Section 208(a) generally prohibits employees of the executive branch from participating in an official capacity in particular matters in which they or certain others specified in the statute have a financial interest. Section 208(b)(2) of title 18 permits OGE to promulgate regulations describing financial interests that are exempted as being too remote or inconsequential to warrant disqualification pursuant to section 208(a). The Office of Government Ethics' executive branchwide section 208 regulations, including such exemptions, are codified at 5 CFR part 2640.

On September 6, 2000, OGE published a set of proposed amendments to the regulation, proposing to revise some existing exemptions as well as to add some new exemptions. See 65 FR 53942-53946. The proposed rule provided a 90-day comment period. The Office of Government Ethics received 13 comment letters on the proposed rule. After carefully considering all comments and making appropriate modifications, OGE is publishing this final rule after obtaining the concurrence of the Department of Justice pursuant to section 201(c) of Executive Order 12674, as modified by E.O. 12731. Also, as provided in section 402 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. appendix, section 402, OGE has consulted with both the Department of Justice (as additionally required under 18 U.S.C. 208(d)(2)) and the Office of Personnel Management on this final rule.

Of the thirteen comments submitted, ten were from executive branch Departments or agencies, one was from a professional association, and two were from individuals. Overall, the comments to the proposed rule were positive. Many commenters had specific suggestions pertaining to one or more components of the proposed rule. Two commenters expressed the view that the OGE Form 450 and SF 278 reporting requirements should be revised to no longer require a filer to disclose on his form assets which are exempt under 5 CFR part 2640. These reporting issues are separate and distinct from the issue of whether an exemption is warranted under section 208(b)(2). Although OGE will not address specific reporting issues in this rulemaking, comments relating to financial disclosure requirements have been considered as part of OGE's separate proposed revision of the Ethics in Government Act, as amended.

The analysis below focuses on changes from the proposed amendments, either as recommended by the commenters or which OGE believes are otherwise appropriate. Many of the amendments proposed are being adopted as final without change in this rulemaking document.

Several commenters recommended that OGE revise the proposed exemption for sector mutual funds to provide a total, rather than a $50,000 de minimis exemption. Two commenters suggested raising the de minimis amount. The Office of Government Ethics believes that the $50,000 de minimis exemption amount proposed is appropriate and is adopting it as final in § 2640.201(b) as revised. Establishing a total exemption for all employees would be difficult in light of the legal standard that the exempted interest be “remote and inconsequential.” The $50,000 exemption being adopted is reasonably considered remote and inconsequential for all employees and is consistent with the de minimis exemption for particular matters of general applicability in existing paragraph (b) of § 2640.202, which is being redesignated as paragraph (c) thereof (see below).

This final rule contains one technical correction of the wording in the proposed rule. In the proposed rule, OGE inadvertently proposed limiting the existing exemption for sector mutual funds at § 2640.201(b) by restricting the exemption to disqualifying financial interests arising from the ownership by the employee, his spouse or minor children of an interest in the fund. Consistent with the original exemption for sector mutual funds, OGE intended that the new exemption would include interests held by an employee and all the others whose financial interests are imputed to him under 18 U.S.C. 208. This is reflected in the final rule by tracking the reference in the existing paragraph (b) of § 2640.201 prior to this amendment. The wording and structure of the exemption also have been modified somewhat in this final rule to clarify its meaning.

Several commenters were pleased with the proposed increase (now being adopted as final) in the de minimis exemption amount for securities in particular matters involving specific parties from $5,000 to $15,000, under § 2640.202(a) as proposed for revision. However, one commenter stated that the increase in the de minimis amount would lead to greater intrusion into the privacy of filers, by reducing the number of reported assets, but probing further into the values of assets not previously required to be reported on the OGE Form 450. As an initial matter, raising the de minimis amount will not affect the OGE Form 450 filer's reporting requirements. In addition, as mentioned earlier, the reporting requirements for both the OGE Form 450 and the SF 278 are separate matters from the focus of this rulemaking, which addresses whether certain financial interests are too remote or inconsequential under section 208(b)(2) to warrant disqualification under 18 U.S.C. 208(a).

The Office of Government Ethics received varied comments in response to proposed new § 2640.203(m). Under that section, as proposed, an employee would have been able to participate in certain matters in litigation involving specific parties in which the employee had a disqualifying financial interest of up to $25,000 in securities issued by a nonparty affected by the litigation. Two commenters were generally satisfied with the proposed rule. Of those who expressed some dissatisfaction with the proposed rule, two recommended broadening the rule to encompass any particular matter affecting nonparties, rather than limiting the rule to matters in litigation. Two commenters recommended including an example or definitions.

The Office of Government Ethics' original proposed part 2640 regulations, published for comment in the Federal Register on September 11, 1995, included a proposed exemption for disqualifying interests arising from ownership of securities issued by a nonparty. See 60 FR 27228. In the comments to that proposed rule, some agencies expressed a concern that this specific proposed exemption would be too complex. As a result, OGE decided not to include the exemption in its final version of 5 CFR part 2640. Over the years, however, some agencies have continued to express a need for such an exemption. The strongest advocate stressed the need for an exemption for matters in litigation affecting nonparties, so OGE included this exemption in the proposed regulation published on September 6, 2000. As noted, two commenters to the proposed amendments supported broadening this exemption, essentially recommending that OGE establish in this final rule the exemption as proposed in September 1995. After additional consideration, OGE has decided to adopt in revised § 2640.202(b) of this final rule a broader exemption than that proposed, so as to include any particular matter involving specific parties, not just matters in litigation. Because of its broadened scope, this new exemption is being moved to the primary section for interests in securities at § 2640.202. The broader rule will be more useful to a greater range of agencies and will simplify the exemption by eliminating the need for determining whether a matter constitutes “litigation.”

Moreover, to address the commenters’ recommendations and to clarify the rule, OGE is adding an example to the exemption. One commenter requested that OGE define “nonparty” and offer guidance on how to identify nonparties and determine if they are affected by a matter. Because each situation may vary to such a degree that the question is best addressed on a case-by-case basis, OGE will not define “nonparty” in this rulemaking. The Office of Government Ethics believes that the example now provided will promote a clearer understanding of the application of this exemption.

In the proposed rule, OGE proposed to revise Example 2 after § 2640.203(f), relating to interests in mutual insurance companies, to suggest that the proposed § 2640.203(m) for matters in litigation could apply in the situation described in the example. Upon reflection, that suggestion was incorrect because the interests of a policy holder with a mutual insurance company would not fall within the definition of “security” at § 2640.102(r). Accordingly, this final rule does not contain any amendment to that example.

The rule as proposed for particular matters affecting nonparties will be revised as described above and redesignated as new paragraph (b) of § 2640.202. Existing paragraphs (b) through (e) of current § 2640.202 are being redesignated as paragraphs (c) through (f), respectively, of that section.

In addition, several existing examples in part 2640 are being revised (as proposed) to reflect the new de minimis exemption amounts.

In promulgating this final regulation, the Office of Government Ethics has adhered to the regulatory philosophy and the applicable principles of regulation set forth in section 1 of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Review and Planning. This regulation has also been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Executive order.

As Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I have reviewed this final amendatory regulation in light of section 3 of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, and certify that it meets the applicable standards provided therein.

As Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I certify under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) that this proposed amendatory rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it primarily affects Federal executive branch employees.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply because this final regulation does not contain information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 25, subchapter II), this final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments and will not result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (as adjusted for inflation) in any one year.

The Office of Government Ethics has determined that this proposed rulemaking involves a nonmajor rule under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 8) and has submitted a report thereon to the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives and General Accounting Office in accordance with that law.

This rule is issued in conformance with Executive Order 12866 and has been determined to be economically significant and therefore has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). A summary of the Cost-Benefit Assessment follows the Background section.

It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this rule because neither FSA nor the CCC is required by 5 U.S.C. 533 or any other provision of law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the subject matter of this rule.

It has been determined by an environmental evaluation that this action will have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is needed.

The rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988. The provisions of this rule preempt State laws to the extent such laws are inconsistent with the provisions of this rule. Before any judicial action may be brought concerning the provisions of this rule, the administrative remedies must be exhausted.

This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR Part 3015, subpart V, published at 49 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

This rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

This rule amends current regulations to reference changes to NAP made by amendments to section 196 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (1996 Act). The Paperwork Reduction Act generally requires a 60-day public comment period and OMB review of the information collections before regulations may be promulgated. However, section 161 of the 1996 Act provided that the Secretary issue regulations without regard to the Paperwork Reduction Act. A separate notice announcing a 60-day comment period will be published and OMB approval sought under the provisions of 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.

It has been determined that this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparations of a Federalism Assessment. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government.

This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.

