The FAA published a document in the Federal Register on March 13, 2002 (67 FR 11218) that issued final special conditions and requested comments. In the document, three errors appeared. This document corrects those errors.

Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. CE177A.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

The FAA issued a final rule AD 2002-03-52 on March 11, 2002, (67 FR 12856, March 20, 2002) for the specified helicopters. The AD contains two errors. In the Supplementary Information, in the second sentence, a word is misspelled, “STAFFLEX” should be “STARFLEX.” Also, the effective dates listed both under the DATES caption of the AD and in paragraph (f) are incomplete and fail to make it clear that the effective date of the emergency AD, that was published in the Federal Register on March 20, 2002, was effective immediately to those persons that received it. Therefore, this needs to be clarified.

Since no other part of the regulatory information has been revised, the final rule is not being republished.

Accordingly, the publication on March 20, 2002 of the final regulations, which were the subject of FR Doc. 02-6627, is corrected as follows:

The Direction Generale De L'Aviation Civile (DGAC), the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on ECF Model AS332L2 helicopters. The DGAC advises of the discovery of a missing air vent on the head of the inflation cylinder of a life raft. Absence of an air vent on the cylinder head might lead to inadvertent life raft inflation and cause the life raft to be lost and to come into contact with the main or tail rotor.

ECF has issued Alert Telex No. 25.01.06, dated September 17, 2001, which specifies checking that the air vent is installed on the heads of the cylinders of the life raft assemblies. The DGAC classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued AD 2001-500-019(A), dated October 17, 2001, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in France.

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

This unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design registered in the United States. Therefore, this AD is being issued to prevent inadvertent life raft inflation, loss of the life raft, contact with the main or tail rotor, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. This AD requires, before further flight, verifying that the air vent is installed on the head of the inflation cylinders of each life raft. If the air vent is missing, this AD also requires replacing the cylinder head with an airworthy part before further flight. Replacing the cylinder head or verifying that the air vent is installed on the heads of the inflation cylinder is terminating action for the requirements of this AD.

None of the Model AS332L2 helicopters affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. All helicopters included in the applicability of this rule are currently operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign registry; therefore, they are not directly affected by this AD action. However, the FAA considers that this rule is necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed in the event that any of these subject helicopters are imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future.

Should an affected helicopter be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would require approximately 1/2 work hour to accomplish the required actions, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD would be $30 per helicopter.

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

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their mailed comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2002-SW-04-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 notice and prior public comment are unnecessary in promulgating this regulation; therefore, it can be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft since none of these model helicopters are registered in the United States. The FAA has also determined that this regulation 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.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that is applicable to Rolls-Royce plc. (RR) Tay model 650-15 and 651-54 turbofan engines was published in the Federal Register on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 63009). That action proposed to require revisions to the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) in the Time Limits Section of the Engine Manual for RR Tay model 650-15 and 651-54 series turbofan engines to include required enhanced inspection of selected critical life-limited parts at each piece-part exposure.

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

One commenter states there are inconsistencies between the proposed changes to the Time Limits Section (TLS) and the Engine Manual (EM) for RR Tay model 650-15 and 651-54 series turbofan engines, as follows:

The GROUP A PARTS MANDATORY INSPECTION TASK number is called out as 05-20-01-800-001, and in the RR EM the same task number is called out as 05-20-01-200-001. Also, in paragraph (2), the reference to “time limits manual T-211(524)-7RR (reference engine manual M-211(524) 7RR)” should read “time limits manual T-TAY-3RR and T-TAY-5RR (reference engine manual E-TAY-3RR and E-TAY-5RR).”

The FAA agrees that these inconsistencies need to be corrected and has made these corrections to the final rule.

One commenter states there are inconsistencies between the proposal Group A Parts Table and the tabulated components of the RR TLS. One inconsistency is that the H.P. Compressor Stage 10 to 11 Rotor Disc Spacer nomenclature is not specifically referenced in the Table of the proposal, however, its task number appears to have been combined in the Table with the H.P. Compressor Stages 8, 9, 10, and 11 Rotor Discs. Another inconsistency is that the reference to H.P. Compressor Stage 11 to 12 Rotor Disc Spacer appears to have been omitted from the proposal Table. Also, another inconsistency is that for the H.P. Turbine Stage 2 Rotor Disc, the overhaul manual task number in the proposal reads “72-41-33-200-001” and in the RR TLS the task number reads “72-41-33-200-000.”

The FAA agrees that these inconsistencies need to be corrected and has made these corrections to the final rule.

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

There are approximately 700 engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 448 engines installed on aircraft of U.S. registry would be affected by this AD. The FAA also estimates that it would take approximately twenty work hours per engine to accomplish the inspections, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Since this is an added inspection requirement, included as part of the normal maintenance cycle, no additional part costs are involved. Based on these figures, the total cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $537,600.

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

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

The FAA has received a report that, on February 16, 2002, an uncommanded deployment of a thrust reverser occurred on the number 1 engine of a McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-30 airplane equipped with General Electric CF6-50 engines. The uncommanded deployment occurred following climb and level-out at 17,000 feet. The flightcrew reported severe buffeting of the airplane with yaw to the left and pitch-down of about five degrees. The “REV UNLOCK” light illuminated prior to onset of the buffeting. The flightcrew shut down the engine, dumped fuel, turned back to the departure airport, and landed the airplane. No injuries were reported among passengers or crew.

Uncommanded deployment of a thrust reverser with a dual translating cowl requires a minimum of two failures: (1) the over pressure shut-off valve (OPSOV) must let pressure enter into the thrust reverser actuation system; and (2) the directional pilot valve (DPV) must command this pressure in the deploy direction. The cause of the presence of pressure in the thrust reverser system has not been determined.

Results of a subsequent investigation by the engine manufacturer revealed that the DPV was misassembled during overhaul by the DPV manufacturer in 1997. The DPV was installed on the incident airplane in 1999. The misassembly involved incorrect installation of a washer and bushing in the DPV piston/poppet subassembly. Results of vibration-table testing showed that a DPV misassembled in this way could change positions from “stow command” to “deploy command” on its own. When a DPV is in the “deploy command” position, a single failure of the OPSOV could result in an uncommanded deployment of the thrust reverser during flight. This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30F, and DC-10-30F (KC10A and KDC-10) airplanes are equipped with the same or similar engines and thrust reverser systems as the Model DC-10-30 airplane involved in the incident described previously. Therefore, these models may be subject to the same unsafe condition.

The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing DC-10 Minimum Equipment List Procedures Manual, Item 78-1, Revision 11, dated January 1999. Item 78-1 describes maintenance procedures for deactivating and locking a fan thrust reverser, as well as an optional method for deactivating and locking a fan thrust reverser.

The FAA previously has issued AD 2001-17-19, amendment 39-12410 (66 FR 44950, August 27, 2001), which applies to all McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F, and DC-10-30F (KC10A and KDC-10) airplanes. Among other actions, that AD requires eventual installation of an additional locking system on each thrust reverser. Airplanes on which the additional locking system has been installed according to AD 2001-17-19 are not subject to this AD.

