that may be registered in the United States at some time in the future, this AD is being issued to find and fix panels that do not meet Model 301 wing specifications, which could result in discrepancies and reduced structural integrity of the wings. This AD requires removal of the two upper wing access panels to determine the manufacturing date of the panels to verify compliance with Model 301 specifications, and corrective action, if necessary. The actions are required to be accomplished in accordance with the service information described previously.

None of the Model DHC-8-301 series airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. All airplanes included in the applicability of this rule currently are operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign registry; therefore, they are not directly affected by this AD action. However, the FAA considers that this rule is necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed in the event that any of these subject airplanes are imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future.

Should an affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would require approximately 1 work hour to accomplish the required actions, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD would be $60 per airplane.

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

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

Submit comments using the following format:

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

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

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2001-NM-39-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

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

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

Three sets of interest assumptions are prescribed: (1) A set for the valuation of benefits for allocation purposes under section 4044 (found in Appendix B to part 4044), (2) a set for the PBGC to use to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine lump-sum amounts to be paid by the PBGC (found in Appendix B to part 4022), and (3) a set for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology (found in Appendix C to part 4022).

Accordingly, this amendment (1) adds to Appendix B to Part 4044 the interest assumptions for valuing benefits for allocation purposes in plans with valuation dates during October 2001, (2) adds to Appendix B to Part 4022 the interest assumptions for the PBGC to use for its own lump-sum payments in plans with valuation dates during October 2001, and (3) adds to Appendix C to Part 4022 the interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology for valuation dates during October 2001.

For valuation of benefits for allocation purposes, the interest assumptions that the PBGC will use (set forth in Appendix B to part 4044) will be 6.10 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 6.25 percent thereafter. These interest assumptions represent a decrease (from those in effect for September 2001) of 0.20 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and are otherwise unchanged.

The interest assumptions that the PBGC will use for its own lump-sum payments (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022) will be 4.50 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status, and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. These interest assumptions are unchanged from those in effect for September 2001.

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

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

Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits in plans with valuation dates during October 2001, the PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

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

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

Electronic comments are encouraged and can be sent directly to EPA at A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by Docket No. A-96-56 for the NOX SIP Call and Docket No. A-97-43 for the Section 126 Rule. Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

In the August 3, 2001 notice of data availability, EPA provided notice that it had placed in the dockets for the two main rulemakings concerning ozone-smog transport in the eastern part of the United States-the Nitrogen Oxides State Implementation Plan Call ( NOX SIP Call) and the Section 126 Rule—data relevant to the remands by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) concerning growth rates for seasonal heat input by electric generating units (EGUs). In both the NOX SIP Call and Section 126 rulemakings, EPA determined control obligations with respect to EGUs through the same computation, which included, as one component, estimates of growth in heat input by the EGUs from 1996 to 2007. In two cases decided earlier this year challenging the Section 126 rulemaking and a pair of rulemakings that made technical corrections to the NOX SIP Call, the D.C. Circuit considered challenges to EPA's calculation of the growth estimate and its use of growth factors. In virtually identical decisions, the Court remanded the growth component to EPA for a better response to certain data presented by the affected States and industry concerning actual heat input, and for a better explanation of EPA's methodology. The EPA is in the process of responding to those remands. The EPA's preliminary view is that its growth calculations were reasonable and can be supported with a more robust explanation, based on the existing record, that takes into account the Court's concerns. In addition, EPA is considering new data that have recently been placed in the dockets for the NOX SIP Call and Section 126 Rule. These new data appear to confirm the reasonableness of the growth calculations. The EPA intends to complete its response to the Court's remands in November 2001.

The EPA originally provided a 30-day period for the public to comment on these new data. In response to requests from the Utility Air Regulatory Group and the State of Illinois, EPA is extending the comment period for an additional 15 days. Please refer to the August 3, 2001 notice for a description of the data on which EPA is soliciting comment.

Throughout this document, the terms “you” and “me” refer to the reader of this final rule and to sources subject to the State rule, and the terms “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to the EPA.

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) requires states to develop air pollution control regulations and strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards established by the EPA. Each state must submit the regulations and emission control strategies to the EPA for approval and promulgation into the federally enforceable SIP.