This rule re-writes, in their entirety, the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) regulations to improve the overall administration of the program and to conform with statutory amendments to section 196 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 made in section 109 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-224; June 20, 2000) (“ARPA 2000”). Section 171(b)(2)(g) of ARPA 2000 specified that the amendments to NAP would not be effective until the 2001 crop year. Also, prior to enactment of ARPA 2000, section 101 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-113; November 29, 1999) provided that beginning with the 1999 crop year CCC should provide up to $20 million to eligible producers without regard to the regulatory requirement for area crop losses. CCC put into place procedures to identify and provide assistance to producers who would have been eligible for assistance if not for the area crop loss requirement.

The changes made to NAP by ARPA 2000 were significant and involved major changes in the way producers will qualify or retain eligibility for NAP. There, the NAP statute was amended to remove the area crop loss requirement entirely. In addition, the statute has been amended to require an application and collection of a service fee. Producers now must apply for NAP no later than the application closing date announced by the Secretary. Additionally, producers must now pay a service fee of $100 per crop per administrative county, or $300 per producer per administrative county, up to a maximum, for all counties for the producer, of $900. Service fees for limited resource producers may be waived. CCC will use the definition of limited resource farmer provided in FCIC regulations found at 7 CFR 457.8 for the purpose of defining limited resource producers. Typically, under current regulations, limited resource producers have an annual gross income of $20,000 or less from all sources for the last 2 years, or farm less than 25 acres with most of their income of $20,000 or less per year coming from farming. This criteria, for NAP purposes, is subject to change as 7 CFR 457.8 is amended. Because of the timing involved, for certain 2001 and 2002 crops, special time periods have been created for submission of the application for NAP coverage and service fees. To maintain eligibility for 2001 and 2002 crops, producers who otherwise would be late in filing the application must apply and pay the service fee within 30 days of publication of this rule. NAP continues to require crop reporting as a condition of eligibility. Every year producers must provide records of crop acreage, yields, and production.

As a condition of eligibility, NAP benefits are earned only when a loss or prevented planting occur as a result of an eligible loss condition (disaster) as opposed to some other reason. It is a producer's responsibility to show that the producer's claimed loss or prevented planting was the result of an eligible cause. Accordingly, for clarification purposes, this rule better describes (without any change to policy) those loss conditions and crops for which benefits under this part might be exacted. For example, a definition of “controlled environment” has been added; the definition of “natural disaster” has been removed and the term is discussed under § 1437.9 “Causes of Loss;” sections were added discussing several crops for which coverage is available; and generally, language in various sections have been amended for clarity. Effective for the 2002 and succeeding crop years the exclusion of unseeded forage on Federal- and State-owned land as an eligible crop is removed.

NAP expenditures for crop years 1996 through 1998 averaged about $43 million per year. Outlays generally occur in the fiscal year following the crop year. The President's budget baseline (prior to enactment of Public Law 106-224) assumed the NAP program would cost $90 million each year. Outlays have never reached that expectation, in part due to generally favorable weather conditions throughout the U.S. and to the reluctance of producers to report acreage and production when the area loss threshold had not been triggered. But that very reluctance to report makes it difficult for the area loss threshold to trigger.

The 2000 Act, by removing the area trigger requirement, removed this impediment. That is, if a producer has the requisite crop loss (50 percent or more), the producer will be eligible to receive NAP benefits. The producer no longer has to farm in an area where the yield for the crop had to fall below 65 percent of the expected area yield to receive a payment.

Participation in the 1999 Crop Disaster Program (CDP) provides some insight into the cost of the NAP program. The CDP provided payments to producers who suffered a 35-percent crop loss. Eligible crops include insurable crops (crops eligible for crop insurance) and non-insurable crops (crops eligible for NAP). Total claims for the CDP program were about $2 billion (before application of the payment limit and before the national factor). Out of the $2 billion, about $375 million was paid out for crops that are eligible for NAP; the remaining funds went to crops that were eligible for crop insurance.

The CDP paid producers for quantity losses in excess of 35 percent at 65 percent of the market price. The NAP program pays producers for quantity losses in excess of 50 percent at 55 percent of the market price. When the CDP applications were screened for those producers meeting the more restrictive loss requirements and adjustments were made in the payment rates, the $375 million in benefits for non-insured crops under CDP dropped to about $150 million under the NAP.

The number of NAP participants ranged from a low of about 6,500 in 1997 to a high of over 25,000 in 1996. More than 50,000 producers received CDP benefits for crops eligible for NAP. Each producer received, on average, payments for about two crops. If 75,000 producers were to enroll in the new NAP, averaging two crops per producer, about $15 million would be collected annually in service fees.

The total cost of NAP would be $147 million annually ($162 million in benefits less the $15 million in service fees). Compared with projected NAP outlays in the President's Budget of $90 million, CCC outlays would increase by $57 million annually. Compared with average NAP outlays of $43 million in fiscal years 1997 to 1999, CCC outlays would increase by $104 million annually. The outlays would partially offset lower income due to the weather-related crop losses. Farm income would increase by a like amount.

The above cost projections assume that unseeded forage on Federal and State lands is eligible for NAP benefits. It is estimated that 62 million acres of unseeded forage on Federal and State lands would become eligible under the new rule. If 10 percent of these acres could not be grazed due to a natural disaster, CCC outlays would increase by $12 million.

This rule is issued as an interim rule and will be effective while comments are being received. As this rule implements provisions of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, section 161 of that Act exempts this rule from prior comment. Likewise section 172 of ARPA 2000 suggests quick implementation. Delay in implementing the new statutory law would be contrary to the public interest and law. Likewise, as to 5 U.S.C. 808 it has been determined for the same reasons that a lay-over for Congressional review would be contrary to public interest. Similarly, for those amendments not compelled by recent statutory changes, the improvement of the program should benefit the overall administration of the program and corrections based on comments can be made as needed. Accordingly, it has been determined that it would be contrary to the public interest to withhold those changes and those changes likewise are made effective immediately. All of the corrections and amendments are set out in the full text of 7 CFR part 1437 in this interim rule. Comments, favorable and unfavorable, are solicited on all aspects of the rule.

FSA published a final rule in the Federal Register on August 18, 2000, (65 FR 50401-50405) amending 7 CFR part 1951. The final rule revised 7 CFR 1951.914 to reduce the term of all future SAAs from 10 years to 5 years. However, a conforming revision to Exhibit A, Attachment 1 was omitted inadvertently. This document corrects the inconsistency between 7 CFR 1951.914 and Exhibit A, Attachment 1. In addition, the authority citation is being revised to add a reference previously omitted.

On July 26, 2001, the NCUA Board requested comment on a proposed change to § 741.6(a), the provision governing the filing of quarterly Financial and Statistical Reports, also known as call reports or 5300 Reports. 66 FR 40642 (August 3, 2001). In conjunction with this change, the NCUA Board proposed revising its prompt corrective action rule to eliminate the requirement of written notice to NCUA of net worth changes and the option of filing a call report for the first and third quarter for credit unions that file call reports semi-annually. 12 CFR part 702.

NCUA received 65 comments regarding the proposed changes from 34 federal credit unions, 14 federally-insured state chartered credit unions, one non-federally-insured state chartered credit union, one unidentified credit union, one individual, nine credit union leagues, three credit union trade associations, one bank trade association, and one state supervisory authority (SSA).

Forty-four of the commenters generally supported the revision to § 741.6(a), of which 11 agreed with one or more conditions stipulated. Twenty-one commenters objected to the proposed change. Overall, many of the commenters expressed concern regarding the additional burden quarterly reporting would place on credit unions, especially smaller credit unions. Several commenters provided suggestions for reducing the additional burden.

The 33 commenters that supported the changes without qualification believed the proposal would: (1) Result in an offsetting time savings for credit unions through the Risk Based Examination Scheduling Program; (2) help NCUA and the SSAs to identify emerging problems in a timely manner; and, (3) permit NCUA and the SSAs to concentrate their supervisory resources on those credit unions that represent a risk.

Negative and qualified commenters expressed concern with the additional time and resource burden on credit unions. Thirty of the commenters are particularly concerned with the effect on small credit unions. Seven commenters noted that smaller credit unions have to work harder to compete. They noted that smaller credit unions usually have a limited number of staff members and believe the limited resources of smaller credit unions could be better used to increase assets and services.

Ten commenters generally did not believe it was necessary for credit unions rated a CAMEL Code 1 and 2 to file quarterly call reports. Several of the commenters did not believe a credit union's financial condition would deteriorate in a 3 to 6 months time frame. Two commenters noted that the burden of completing two more call reports was more detrimental than having a yearly examination; one of which believed examiners and auditors were effective in correcting problems and providing guidance. Four of the commenters suggested that CAMEL Code 1 and 2 credit unions and those credit unions with a long-term trend of stability that have been in existence for more than a few years should be required to file call reports on a semi-annual basis. Three commenters who opposed the proposal noted that the proposed rule will result in the additional collection of information for a small percentage of the industry's credit union assets and therefore is not necessary.