The FAA has recently issued emergency AD 2002-08-51, which is applicable to Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes equipped with General Electric CF6-50 engines. That AD requires deactivating both thrust reversers and revising the FAA-approved airplane flight manual (AFM) to impose performance penalties during certain takeoff conditions to ensure that safe and appropriate performance is achieved for airplanes on which both thrust reversers have been deactivated. That AD is intended to prevent an uncommanded in-flight deployment of a thrust reverser, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Because the identified unsafe condition may be especially critical for Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes, the FAA found it appropriate to issue the action for those airplanes as an emergency AD.

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 an uncommanded in-flight deployment of a thrust reverser, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. This AD requires revising the FAA-approved AFM to advise the flightcrew of necessary procedures if the “REVERSER UNLOCK” (also labeled “REV IN TRANS”) or the “REVERSER VALVE OPEN” lights of engine 1 or engine 3 illuminate or are inoperative. This AD also requires locking out the affected thrust reverser if either of these lights illuminate or are inoperative or if a thrust reverser fails to stow after landing. This AD also provides for returning a thrust reverser to service after it has been locked-out.

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

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

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

Submit comments using the following format:

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

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

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002-NM-110-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.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2002 (67 FR 8214). That action proposed to require a one-time inspection of the fuel-level sensing wires in the center fuel tank for damage and for clearance from the adjacent structure; and corrective action, if necessary.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the single comment received. The commenter states that an inspection of the fuel-level sensing wires in the center fuel tank has revealed no damage or chafing on its airplanes.

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

The FAA estimates that 160 Model CL-600-2B19 series airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 10 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will be provided at no charge by the manufacturer. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $96,000, or $600 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81, -82, and -83 series airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on January 9, 2002 (67 FR 1165). That action proposed to require an inspection to verify proper installation of the support clamp of the alternating current (AC) power relay feeder cables at the aft inboard side of the electrical power center, and corrective actions, if necessary.

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

The FAA has revised the applicability of this final rule to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models.

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

There are approximately 162 Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and MD-88 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 90 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $5,400, or $60 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81, -82, and -83 series airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on January 9, 2002 (67 FR 1169). That action proposed to require an inspection of the electrical power feeder cables in the aft cargo compartment sidewall for chafing and/or preloading, and corrective actions, if necessary.

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

The FAA has revised the applicability of this final rule to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models.

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

There are approximately 112 Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and MD-88 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 57 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,420, or $60 per airplane.

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

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that is applicable to PW4090, PW4090-3, PW4074D, PW4077D, PW4090D, and PW4098 turbofan engines with 15th stage high pressure compressor (HPC) disks having certain P/N's, was published in the Federal Register on November 23, 2001 (66 FR 58689). That action proposed to require initial and repetitive borescope inspections of 15th stage HPC disks for cracks in the knife edges, eddy current inspections (ECI's) of blade loading slots if required, and removal of cracked disks. In addition, that action proposed to require the removal from service of these P/N disks, at a new lower cyclic life limit. The proposed actions were to be done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of PW Service Bulletin PW4G-112-A72-242, dated May 1, 2001.

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

One commenter requests that in the paragraph entitled “Differences Between this AD and Manufacturer's Service Information” the sentence stating that PW has informed the FAA that to help reduce the operators' cost of replacing disks, PW may supply replacement disks at no cost, to be installed at the time disks with more than 2,000 cycles-since-new (CSN) are removed for maintenance, be deleted.

The FAA agrees. Although this cost reduction information was supplied by the manufacturer for the proposed rule, the purposes of this AD are to mandate initial and repetitive inspections for cracks, and to establish a lower life limit for the disk. The replacement of disks with more than 2,000 CSN when in the shop was determined based on economic consideration, and is not a hard time limit for the disk. Therefore, to avoid confusion, the cost reduction information is removed from this final rule.

One commenter requests that a typographical error be corrected in the paragraph entitled “Manufacturer's Service Information” from 8,000 hours CSN, to 8,000 CSN.

The FAA agrees that the sentence does contain a typographical error, however, the final rule does not contain the paragraph referred to and is not affected.

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

There are approximately 160 PW4090, PW4090-3, PW4074D, PW4077D, PW4090D, and PW4098 turbofan engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 70 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this AD. The FAA also estimates that it would take approximately 2.5 work hours per engine to accomplish an initial borescope inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts for a borescope inspection would cost approximately $9 per engine. Based on these figures, the total cost for the initial borescope inspection for U.S. operators is estimated to be $11,130. Assuming that all 70 engines would require 15th stage HPC disk replacement, and that a replacement disk costs approximately $65,000, the total disk cost of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $4,550,000.

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

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

Federal Register Document 01-23938, Airspace Docket 01-AEA-17FR, published on September 28, 2001 (66 FR 49518-49519), established Class E5 airspace at Shenango-UMPC Horizon Hospital Heliport, Sharon, PA. An error was discovered in the description of the airspace in the latitude and the reference point for the description of the delegated airspace. This action corrects the description of the minutes of latitude and the reference point.

This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, and 8260-5. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR (and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number.

This amendment to part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center (NFDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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

This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description on each SIAP is contained in the appropriate FAA Form 8260 and the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent (P) Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) which are incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation's Regulations (FAR). Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction of charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR (and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number.

This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained in the content of the following FDC/P NOTAMs for each SIAP. The SIAP information in some previously designated FDC/Temporary (FDC/T) NOTAMs is of such duration as to be permanent. With conversion to FDC/P NOTAMs, the respective FDC/T NOTAMs have been canceled.

The FDC/T NOTAMs for the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these chart changes to SIAPs by FDC/T NOTAMs, the TERPS criteria were applied to only these specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center (FC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.

Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the TERPS. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is amending Section 388.109 of its regulations to increase the fee for hard copies of documents available through its Public Reference Room in electronic form from 15 to 20 cents per page.

The Commission makes public documents available for download through the Internet. 1 Until recently, this has been done primarily through the Commission's Records and Information Management System (RIMS). The Commission now is in the process of replacing RIMS and other records systems with the Federal Energy Regulatory Records Information System (FERRIS). FERRIS will provide improved functionality and reliability to members of the public seeking information about Commission proceedings and other matters. 2

Documents available electronically are also available to the public in hard copy. Currently, the Commission's regulations call for a charge of 15 cents per page for hard copies of documents that are available in electronic format. 3 This rule will change the charge to 20 cents per page.

Due to increased usage of the Internet by members of the public who wish to access public Commission documents, the Commission has seen a decreased demand for hard copies of electronically available documents. Because of the smaller volume, the Commission's Public Reference Room contractor, which was recently selected through a competed procurement as offering the best value among available firms, requires an increase in the copying charge for the service to continue to remain economically viable. Commission staff monitors printing statistics and has verified the contractor's need. The Commission does not believe the price increase will cause any hardship, particularly given the increasing reliance on electronic means for accessing documents. This final rule also deletes the reference to the Commission's Records and Information Management System (RIMS) and substitutes a reference to the new Federal Energy Regulatory Records Information System (FERRIS).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires agencies to prepare certain statements, descriptions, and analyses of proposed rules that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 4 The Commission is not required to make such an analysis if a rule would not have such an effect.