Each federally approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its points of origin. The SIPs can be and generally are extensive, containing many state regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information, such as emission inventories, monitoring documentation, and modeling (attainment) demonstrations.

In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the federally enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations and emission control strategies consistent with state and federal requirements. This process generally includes public notice, public hearings, public comment periods, and formal adoption by state-authorized rulemaking bodies.

Once a state has adopted a rule, regulation, or emissions control strategy it submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed federal action on the state submission. If we receive adverse comments we address them prior to any final federal action (we generally address them in a final rulemaking action).

The EPA incorporates into the federally approved SIP all state regulations and supporting information it has approved under section 110 of the Act. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, Part 52, titled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.” The actual state regulations the EPA has approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR, but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that EPA has approved a given state regulation (or rule) with a specific effective date.

Enforcement of a state regulation before and after it is incorporated into a federally approved SIP is primarily a state responsibility. After the regulation is federally approved, however, the CAA authorizes the EPA to take enforcement actions against violators. The CAA also offers citizens legal recourse to address violations, as provided in section 304 of the Act.

Section 182(c)(2)(B) of the Act requires any serious and above ozone nonattainment area to achieve post-1996 ROP reductions of 3 percent of VOC 1990 baseline emissions per year, averaged over each consecutive 3-year period, until the area has achieved attainment of the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. In Indiana, Lake and Porter Counties (Northwest Indiana nonattainment area) are classified as “severe” nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. As such, this area is subject to the ROP requirement.

The Act specifies under section 182(b)(1)(C) that emission reductions claimed under ROP plans must be achieved through the implementation of control measures through revisions to the SIP, the promulgation of federal rules, or the issuance of permits under Title V of the Act. The state may not include as part of its ROP reduction control measures implemented before November 15, 1990.

Indiana has submitted tightened cold cleaning degreasing rules for the control of VOC as a revision to the SIP for the purpose of meeting ROP requirements for the Northwest Indiana ozone nonattainment area and of reducing VOC emissions in Clark and Floyd counties. Cold cleaning degreasing is used to remove grease and oil from metal parts.

Indiana held a public hearing on the tightened rules on February 4, 1998, in Indianapolis, Indiana. The Indiana Air Pollution Control Board finally adopted the rules on November 4, 1998. The rule revisions became effective May 27, 1999, and were formally submitted to EPA on November 15, 2000, as a revision to the Indiana SIP for ozone.

The November 15, 2000, submittal includes amendments to 326 IAC 8-3-1 (Applicability) and 326 IAC 8-3-8 (Material Requirements for Cold Cleaning Degreasers).

Indiana originally implemented cold cleaning degreasing rules, which are contained in 326 IAC 8-3, as part of its Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for VOC control. The November 15, 2000, SIP revision submittal amends section 326 IAC 8-3-1 to specify the applicability of this rule to degreasing operations in Clark, Floyd, Lake and Porter Counties. It also adds section 326 IAC 8-3-8, material requirements for cold cleaning degreasers, which tightens requirements for operators of cold cleaning degreasers and adds new requirements for sellers of solvent for use in cold cleaning degreasing operations. The rules are more stringent because a requirement has been added limiting the vapor pressure of the cleaning solvents to 1.0 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg), which is lower than the vapor pressure of cleaning solvents that are typically used. Lowering the vapor pressure reduces the amount of VOC emissions generated from this degreasing operation.

As previously discussed, this SIP revision submittal is required by the Act to the extent that Indiana submitted the rule to meet its ROP requirements. The EPA addressed what emission reductions this SIP revision is expected to achieve for purposes of ROP in its August 3, 2001, proposed approval of Indiana's post-1999 ROP plan for Northwest Indiana.

To determine whether the Indiana submittal meets the requirements for an approvable SIP revision, the EPA reviewed the rules for their consistency with section 110 and part D of the Act. A discussion of the rules and EPA's evaluation follows.

Section 326 IAC 8-3-8 has been added to limit the vapor pressure of solvent used or sold for use in cold cleaning degreasing operations in Clark, Floyd, Lake and Porter Counties. Beginning November 1, 1999, the vapor pressure limit is 2.0 mm Hg, or 0.038 pounds per square inch (psi) measured at 20 degrees Celsius (C) (68 degrees Fahrenheit (F)). On May 1, 2001, the vapor pressure limit is tightened to 1.0 mm Hg (0.019 psi) measured at 20 degrees C (68 degrees F).