The NCUA Board believes the requirement for filing quarterly call reports is a key element in implementing the Risk Based Examination Scheduling and Risk Focused Examination programs. CAMEL Code 1 and 2 credit unions, no matter the asset size, could be eligible for deferral under the Risk Based Examination Program for one examination cycle. Quarterly filing enhances NCUA's ability to allocate its resources effectively and focus its supervisory efforts on risk regardless of a credit union's asset size. NCUA's 2002 operating budget included a reduction of approximately 33 full-time equivalent staff positions. The deferral of examinations for approximately 1,500 federal credit union with assets under $50 million and the implementation of the Risk Based Examination Scheduling Program were contributing factors to the budgeted staff reductions. In addition, quarterly call reports also provide credit unions, the SSAs, and NCUA with the ability to monitor trends and expeditiously address emerging concerns in an ever-changing economic environment. Overall, the NCUA Board believes the benefits and efficiencies derived from the Risk Based Examination Scheduling and Risk Focused Examination programs outweigh the burden of two additional call reports.

Several commenters believe the proposal places a burden on state-chartered credit unions without providing a corresponding benefit. They noted that the state regulator sets their exam cycle and that this rule may have no effect on their examination cycle or their supervisory fees. Two additional commenters stated that the additional call reports would put a strain on the SSAs' supervisory resources. They urge NCUA to be sensitive to the SSAs' budgetary restraints and work with the SSAs to implement quarterly reporting in a manner compatible with their budgetary processes.

Many SSAs are reviewing the possibility of including NCUA's Risk Based Examination Scheduling and Risk Focused Examination programs in their supervisory programs. The NCUA Board believes a key benefit of the Risk Based Examination Scheduling Program is the ability to delay examinations for one examination cycle for the well-run, financially strong credit unions. The program, if adopted by the SSAs, should assist the SSAs in focusing their supervisory resources on areas of risk regardless of the credit unions' asset size.

In addition, as manager of the NCUSIF, NCUA needs quarterly financial information from all federally-insured credit unions in order to assess risk to the NCUSIF on a timely and ongoing basis.

Currently, seven state regulators require quarterly call reports and some state regulators have NCUA process their credit unions' call reports. Each SSA could contact their respective Regional Director for assistance, if needed, in gathering and uploading the call reports. NCUA will continue to remain sensitive to the SSA's budgetary restraints. As noted previously, the NCUA Board, primarily through its adoption of the Risk Based Examination Scheduling Program, has been able to reduce its staffing needs by approximately 33 full-time equivalent positions.

One commenter did not believe that the benefit the Central Liquidity Facility (CLF) would receive from more frequent reporting justifies the implementation of quarterly call reports due to the CLF's loan volume. The NCUA Board noted in the proposal that the CLF would have the most recent financial information to help evaluate a credit union's CLF loan request. The NCUA Board did not consider this a primary reason for proposing quarterly call reports. The Board recognizes that the CLF's loan volume is low. However, the CLF's main purpose is to provide emergency liquidity to the credit union system as quickly as possible when other traditional liquidity sources are unavailable. The Board believes quarterly call reports will expedite the loan evaluation process. The ability to quickly provide liquidity under emergency circumstances benefits all credit unions.

Twenty-five commenters suggested NCUA develop a shorter version of the call report for credit unions. Most of the commenters recommended that credit unions with various asset thresholds ranging from under $500,000 to $50 million be permitted to file a short version of the call report. Two commenters in support of an abbreviated form for smaller credit unions suggested that, if a more complex version is needed during the 5300 process, NCUA could e-mail or FAX a copy to the credit unions. Seven commenters suggested requiring an abbreviated version of the 5300 for the first and third quarters.

Four commenters opposed the development of a short version of the call report. One or more of these commenters stated: (1) A short version would not provide timely and complete information for identifying emerging trends; (2) a short version is unnecessary; and (3) only one format should exist in order to avoid confusion and the need for NCUA to provide follow-up for additional information.

Several years ago, NCUA redesigned the call report with small credit unions in mind. NCUA developed a core call report, with supporting schedules that provided more detail if required. The NCUA Board remains sensitive to this issue. Upon further review and the comments received, the NCUA Board has decided to develop a short form 5300 that does not compromise NCUA's and the SSAs' ability to provide adequate supervision. Credit unions with assets of less than $10 million will be required to file the complete version of the Form 5300 for the second and the fourth quarters of the year and may file either the short version or the long version of the 5300 for the first and third quarters of the year.

Five commenters emphasized the need to minimize the frequency of changes to the call report format. One commenter suggested that the call report be color coded to provide guidance to credit unions in preparing those sections of the call report that apply to their operations.

The NCUA Board remains committed to requiring the minimum information needed to provide adequate supervision. The Board believes NCUA has a process that works to assure unnecessary information is not requested on the call report. NCUA's 5300 Working Group, which includes an SSA representative, generally reviews changes to the call report once a year. However, changes may need to be made more frequently due to regulatory changes. Before implementation, any recommended changes go through a review process that considers the burden a change would place on credit unions versus the benefit to be gained.

Several commenters made suggestions regarding the use of technology. One commenter stated that quarterly call reporting would not be a burden to credit unions if their data systems were automated and suggested that NCUA and the credit union industry provide support to unautomated filers such as discounts to purchase personal computers. With this support, NCUA should establish a timetable to discontinue manual remittance of the call report. The NCUA Board does not believe it is necessary to impose upon credit unions a requirement to file electronic versions of the call report. During the June 30, 2001, call report cycle, 9,686 federally-insured credit unions, out of 10,415, filed their call reports using the PC 5300 automated system. Credit unions need to evolve towards understanding the benefits and responsibilities associated with using automated data systems within the scope of their operations. Furthermore, the Board believes it would be more appropriate for another party, such as a credit union trade association, to seek discounts on the purchase of computers for credit unions.

Two commenters suggested that NCUA alleviate the burden of submitting call reports by initiating uploads of call reports to its database. Currently, NCUA offers credit unions the ability to e-mail an electronic version of their completed call report to their examiner or SSA for uploading. NCUA staff plans to develop improved methods for filing call reports as NCUA's technological capabilities improve.

One state-chartered credit union commenter suggested the burden for credit unions could be reduced by automating the Reserve Sheet into a schedule versus a separate remittance sheet. The Reserve Sheet is a supplemental schedule required by the credit union's SSA. This suggestion should be provided to the credit union's state examiner for consideration.

One commenter questioned to what extent NCUA's AIRES (Automated Integrated Regulatory Examination System) Program duplicates the call report program. The commenter suggested that an AIRES download be created each quarter and the call report be used simply to fill in information not available through AIRES. The NCUA Board does not believe this is a viable alternative. AIRES only has the capacity to download certain financial information from a credit union's data system. Any download performed would require an examiner to go on-site or receive a diskette that requires an additional download into the call report system. Effective September 1, 2002, an examiner will be able to download the most recent call report information into AIRES for an examination. This will help reduce the amount of time needed for an examiner to be on-site.

One commenter made two suggestions to mitigate the potential financial impact on small credit unions. The first recommendation is that NCUA should work with data processors to develop a standard report format consistent with available software. The NCUA Board believes the credit union industry needs to address this matter with its vendors. NCUA can provide the specifications to the vendors upon their request and has done so in the past.

The second recommendation is that NCUA delay the March 2002 quarterly reporting implementation date until the data processing standard report format previously discussed is complete. NCUA is in the process of developing a shortened version of the 5300 for use during the first and third quarters of the year for credit unions with assets of less than $10 million. This short form will not be available until the September 2002 reporting cycle, so the NCUA Board is delaying the effective date of the final rule to July 1, 2002.

One commenter suggested that NCUA develop an electronic worksheet to reduce the preparation time. The Board does not believe a worksheet would assist credit unions in preparing the call report. The call report is in an electronic format. The current call report format includes detailed summary schedules regarding various general operational matters for all credit unions. The Board believes credit unions would be best served by requesting their data processing vendors to develop any detailed summary reports of the information they need to complete the call report.

Five commenters made suggestions regarding a phase-in process for NCUA's implementation of the proposal to help alleviate the burden on credit unions not currently required to file quarterly call reports. Two suggested that quarterly reporting should be phased in over two or three years; one of which suggested that NCUA initially consider only those credit unions for the Risk Based Examination Scheduling Program that are currently required to file quarterly call reports. One suggested that credit unions under $50 million in assets have the option of filing on a quarterly basis. In both cases, those credit unions filing on a quarterly basis would be considered for an extended examination cycle. One commenter suggested that the implementation of quarterly reporting should be delayed to allow sufficient time to adjust staff and operations.

Although the Board is delaying effective date of the regulation, the Board does not believe the extensive delays suggested by the commenters are viable options. The suggestions would delay a smooth transition towards the risk-focused approach to supervising credit unions. In addition, the savings currently reflected in NCUA's 2002 operating budget may not be fully realized if the suggestions were adopted.