The Commission does not believe that this rule would have such an impact on small entities. Charges for hard copies of documents remain modest and the Commission considers it very unlikely that any person or entity would require such a large volume of documents for this increase to have a significant impact.

Issuance of this Final Rule does not represent a major federal action having a significant adverse effect on the human environment under the Commission's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. 5 Part 380 of the Commission's regulations lists a number of exemptions where an Environmental Analysis or Environmental Impact Statement will not be done. Included are exemptions for procedural, ministerial or internal administrative actions, and for information gathering, analysis and dissemination. 6 This rulemaking is exempt under those provisions.

The Office of Management and Budget's (“OMB's”) regulations require that OMB approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule. 7 This Final Rule contains no information reporting requirements, and 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.gov ) 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, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available in both the Federal Energy Regulatory Records Information System (FERRIS) and the Records and Information Management System (RIMS).

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

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

This Final Rule will take effect immediately upon issuance. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A), agencies are not required to notify Congress of any Final Rule that is a rule of particular applicability, including a rule that approves or prescribes rates, services, corporate or financial structures, reorganizations, or accounting practices. The Commission finds that this Final Rule is covered by the exception. The only impact of the rule is to prescribe the rate that the Commission's Public Reference Room contractor can charge for hard copies of certain documents. It is therefore a rule of particular applicability prescribing a rate, and the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 801 regarding Congressional review of Final Rules do not apply.

The Commission is issuing this as a final rule without a period for public comment. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), notice and comment procedures are unnecessary where a rulemaking concerns only agency procedure and practice, or where the agency finds that notice and comment is unnecessary. This rule concerns only matters of agency procedure and will not significantly affect regulated entities or the general public. Therefore, the Commission finds notice and comment procedures to be unnecessary.

In addition, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Commission finds that good cause exists to make this Final Rule effective immediately upon issuance. The increase in copying charges is necessary to make it economically viable for the Commission's Public Reference Room to continue offering this service, and will have minimal impact upon the public.

Blue Ridge Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 4249-105 Piedmont Pkwy., Greensboro, NC 27410, has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, NADA 200-270 for IVERHART (ivermectin) Tablets, NADA 200-281 for WORMEXX (pyrantel pamoate) Chewable Tablets, and NADA 200-302 for IVERHART Plus (ivermectin/pyrantel pamoate) Flavored Chewable Tablets to Virbac AH, Inc., 3200 Meacham Blvd., Ft. Worth, TX 76137. Accordingly, the agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR 520.1193, 520.1196, and 520.2041 to reflect the transfer of ownership.

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.

Elanco Animal Health, A Division of Eli Lilly & Co., Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN 46285, filed a supplement to NADA 141-064 that provides for the use of PULMOTIL (tilmicosin phosphate) Type A medicated article in swine feed for the control of swine respiratory disease associated with certain bacterial organisms. The supplemental NADA provides for additional use information in labeling. The supplemental NADA is approved as of November 15, 2001, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 558.618 to reflect the approval.

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 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 Coast Guard has determined that good cause exists under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) to forego notice and comment for this rulemaking and for making this regulation effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Processing and publication of this temporary rule 30 days prior to the effective date was not possible due to the late notification provided to the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard believes notice and comment are not necessary because the requested closure is of short duration on a Sunday when there have been few requests to open this bridge. The Newtown Creek is used mostly by commercial vessels and those vessels normally pass under the draws without openings. The commercial vessels that do require openings are work barges that do not operate on Sundays. The Coast Guard, for the reasons just stated, has also determined that good cause exists for this rule to be effective less than 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register .

The Pulaski Bridge, mile 0.6, across the Newtown Creek between Brooklyn and Queens, has a vertical clearance of 39 feet at mean high water and 43 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing operating regulations listed at 117.801(g) require the draw to open on signal, if at least a two-hour advance notice is given.

New York City Department of Transportation requested a temporary change to the operating regulations to allow the Pulaski Bridge to remain in the closed position from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on May 5, 2002, for the running of the Five Borough Bike Tour. Vessels that can pass under the bridges without bridge openings may do so at all times.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). This conclusion is based on the fact that the requested closure is of short duration and on Sunday morning when there have been few requests to open the bridge.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This conclusion is based on the fact that the requested closure is of short duration and on Sunday when there have been few requests to open the bridge.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have 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.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

An interim final rule amending VA's medical regulations to set forth a mechanism for determining copayments for inpatient hospital care and outpatient medical care provided to veterans by VA was published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2001 (66 FR 63446).

We provided a 60-day comment period that ended February 4, 2002. No comments have been received. Based on the rationale set forth in the interim final rule we now affirm as a final rule the changes made by the interim final rule.

This document without any changes affirms amendments made by an interim final rule that is already in effect. Accordingly, we have concluded under 5 U.S.C. 553 that there is good cause for dispensing with a delayed effective date based on the conclusion that such procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.

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 final rule would have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments.

This document contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule would not directly affect any small entities. Only individuals could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

This is a summary of the Commission's Order on Remand, CC Docket No. 97-213, FCC 02-108, adopted April 5, 2002, and released April 11, 2002. The full text of this document is available on the Commission's internet site at www.fcc.gov. It is also available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street., SW, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, Qualex International, (202) 863-2893 voice, (202) 863-2898 Fax, qualexint@aol.com e-mail, Portals II, 445 12th St., SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554.

1. The Order on Remand adopts additional technical requirements for wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers to comply with the assistance capability requirements prescribed by CALEA and sets a June 30, 2002 compliance date for carriers to provide these capabilities. Section 103(a) of CALEA requires that a telecommunications carrier shall ensure that its equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct communications are capable of isolating and providing to the government, pursuant to a lawful authorization, certain wire and electronic communications, including call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier. Under section 107(a)(2) of CALEA (the “safe harbor” provision), carriers and manufacturers that comply with industry standards for electronic surveillance are deemed in compliance with their specific responsibilities under CALEA, but, if industry associations or standard-setting organizations fail to issue technical requirements or standards or if a Government agency or any other person believes that such requirements or standards are deficient, the Commission is authorized in response to a petition from any Government agency or person, to establish, by rule, technical requirements or standards. Under section 107 (b) of (CALEA) technical requirements or standards adopted by the Commission must meet the assistance capability requirements of section 103 by cost-effective methods; protect the privacy and security of communications not authorized to be intercepted; minimize the cost of such compliance on residential ratepayers; serve the policy of the United States to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public; and provide a reasonable time and conditions for compliance with and the transition to any new standard.