The supplier sale requirements in Section 326 IAC 8-3-8(c) do not apply to the sale of 5 gallons or less of solvents to an individual or business during any 7 consecutive days. This cutoff level is only expected to exempt a very small amount of the total solvent sold.

Section 326 IAC 8-3-8(a) exempts the cleaning of electronic components from the vapor pressure limits under section 326 IAC 8-3-8(c). Indiana has defined “electronic components” under section 326 IAC 8-3-8(b) as all components of an electronic assembly, including, but not limited to, circuit board assemblies, printed wire assemblies, printed circuit boards, soldered joints, ground wires, bus bars, and any other associated electronic component manufacturing equipment. Indiana added this exemption because solvents limited to 1.0 mmHg vapor pressure do not adequately clean certain types of electronic equipment.

Section 326 IAC 8-3-8(d) requires subject solvent suppliers and users to maintain documents which indicate the solvent's vapor pressure at the prescribed temperature. The sellers of cold cleaning solvents to users must keep records indicating the name and address of the solvent purchaser, the date of purchase, the type of solvent purchased, the unit volume of the solvent, the total volume purchased, and the vapor pressure of the solvent purchased measured in mmHg at 20 degrees C (68 degrees F). Solvent users must maintain records for each solvent purchase indicating the name and address of the solvent supplier, the date of the solvent purchase, the type of solvent purchased, and the vapor pressure of solvent measured in mmHg at 20 degrees C (68 degrees F). These records must be kept on-site for 3 years and be reasonably accessible for an additional 2 years.

As discussed above, these recordkeeping provisions require that both the sellers and users of the cleaning solvents keep records of the vapor pressure. Material Safety Data Sheets, which are required by Occupational Health and Safety regulations (20 CFR 1918), must specify the vapor pressure of the solvent (this Occupational Health and Safety requirement affects but is not directly referenced by Indiana's rule). In its response to a comment from the DeRolf Environmental Consulting Agency, Inc. on recordkeeping, Indiana stated (in the September 1, 1997, Indiana Register): “To fulfill the recordkeeping requirements of this rule the user of a cold cleaning degreaser would need to maintain a Material Safety Data Sheet and a sales receipt.” These record requirements provide a sufficient basis to enforce the applicable rules.

This rule change requires the use of cleaning solvents with a lower vapor pressure than what is typically used. This makes the rule more stringent, because the lower the vapor pressure the less VOC emissions are generated. These rule revisions are, therefore, approvable.

The EPA proposed to approve Indiana's tightened cold cleaning degreasing rules for Clark, Floyd, Lake and Porter Counties.

The EPA did not receive any public comments in response to the proposed rule.

We did not receive any public comments in response to our proposed approval. We are approving the incorporation of Indiana's tightened cold cleaning degreasing rule into the Indiana SIP. The specific provisions we are approving consist of amendments to 326 IAC 8-3-1 and the addition of 326 IAC 8-3-8. These rules were finally adopted by the State on November 4, 1998, took effect on May 27, 1999, and were published in the Indiana Register on June 1, 1999 (22 IR 2854).

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). This rule will be effective October 15, 2001.

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 November 13, 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).)

By this document, the Commission amends its rules to require persons and entities doing business with the Commission to obtain a unique identifying number called the FCC Registration Number (FRN) and supply it when doing business with the Commission.

This proceeding was instituted as a step in our efforts to better manage our financial systems, to improve compliance with various statutes that govern the financial operations of the Federal government, and to improve the efficiency of agency processes for the benefit of the public. We have considered the eight comments and two reply comments received in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 65 FR 78455 (Dec. 15, 2000). In this order, we adopt a new subpart W to part 1 of our rules, 47 CFR part 1, and cross-reference this new subpart where appropriate in our other rules, to require persons and entities doing business with the Commission to acquire an FRN and to provide it with all applications or feeable filings as well as other transactions involving the payment of money. The rules are set forth in the rule changes, and are substantially as we proposed in the NPRM. We have made various editorial changes and changes in response to the comments received as discussed in this decision.