Three commenters suggested excluding credit unions with assets of $10 million or less from quarterly reporting for five years. After five years, smaller credit unions should have access to electronic record keeping and should be better able to handle the additional record keeping requirements.

The NCUA Board does not agree with these suggestions. The Board notes that a credit union must file a quarterly call report to qualify for a deferred examination under the Risk Based Examination Scheduling Program. Any qualifying credit union would be excluded from receiving the benefit of a delayed examination. Reducing the number of credit unions qualifying for the program would impact the staff reductions projected in NCUA's approved 2002 budget. In addition, quarterly call reports are intended to reveal emerging problems through quarterly trend analysis so any noted concerns can be addressed in an expeditious manner. This applies to all credit unions no matter what their asset size, capital position, or CAMEL Code. As previously explained, in an effort to ease the burden, the NCUA Board will have staff develop a short form 5300 for credit unions with assets of less than $10 million that does not compromise NCUA's and the SSAs ability to provide adequate supervision for use during the first and third quarters of the year.

Two commenters believed that, instead of quarterly reporting, the burden of collecting any needed additional information should be shifted to the regulator. One suggested that more on-site contacts be scheduled; the other suggested that the regulators receive monthly financial statements.

The NCUA Board does not believe these are viable alternatives. These suggestions diminish the economies that will result from implementing the Risk Based Examination Scheduling Program. In all likelihood, NCUA's current projected reduction in staffing levels may not be fully realized if these suggestions were adopted.

Four commenters conditioned their support of the proposal on the implementation of the Risk Based Examination Scheduling Program. Another commenter, who agreed with the proposal, voiced the concern that, once quarterly call reporting was implemented, the Risk Based Examination Scheduling Program may stop and the credit unions would still have to file quarterly call reports. The NCUA Board has adopted the program through the approval of the 2002 NCUA budget. However, quarterly call reporting has benefits other than the potential deferral of examinations over one examination cycle. Quarterly reporting provides both the credit unions and the regulators the ability to timely detect emerging concerns in an ever-changing economic environment. NCUA, in cooperation with the SSAs, reviews call report requirements at least annually and makes adjustments to the reporting requirements after weighing the benefit gained versus the burden that additional reporting places on the credit unions.

Six commenters provided comments regarding the proposed change eliminating the requirement of § 702.101(c) for written notice from a credit union when its net worth decreases. Four of the commenters agreed with the change; two did not agree. The two objecting commenters did so because they objected to the proposed rule as a whole.

The NCUA Board recognizes that the filing of quarterly call reports obviates the need for written notice and it is deleting this requirement from the rule.

Based on the comments received, the NCUA Board is modifying the proposed changes to § 741.6(a). The NCUA Board will have staff develop a short form 5300 that may be used by credit unions with assets under $10 million for the first and third quarters of each year. In addition, the NCUA Board will make the final rule's effective date July 1, 2002. This effective date will provide NCUA staff with sufficient time to develop the short version of the 5300 for use during the year 2002's third quarter call report cycle and the first and third quarters' reporting cycles for each year thereafter.

Currently, this section requires all federally-insured credit unions with assets in excess of $50 million to file a quarterly call report with NCUA. All other federally-insured credit unions file semiannually. The final amendment will require all federally-insured credit unions to file quarterly call reports. Credit unions with assets of less than $10 million will be required to file the complete version of the Form 5300 for the second and the fourth quarters of the year and may file either the short or the complete version of the 5300 for the first and third quarters of the year.

This amendment is a necessary component of NCUA's revised examination program. The revised examination program has two new features. The first is risk-based examination scheduling that will result in an extended examination cycle program for credit unions meeting certain risk criteria. Approximately 1,500 federal credit unions under $50 million will participate in the extended examination cycle program during the 2002 NCUA budget year. Requiring those credit unions to file quarterly call reports is an essential part of their participation. The credit unions' financial condition must be monitored over the examination cycle to identify emerging trends that may impact the safety and soundness of the credit unions' operations.

The second is a risk-focused approach for all examinations. The risk-focused approach will focus the examination process on those operational areas that represent the greatest risk to the credit union. The process includes evaluating the credit union's financial trend information and management's ability to identify and adapt to changing economic, competitive, technological, and other factors.

These two features will permit NCUA to adjust the examination process for a select number of credit unions based on workload demands in relation to available resources and the risk the credit unions represent to the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund. Both features will result in better use of available resources and reduce the amount of NCUA on-site contact time needed to assess the overall financial health of federally-insured credit unions. Quarterly financial information will provide NCUA the ability to administer these approaches successfully through off-site review of a credit union's financial trends to detect emerging problems.

In conjunction with the change to § 741.6(a), the Board is making a technical correction to § 741.6(b) by deleting the reference to semi-annual reporting and revising the prompt corrective action rule to eliminate the requirement of written notice to NCUA and the option of filing a call report for the first and third quarter for credit unions that file call reports semi-annually. 12 CFR 702.101(c), 702.103(b).

The NCUA Board has determined that the final rule to require all federally-insured credit unions to file call reports on a quarterly basis is covered under the Paperwork Reduction Act. NCUA submitted a copy of the proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review. The OMB Control Number for the call report is 3133-0004.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and OMB regulations require that the public be provided an opportunity to comment on the paperwork requirements, including an agency's estimate of the burden of the paperwork requirements. Although no commenters specifically commented on the paperwork requirements, their comments on the proposed rule indirectly addressed some of the issues.

The NCUA Board estimated in the proposal that it takes a federally-insured credit union six hours on average to complete a call report. The proposal, using the six-hour call report average, estimated the rule would result in an additional 100,272 hours of call report preparation. Sixteen commenters' reported an average of 10 hours to complete a call report. Three of the commenters were credit union trade associations that surveyed their membership. NCUA has determined, based on the comments and its own research that a more accurate average for call report preparation is eight hours. This eight hour average does not take into account the fact that the proposed amendments only apply to credit unions under $50 million. NCUA's research and the comments indicate that the time to prepare a call report decreases with the size of the credit union. In addition, the proposal did not include a short form option for credit unions under $10 million. This will affect 5,864 federally-insured credit unions. Since the final amendments only apply to credit unions under $50 million and a short form is being created for credit unions under $10 million, NCUA concludes that its original net burden estimate may have overestimated the additional hours resulting from the rule change.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612)(RFA) requires, subject to certain exceptions, that NCUA publish an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) with a proposed rule and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) with a final rule, unless NCUA certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions. For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and in accordance with NCUA's authority under 5 U.S.C. 601(4), NCUA has determined that small credit unions are those with less than one million dollars in assets. See 12 CFR § 791.8(a) and NCUA's Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement, No. 87-2. NCUA's final rule will apply to approximately 1,489 small credit unions, out of 10,316 federally-insured credit unions. Of these 1,489 small credit unions, approximately 55 of the federally-insured state chartered credit unions are already required to file quarterly call reports by their respective SSAs.

At the time of issuance of the proposed rule, NCUA could not make such a determination for certification. Therefore, NCUA issued an IRFA pursuant to section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. After reviewing the comments submitted in response to the proposed rule, NCUA believes it does not have sufficient information to determine whether the final rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions. Therefore, pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NCUA provides the following FRFA.

The FRFA incorporates NCUA's initial findings, as set forth in its IRFA, addresses the comments submitted in response to the IRFA, and describes the steps NCUA plans to take to minimize the impact on small entities. Currently, all federally-insured credit unions, no matter their asset size, are required to file call reports semi-annually. The current call report contains explicit instructions for completing the report. NCUA will continue this practice for the two additional call reports required from credit unions with assets under $50 million. We believe the instructions meet the requirement to provide guidance to small credit unions in complying with this rule, under Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-121).

The final amendment will provide NCUA and the SSAs with timely and complete financial data to be used in supervising their credit unions as discussed in the Final Change section above. The adoption of the final amendment to § 741.6(a) of the NCUA's regulations will account for all of the economic impact on small credit unions.

The Final Change section above contains this information. The legal basis for the final rule is in the Federal Credit Union Act. 12 U.S.C. 1756 and 1782.

In general, the commenters were concerned with the additional time and resource burden that would be placed on credit unions if the amendment to the rule were adopted. Thirty of the commenters were specifically concerned with the burden that would be placed on small credit unions. Seven of the commenters noted that smaller credit unions have a limited number of staff members. Several commenters provided various opinions as to what credit union asset size they considered as “small”. The asset sizes noted varied within the range of less than $500,000 to less than $50 million in assets.

As noted previously, the combined credit union surveys calculated eight hours as the average for all credit unions to complete a call report. For credit unions with assets of $10 million or less, the average time was five hours. One credit union league commenter surveyed mostly small credit unions. The league reported six hours as the average time to complete a call report. We could not determine from the comments provided the average hours calculation for credit unions with assets less than one million dollars. However, NCUA calculated three hours as the average for credit unions with assets less than two million dollars based on its own research. The commenters did not provide any specific dollar cost estimates associated with quarterly call reporting.

In the proposal, NCUA considered the following alternative approaches in reducing the burden on smaller credit unions:

NCUA considered revising the regulation to require only federally-insured credit unions with assets greater than $10 million to file quarterly call reports. This alternative was not pursued due to the changes in NCUA's examination program. Although the NCUA Board has not been persuaded to change its original determination, as discussed below, the Board has made some adjustments to the requirements to reduce the burden on these credit unions. The NCUA Board has adopted the new examination program through its approval of NCUA's 2002 Budget. Approximately 950 federal credit unions with assets less than $10 million have been considered in NCUA's 2002 Budget for examination deferral under the Risk Based Examination Scheduling Program. Of these 950 federal credit unions, approximately 120 have assets less than one million dollars. The program permits deferral of an examination for every other examination cycle. The NCUA Board believes quarterly reporting is necessary to monitor the credit union's financial trends during the deferral period. The NCUA Board believes the burden of the additional hours it takes a credit union to prepare two additional call reports is outweighed by the advantages outlined in the Final Change section.

NCUA originally considered the alternative of requiring a credit union with assets of less than $10 million to file a short version of the call report during the March and September cycles. The short form would reduce the burden for those credit unions. The NCUA Board was initially concerned that this alternative may result in insufficient trend information when compared to the full semi-annual call report. However, upon further review and the comments received, the NCUA Board will have staff develop a short form 5300 that does not compromise NCUA's and the SSAs' ability to provide adequate supervision for use during the first and third quarters of the year.

The information collection requirements imposed by the final rule are discussed above in the section on the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The proposed rule will require all federally-insured credit unions to file quarterly call reports. The call reports are based on financial and other information relevant to a federally-insured credit union's operations. Federally-insured credit unions with assets of $50 million or more are already required to file quarterly reports. A final short version of the call report will be developed for credit unions with assets of $10 million or less. Staff anticipates the short form will be available for September 2002 call report cycle. Credit unions meeting the asset size requirements will be permitted to use the short form during the first and third quarters of each year.

Requiring quarterly call reports is a sound business practice that would provide: (1) A more cost effective supervisory effort when coupled with NCUA's proposed examination approaches; and (2) a quarterly operational monitoring tool for the credit unions.

NCUA is unable to identify any federal statutes or rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule; however, NCUA has identified seven states that already require their state-chartered federally-insured credit unions to file quarterly call reports. Although the final rule duplicates those state's requirements, it does not impose any significant, additional burden on those federally-insured credit unions.

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), voluntary complies with the executive order. The final rule will not have substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationship between the national government and states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined the proposed rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) 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 Procedures Act. 5 U.S.C. 551. The Office of Management and Budget has determined that, for purposes of SBREFA, this is not a major rule.

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

NCUA's goal is clear, understandable regulations that impose minimal regulatory burdens. The regulatory change is understandable and imposes minimal regulatory burden. NCUA requested comments on whether the proposed rule change was understandable and minimally intrusive if implemented as proposed. No comments were received.

The FAA has received a report that a 3.5-inch crack was found in the upper skin of the horizontal stabilizer center section on a Boeing Model 747SR series airplane. The crack ran forward from the rear spar at left buttock line (LBL) 37.8. While the area where the crack was found is subject to inspections per a certain Supplemental Structural Inspection Document (SSID), the airplane on which the crack was found was not an SSID candidate. Such cracking, if not fixed, could lead to reduced structural capability of the horizontal stabilizer center section, which could result in loss of controllability of the airplane.

The subject area on all Model 747 series airplanes is similar to that on the affected Model 747SR series airplane. Therefore, all of these airplanes may be subject to the same unsafe condition.

The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, dated February 28, 2002, which describes procedures for repetitive detailed and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the upper skin of the horizontal stabilizer center section and the rear spar upper chord. The procedures include a detailed visual inspection for cracking of the upper horizontal skin and of the vertical and horizontal flanges of the rear spar upper chord, and an HFEC inspection for cracking of the vertical flange of the upper chord where a detailed visual inspection is impeded by stiffeners, brackets, or sealant. The service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for repair of any crack that is found. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, this AD is being issued to find and fix cracking of the upper skin of the horizontal stabilizer center section and the rear spar upper chord, which could lead to reduced structural capability of the horizontal stabilizer center section, and result in loss of controllability of the airplane. This AD requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.

Operators should note that, although the service bulletin specifies that the manufacturer may be contacted for disposition of repair conditions, this AD requires the repair of those conditions to be accomplished per a method approved by the FAA, or per data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, to make such findings.

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 2002-NM-32-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

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

The FAA has received reports of loose fasteners in certain retention bracket assemblies for the left and right elevator power control units (PCUs) on certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, and -800 series airplanes. Such loose fasteners could separate from the bracket and interfere with adjacent systems, including the elevator flight controls. A loose bracket could also cause such interference. Also, operators have found inadequate clearance between a particular retention bracket for the elevator PCU and a quadrant on the inboard side of the right elevator PCU. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in jamming of the elevator flight controls, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1234, dated March 27, 2000, and Revision 1, dated August 10, 2000. Both service bulletins describe procedures for measurement of clearance between a certain retention bracket for the elevator PCU and a quadrant on the inboard side of the right elevator PCU, and rework of the bracket, if necessary. The service bulletins also describe procedures for a visual inspection for loose fasteners in certain retention bracket assemblies for the left and right elevator PCUs, and torquing of the fasteners, if necessary. The visual inspection for loose fasteners consists of inspecting for inadequate thread protrusion, gaps between the fastener heads and brackets, or loose brackets. Revision 1 differs from the original issue of the service bulletin in that the effectivity listing of Revision 1 includes airplanes not listed in the original issue of the service bulletin. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, this AD is being issued to prevent jamming of the elevator flight controls, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. This AD requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously.

The FAA acknowledges that many operators have already accomplished the actions required by this AD on their fleets in accordance with the original issue or Revision 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1234, which had a recommended compliance time of 10 days after receipt of the service bulletin. No further action is necessary for those airplanes on which the actions in the referenced service bulletins have been accomplished. However, the FAA finds that issuance of an AD is warranted at this time to ensure that the actions in the service bulletin are accomplished and the identified unsafe condition is addressed on all affected airplanes.

The service bulletin described previously identifies only Boeing Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes as being affected by the actions therein. However, we find that the effectivity listing of the service bulletin also includes Model 737-700C series airplanes. Therefore, this AD applies to certain Model 737-700C series airplanes in addition to certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes.

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-356-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.

Before Commissioners: Pat Wood, III, Chairman; William L. Massey, Linda Breathitt, and Nora Mead Brownell.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is removing 18 CFR § 2.65 from its regulations. Section 2.65 sets out a general policy with respect to the issuance of certificates of public convenience and necessity for the construction and operation of pipeline transmission facilities in the Louisiana off-shore area. The Commission's predecessor agency, the Federal Power Commission (FPC), announced the policy on June 4, 1968, in Order No. 363, to maximize the use of off-shore Louisiana facilities and to ensure that off-shore facilities were properly sized. 1 In ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), the Commission confirmed that § 2.65 no longer reflects its policy with respect to pipeline construction in the off-shore Louisiana area. 2 Since the Commission's policy with respect to construction of off-shore facilities has changed, we are removing § 2.65 from the regulations.

In promulgating § 2.65 in Order No. 363, the FPC noted the increasing importance of off-shore Louisiana as a source of natural gas for the nation and the much higher cost of installing off-shore pipeline facilities compared to on-shore facilities. Taking this into account, the FPC announced a policy under which it would review applications for construction of pipelines in the Louisiana off-shore area in the Gulf of Mexico on both a joint and individual company basis. The FPC intended to promote joint use arrangements and wanted pipeline companies to develop gas exchange procedures to minimize cross-hauls. The FPC believed that this would assure both timely and cost-effective full utilization of large capacity facilities in the Gulf of Mexico and development of the off-shore gas reserves.

Thus, the policy outlined in § 2.65 states that a pipeline applying for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the construction and operation of off-shore pipeline facilities should include certain information in its application: (1) A detailed description of the applicant's efforts to transport its gas using another pipeline's existing or proposed off-shore facilities (§ 2.65 (a)(1)); (2) a demonstration that it consulted with other pipelines about using the applicant's proposed facilities to transport their gas to onshore facilities (§ 2.65 (a)(2)); (3) that the applicant will install 30-inch or larger diameter pipe or demonstrate the feasibility of a smaller proposed line (§ 2.65 (a)(3)); and (4) a demonstration that its proposed facilities will be used at a minimum annual load factor of 60 percent of the annual capacity available by the end of a 12-month period following construction, or seek a waiver of this requirement (§ 2.65(a)(4)). Section 2.65 also states that the Commission intends to enforce the 60 percent load factor requirement by permitting off-shore pipeline facilities to be included in the applicant's cost-of-service in future rate proceeedings at an average unit cost predicated on load factors of not less that 60 percent (§ 2.65(b)).

Section 2.65 also states that pipelines should file applications for off-shore facilities by September 1 of the year immediately preceding the proposed installation of the facilities. This would allow staff to review all applications, on a joint and individual company basis, at the same time. In 1976, for example, in High Island Offshore System (HIOS), the Commission convened public conferences to discuss a possible alternative joint approach to three competitive applications requesting authorization to construct off-shore pipeline facilities. 3 The three competing applicants ultimately amended and unified their applications to propose one system rather than the three originally proposed, as anticipated by § 2.65.

In 1996, a number of interstate pipeline companies, including ANR and Nautilus Pipeline Company (Nautilus), filed applications requesting authorization to construct pipeline facilities in the Gulf of Mexico in response to significant new deepwater gas reserves being developed in several off-shore Louisiana producing regions. ANR argued that § 2.65 of the Commission's regulations required the Commission to consolidate ANR's application for authority to construct pipeline facilities in the Gulf of Mexico with Nautilus' similar application for off-shore facilities and to hold a joint hearing to consider the two applications. 4 Citing changed circumstances since the FPC adopted the policy announced in Order No. 363, the Commission confirmed that its policy with respect to off-shore facilities has changed and denied ANR's request for consolidation. 5

ANR appealed the Commission's order, arguing that the Commission had violated its own regulation since § 2.65 required the Commission to hold a comparative hearing on its and Nautilus' applications. 6 In denying ANR's appeal, the court stated that, since § 2.65 is a policy statement, not a regulation, it is not binding on the Commission. Noting that an agency may not depart from prior policy without explanation, the court stated that the Commission's explanation in ANR adequately explained how changed circumstances justified a new policy. In response to the court's suggestion that the Commission should amend § 2.65 to reflect its new policy, 7 we are issuing this rule.

As explained in ANR, since the 1968 issuance of Order No. 363, both off-shore natural gas production and the Commission's regulatory approach to the construction of pipeline infrastructure have undergone significant changes that have affected the Commission's policy with respect to interstate pipeline construction in the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico, considered a few years ago to be a mature producing area, contains significant newly discovered deep water reserves of natural gas. In recent years, the Commission's regulatory approach has been to encourage the operation of market forces and competition wherever possible to determine what pipeline facilities are constructed.

Thus, rather than allocating limited production in the Gulf of Mexico among a limited number of pipelines as set out in Order No. 363 and § 2.65, the Commission now seeks to encourage an interstate pipeline infrastructure capable of transporting natural gas from newly developed production areas in the Gulf of Mexico. This market-oriented approach allows for the most efficient, cost effective, and timely development of new off-shore reserves and transportation facilities.

In ANR, the Commission determined that application of the evaluation standards reflected in § 2.65 to decide which project would meet off-shore capacity requirements could needlessly delay construction of the necessary pipeline infrastructure, delay production plans, and retard further exploration and development in the area. Instead, the Commission stated that the market should determine which projects are best suited to serve the area's infrastructure needs.

Since § 2.65 no longer accurately describes the Commission's policy and the Commission no longer wishes to codify in the regulations its policy on constructing infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico, the Commission is removing § 2.65.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires rulemakings to be published in the Federal Register and also mandates that an opportunity for comments be provided when an agency promulgates regulations. However, the APA exempts general statements of policy from its notice and comment requirements. 8 Therefore, since § 2.65 is a policy statement rather than a substantive rule, we are removing it from our regulations without a period for public comment.

The APA exempts general statements of policy from the requirement that rules become effective only after thirty days' notice. 9 Therefore, this final rule will be effective upon the date of its issuance. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, that the removal of this policy statement is not a major rule within the meaning of section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 10 The Commission is submitting this final rule to both houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.

Commission regulations describe the circumstances where preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement will be required. 11 The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this requirement as not having a significant effect on the human environment. 12 Since removing an outdated policy statement from the regulations falls within categorical exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural, no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is necessary. 13

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 14 generally requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission is not required to make such analysis if a rule would not have such an effect. 15

The Commission does not believe that the removal of § 2.65 from its regulations would have such an impact on small entities. The removal would have an impact only on interstate pipelines, which generally do not fall within the RFA's definition of small entity. 16 Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the Commission certifies that the removal of § 2.65 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations require that OMB approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules. 17 However, this Final Rule contains no information reporting requirements, and therefore is not subject to OMB approval.

In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.fed.us) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, N.E., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available in both the Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS) and the Records and Information Management System (RIMS).

User assistance is available for RIMS, CIPS, and the Website during normal business hours from our Help line at (202) 208-2222 (E-Mail to WebMaster@ferc.fed.us) or the Public Reference at (202) 208-1371 (E-Mail to public.referenceroom@ferc.fed.us ).

During normal business hours, documents can also be viewed and/or printed in FERC's Public Reference Room, where RIMS, CIPS, and the FERC Website are available. User assistance is also available.

Phoenix Scientific, Inc., 3915 South 48th St. Terrace, P.O. Box 6457, St. Joseph, MO 64506-0457, filed a supplement to approved ANADA 200-123 that provides for the use of MAXIM 200 (oxytetracycline) Injection as treatment for various bacterial diseases in cattle and swine. The supplemental ANADA provides for the subcutaneous administration of OTC injectable solution in beef cattle, nonlactating dairy cattle, and calves, including preruminating (veal) calves. The supplemental application is approved as of December 28, 2001, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 522.1660 to reflect the approval. The basis of approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary.

In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this supplemental application may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

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

The final and temporary regulations that are the subject of this correction is under sections 874 and 882 of the Internal Revenue Code.

As published, the TD 8981 contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.

Accordingly, the publication of TD 8981, that was the subject of FR Doc. 02-2044, is corrected as follows:

The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections are under section 4958 of the Internal Revenue Code.

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

Accordingly, the publication of the final regulations (TD 8978), that were the subject of FR Doc. 02-985, is corrected as follows:

1. On page 3078, column 1, in the preamble under the paragraph heading “ Definition of Applicable Tax-Exempt Organization ”, line 6 from the top of the column, the language “to the efficient administration of the” is corrected to read “for the efficient administration of the”.

2. On page 3082, column 3, in the preamble under the paragraph heading “ Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ”, first paragraph, line 13, the language “REP. 104-506 at 56-7, March 28, 1996)” is corrected to read “REP. 506, 104th Congress, 2d SESS. (1996), 53, 56-7)”.

3. On page 3083, column 1, in the preamble under the paragraph heading “ Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ”, first full paragraph, line 1, the language “The objective for the rebuttable” is corrected to read “The objective of the rebuttable”.

The final rule had an effective date that began during the Presidential Moratorium on Rules, therefore, the rule was republished on March 1, 2001 (66 FR 12855), exactly as previously published, to change the effective date to April 1, 2001. In the interval between publication and republication of the final rule on TRICARE Dental Program, on February 9, 2001 (66 FR 9651), the Department of Defense also published an interim final rule concerning, among other issues, partial implementation of the Pharmacy Benefits Program and amended 32 CFR part 199 by adding a new section 199.21, Pharmacy Benefits Program to replace the previously reserved section 199.21. On February 15, 2001 (66 FR 10367) and March 26, 2001 (66 FR 16400), DoD published corrections to the interim final rule changing the effective date to April 1, 2001, and making other administrative changes. Unfortunately, republication of the TRICARE Dental Program final rule on March 1, 2001, amending 32 CFR part 199 to remove section 199.21 (thereby intending to remove section 199.21, TRICARE Selected Reserve Dental Program, as stated in the Supplemental Information section of the final rule) resulted in a technical error removing section 199.21, Pharmacy Benefits Program which was added by the Pharmacy Benefits Program interim final rule to become effective April 1, 2001.

In a document published in the Federal Register on April 3, 2000 (65 FR 17477), we proposed to amend VA's educational assistance and educational benefit regulations concerning flight-training courses for which VA makes payments. In this regard, we proposed to add 38 CFR 21.4263(h)(3) to provide that flight schools offering approved flight-training courses must maintain records as set out in the text portion of the document. We also proposed to amend VA's educational assistance and educational benefit regulations by making technical changes for purposes of clarification.

Comments were sought during a 60-day period. Only one comment was received and it was highly supportive of the proposed rule. Based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the provisions of the proposed rule as a final rule except that we are making non-substantive changes for purposes of clarity and are adding a statement following § 21.4263 to reflect the approval by the Office of Management and Budget (MB) of the collection of information requirements contained in this rule.

OMB has approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) the information collection requirements contained in this rule (in 38 CFR 21.4263(h)(3)) and has assigned them OMB control number 2900-0613.

OMB assigns control numbers to collections of information it approves. VA may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number assigned to the collection of information requirements in this rule is displayed at the end of the affected section of the regulations.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This rule will have a minuscule monetary effect if any, on affected entities. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rule, therefore, is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses requirements of sections 603 and 604.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before developing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any given year. This rule will have no consequential effect on State, local or tribal governments.

the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers for programs affected by this rule are 64.120 and 64.124. This rule also affects the Montgomery GI Bill—Selected Reserve program, which has no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number.

Throughout this document, wherever “we”, “us”, or “our” are used, we mean the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

This section contains additional information about our final rulemaking, organized as follows:

EPA's designations of nonattainment, attainment, and unclassifiable areas pursuant to section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act are contained in part 81 of title 40 of the code of federal regulations (40 CFR part 81). Our designations for such areas in the State of Nevada are located in 40 CFR 81.329 and are presented separately for each of the criteria pollutants. 1 All of the applicable tables in 40 CFR 81.329 contain the term “rest of state” or “entire state” to describe the attainment or unclassifiable areas within Nevada. We are aware that the term “rest of state” or “entire state” in these tables at 40 CFR 81.329 could be misinterpreted as designating a single attainment or unclassifiable area. However, based on the regulatory history summarized below, dating back to our initial area designations in 1978, the terms “rest of state” and “entire state” in the applicable section 81.329 tables actually refer to more than 250 individual section 107(d) attainment or unclassifiable areas.

In 1977, pursuant to section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, the State of Nevada submitted their recommendations to EPA for nonattainment, attainment and unclassifiable areas for TSP (total suspended particulate), SO 2 (sulfur dioxide), and NO 2 (nitrogen dioxide) within the State. 2 Dated November 25, 1977, the State's letter containing the recommendations cites hydrographic areas (delineated by the Nevada Division of Water Resources) as the geographic unit for such areas in Nevada, specifically noting that, “the name and definition of Nevada's water basins are now being utilized as the reference unit for air basins.” The letter with the State's 1977 submission indicated that there were 253 such air basins in the State. A careful review of the air basins listed in the documentation provided with the 1977 letter indicates that the State had identified 254 such areas. These areas are referred to herein as “section 107(d) areas.”

In 1978, we designated section 107(d) areas based on the State's recommendations (contained in the November 1977 letter described above) with certain modifications (that are not relevant for the purposes of this action) and codified these areas in 40 CFR part 81.329. See 43 FR 8962, 9012 (March 3, 1978). In our 1978 rule, we noted: “In some instances, the descriptions of the designated areas submitted by the States were so lengthy as to prohibit their publication in the limited space available in the tables presented below. Exact descriptions of all areas designated are available at the appropriate Regional Offices or the State in question.” See 43 FR 8962, 8964 (March 3, 1978). Nevada was one of those States which submitted a lengthy description of section 107(d) areas. In the tables published in the Federal Register and codified in 40 CFR 81.329, the short-hand notation “rest of state” and “entire state” were used to refer to attainment and unclassifiable areas in the State of Nevada, in lieu of the lengthy description of 254 hydrographic areas submitted by the State. Thus, our 1978 rule, despite the use of the short-hand notation in the CFR, approved the hydrographic areas as the attainment or unclassifiable areas (for TSP, SO 2 , and NO 2 ) in the State of Nevada.

Since our 1978 rule, we have twice taken action under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act to increase the number of designated section 107(d) areas in the State of Nevada. In 1980, we approved a division of hydrographic area 101 (Carson Desert) into two section 107(d) areas for TSP: 101 (a smaller area referred to as Carson Desert); and 101A (referred to as Packard Valley). See 45 FR 46807 (July 11, 1980). In 1982, we approved a division of hydrographic area 179 (Steptoe Valley) into three areas for SO 2 : central; northern; and southern. See 47 FR 20772 (May 14, 1982). Upon the effective date of our 1982 rule (June 14, 1982), there have been a total of 256 section 107(d) areas in the State of Nevada for SO 2 , 255 section 107(d) areas for TSP, and 254 section 107(d) areas for NO 2 .

Therefore, in this action, we are clarifying 40 CFR 81.329 to indicate clearly that the term “rest of state” or “entire state” in the Nevada tables for TSP, SO 2 , and NO 2 refers to the hydrographic areas designated by EPA in 1978, revised for TSP in 1980, and then revised for SO 2 in 1982.

In 40 CFR 81.329, there are two tables that list the nonattainment, attainment, and unclassifiable areas in the State of Nevada for particulate matter: one relates to TSP and the other relates to PM 10 . Today's action clarifies the PM 10 table to reflect the relationship between that table and the TSP area designations table for the purposes of implementing the PSD program. 3

In 1991, pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the State of Nevada submitted their recommendations concerning nonattainment areas for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM 10 ) (PM 10 replaced TSP as the criteria pollutant for particulate matter.) Dated March 15, 1991, the State's letter containing their recommendations did not refer to PM 10 attainment or unclassifiable areas, instead focussing solely on the identification of nonattainment areas. Later in 1991, based on the State's recommendations, we revised the nonattainment areas under section 107(d) for PM 10 . See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). Our 1991 rule did not identify attainment or unclassifiable areas for PM 10 .

In 1992, we recognized that we had neglected to identify attainment or unclassifiable areas for PM 10 in our 1991 rule and thus added the designation “unclassifiable” for the areas not otherwise designated nonattainment for PM 10 , using the term “rest of state.” See 57 FR 56762 (November 30, 1992). In this context, the use of the term “rest of state” in the PM 10 table in section 81.329 was only identifying the portion of the State that EPA had not designated nonattainment for PM 10 .

Unfortunately, the use of the term “rest of state” in the PM 10 table could lead members of the public to conclude that there is a single unclassifiable PM 10 area in the State for the purposes of the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program. However, based on the regulatory history described below, for PSD baseline purposes, the term “rest of state” in the PM 10 table for the State of Nevada refers to hydrographic areas, and in this action, we are clarifying the PM 10 table accordingly to avoid further confusion.

In 1980, EPA revised the regulations implementing the PSD program to define “baseline areas” in terms of the attainment or unclassifiable areas listed in 40 CFR part 81, i.e., the section 107(d) areas. 45 FR 52676 (August 7, 1980). In 1987, we revised the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter (52 FR 24634), replacing TSP as the indicator for particulate matter with PM 10 , and in 1993, we revised our PSD regulations to address the revision in the NAAQS for particulate matter from TSP to PM 10 . Among other changes in our 1993 rule related to PSD, we decided to retain the TSP baseline areas as part of the program for implementing the newly-promulgated PM 10 increments. See 58 FR 31622, 31630 (June 3, 1993). The TSP baseline areas had been defined as the section 107(d) areas, and in the State of Nevada, as discussed in the previous section, the section 107(d) areas for TSP are comprised of hydrographic areas. Thus, the effect of our 1993 rule was to retain the hydrographic areas as PM 10 baseline areas for the purposes of implementing the PM 10 increments in the State of Nevada. Today's action clarifies the PM 10 table in 40 CFR 81.329 to indicate, in accordance with EPA's 1993 rule, that for PSD baseline area purposes, the term “rest of state” refers to the hydrographic areas that had been approved by EPA as TSP baseline areas in the State of Nevada.

On October 2, 1997, we published a final rule that found that the Las Vegas Valley carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area did not attain the NAAQS for CO by the applicable attainment date. Our final rule reclassified the area from “moderate” to “serious” nonattainment under section 186(b)(2) of the Act. See 62 FR 51604 (October 2, 1997). However, we inadvertently failed to codify this final action in the CO table for Nevada in 40 CFR 81.329. The CO table in 40 CFR 81.329 currently lists the prior classification (“Moderate > 12.7 ppm”) for Las Vegas Valley Hydrographic Area 212. In this action, we are therefore correcting the CO table so that the classification of Las Vegas Valley Hydrographic Area 212 is correctly identified as “serious,” effective November 3, 1997, reflecting our final action published on October 2, 1997 in the Federal Register .

In this action, we are clarifying and correcting the tables in 40 CFR 81.329 that identify nonattainment, attainment, and unclassifiable areas designated by EPA under the Clean Air Act within the State of Nevada. Specifically, we are clarifying the TSP, SO 2 , and NO 2 tables to identify exactly which geographic areas comprise the attainment or unclassifiable areas in the State of Nevada consistent with our final rules published in the Federal Register on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962); July 11, 1980 (45 FR 46807); and May 14, 1982 (47 FR 20772). We are also clarifying the PM 10 table consistent with our final rule related to PSD published in the Federal Register on June 3, 1993 (58 FR 31622). Lastly, we are correcting the table showing the classification of the Las Vegas Valley nonattainment area for the NAAQS for CO consistent with our final rule published in the Federal Register on October 2, 1997 (62 FR 51604). In so doing, we are not revising any area designations or classifications in the State of Nevada nor are we changing the underlying method used by the State of Nevada in implementing the PSD program in that State. (The State has been implementing the PSD program on the basis of hydrographic areas consistent with our designations of such areas in 1978.) Rather, we are aligning the contents of the tables in 40 CFR 81.329 with the effective results of prior EPA rules that did establish or revise the area designations or classifications.

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 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 today's rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because EPA is clarifying and correcting the section of the CFR that lists designations and classifications under the Clean Air Act to reflect prior EPA rules rather than promulgating new or revised designations or classifications. These prior rules had been subject to notice and comment. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Also, because the contents of the existing tables of section 107(d) areas in 40 CFR 81.329 have lead to confusion, particularly in the context of implementing the PSD program in Nevada, we are invoking the good cause exception to the 30-day notice requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act and making today's final action immediately effective. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

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

This technical correction does not contain technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 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, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefor, and established an effective date of March 19, 2002. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 20, 2002. 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).)

FEMA makes the final determinations listed below of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed. The proposed BFEs and proposed modified BFEs were published in newspapers of local circulation and an opportunity for the community or individuals to appeal the proposed determinations to or through the community was provided for a period of ninety (90) days. The proposed BFEs and proposed modified BFEs were also published in the Federal Register .

This final rule is issued in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR Part 67.

FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR Part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community.

The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

The Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because final or modified BFEs are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required to establish and maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

This is a summary of a Public Notice released March 14, 2001. The complete text is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. It may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893. It is also available on the Commission's web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

1. Notice is hereby given that the parties listed have petitioned the Commission for reconsideration and clarification of the Report and Order in GN Docket No. 01-74, FCC 01-364, 67 FR 5491 (February 6, 2002). In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted allocation and service rules for the 698-746 MHz spectrum band (“Lower 700 MHz Band”), currently comprising television Channels 52-59, in order to reclaim and license this spectrum in accordance with statutory mandate. This spectrum is being reclaimed for new commercial services as part of the transition of television broadcasting from analog to digital transmission systems. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, requires the Commission to assign spectrum reclaimed from broadcast television using competitive bidding, and envisions that the Commission will conduct an auction of this spectrum by September 30, 2002.

2. In light of the upcoming auction of licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band at 698-746 MHz (Auction No. 44), which is scheduled to commence on June 19, 2002, good cause exists in this instance to alter the periods specified in § 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, for the filing of oppositions to petitions for reconsideration and replies to oppositions. The petitions filed by the parties listed seek reconsideration or clarification of a number of the policies and procedures adopted in the Report and Order, which are relevant to the transition of the 698-746 MHz band from broadcasting to new services. An expedited schedule will give the Commission an opportunity to provide timely guidance regarding these issues to prospective bidders and incumbent broadcasters in advance of Auction No. 44. Accordingly, oppositions to petitions for reconsideration of the Report and Order shall be filed no later than March 25, 2002, and replies to oppositions will be due no later than April 1, 2001.

4. Parties submitting oppositions or replies should address the issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration in light of the relevant statutory requirements, procedures, and public interest considerations. All responsive filings should reference the docket number of this proceeding, i.e., GN Docket No. 01-74.

5. This proceeding has been designated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200(a), 1.1206. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must reflect the substance of the presentations and not merely list the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in Section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

6. Parties may obtain copies of the Report and Order and petitions for reconsideration at the FCC website, http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. The petitions are also available for public inspection and copying in the Reference Center, Room CY A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Copies of the petitions are also available from Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or e-mail at qualexint@aol.com.

7. Oppositions to petitions for reconsideration and replies may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (“ECFS”) or by filing paper copies. Oppositions and replies filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Each filing should be submitted into the following docket: GN Docket No. 01-74. In completing the transmittal screen, parties should include their full name and Postal Service mailing address. Parties may also submit an electronic filing by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail filings, parties should send an e-mail message to ecfs@fcc.gov, including “get form to <your e-mail address>” in the body of the message. A sample form and directions will be sent in response.

8. Due to the threat of contamination that resulted in the disruption of regular mail, the Commission released on November 29, 2001, an Order, temporarily amending certain procedural rules on an emergency basis. Oppositions to petitions for reconsideration and replies thereto must be filed electronically (i.e., by e-mail or facsimile), or by hand delivery to the Commission's Massachusetts Avenue location.

9. If filed electronically by e-mail, oppositions to petitions for reconsideration and replies thereto shall be filed at the following e-mail address: WTBSecretary@fcc.gov. Please also copy (CC) G. William Stafford at wstafford@fcc.gov, Michael J. Rowan at mrowan@fcc.gov , and Jamison Prime at jprime@fcc.gov. For security purposes, we recommend that documents filed via electronic mail be converted to PDF format.

10. If filed by facsimile, oppositions to petitions for reconsideration and replies thereto shall be faxed to 202-418-0187. The fax transmission should include a cover sheet listing contact name, phone number and, if available, an e-mail address. In addition to the official filing, please also fax copies to G. William Stafford, Room 4-A124, Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Michael J. Rowan, Room 4-A131, Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and Jamison Prime, Room 4-A734, Office of Engineering and Technology, at (202) 418-7447.

11. If filed by hand delivery, documents shall be delivered to 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 110, Washington DC 20002. Please address documents to the Secretary, and copies thereof to the attention of G. William Stafford, Room 4-A124, Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Michael J. Rowan, Room 4-A131, Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and Jamison Prime, Room 4-A734, Office of Engineering and Technology.

12. If filed by overnight delivery service (other than U.S. Postal Service Express and Priority Mail), filings must be received at the Commission's headquarters at 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. As noted in the October 17 and October 18, 2001 public notices, the Commission will divert those deliveries to the Capitol Heights facility.

13. In addition, one copy of each opposition to petitions for reconsideration and each reply thereto must be delivered to the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893, by facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via e-mail at qualexint@aol.com.

14. Listed are the parties filing petitions for reconsideration and clarification of the Report and Order in GN Docket No. 01-74:

Spectrum Clearing Alliance (by Paxson Communications Corporation) (February 5, 2002); Supplement to Petition (March 8, 2002).

KM Communications, Inc. (March 6, 2002).

Office of the Chief Technology Officer, Government of the District of Columbia (March 8, 2002).

Access Spectrum, LLC (March 8, 2002).

Spectrum Exchange Group, LLC and Allen & Company Incorporated (March 8, 2002).

The WB Television Network (March 8, 2002).

Pappas Telecasting of America, a California Limited Partnership, and Iberia Communications, LLC (Joint Petition) (March 8, 2002).

Univision Television Group, Inc. (March 8, 2002).

This is a summary of the Commission's First Report and Order adopted February 14, 2002 and released February 28, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Public Reference Room, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554.

The rule revisions adopted in this First Report and Order have been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, and do not contain new and/or modified information collections subject to Office of Management and Budget review.

In this First Report and Order, the Commission extends the license term of all space station and earth station granted after the effective date of these rules from 10 years to 15 years. The effect of these rule revisions is to reduce the number of times space station and earth station licensees will be required to renew their licenses. This will reduce the administrative burdens of space station and earth station licensees. We expect that this change will be minimal and positive. Therefore, we certify that the requirements of this First Report and Order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the First Report and Order, including a copy of 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 First 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).

Currently, Part 25 of the Commission's rules provides for issuing earth station licenses, space station licenses, and receive-only earth station registrations with a maximum of 10-year license terms. In this First Report and Order, the Commission revises Part 25 to allow for earth station licenses, space station licenses, and receive-only earth station registrations with 15-year license terms.

Pursuant to sections 4(i), 7(a), 11, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 161, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), this First Report and Order is hereby adopted.

Part 25 of the Commission's rules is amended as set forth in the Rule Changes.

The rule revisions adopted in this First Report and Order will be effective 30 days after a summary of this Order is published in the Federal Register .

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

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, adopted February 20, 2002, and released March 1, 2002. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours at 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.

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

The A season apportionment of the 2002 Pacific cod TAC allocated to vessels using pot gear in the BSAI was established in an emergency rule implementing 2002 harvest specifications and associated management measures for the groundfish fisheries off Alaska (67 FR 956, January 8, 2002) as a directed fishing allowance of 10,305 metric tons. See § 679.20 (c)(3)(iii), § 679.20 (c)(7), and § 679.20 (a)(7)(i)(A)&(C).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the A season apportionment of the 2002 Pacific cod TAC allocated to vessels using pot gear as a directed fishing allowance in the BSAI will soon be reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher processor vessels using pot gear and catcher vessels 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA and longer using pot gear in the BSAI.

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

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds that the need to immediately implement this action to prevent exceeding the A season apportionment of the 2002 Pacific cod TAC allocated to vessels using pot gear constitutes good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(3)(B) and 50 CFR 679.20 (b)(3)(iii)(A), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Similarly, the need to implement these measures in a timely fashion to prevent exceeding the A season apportionment of the 2002 Pacific cod TAC allocated to vessels using pot gear constitutes good cause to find that the effective date of this action cannot be delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effective date is hereby waived.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.