2. In the Third R&O, 14 FCC Rcd 16794, 64 FR 51710, September 24, 1999, the Commission required that wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers implement all electronic surveillance capabilities of the industry interim standard, J-STD-025 (“J-Standard”) and six of nine additional capabilities requested by DoJ/FBI, known as the “punch list” capabilities. With respect to the six required punch list capabilities, “dialed digit extraction” would provide to law enforcement agencies (“LEAs”) those digits dialed by a subject after the initial call setup is completed; “party hold/join/drop” would provide to LEAs information to identify the active parties to a conference call; “subject-initiated dialing and signaling” would provide to LEAs access to all dialing and signaling information available from the subject, such as the use of flash-hook and other feature keys; “in-band and out-of-band signaling” would provide to LEAs information about tones or other network signals and messages that a subject's service sends to the subject or associate, such as notification that a line is ringing or busy; “subject-initiated conference calls” would provide to LEAs the content of conference calls supported by the subject's service; and “timing information” would provide to LEAs information necessary to correlate call-identifying information with call content.

3. Several parties challenged the Commission's decision before the Court. In its August 15, 2000 Remand Decision, 227 F. 3d 450, the Court affirmed the Commission's findings in the Third R&O in part and vacated and remanded for further proceedings the Third R&O's decisions concerning four punch list capabilities (dialed digit extraction, party hold/join/drop messages, subject-initiated dialing and signaling information, and in-band and out-of-band signaling information).

4. Section 102(2) of CALEA defines “call-identifying information” as “dialing or signaling information that identifies the origin, direction, destination, or termination of each communication generated or received by a subscriber by means of any equipment, facility, or service of a telecommunications carrier.” The J-Standard further interprets the key terms in this definition as follows: origin is the number of the party initiating the call (e.g., calling party); termination is the number of the party ultimately receiving a call (e.g., answering party); direction is the number to which a call is re-directed or the number from which it came, either incoming or outgoing (e.g., redirected-to party or redirected-from party); and destination is the number of the party to which a call in being made (e.g., called party). Although the J-Standard adopts definitions that frame call-identifying information in terms of telephone numbers, the Commission, in the Third R&O, found capabilities required under CALEA, in some cases, require carriers to disclose information that is not a telephone number. The Court held that CALEA is ambiguous as to precisely what constitutes call-identifying information and thus, what the CALEA requirements are. In cases where the intent of Congress is not clear, an agency may develop its interpretation of the statute within the guidelines set forth in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Counsel, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and subsequent cases.

5. The J-Standard's definitions do not give all portions of CALEA full effect, and we are disinclined to interpret a statute in a manner that will render portions of it superfluous. The legislative history of CALEA does not clearly state Congress's intent with respect to the key terms at issue, and we think it would be implausible to read CALEA as providing for a more limited class of information than that which LEAs already receive. Nor do we find a basis for tying our interpretation of CALEA exclusively to a prior, separate statute, such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (“ECPA”). In the Remand Decision, the Court stated that CALEA does not cross-reference or incorporate the definitions of pen registers and trap and trace devices in the ECPA. Moreover, the standards have been modified by such legislation as the USA PATRIOT Act, which expands the terms “pen register” and “trap and trace device” to include the concept of “dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information.”

6. We are adopting a definition of “call-identifying information” that replicates the existing electronic surveillance capability functions, but that is also expressed in sufficiently broad terms so as not to be limited to a specific network technology. This analysis is consistent with overall purpose expressed for the Act: CALEA was intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement officials to conduct electronic surveillance effectively and efficiently in the face of rapid advances in telecommunications technology. An example of this approach can be found in the Court's upholding of the provision of antenna location information, even though this capability has no structural equivalent in the traditional wireline architecture. Similarly, we note that there are many situations in which a party inputs dialing information that, in itself, is not a telephone number.

7. Although “call-identifying information” consists of both dialing and signaling information that may or may not be described in terms of telephone numbers, not all dialing and signaling information is “call-identifying information.” While some dialing or signaling information identifies the origin, direction, destination, or termination of a communication, other dialing or signaling information—such as a bank account number in a bank-by-phone system—clearly does not. Insofar as a ringing tone or a busy signal provides information that is descriptive of an origin, direction, destination, or termination a communication, that tone or signal “identifies” such a communication for purposes of CALEA and falls within CALEA's definition of “call-identifying information.” By contrast, call content does not identify the origin, termination, direction, and destination of a communication, and thus is not “call identifying information” for purposes of CALEA. Section 102(2) of CALEA defines call-identifying information as “dialing or signaling information that identifies the origin, direction, destination, or termination” of each call or communication. Thus, the origin, direction, destination, or termination is identified by call-identifying information, such as the caller's phone number. The J-Standard's definitions are deficient to the extent that they claim that a phone number is itself an origin, direction, destination, and termination.

8. In a simple two-way telephone call, the dialing or signaling information that identifies the “origin” of a communication is the calling party's telephone line (which is commonly identified by a telephone number). There are situations in which information other than a number is needed to identify the party initiating a call. For example, when a wireless phone is used to initiate a call, that origin may be identified by both the number assigned to the wireless phone and the location information of the antenna site to which the phone is connected. Because the origin pertains to a calling party, there may be multiple points in a telephone call scenario that give rise to information that identifies the origin of a communication.

9. We conclude that a “termination” is a party or place at the end of a communication path. The J-Standard defines “termination” in terms of the “party ultimately receiving the call.” Common practice as well as the industry's own technical standards suggest a broader definition that recognizes that a call can “terminate” when it reaches an identifiable stopping point in the network. The J-Standard shows a diagram where the surveillance subject (“S”) is connected to one party (“A”), while the other party (“B”) is on hold. As shown in the diagram, the communication path starting from party A terminates at S. However, as is also shown in the diagram, the communication path coming from the held party B terminates at the subject's switch, and not at the subject's line. This example also supports the proposition that a termination is not always identified by a telephone number because (1) a network switch is not a party in a call, and (2) a network switch is a point in the network with no directory telephone number. There can be multiple terminations within a single call because there are multiple points in a call at which there is information that identifies the called party.

10. A “destination” is a party or place to which a call is being made. We reach this definition after considering common and technical dictionary definitions of the term, as well as that provided by the J-Standard. Similarly, we agree with the J-Standard's general characterization of “direction” as a description of navigation within a network but reject the contention that this information is exclusively a telephone number. We find that the “direction” is, broadly speaking, information that identifies the path of communication.

11. Thus, we are defining the relevant terms as follows: origin is a party initiating a call (e.g., a calling party), or a place from which a call is initiated; destination is a party or place to which a call is being made (e.g., the called party); direction is a party or place to which a call is re-directed or the party or place from which it came, either incoming or outgoing (e.g., a redirected-to party or redirected-from party); and termination is a party or place at the end of a communication path (e.g., the called or call-receiving party, or the switch of a party that has placed another party on hold). These changes distinguish between origin, destination, direction, and termination, and the information that identifies them; permit multiple origins, destinations, directions, and terminations in a call; and provide for terminations inside a network switch or at another point within a network. Moreover, this approach defines call-identifying information in a manner that can be converted into actual network capabilities, unlike the definition suggested by DoJ/FBI.