In the NPRM we explained at length the need to adopt a 10-digit unique identifier, the FRN, and our choice of the Commission Registration System (CORES) as the mechanism for assigning the FRN to entities doing business with the Commission. No commenting parties questioned our view that we needed to take steps to improve the management of our financial systems. A mandatory FRN is part of a long-range solution to better manage our financial systems. Adoption of a new requirement such as the FRN will engender implementation issues. We intend to address any problems that arise from the implementation of the CORES expeditiously. We appreciate the comments that pointed out existing and potential problems, and welcome the opportunity to address those concerns.

While many commenting parties generally support the FRN, the FCBA urged the Commission “not to impose any new FRN requirements without taking a simultaneous, comprehensive look at its proposal in the context of the other ‘numbers,’ ‘passwords,’ and ‘identifiers’ already in use at the Commission.” As we have noted, we believe we must implement the FRN requirement as soon as possible. Both the General Accounting Office and the Commission's own Inspector General have concluded that the Commission must improve its collection systems. Adopting a mandatory FRN is among the first steps necessary to correct deficiencies in our financial management systems that have come to our attention.

The FRN will have multiple benefits to the Commission and the public. The FRN will enable us to ensure that fees are recorded and credited to the proper party. This will result in fewer letters requesting confirmation of payments and make it easier for us to respond to inquiries. The FRN will enable us to keep better records of entities that are exempt from paying fees. It will help us to maintain the integrity and efficiency of our collection systems and correct deficiencies identified in our accounting systems. The FRN will eliminate repetitive collection of data while providing us with a database to provide electronic mailings, such as annual fee materials and other informational mailings, to the public doing business with the Commission.

One of the main reasons we are adopting the FRN requirement is to facilitate compliance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), sections 8 and 9 of the Communications Act, and the regulations implementing these statutes. These statutes and regulations permit us to withhold the processing or ultimate grant of a license, application, or other authorization where the applicant has not paid the application fees or is delinquent in its debts to the Commission. The FRN, in conjunction with the Revenue Accounting and Management Information System (RAMIS), will enable us to perform fee and debt sufficiency checks to better manage our collection and revenue systems.

We realize that the manner in which our electronic systems have developed has resulted in a multiplicity of numbers, passwords and identifiers. For the reasons noted, we cannot afford to delay this necessary step toward improved financial management of the agency's receivables. Indeed, the creation of a single unique customer identification number is the best approach to solving a long-standing problem. Using the FRN as a unique customer identifier will improve communication between the Commission's various electronic systems by automating fee sufficiency checks and by facilitating other systems' party validation processes. Implementing the FRN is the first step toward streamlining this aspect of electronic filing services for our customers. The Commission has placed a very high priority on the development of a common data structure for all systems to use for new development as well as enhancements to existing systems. One of our long-range goals is to replace unnecessary numbers of other identifiers with the FRN. As the electronic filing systems incorporate the CORES and the FRN into their application process, the need to maintain registration information in multiple systems will be eliminated. In FY 2002, we plan to initiate a review to determine how to simplify the passwords and identifiers used by the agency's electronic systems, as suggested by the FCBA.

Disney commented on problems concerning the revised FCC Form 159 and the Commission's existing payment and electronic filing systems. While there have been problems with the revised Form 159, those deficiencies are being corrected. In particular, we will have Form 159 available in Adobe Acrobat format to allow users to prepare the form on line. This will resolve many if not all problems encountered thus far with Form 159. We encourage the public to utilize the electronic version of Form 159.

The NAB correctly observed that the CORES does not allow a licensee to check on the status of an application. The CORES was never intended to serve as an application tracking system. That function is performed by individual licensing systems. The CORES is a registration system and database used to ensure that entities are meeting applicable fee requirements and are current in all financial obligations. The various Bureau and Office filing systems are being reprogrammed to incorporate the FRN, but those systems remain the vehicle for checking application status.

NECA commented that the administrator of the Commission's schools and libraries support mechanism, the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), also uses the acronym “FRN.” Specifically, USAC assigns a “Funding Request Number” to each individual request for discounted services submitted by a school or library. USAC, schools and libraries, and the service providers who provide the discounted services all use the FRN to track the individual funding requests. Service providers are also required to reference specific USAC Funding Request Numbers when submitting invoices to USAC for reimbursement of the discounted portion of the services they provide to schools and libraries. In addition, service providers are required to list their Service Provider Identification Number, which is a provider-specific identification number assigned by USAC for tracking purposes.

We recognize that there could be some confusion to the extent that service providers were required to include both the USAC Funding Request Numbers and the Commission FRN on the same request for reimbursement. To minimize this potential confusion, we are working with USAC to develop a relational database system that will allow the correlation of a service provider's Service Provider Identification Number assigned by USAC with the FRN assigned by the Commission. This database system will obviate the need for service providers to supply a Commission FRN when seeking reimbursement from USAC. In conjunction with USAC, we will also take steps to educate carriers and the public about this matter to eliminate any confusion.

We sought comment on whether we should limit the number of FRNs that an entity may obtain and whether we should penalize entities that abuse the CORES by obtaining multiple FRNs. We agree with the commenters that indicated we should not limit the number of FRNs that may be obtained. This will permit members of a corporate family to obtain individual FRNs, whether or not those entities have different taxpayer identifying numbers (TINs). We wish to allow entities to organize their dealings with the Commission along logical business lines. We will not adopt the proposal for a sub-group identification number as a means for linking related entities because the Commission can link entities through the TIN information.

Our decision to allow multiple FRNs means that entities will be responsible for ensuring that the proper FRN is used for the payment being submitted to the Commission. While all transactions for a license should use the FRN obtained by the entity for that license so that a link between and among transactions is maintained, the licensing bureaus and offices will not reject subsequent applications or filings that provide different FRNs over the life cycle of the license, unless improper use of multiple FRNs by the entity is found. If an entity applies for a license using one FRN and remits regulatory fees or other payments using another FRN, it will appear in the database that the entity did not pay the proper fees. We caution, however, that in individual circumstances, if we find that entities are obtaining multiple FRNs for purposes of not paying fees or evading regulatory responsibilities, we will take appropriate action, such as revoking duplicative FRNs or other appropriate action.

Disney expressed security concerns over the use of a single FRN as an identifier. Although Disney agrees with NAB that the Commission should “assess its electronic filing and database systems on a holistic level,” Disney felt that using a single common identifier or reference number for all filings raises significant (but unidentified) security concerns. Our licensing and other electronic systems have appropriate password protections. As in any other electronic system, password security in the CORES is vital. We do not, however, believe that any unique security issues are raised in this context.

Cingular commented that FRNs cannot be deleted, a prospect it believes is troubling if duplicate FRNs are assigned. The CORES does not permit the same FRN to be assigned more than once. Nor does the CORES allow the public to delete FRNs. However, the CORES has been revised to allow entries to be placed on inactive status by the CORES Administrator on our own or at the request of the public. Thus, when an entity informs the CORES help desk that they want to have an FRN de-activated, that FRN will no long appear when a search of the database is conducted.

Cingular urged that the Commission only assign FRNs upon request through the CORES or after submission of an FCC Form 160. When the CORES became operational in 2000, licenses in the Universal Licensing System (ULS), our largest database, were automatically assigned FRNs. That process, which was a one-time occurrence, is now complete. The Commission does not expect to perform any future data conversions and, as Cingular recommends, will rely on entities to request FRNs through the CORES. When the FRN becomes mandatory, an entity's FRN and other relevant data from the CORES will automatically fill in Form 159. As Disney pointed out, this process will substantially reduce data entry errors.

As we proposed in the NPRM, if we cannot reasonably expect a party to obtain an FRN, we will assign one. In the enforcement context, we note that the FRN is a primary element in the forfeiture tracking system. Many recipients of enforcement actions are current customers of the Commission and will already have an FRN issued for prior transactions. Commission staff will research the CORES to determine if a FRN exist for the alleged violator, and if none exists the staff will assign an FRN and include that FRN on the outgoing correspondence. Those who do not have a FRN will be assigned one by the enforcing bureau and will be requested to submit it with the payment of a fine or forfeiture or other payment. Entities making voluntary contributions, such as those made pursuant to a consent decree, must acquire an FRN.

The ARRL commented that foreign nationals and non-United States citizens who are not employed in the United States hold amateur licenses but have no social security number (SSN). The CORES has made provision for the registration of foreign nationals by providing the ability to register without a TIN. For foreign entities that do not yet have a TIN, the CORES will assign a nine-digit personal identification number (PIN) to the entity. The PIN will appear on the final registration confirmation page. Indeed, many of these persons were already registered in the ULS and were assigned a PIN as a substitute for a TIN. They were transferred automatically into the CORES. ARRL also stated that unincorporated amateur radio clubs have no TIN. Unincorporated amateur radio clubs owned by United States citizens that were not converted from ULS into the CORES will be required to supply a club trustee's TIN in order to obtain an FRN. Finally, ARRL asked that we amend our proposed rules to alert entities with assigned TINs to use that number, but we conclude that such instructions are best included in appropriate CORES fact sheets.

Entities being billed for fulfillment of a FOIA request will be provided with a Form 160 to be returned with their remittance. Similarly, due diligence requestors who send in requests and must pay research and copying fees will be provided with a Form 160. However, those who personally appear at the Reference Center and pay fees to make copies of Commission records will not have to obtain or provide an FRN.

We agree with Cingular that collecting TINs as well as the FRN on Form 159 is redundant. Once the FRN is mandatory and we have built a database of TIN information in the revenue system as required by the DCIA, we anticipate that the Form 159 will be revised to eliminate the TIN and other redundant information. Further, the entity database in the revenue system will be loaded from the CORES system and we will be able to associate all FRNs that apply to one TIN. In the future, the Commission would like to see the reporting of TIN information limited to the registration in the CORES and only require the TIN during the licensing process in unusual circumstances. The Commission will rely on the industry to maintain accurate information about contacts, mailing addresses and TIN information in the CORES database. Verizon Wireless asks for 90 days to update information in the CORES database. We will not set a time limit for this requirement, but advise that the information should be kept current in order to ensure proper crediting of payments. We hope that with future revisions to our systems, when information is updated in one system all systems will receive the update, as Verizon Wireless requests.

Verizon Wireless and Sprint questioned why the Commission chose not to use TINs as the identifier of choice. The TIN for individuals is the SSN, and, because of privacy requirements, could not be used as an identifier. While the TINs for business entities are not generally confidential, as Cingular points out, in some circumstances such TINs are also sensitive.

As we noted in the NPRM, FRNs must be obtained by anyone who is doing business with the Commission as that term is defined in the DCIA. This requirement is reflected in rule § 1.8002(a) adopted in this Order. We stated, “all businesses and individuals that file applications with the Commission—whether feeable or non-feeable—or make any payments of any type to the Commission will be required to obtain an FRN and provide it to the Commission in its filings.” We also noted that anyone who does not pay a fee because of an exception in our rules or the statute had to acquire and provide an FRN to enable us to keep track of entities that claim an exemption from paying fees.

Cingular commented that the Commission should clearly identify when FRNs must be provided. The Commission will issue public notices as Bureaus modify their systems to require an FRN and will specify the forms or other filings that will require providing either the FRN or a Form 162. The Commission will include this information in the Frequently Asked Questions for the CORES. A list of specific instances in which the FRN must be provided will be compiled and the CORES website will link to the list. We have changed the language of proposed rule § 1.8003 to reflect our plans to issue more specific guidance as to when the FRN must be provided. We wish to repeat, as we noted in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 65 FR 78455 (Dec. 15, 2000), that certain submissions to the Commission do not require the FRN, including comments filed in rulemaking proceedings, petitions to deny, petitions objecting to the issuance of a Commission authorization, letters and electronic mail communications, and reports that do not require a fee. Additionally, database searches will not require an FRN.

NECA questioned the proposal to require an FRN on non-feeable tariff submissions. The Commission may not issue a license or provide a benefit without a TIN for the applicant. As we explained in the NPRM, non-feeable applications require the FRN to facilitate compliance with the DCIA, which does not distinguish between licensees and applicants who pay fees and those who do not. Therefore requiring an FRN for non-feeable transactions is logical and necessary.

Cingular commented that the applicant and not the payer is responsible for submitting payment to the Commission, and thus it is unnecessary for counsel or representatives paying fees on behalf of applicants to submit their FRNs. The FRN of both counsel or other payer and all entities on whose behalf payment is made must be provided. The FRN of the applicant or licensee must be submitted, of course, to enable us to determine that the applicant has paid the proper fees. The FRN must be submitted by counsel or others paying on behalf of applicants to allow us to refund excess remittances where appropriate to the payer who made the payment rather than to the applicant or licensee.

NECA questions why it must provide the FRNs for the sometimes hundreds of subscribers to its group tariffs. As we have just explained, we need both the FRN of the entity making the filing with the Commission and the parties on whose behalf the filing is made. Thus, NECA must provide its FRN on the group tariff filings. It must also obtain the FRNs of the subscribing carriers and provide them to us with each tariff filing so we can know which carriers are parties to the tariff. NECA is responsible for any fees associated with the tariff filing. This obligation of a filing entity to provide FRNs for each carrier covered by a “group” tariff also applies to other “group” tariffs such as those filed by GVNW Consulting, Inc. and John Staurulakis, Inc.

The NAB further comments that the Commission can already identify the licensee who is submitting its regulatory fees by the call sign and that the Commission can fill in or correct the FRN without returning the filing. We disagree because call signs are unreliable for identifying entities in this context. Call signs are often changed and may be assigned to other entities when a station changes hands. Providing a valid FRN will ensure that payments are credited to the proper entity and appropriately remain the responsibility of the payer or the licensee.

The Disney Company sought assurance that payments may be made on behalf of an entity and that those entities receive credit for its payments. No changes are being made to the accepted practice of permitting payments to be made by third parties. However, we will require such submission to contain the FRNs for the payer and for the applicant(s) or licensee(s) on whose behalf the payment is being made. The Commission will credit the payment to the applicant or licensee and link it to the payer.

We wish to encourage compliance with the requirement to submit the FRN because it is necessary to the process of providing accurate links to the applicant, payer and service being requested and will facilitate compliance with the DCIA and other financial reporting requirements. There are some special circumstances, discussed below, that require a departure from our general rule that correct FRNs must be contemporaneously provided with the filings.

Cingular, Verizon, NAB, FCBA and Qwest suggested allowing filers a brief window to correct applications filed without the requisite FRN. Cingular asserts that “there simply is no public interest benefit associated with dismissing an otherwise timely filed auction payment, renewal applicant, or other filing for failure to provide an FRN without providing the applicant an opportunity to cure the oversight.” Verizon and FCBA did not recommend any specific number of days for re-submission of a defective FRN filing. Qwest on the other hand recommended five calendar days for the re-submission.

After careful consideration, we do not adopt the suggestion that all filers be given a grace period to supply an omitted FRN or correct an incorrect FRN. Electronic filing systems have been or will be modified so those filings cannot be accomplished without supplying a correct FRN. Attempts to file electronically without a FRN will result in a reminder to the filer that the FRN is required, and, if the filer does not yet have a FRN, the filer will be directed to the CORES website. This scenario includes those wishing to participate in auctions. Thus, in electronic filing circumstances, no grace period is necessary. For paper filings in instances where no time-critical deadline is involved (“Time critical deadline” means requests that must be filed by a specific deadline or be dismissed as untimely (i.e., applications filed in response to a “window” or “cut-off” list established by the Commission), the rejection of a feeable application for lack of an FRN has no impact on the filer except for the minor inconvenience of having to refile the application. No grace period is necessary in those circumstances, either. This is consistent with the approach currently in our rules that provide for the return of applications not accompanied by properly completed Form 159s and are considered filed when refiled. In those limited circumstances where there is a time-critical deadline and applications may be filed on paper, we will grant paper filers a grace period of 10 business days following notification to the filer by Commission staff to correct omitted or FRNs. Also, we will afford the 10-day grace period for appearances in hearing proceedings. The filer will be notified of the omission or FRN, and informed of the deadline for submitting the correct FRN. If FRN is provided during the grace period, the filing date will be the original date of submission. Except for filing of tariff publications, if the FRN is not provided, the filing will be returned. The proposed rules have been changed to reflect our final disposition of this issue.

FCBA also comments that defective FRN filings should be returned to the affected licensee's identified authorized representative. The Commission will continue its practice of returning defective applications and payments to the payer listed on the remittance form.

There will be exceptions to this general rule that FRNs must be provided at the time of the filing: appearances in feeable hearing proceedings, emergency authorizations, civil monetary payments and consent decrees, and tariff filings. We have changed appropriate rules to reflect these exceptions.

Emergency authorization applications (including special temporary authorizations in emergency situations) should contain the applicant's FRN, but will not be rejected without it due to the emergency nature of such filings. An FRN will have to be supplied by the applicant or the Commission will assign one before action is taken on the request.

As explained in the NPRM, tariff publications present unique issues in part because they are filed in different formats and the related fees are paid separately from the filings. Accordingly, we sought comment on how we should treat tariff publications that omit a valid FRN should the provision of FRNs with such filings become mandatory. We also examined what action should be taken if an FRN is omitted from the fee payment related to the filing of a tariff publication.

As of the effective date of this order, carriers or their representatives will not be able to make electronic filings of tariff publications unless they use a valid FRN and the related password to obtain access to the Electronic Tariff Filing System (ETFS). In those instances where an FRN is found to be invalid or the filing entity does not have an FRN, access to the ETFS will be denied and the system will provide an automatic message explaining the procedures to obtain an FRN and including a link to the CORES system. In addition, as of the effective date, the carrier FRN must be included in the transmittal or other cover letter accompanying each tariff publication. If the carrier FRN is not included in that letter, the Commission may take such action as it deems appropriate including but not limited to rejection of the related tariff publication if it has not yet become effective, declaring the tariff publication unlawful if it has already become effective, or giving the carrier or carrier representative with up to ten (10) business days from the filing date to amend the transmittal or other cover letter to include a valid FRN.

The filing of many tariff publications with the Commission requires the payment of fees by carriers or their representatives. At this time, such fees must be paid to the lockbox bank. As of the effective date of this order, carriers or their representatives will be required to include the carrier FRN on the Remittance Advice Form with the payment of these fees. If fees for more than one carrier are paid at the same time, the FRN for each carrier must be provided clearly. However, in some instances the FCC Form 159 is not included with that payment. For example, when an electronic funds transfer is used to pay a tariff filing fee, an FCC Form 159 ordinarily is not included with that payment although the information ordinarily included on the Form 159, including the FRN, must be transmitted to the lockbox bank as part of the transaction. In such instances, as of the effective date of this order, the correct carrier(s) FRN(s) must be included with each fee payment on behalf of each carrier. If the lockbox bank receives a fee payment without an FRN, that fee payment shall be credited to the account of the Commission and the related payment information forwarded to the Commission staff for additional processing. If one or more of the carrier FRNs required to be included with the payment are missing or invalid, the Commission may take such action as it deems appropriate including but not limited to rejection of the related tariff publication if it has not yet become effective, declaring the tariff publication unlawful if it has already become effective, or giving the carrier or carrier representative up to ten (10) business days from the filing date to provide a valid FRN.

As we noted in the NPRM, additional information concerning the CORES is found in the Frequently Asked Question portion of the CORES homepage on our Internet site, located at <www.fcc.gov> by clicking on the CORES link. For further information concerning registering for an FRN, contact the CORES Administrator toll-free at 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail at <CORES@fcc.gov>.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility 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.” In the NPRM we made this certification. No comments were received concerning this proposed certification. We conclude that this certification is appropriate for the rules adopted here. The rules require certain entities or individuals to obtain an FRN. A substantial number of entities doing business with the Commission automatically received their FRN by virtue of their prior registration in the ULS. We have proposed to make it extremely simple, and virtually cost-free, for anyone else to obtain an FRN. Nor will the adopted rule amendments establishing penalties for failure to provide the FRN have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Our rules already generally provide for penalties when applications are not substantially complete. The proposed rule amendments simply conform our rules to the new FRN requirement. Therefore, the rules will not have a significant economic impact. Accordingly, we certify, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the rules adopted herein will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of this Order, including a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congress Review Act. In addition, this Order and final certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and will be published in the Federal Register.

We previously obtained all requisite approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act for the information collections proposed in the NPRM.

Pursuant to sections 4(i), 8(f), 9(f)(1), 254(d), 303(r), and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 158(f), 159(f)(1), 254(d), 303(r), and 309(j), and 33 U.S.C. 7701(c)(1), Parts 1, 21, 61, 73, 74, and 76 of the Commission's Rules are amended as set forth in the rule changes.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-127, adopted September 5, 2001, and released September 7, 2001. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via-e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 00-137, adopted August 30, 2001, and released September 5, 2001. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-262, adopted August 30, 2001, and released September 5, 2001. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, and 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.