12. Under sections 107(b)(1) and 107(b)(3) of CALEA, if the Commission finds that industry-established technical standards are deficient, it may establish standards that “meet the assistance capability requirements of section 103 by cost-effective methods” and “minimize the cost of such compliance on residential ratepayers.” The Court was unable to find a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made in the Third R&O. CALEA does not define “cost-effective.” One approach for determining whether something is “cost-effective” that is consistent with the Court's analysis in its Remand Decision is to compare two or more ways of accomplishing a task and identifying the process that is the least expensive. This approach is supported by the Commission's own rules, other statutes where Congress has defined or described the term, as well as in other agencies' rules. Thus, it makes sense to consider whether a particular option is better than some alternative at achieving some particular regulatory requirement, when such a comparison is available. We first inquire whether we have in the record an alternative means to accomplish each of the punch list capabilities.

13. When a punch list capability “meet(s) the assistance capability requirements” of CALEA, but there is no alternative means of accomplishing the same task, we will then consider whether the capability serves to minimize costs. In general, something is “effective” if it accomplishes a task in an efficient manner. However, we will not adopt or reject a capability solely on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis because Congress has already made such a calculation when it determined the assistance capability requirements of CALEA. There are costs associated with CALEA, and it is clear that Congress anticipated that carriers would bear some of these costs. However, as part of our examination of whether a technical standard that we require under CALEA is “cost-effective,” we will consider the financial burden it places on carriers. In the case of the punch list capabilities, we note that several aspects of the implementation program significantly mitigate this burden, which serves to make implementation of the punch list capabilities “cost-effective” for carriers. These features include DoJ/FBI cost reimbursement programs, buyout agreements with manufacturers to pay for all necessary software upgrades, and deferral of required punch list capabilities coincident with routine switch upgrades. Also, five telecommunications equipment manufacturers have incorporated all six punch list capabilities required by the Third R&O into one software upgrade, and it is unclear whether deleting one or more of these capabilities from that upgrade will lessen the cost of the upgrade to those carriers that purchase software from manufacturers that are not covered by the DoJ/FBI buyout agreements. Carriers may also recover at least a portion of their CALEA software and hardware costs by charging to LEAs, for each electronic surveillance order authorized by CALEA.

14. In considering the effect of CALEA compliance on residential ratepayers under section 107(b)(3) we look at the effect on residential wireline subscribers only. Although CALEA does not define the term “residential ratepayers,” floor debate emphasized concern over “basic residential telephone service” rates. Wireless telecommunications services such as cellular or PCS are intrinsically mobile services, and we have not previously attempted to describe what “basic residential” service is in the wireless context, nor have we differentiated between residential and other classes of wireless service. By contrast, the concept of “residential ratepayer” has historically been used in the context of rate regulation for wireline telecommunication service, which traditionally differentiates rates for residential and business customers. Other provisions of CALEA can only apply to wireline telecommunications carriers, as states do not have authority to regulate rates for commercial mobile radio services and the Commission has forborne from such rate regulation under legislation and Commission decisions that were adopted prior to CALEA.

15. The general approach we have taken with our analysis of “cost-effective” is applicable in considering ways of minimizing the impact on residential ratepayers. That which is “cost-effective” is also likely to correlate to the effect on residential ratepayers, and so many of the factors we have previously identified will apply in this context. We conclude that the capabilities that we have identified—and the means of implementing them—do serve to minimize the cost on residential ratepayers. To the extent that there are costs borne by the carriers and passed through to customers, we note that it is likely that the costs would be shared by all ratepayers and, therefore, would be significantly diluted on an individual residential ratepayer basis. The fact that costs are spread across such a large base in itself suggests another means by which provision of these capabilities will minimize the effect on residential ratepayers—that the cost of CALEA compliance for any particular residential ratepayer will be minimal.

16. We note, however, that, even if the definition of “residential taxpayers” is broadened to include households that use wireless telephone service as a substitute for local wireline telephone service, there is no reason to believe that implementation of the punch list items would fail to minimize the cost on wireless residential ratepayers. In the Third R&O, the Commission found that five major telecommunications manufacturers—which account for the great majority of sales to wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers in the United States—anticipated total revenues from carriers purchasing the four vacated punch list capabilities of about $277 million. Of this amount, about $159 million was anticipated in wireless revenues and about $117 million was anticipated in wireline revenues. While these figures do not include all carrier costs of implementing the four capabilities, in the Third R&O, we found that, relative to other cost/revenue estimates, the manufacturers' estimates were “the most detailed and reliable.” Further the FBI's buyout and flexible deployment programs, coupled with manufacturers incorporating all punch list capabilities into one software upgrade would likely lessen costs to such an extent that total costs of implementing the four vacated capabilities nationwide would be well below $159 million to wireless carriers and $117 million to wireline carriers. Nonetheless, assuming pessimistically that those costs would eventuate and that they would be passed on to wireless subscribers and residential wireline ratepayers in full as a one-time charge, the respective charge per wireless subscriber and residential wireline ratepayer would average about $1.45 and $1.20. Alternatively, if these costs to wireless and wireline carriers were converted to a rate increase to wireless subscribers and residential wireline ratepayers, the rate increase would average only pennies per month per subscriber/ratepayer. Accordingly, we find that the likely worst case cost impact of carriers implementing the four vacated capabilities would be minimal on both wireless subscribers and residential wireline taxpayers.

17. The dialed digit extraction capability would require the telecommunications carrier to provide to the LEA on the call data channel the identity of any digits dialed by the subject after connecting to another carrier's service (also known as “post-cut-through digits”). The dialed digit extraction capability provides call-identifying information. Post-cut-through digits identify, under many circumstances, a communication's destination or a termination. For example, a party may dial a toll-free number to connect to a long distance carrier (e.g. 1-800-CALL-ATT) and subsequently enter another phone number to be connected to a party. That second number identifies a “destination” because it is “a party or place to which a call is being made.” If a successful connection is made, that second number also identifies a “termination” because it is the called or call-receiving party. A subject may also dial digits that are not call-identifying information—such as a bank account or social security number. However, many post-cut-through dialed digits simply route the call to the intended party and are, therefore, unquestionably call-identifying information even under a narrow interpretation of that term.

18. Section 103(a) of CALEA requires carriers to be capable of “expeditiously isolating” wire and electronic communications and call-identifying information to enable LEAs to obtain this information “concurrently with their transmission from the subscriber's equipment, facility, or service. * * *” (in the case of the interception of wire and electronic communications) or “before, during, or immediately after the transmission of a wire or electronic communication” (in the case of call-identifying information). Because of this timing requirement, we are rejecting the alternative of having a LEA serve the terminating carrier with a pen register order to obtain those dialed digits that were placed once a call has been cut-through from the originating carrier. Under such a process, the government would be unable to obtain call-identifying information concurrently with its transmission to or from a subscriber.

19. Dialed digit extraction is a capability that is “reasonably available to the carrier” under section 103 of CALEA. The J-Standard defines “reasonably available” as information “present at an Intercept Access Point for call processing purposes.” We reject the limitation that the information must be present “for call processing purposes” for it to be “available.” We read “reasonably” as a qualifier; if information is only accessible by significantly modifying a network, then we do not think it is “reasonably” available.

20. Section 107(b)(2) requires that any standards we require must “protect the privacy and security of communications not authorized to be intercepted.” There currently appears to be no technology that can separate those post-cut-through dialed digits from other post-cut-through dialed digits that are not call-identifying (i.e., that are call content). Because post-cut-through digits include call-identifying information, LEAs should be able to obtain this information under CALEA so long as they have a valid legal instrument. Although a Title III warrant—which would give a LEA call content—may be one such valid instrument, it is not up to us to decide whether it is the only one that could be used. Were we to conclude that a Title III warrant represents an alternative means of accomplishing the dialed digit extraction capability we would necessarily have to assume that a pen register does not entitle a LEA to dialed digit extraction. Such a decision would improperly usurp the role of the courts to decide what legal instrument is necessary to obtain the dialed digit information. Our approach is similar to the approach that we employed with respect to a packet-mode communications capability, which was upheld by the Court in the Remand Decision.

21. Because the standards we adopt must protect the privacy and security of communications not authorized to be intercepted, we reject the proposal to allow a LEA to extract dialed digits on content channels using their own decoders. This alternative is not acceptable because it would require the LEA in every case, no matter the level of authorization involved, to obtain the entire content when a less intrusive alternative (dialed digit extraction, whereby carriers separate out tone information) is available. This alternative would also shift from carriers to LEAs responsibility for ensuring that interceptions are conducted in a way that protects the privacy and security of communications not authorized for interception as much as possible. Such a result would be inconsistent with section 103(a)(4) of CALEA, which requires carriers to protect the privacy and security of communications and call-identifying information not authorized to be intercepted.

22. In order to respond to the appropriate legal authority, a carrier must have the ability to turn on and off the dialed digit extraction capability. We believe that a toggle feature for dialed digit extraction is necessary in order to protect privacy interests under certain circumstances, without disrupting the carrier's ability to provide other punch list capabilities included in the same software. We therefore conclude that carriers must have the equipment and software to support a dialed digit extraction capability with a toggle feature. Where such a toggle feature will not be available from a carrier's vendor by the compliance deadline, that carrier may file a petition with the Commission under section 107(c), requesting an extension of the compliance deadline.

23. The party hold/join/drop messages capability would permit the LEA to receive from the telecommunications carrier messages identifying the parties to a conference call at all times. The party hold message would be provided whenever one or more parties are placed on hold. The party join message would report the addition of a party to an active call or the reactivation of a held call. The party drop message would report when any party to a call is released or disconnects and the call continues with two or more other parties. Under our revised definitions of the components of call-identifying information, party hold/join/drop information is call-identifying information because it identifies changes in the origin(s) and termination(s) of each communication generated or received by the subject. Further, by isolating call-identifying information in this manner, the LEA may more readily avoid monitoring the communications of third parties who are not privy to the communications involving the subject, thereby furthering privacy considerations. In the Third R&O, the Commission defined call-identifying information to be “reasonably available” to an originating carrier if such information “is present at an [Intercept Access Point] and can be made available without the carrier being unduly burdened with network modifications.” The J-Standard acknowledges that the network must recognize and process party hold/join/drop functions as part of its basic operation. Thus, we conclude that party hold/join/drop information is not only present at an Intercept Access Point but, because it is already being used by the carrier, satisfies the definition of “reasonably available” in the original version of the J-Standard.

24. The subject-initiated dialing and signaling information capability would permit the LEA to be informed when a subject sends signals or digits to the network. This capability would require the telecommunications carrier to deliver a message to the LEA, for each communication initiated by the subject, informing the LEA whenever the subject has invoked a feature during a call, including features that would place a party on hold, transfer a call, forward a call, or add/remove a party to a call. This capability constitutes call-identifying information because it provides information regarding the party or place to which a forwarded call is redirected and because it provides information regarding a waiting calling party. Signals such as on-hook, off-hook, and flash-hook signals, which are generated by a subject, are reasonably available to the carrier because they must be processed at the carrier's Intercept Access Point. DTMF signals generated by a subject that must be processed at the Intercept Access Point also are reasonably available to the carrier; however, some DTMF signals generated by the subject are post-cut-through digits, and those signals are covered under dialed digit extraction.

25. The in-band and out-of-band signaling information capability would enable a telecommunications carrier to send a notification message to the LEA when any call-identifying network signal (e.g., audible ringing tone, busy, call waiting signal, message light trigger) is sent to a subject. For example, if someone leaves a voice mail message on the subject's phone, the notification to the LEA would indicate the type of call-identifying network signal sent to the subject (e.g., stutter dial tone, message light trigger). For calls the subject originates, a notification message would also indicate whether the subject ended a call when the line was ringing, busy (a busy line or busy trunk), or before the network could complete the call. Authorizing this capability for call-identifying information that is based on network signals that originate on carriers' own networks conforms with CALEA. While certain types of signals used by carriers for supervision or control do not trigger any audible or visual message to the subscriber and are therefore not call-identifying information, other types of signals—such as ringing and busy tones—are call-identifying information under our revised definitions because they convey information about the termination of a call. For example, when a subject calls another party, until the called party answers the subject's communications path is terminated at an audible ringing tone generator. However, if the called party is engaged in another conversation and does not have call waiting, the subject's communications path is terminated at a busy signal generator. Thus, even for calls from the subject that are never answered, the fact that the subject hears busy or audible ringing signal provides call-identifying information that is not provided to law enforcement via other means. The J-Standard is inadequate in this regard. For example, the fact that a call attempt does not result in a conversation because the line is busy or because the called party does not answer does not mean that no “communication” has taken place. In-band and out-of-band signals that are generated at the carrier's Intercept Access Point toward the subscriber are handled by the carrier and are clearly available to the carrier at an Intercept Access Point, and convey call-identifying information. Because carriers already deliver this information to subscribers, we see no reason why it cannot also be made available to LEAs without significantly modifying the carrier's network. Thus, in-band and out-of-band signaling information is “reasonably available.”

26. For each of the punch list items, Commenters have presented no alternative ways of obtaining all the information encompassed by this capability or those alternatives (in the case of dialed digit extraction) have deficiencies that make them unsatisfactory. Because there are no alternative means of accomplishing these objectives, we cannot engage in a cost-comparison analysis. Mechanisms such as the FBI's buyout and flexible deployment programs, coupled with five manufacturers incorporating all punch list capabilities into one software upgrade, will lessen software costs significantly, and including or not including any one of these capabilities may not significantly change carriers' costs. Because of these cost-mitigation measures, we find that it will be cost-effective to require these capabilities. For similar reasons, the capabilities are unlikely to significantly affect residential ratepayers. The aforementioned programs will serve to mitigate carriers' costs, which in turn will reduce the costs that carriers may pass on to ratepayers. Moreover, carriers will also be able to spread costs across a large ratepayer base and there is no indication that the compliance costs will be disproportionately borne by residential ratepayers. Although we have addressed privacy issues with respect to dialed digit extraction, we see no significant privacy issues arising from grant to LEAs of the remaining capabilities. No party to this proceeding challenged the Third R&O's decision with respect to those capabilities on privacy grounds, and the Court did not cite privacy as a basis for remanding to the Commission the Third R&O's decision with respect to that capability.

27. Section 107(b)(4) of CALEA—i.e., serve the policy of the United States to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public—was not briefed to or addressed by the Court in its Remand Decision. As described in the legislative history, one of the key concerns in enacting CALEA was “the goal of ensuring that the telecommunications industry was not hindered in the rapid development and deployment of the new services and technologies that continue to benefit and revolutionize society.” Aside from one suggestion that the cost of compliance would divert capital from new technology deployment, no commenter has argued—nor is there anything in the record to suggest—that inclusion of the four punch list requirements would impede in any way the provision of new telecommunications technologies or services to the public or would delay in any manner the course or current pace of technology. Rather, the punch list requirements represent a technical solution that interfaces with the carriers' own network designs to provide LEAs with interception access and the capability to intercept wire and electronic communications. Additionally, as noted above, for the majority of switches, carriers will be permitted under the FBI's flexible deployment program to implement any required punch list capabilities coincident with routine switch upgrades. Moreover, we do not believe section 107(b)(4) was intended to bar a feature simply because it imposes costs on telecommunications companies and thereby might affect their other spending. The two express references to costs in section 107(b) (i.e., cost effectiveness and minimizing impact on residential ratepayers) consider cost in a relative, not an absolute, sense. Accordingly, we do not believe paragraph (b)(4) was intended to prohibit any feature because the cost might have some impact on telecommunications companies' other spending. Given this, we find that adoption of the punch list requirements is consistent with the United States' policy of encouraging the provision of new technologies and services to the public.

28. Section 107(b)(5) of CALEA requires that the Commission “provide a reasonable time and conditions for compliance with and the transition to any new standard, including defining the obligations of telecommunications carriers under section 103 during any transition period.” The Third R&O required that the six punch list capabilities be implemented by wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers by September 30, 2001 and five telecommunications switch manufacturers have incorporated all of these capabilities into one software upgrade. In the Order in this proceeding, which suspended the September 30, 2001 deadline for all punch list capabilities, including the two unchallenged capabilities (i.e., subject-initiated conference calls and timing information), we indicated that we anticipated establishing June 30, 2002 as the new compliance date for all required punch list capabilities as we expected to address the Court's Remand Decision by year's end and given that the record indicates that carriers can implement any required changes to their software within six months of our decision. We find it reasonable to require wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS carriers to implement all punch list capabilities by June 30, 2002, and conclude that the June 30, 2002 deadline will satisfy section 107(b)(5). At the initial stages of CALEA implementation, the Commission found that carriers could put into effect any required changes to their network within six months of its decision. We recognize that this is a more aggressive timetable than the six months we anticipated earlier. We believe that this accelerated compliance schedule is reasonable for this stage of the CALEA implementation, as carriers have been aware of the CALEA capabilities under consideration in the instant Order on Remand since October 2000. In addition, the record indicates that much of the software required to implement the punch list items has already been developed, which should significantly speed implementation. Finally, carriers have much greater experience in meeting CALEA's capability requirements than they had in 1998. Together, these factors make a shorter implementation timetable reasonable. Therefore, we are lifting the suspension of the punch list compliance deadline, and specifying the revised punch list compliance deadline as June 30, 2002.

29. We note that carriers who are unable to comply may seek relief under the applicable provisions of CALEA. The Wireline Competition Bureau (formerly, the Common Carrier Bureau) and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau previously issued a Public Notice outlining the petitioning process for telecommunications carriers seeking relief under section 107(c) for an extension of the CALEA compliance deadline. Carriers seeking relief from the June 30, 2002 compliance date should follow the procedures outlined in that Public Notice. We further note that, in most cases, extensions that the Commission has already granted will apply to the capabilities we are requiring in this Order on Remand. As the Wireline Competition and Wireless Telecommunications Bureaus have previously stated: “Unless the Commission action [granting an extension] specifies otherwise, the extension applies to all assistance capability functions, including punch list and packet-mode capabilities, at the listed facilities.”

30. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 1 the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the Further NPRM. 2 The Commission sought written public comments on the proposals in the Further NPRM, including the IRFA. In the Third R&O, the Commission adopted a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). 3 As part of the instant Order on Remand, we have prepared this Supplemental FRFA to conform to the RFA. 4

31. The Third R&O responded to the legislative mandate contained in the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, Public Law 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279 (1994) (codified as amended in sections of 18 U.S.C. and 47 U.S.C.). The Commission, in compliance with 47 U.S.C. 229, promulgates rules in this Order on Remand to ensure the prompt implementation of section 103 of CALEA. This action simply responds to an Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “Court”) and puts into effect rules we originally evaluated as part of the FRFA in the Third R&O. Also, as noted, we have already done a FRFA for the rules at issue in the Third R&O.

32. In enacting CALEA, Congress sought to balance three key policies with CALEA: “(1) to preserve a narrowly focused capability for law enforcement agencies to carry out properly authorized intercepts; (2) to protect privacy in the face of increasingly powerful and personally revealing technologies; and (3) to avoid impeding the development of new communications services and technologies.”  5 The rules adopted in this Order on Remand implement Congress's goal to balance the three key policies enumerated above. The objective of the rules is to implement as quickly and effectively as possible the national telecommunications policy for wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS telecommunications carriers to support the lawful electronic surveillance needs of law enforcement agencies in a manner that is responsive to the Court's remand of the Third R&O.

33. In the Further NPRM, the Commission performed an IRFA and asked for comments that specifically addressed issues raised in the IRFA. No parties filed comments directly in response to the IRFA. Similarly, as part of the pleading cycle that followed the Court's remand of the Third R&O, no parties filed comments directly in response to the IRFA or the FRFA. In response to non-RFA comments filed in this docket, the Commission modified several of the proposals made in the Further NPRM. These modifications include changes to packet switching, conference call content, in-band and out-of-band signaling, and timing information, as first discussed in the Third R&O.

34. The Commission's effort to update the record in response to the Court's Remand Order resulted in additional non-RFA comments. The Rural Cellular Association (RCA) asserts that the costs of additional communications assistance capabilities would impose undue cost burdens on and jeopardize the efficient planning and development of facilities by small and rural carriers. Similarly, the National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA) claims that any regulation which requires carriers to deploy or upgrade facilities disproportionally affects small and rural carriers.

35. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the action taken. 6 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”  7 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 8 A small business concern is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 9 A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”  10 Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations. 11 Finally, “small governmental jurisdiction” generally means “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000.”  12 As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United States. 13 This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000. 14 The United States Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (91 percent) are small entities.

36. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide appears to be data the Commission publishes annually in its Telecommunications Provider Locator report, derived from filings made in connection with the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). 15 According to data in the most recent report, there are 5,679 interstate service providers. 16 These providers include, inter alia, local exchange carriers, wireline carriers and service providers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, providers of telephone service, providers of telephone exchange service, and resellers.

37. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs)  17 in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.”  18 The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. 19 We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on FCC analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

38. Total Number of Telecommunications Entities Affected. The Census Bureau reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at least one year. 20 This number contains a variety of different categories of entities, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, PCS providers, covered SMR providers, and resellers. It seems certain that some of those 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs because they are not “independently owned and operated.”  21 For example, a PCS provider that is affiliated with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500 employees would not meet the definition of a small business. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are small entity telephone service firms or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the actions taken in this Order on Remand.

39. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for wired telecommunications carriers. The Census Bureau reports that there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. 22 According to the SBA's definition, such a small business telephone company is one employing no more than 1,500 persons. 23 All but 26 of the 2,321 wireline companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported to have fewer than 1,000 employees. Even if all 26 of the remaining companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 wireline companies that might qualify as small entities. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of wireline carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Therefore, we estimate that fewer than 2,295 communications wireline companies are small entities that may be affected by these rules.

40. Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers, Interexchange Carriers, Operator Service Providers, Payphone Providers, and Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific size standard definition for small LECs, competitive access providers (CAPS), interexchange carriers (IXCs), operator service providers (OSPs), payphone providers, or resellers. The closest applicable size standard for these carrier-types under SBA rules is for wired telecommunications carriers and telecommunications resellers. 24 The most reliable source of information that we know regarding the number of these carriers nationwide appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with the TRS. 25 According to our most recent data, there are 1,329 LECs, 532 CAPs, 229 IXCs, 22 OSPs, 936 payphone providers, and 710 resellers. 26 Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of these carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Therefore, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,329 small entity LECs or small incumbent LECs, 532 CAPs, 229 IXCs, 22 OSPs, 936 payphone providers, and 710 resellers that may be affected by these rules.

41. Wireless Carriers. The applicable definition of a small entity wireless carrier is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone (wireless) companies. This provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons. The Census Bureau reports that there were 1,176 radiotelephone (wireless) companies in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992, of which 1,164 had fewer than 1,000 employees. 27 Even if all of the remaining 12 companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 1,164 radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities if they are independently owned are operated. It seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,164 small entity radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the actions taken in this Order on Remand.

42. Cellular, PCS, SMR and Other Mobile Service Providers. The most reliable source of current information from which we can draw an estimate of the number of small business commercial wireless entities appears to be data the Commission published annually in its Trends in Telephone Service report. 28 According to the most recent Trends Report, 806 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of cellular service, PCS services, or SMR telephony services, which are placed together in the data. 29 Moreover, 323 such licensees in combination with their affiliates have 1,500 or fewer employees and thus qualify as “small businesses” under the above definition. Thus, we estimate that there are 323 or fewer small wireless service providers that may be affected by the rules we adopt in this proceeding.

43. No reporting and recordkeeping requirements are imposed on telecommunications carriers. Telecommunications carriers, including small carriers, will have to upgrade their network facilities to provide to law enforcement the assistance capability requirements adopted herein. Although compliance with the technical requirements will impose costs on carriers, we have examined means by which these costs will be minimized (such as by federal cost-reimbursement mechanisms and the ability of carriers to charge for the provision of assistance capability services). The most detailed and reliable cost estimates for carriers to implement the assistance capability features we require herein are $159 million total for wireless carriers and $117 million for wireline carriers, including small entities. However, as discussed in paragraph 65, supra, we expect the actual costs borne by carriers to be substantially lower after the application of the cost-minimization provisions discussed above.

44. The need for the regulations adopted herein is mandated by Federal legislation. In the regulations we adopt, we affirm our proposals in the Further NPRM to establish regulations for wireline, cellular, and broadband PCS telecommunications carriers. Costs to telecommunications carriers will be mitigated in several ways. For example, the final regulations require telecommunications carriers to make available to law enforcement call identifying information when it can be done without unduly burdening the carrier with network modifications, thus allowing cost to be a consideration in determining whether the information is “reasonably available” to the carrier and can be provided to law enforcement. Thus, compliance with the assistance capability requirements of CALEA will be reasonable for all carriers, including small carriers. Also, under CALEA, some carriers will be able to request reimbursement from the Department of Justice for network upgrades to comply with the technical requirements adopted herein, and others may defer network upgrades to their normal business cycle.

45. We believe that these provisions can serve to mitigate any additional cost burdens that would otherwise be borne by small carriers. The Commission considered several alternatives advanced by commenters in the proceeding—including not requiring the assistance capabilities adopted herein—but rejected them after concluding that they would not meet the statutory requirements of CALEA. We note that the statutory mandate under CALEA requires all carriers to provide assistance capabilities, and this includes small entities. Thus, we must rely on cost-mitigation procedures to address NTCA's assertion that any regulation that requires carriers to deploy or upgrade facilities will disproportionally affect small carriers.

46. The Commission will send a copy of this Supplemental FRFA, along with this Order on Remand, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of this Order on Remand, including this Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of this Order on Remand, including the Supplemental FRFA, will also be published in the Federal Register . See 5 U.S.C. 604(b).

47. Authority for issuance of this Order on Remand is contained in sections 1, 4, 229, 301, 303, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 107(b) of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 229, 301, 303, 332, and 1006(b).

48. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Order on Remand, including the Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

A final rule was published in the Federal Register on January 28, 2002 (67 FR 4100) (R&R rule) to revise certain provisions of the recordkeeping and reporting (R&R) requirements for groundfish fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska. This rule makes minor corrections to that final rule and corrects errors caused by conflicts with the Steller Sea Lion Emergency Rule (67 FR 956, January 8, 2002) (SSL Rule). Specifically, some paragraphs are redesignated for consistency between the SSL Rule and the R&R final rule; Table 9 is republished to reflect VMS changes made in the SSL rule; the footnote numbers in Table 10 are correctly sequenced; and Table 11 is republished to reflect changes to groundfish species group descriptions made in the 2002 Harvest Specifications (67 FR 956, January 8, 2002).

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment under the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). Rationale for this finding is that prior notice and comment are unnecessary because the terms this action changes will have no substantive effect on the regulated public. This action does not substantively alter the regulations. The changes are considered to be minor technical amendments that involve little exercise of agency discretion. Further, prior notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest because it would prolong the inaccurate language that currently exists in the regulations. Therefore, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, waives the 30-day delay in effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

The final rule, FR Doc. 02-1875, published in the issue of January 28, 2002 (67 FR 4100), is corrected as follows: