This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 84 and Marketing Order No. 905, both as amended (7 CFR Part 905), regulating the handling of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos grown in Florida, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The marketing agreement and order are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

This rule is also issued under section 8e of the Act, which provides that whenever specified commodities, including grapefruit, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of these commodities into the United States are prohibited unless they meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements as those in effect for the domestically produced commodities.

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

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

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

There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of import regulations issued under section 8e of the Act.

The order for Florida citrus provides for the establishment of minimum grade and size requirements with the concurrence of the Secretary. The minimum grade and size requirements are designed to provide fresh markets with fruit of acceptable quality and size, thereby maintaining consumer confidence for fresh Florida citrus. This contributes to stable marketing conditions in the interest of growers, handlers, and consumers, and helps increase returns to Florida citrus growers. The current minimum grade requirement for red seedless grapefruit is U.S. No. 1. The minimum size requirement for domestic shipments is size 56 (at least 3 5/16 inches in diameter) through November 12, 2000, and size 48 (3 9/16 inches in diameter) thereafter. The current minimum size for export shipments is size 56 throughout the year.

This rule continues in effect a change to the order's rules and regulations relaxing the minimum size requirement for domestic and import shipments of red seedless grapefruit. This action allows for the continued shipment of size 56 grapefruit. This rule relaxes the minimum size from size 48 (3 9/16 inches diameter) to size 56 (3 5/16 inches diameter) through November 12, 2000. Absent this change, the minimum size would be size 48 (3 9/16 inches diameter). The Committee met on August 31, 1999, and unanimously recommended this action.

Section 905.52 of the order, in part, authorizes the Committee to recommend minimum grade and size regulations to the Secretary. Section 905.306 (7 CFR 905.306) specifies minimum grade and size requirements for different varieties of fresh Florida grapefruit. Such requirements for domestic shipments are specified in § 905.306 in Table I of paragraph (a), and for export shipments in Table II of paragraph (b). This rule continues in effect the adjustments in Table I to establish a minimum size of 56 through November 12, 2000. Minimum grade and size requirements for grapefruit imported into the United States are currently in effect under § 944.106 (7 CFR 944.106). This rule also continues the adjustments in § 944.106 to establish a minimum size of 56 through November 12, 2000. Export requirements for Florida red seedless grapefruit are not changed by this rule.

In making its recommendation, the Committee considered estimated supply and demand. The official crop estimate of 27 million 1 3/5 bushel boxes is below last year's production of 28.7 million 1 3/5 bushel boxes of red seedless grapefruit. Acreage has declined in recent years from 81,348 acres in 1996, to 76,025 acres in 1998, to 71,731 acres in 1999. The acreage declines are due to groves being abandoned due to economic reasons, unhealthy groves being removed and replanted, and sick and diseased trees being removed from healthy, productive groves and not being replanted.

The Committee anticipates that fresh shipments of red seedless grapefruit will be approximately 16 million 4/5 bushel cartons, similar to last season's level of 16.7 million 4/5 bushel cartons. The quality of this year's crop is anticipated to be below normal. The fruit is expected to be misshapen more than normal. All growing districts appear to be affected by poorly shaped fruit, which could reduce the packout percentages for the 1999-2000 crop. The individual fruit size for the current crop is projected to be a little smaller than normal, but not as small as last season. The Committee reports that it expects fresh market demand to be sufficient to permit the shipment of size 56 red seedless grapefruit grown in Florida during the entire 1999-2000 season.

This size relaxation will enable Florida grapefruit shippers to continue shipping size 56 red seedless grapefruit to the domestic market. This rule will have a beneficial impact on producers and handlers, because it will permit Florida grapefruit handlers to make available the sizes of fruit needed to meet consumer needs. Matching the sizes with consumer needs is consistent with current and anticipated demand for the 1999-2000 season, and will maximize shipments to fresh market channels.

The Committee believes that domestic markets have been developed for size 56 fruit and that the industry should continue to supply those markets. This minimum size change pertains to the domestic market, and does not change the minimum size for export shipments which will continue at size 56 throughout the season. The largest market for size 56 small red seedless grapefruit is for export.

During the first 11 weeks of the season (September 20 through December 5), there was a volume regulation in effect to limit the volume of small red seedless grapefruit that entered the fresh market. The Department issued rules, which were published on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50419) and November 1, 1999 (64 FR 58759), implementing that regulation. The Committee believes that the percentage size regulation has been helpful in reducing the negative effects of size 56 on the domestic market, and that no additional restrictions are needed for the upcoming season.

In addition, the currency and economic problems currently facing the Pacific Rim countries remain a concern. These countries traditionally have been good markets for size 56 grapefruit. Current conditions there could reduce demand for grapefruit, and alternative outlets need to be available. It will be advantageous to have the ability to ship size 56 red seedless grapefruit to the domestic market should problems materialize in the export market.

Based on the available information, the Committee unanimously recommended that the minimum size for shipping red seedless grapefruit to the domestic market should be size 56 through November 12, 2000. This rule will have a beneficial impact on producers and handlers since it will permit Florida grapefruit handlers to make available those sizes of fruit needed to meet anticipated market demand for the 1999-2000 season. Additionally, importers will be favorably affected by this change since the relaxation of the minimum size regulation will also apply to imported grapefruit.

Section 8e of the Act provides that when certain domestically produced commodities, including grapefruit, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of that commodity must meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements. Since this rule relaxes the minimum size requirement under the domestic handling regulations, a corresponding change to the import regulations is necessary.

Minimum grade and size requirements for grapefruit imported into the United States are currently in effect under § 944.106. This rule continues to relax the minimum size requirement for imported red seedless grapefruit to 3 5/16 inches in diameter (size 56) until November 12, 2000, to reflect the relaxation in effect under the order for red seedless grapefruit grown in Florida.

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

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

There are approximately 80 grapefruit handlers subject to regulation under the order, approximately 11,000 growers of citrus in the regulated area, and about 25 grapefruit importers. Small agricultural service firms, which include handlers and importers, have been defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $5,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

Based on the industry and Committee data for the 1998-99 season, the average annual f.o.b. price for fresh Florida red seedless grapefruit during the 1998-99 season was around $7.60 per 4/5 bushel carton, and total fresh shipments for the 1998-99 season were approximately at 16.7 million cartons of red seedless grapefruit. Approximately 20 percent of all handlers handled 60 percent of Florida grapefruit shipments. In addition, many of these handlers ship other citrus fruit and products which are not included in Committee data but would contribute further to handler receipts. Using the average f.o.b. price, about 80 percent of the Florida grapefruit handlers could be considered small businesses under the SBA definition and about 20 percent of the handlers could be considered large businesses. The majority of grapefruit handlers, growers, and importers may be classified as small entities.

Handlers in Florida shipped approximately 37,395,000 4/5 bushel cartons of grapefruit to the fresh market during the 1998-99 season. Of these cartons, about 22,123,000 were exported. In the past three seasons, domestic shipments of Florida grapefruit averaged about 16,720,000 cartons. During the period 1994 through 1998, imports have averaged 580,800 cartons a season. Imports account for less than five percent of domestic shipments.

Section 905.52 of the order, in part, authorizes the Committee to recommend minimum grade and size regulations to the Secretary. Section 905.306 specifies minimum grade and size requirements for different varieties of fresh Florida grapefruit. This rule continues to relax the minimum size requirement for domestic shipments of red seedless grapefruit from size 48 (3 9/16 inches diameter) to size 56 (3 5/16 inches diameter) through November 12, 2000. No change is being made in the minimum size 56 requirement for export shipments. Absent this rule, the minimum size requirement for domestic shipments would be size 48. The motion to allow shipments of size 56 red seedless grapefruit through November 12, 2000, was passed by the Committee unanimously. In addition, there was a volume regulation in effect for the first 11 weeks of the 1999-2000 season (September 22 through December 5) that limited the volume of small red seedless grapefruit that entered the fresh market (64 FR 50419, September 17, 1999; and 64 FR 58759, November 1, 1999).

This rule will have a positive impact on affected entities by maximizing shipments of red seedless grapefruit into fresh market channels. This action allows for the continued shipment of size 56 red seedless grapefruit. This change is not expected to increase costs associated with the order requirements, or the grapefruit import regulation.

This rule continues to relax the minimum size from size 48 (3 9/16 inches in diameter) to size 56 (3 5/16 inches in diameter) through November 12, 2000. This change will allow handlers to continue to ship size 56 red seedless grapefruit to the domestic market. This rule will have a beneficial impact on producers and handlers, since it will permit Florida grapefruit handlers to make available those sizes of fruit needed to meet consumer needs. Matching the sizes that can be shipped with consumer needs is consistent with current and anticipated demand for the 1999-2000 season, and will provide for the maximization of shipments to fresh market channels.

The currency and economic problems currently facing the Pacific Rim countries remain a concern. These countries traditionally have been good markets for size 56 grapefruit. Current conditions there could reduce demand for grapefruit, and alternative outlets need to be available. It will be advantageous to handlers to have the ability to ship size 56 red seedless grapefruit to the domestic market should problems materialize in the export market.

This change will allow for the continued shipment of size 56 red seedless grapefruit. The opportunities and benefits of this rule are expected to be equally available to all grapefruit handlers, growers, and importers regardless of their size of operation.

During the period October 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999, imports of grapefruit totaled 15,500 metric tons (approximately 800,000 cartons). Recent yearly data indicate that imports during July, August, and September are typically negligible. Therefore, the 1998-99 season imports should not vary significantly from 15,500 metric tons. The Bahamas were the principal source, accounting for 95 percent of the total. Remaining imports were supplied by the Dominican Republic and Israel. Most imported grapefruit enters the United States from October through May.

Section 8e of the Act provides that when certain domestically produced commodities, including grapefruit, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of that commodity must meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality and maturity requirements. Because this rule changes the minimum size for domestic red seedless grapefruit shipments, this change must also be applicable to imported grapefruit. This rule relaxes the minimum size for imported grapefruit to size 56. This regulation will benefit importers to the same extent that it benefits Florida grapefruit producers and handlers because it allows shipments of size 56 red seedless grapefruit into U.S. markets through November 12, 2000.

The Committee considered one alternative to this action. The Committee discussed relaxing the minimum size to size 56 on a permanent basis rather than just for a year. Members said that each season is different, and they prefer to consider this issue on a yearly basis. Therefore, this alternative was rejected.

This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large red seedless grapefruit handlers or importers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information collection requirements and duplication by industry and public sectors.

In addition, as noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, the Department has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule. However, red seedless grapefruit must meet the requirements as specified in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Florida Grapefruit (7 CFR 51.760 through 51.784) issued under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 through 1627).

Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the citrus industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the August 31, 1999, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Finally, interested persons were invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

An interim final rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on November 1, 1999 (64 FR 58759). Copies of the rule were mailed by the Committee staff to all Committee members and grapefruit handlers. In addition, the rule was made available through the Internet by the Office of the Federal Register . That rule provided for a 60-day comment period which ended January 3, 2000. No comments were received.

In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the United States Trade Representative has concurred with the issuance of this final rule.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that finalizing the interim final rule, without change, as published in the Federal Register (64 FR 58759, November 1, 1999) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 955 (7 CFR part 955), regulating the handling of Vidalia Onions grown in Georgia area, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The marketing agreement and order are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

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

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

This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the fiscal period 2000 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.07 to $0.10 per 50-pound bag of Vidalia onions handled.

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

For the 1998-99 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and the Department approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by the Secretary upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to the Secretary.

The Committee met on September 30, 1999, and unanimously recommended fiscal period 2000 expenditures of $421,600 and an assessment rate of $0.10 per 50-pound bag of Vidalia onions handled. In comparison, 1998-1999 budgeted expenditures were $373,577. However, during the 1998-99 fiscal period the Committee recommended and the Department approved a change in the fiscal period under the order to January 1-December 31 from September 16-September 15 to make the fiscal period consistent with the Vidalia onion marketing season (64 FR 48243, September 3, 1999; 64 FR 72265, December 27, 1999). To provide for continuous operation of the order, the 1998-99 fiscal period was extended by 3 and 1/2 months (from September 16 to December 31, 1999). As a result, actual expenditures for 1998-99 are expected to total about $475,577. In addition, the quantity of assessable onions for 1998-99 and assessment income is much less than expected. The Committee projected the quantity of assessable onions for 1998-99 at 4,842,857 50-pound bags and assessment revenue at $339,000. The actual quantity of assessable onions is expected to be 3,617,017 50-pound bags, and assessment revenue is expected to total $253,191. Because of this shortfall, the Committee will have to use more of its operating reserve to cover approved expenses than it expected.

The assessment rate of $0.10 is $0.03 higher than the rate currently in effect. The increase is needed so the Committee can maintain its operating reserve at an acceptable level, and to cover increases in the Committee's promotion expenses for fiscal period 2000.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for fiscal period 2000 include $135,127 for administrative costs, $31,800 for compliance activities, $175,000 for promotional activities, and $47,000 for research projects. Budgeted expenses for these items in 1998-99 (including the 3 1/2 month extension) are $151,127 for administrative costs, $37,850 for compliance activities, $161,600 for promotional activities, and $125,000 for research projects.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of Vidalia onions. Onion shipments for fiscal period 2000 are estimated at 4,200,000 50-pound bags or equivalent which should provide $420,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses for fiscal period 2000. Funds in the reserve (totaling $110,000 on December 31, 1999), would be kept within the maximum permitted by the order (about three fiscal period's budgeted expenses; § 955.44).

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

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

This action also changes the 7 CFR Part number and title from “Part 911—Vidalia Onions Grown in Georgia” to “Part 955—Vidalia Onions Grown in Georgia”, and the section heading number from “§ 911.209 Assessment rate.” to “955.209 Assessment rate.” that appeared at the end of the proposed rule to correctly state the title and section heading number.

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

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

There are approximately 133 producers of Vidalia onions in the production area and approximately 91 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers have been defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts less than $500,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $5,000,000. The majority of Vidalia onion producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.

Based on the Georgia Agricultural Statistical Service and committee data, the average price for fresh Vidalia onions during the 1998-99 season was $15.45 per 50-pound bag or equivalent and total shipments were 3,617,017 bags. Approximately 28 percent of all handlers handled 83 percent of Vidalia onion shipments. Many Vidalia onion handlers ship other vegetable products which are not included in the committee data but would contribute further to handler receipts.

Using the average price, about 97.4 percent of the Vidalia onion handlers could be considered small businesses under the SBA definition. The majority of Vidalia onion producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.

This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for fiscal period 2000 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.07 to $0.10 per 50-pound bag or equivalent of assessable Vidalia onions. The Committee unanimously recommended fiscal period 2000 expenditures of $421,600 and an assessment rate of $0.10 per 50-pound bag or equivalent. The assessment rate of $0.10 per 50-pound bag is $0.03 higher than the 1998-99 rate. The quantity of assessable Vidalia onions for fiscal period 2000 is estimated at 4,200,000 50-pound bags. Thus, the $0.10 rate should provide $420,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for fiscal period 2000 include $135,127 for administrative costs, $31,800 for compliance activities, $175,000 for promotional activities, and $47,000 for research projects. Budgeted expenses for these items in 1998-99 (including the 3 1/2 month extension) were $151,127 for administrative costs, $37,850 for compliance activities, $161,600 for promotional activities, and $125,000 for research projects.

As mentioned earlier, in an effort to recover from its assessment income shortfall in 1998-99, maintain its operating reserve at an acceptable level, and expand its promotion activities, the Committee voted unanimously to increase its assessment rate to cover operating expenses during fiscal period 2000. The Committee believes that increased promotion activities are needed to help the Vidalia onion industry remain competitive in the marketplace.

The Committee reviewed and unanimously recommended fiscal period 2000 expenditures of $421,600. Prior to arriving at this budget, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Budget Subcommittee, the Research Subcommittee, and the Advertising and Promotion Subcommittee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various promotion and research projects to the Vidalia onion industry. The assessment rate of $0.10 per 50-pound bag or equivalent of assessable Vidalia onions was then determined by dividing the total recommended budget by the quantity of assessable onions, estimated at 4,200,000 50-pound bags for fiscal period 2000. This rate will generate $420,000, which is $1,600 below the anticipated expenses. The Committee found this acceptable because interest income and reserve funds are available to make up the deficit.

A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the grower price for fiscal period 2000 could range between $10.00 and $15.00 per 50-pound bag of Vidalia onions. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for fiscal period 2000 as a percentage of total grower revenue could range between 0.7 and 1.0 percent.

This action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs are offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Vidalia onion production area and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the September 30, 1999, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

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

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

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on December 13, 1999 (64 FR 69419). Copies of the proposed rule were also mailed or sent via facsimile to all Vidalia onion handlers. Finally, the proposal was made available through the Internet by the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period ending January 12, 2000, was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposal. No comments were received.

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

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

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it also found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The 2000 fiscal period began on January 1, 2000, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable Vidalia onions handled during such period; (2) the Committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses which are incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting. Also, a 30-day comment period was provided for in the proposed rule, and no comments were received.

In order to extend the expiration date of the OMB control number approving the information collection contained in its community support requirements regulation and community support statement form, the Finance Board published requests for public comments regarding the information collection in the Federal Register on June 30 and November 15, 1999. See 64 FR 35157 (June 30, 1999) and 64 FR 61877 (Nov. 15, 1999). The Finance Board also submitted an analysis of the information collection, entitled “Community Support Requirements,” to the OMB for review and approval. The OMB has approved a three-year extension of the information collection under OMB control number 3069-0003. The OMB control number now expires on January 31, 2003.

Under the Act and the OMB's implementing regulation, 44 U.S.C. 3507 and 5 CFR 1320.5, an agency may not sponsor or conduct, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless the regulation or form collecting the information displays a currently valid OMB control number. Accordingly, the Finance Board is amending the community support requirements rule and community support statement form to reflect the new expiration date of the OMB control number.

Because the effectiveness of the information collection contained in the community support requirements rule and community support statement form must be maintained, the Finance Board for good cause finds that the notice and public procedure requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

For the reasons stated in part II above, the Finance Board for good cause finds that the final rule should become effective on February 7, 2000. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply since this technical amendment to the community support requirements rule does not require publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2) and 603(a).

The rule does not contain any collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. See 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Consequently, the Finance Board has not submitted any information to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 98-20-10, amendment 39-10777 (63 FR 50492, September 22, 1998), which is applicable to certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on October 21, 1999 (64 FR 56715). The action proposed to continue to require relocation of the engine/master 1 relay from relay box 103VU to shelf 95VU in the avionics bay using new electrical contacts. The action also proposed to add, for certain airplanes, a requirement to replace certain contacts installed in shelf 95VU during relocation of the relay with new contacts.

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 supports the proposed rule.

One commenter concurs with the content of the proposed rule, but states that the estimate of work hours required to accomplish the replacement of the contacts is inaccurate in the proposed AD. The commenter states that for airplanes previously modified in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-24-1092, Revision 01, dated December 24, 1997, or Revision 02, dated March 9, 1998, the replacement of contacts would take approximately 12 hours. For airplanes already in the process of being modified, the replacement would take approximately 3 hours.

The FAA infers that the commenter's estimate includes work hours for access and close to replace certain contacts with new contacts for previously modified airplanes. However, the cost impact information, below, describes only the “direct” costs of the specific actions required by this AD. The number of work hours necessary to accomplish the required actions, specified as 2 hours in the cost impact information, was provided to the FAA by the manufacturer. This number represents the time necessary to perform only the actions actually required by this AD. The FAA recognizes that, in accomplishing the requirements of any AD, operators may incur “incidental” costs in addition to the “direct” costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however, typically does not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. No change to the final rule is necessary.

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 120 airplanes of U.S. registry that will be affected by this AD.

The modification that is currently required by AD 98-20-10 takes approximately 61 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts cost approximately $209 or $961 per airplane, depending on the modification kit purchased. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the previously required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be as low as $3,869 per airplane, or as high as $4,621 per airplane.

Should an operator be required to accomplish the replacement of certain contacts that is required in this AD action, it will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will be supplied by the manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required replacement on U.S. operators is estimated to be $120 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 98-12-21, Amendment 39-10575 (63 FR 31610), applicable to Eurocopter France Model SA. 315B helicopters, was published in the Federal Register on November 8, 1999 (64 FR 60743). That action proposed to require initial and repetitive visual inspections and modification, if necessary, of the spar tube, as well as installing safety wire around each attachment clamp.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for two nonsubstantive changes that have been made to paragraph (f) and Note 3 of the AD. In paragraph (f), the NPRM incorrectly states that alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) or adjustments of the compliance time may be approved by the “Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Staff, Rotorcraft Directorate.” This is incorrect and has been changed to state that the Manager, Regulations Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, is responsible for approving any AMOC or adjustment of the compliance time. Note 3 of the NPRM states that information concerning the existence of approved AMOC may be obtained from the “Rotorcraft Standards Staff;” this is also incorrect and has been changed to state that information may be obtained from the “Regulations Group.” The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

The FAA estimates that 28 helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 0.5 work hour per helicopter to accomplish the inspections; 3 work hours per helicopter to accomplish the modification; and 0.5 work hour per helicopter to inspect and fit the safety wire. The average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $1,100 per helicopter. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $37,520.

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 94-15-05, amendment 39-8976 (59 FR 37655, July 25, 1994), which is applicable to all Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on June 22, 1999 (64 FR 33229). The action proposed to require various inspections and functional tests to detect discrepancies of the thrust reverser control and indication system, and correction of any discrepancy found.

The original notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposed to supersede AD 94-15-05, which is applicable to Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes equipped with either Pratt & Whitney PW4000 series engines; Rolls-Royce RB211-524G/H series engines; or General Electric (GE) CF6-80C2 series engines. Since the issuance of that NPRM, the FAA has determined that, in order to simplify compliance, each engine type should be addressed in separate rulemaking actions that do not supersede AD 94-15-05. Therefore, the FAA currently is developing separate rulemaking to address the Pratt & Whitney PW4000 series engines, and Rolls-Royce RB211-524G/H series engines referenced in the original NPRM, and has revised the applicability in this final rule to address the requirements for the GE CF6-80C2 series engines only. In addition, paragraphs (a) through (d) of the original NPRM are not restated in this final rule. The cost impact information, below, also has been revised accordingly.

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 supports the proposed rule.

One commenter requests credit for accomplishing the thrust reverser center drive unit (CDU) cone brake test during production. The commenter states that the tests were accomplished previously in accordance with methods equivalent to those described in Boeing Service Bulletins 747-78A2166 and 747-78A2113.

The FAA concurs with the commenter's request that accomplishment of the test during production is acceptable for compliance with the applicable test requirement in the final rule. “Note 2” has been added to the final rule to provide credit for accomplishment of the test during production.

One commenter requests credit for accomplishing the modification to install the third locking system of the thrust reversers during production. The commenter states that all Model 747-400 series airplanes, line numbers 1061 and subsequent, equipped with GE CF6-80C2 series engines, had a third locking system installed during production in accordance with Production Revision Record (PRR) 80452-102, and were not modified in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2151 (which is a retrofit action applicable to line numbers 700 through 1060 inclusive).

The FAA concurs with the commenter's request. The FAA has determined that the production modification is technically equivalent to the modification described in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-78-2151; therefore, paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this final rule [referenced as paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) in the proposed rule], have been revised accordingly. In addition, “Note 3” has been added to the final rule for further clarification.

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

This is considered to be interim action. The manufacturer has advised that it currently is developing a modification that will positively address the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, the FAA may consider additional rulemaking.

There are approximately 146 Model 747-400 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 16 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The new actions required by this AD will not add any additional economic burden on affected operators, other than the costs that are associated with repeating the functional test of the cone brake at reduced intervals (at intervals not to exceed 650 hours time-in-service for thrust reversers that have not been modified.) That test requires approximately 12 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the functional test required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $11,520, or $720 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.

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 all Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100) series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 14, 1999 (64 FR 37913). That action proposed to require revising the Airplane Flight Manual to provide the flightcrew with modified procedures and limitations for operating in icing conditions.

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 its understanding that the use of 22,000 feet as a limitation to conduct certain procedures is related to the maximum altitude limit of the icing envelope specified in Appendix C of 14 CFR part 25. The commenter requests that the icing envelope of Appendix C be reviewed for its applicability to current flight operations, and, if necessary, expanded to ensure that all aircraft types are properly certificated to operate in icing conditions typically encountered during line operations. The commenter questions the overall suitability of Appendix C for certification of aircraft because it is based upon operational data collected over 50 years ago.

The FAA partially concurs. The FAA is considering redefining the icing cloud envelopes for the global atmospheric icing environment specified in Appendix C. When sufficient worldwide meteorological information and means are available to demonstrate that airplanes are able to safely operate in the redefined icing environment, the FAA may consider action in this regard. However, this AD is not the appropriate context in which to address that issue. Therefore, no change to this final rule is necessary.

The same commenter recommends that a provision be included in the proposed AD to conduct an operational check of the ice detection system prior to every flight versus prior to the first flight of the day. The commenter states that, if the procedures of the proposed AD are implemented, a greater reliance on the ice detection system will be necessary. The commenter suggests that this functional check prior to every flight would provide an additional level of safety below 22,000 feet and would provide the flightcrew a positive means to determine whether the system is operating properly and permit them to be more vigilant in the event of a known failure.

The FAA does not concur with the request to add a provision in the AD to conduct an operational check of the ice detection system prior to every flight versus prior to the first flight of the day. The check verifies latent failures that are not detected by the powerup check or on the continuous built-in test equipment (BITE) check. Based on the once-per-day check, the latest reliability and safety analysis establishes that failure of the ice detectors to annunciate icing is an extremely improbable event. Additionally, the AD does not depend on the ice detectors as primary means to activate the anti-ice systems below 22,000 feet mean sea level (MSL); instead it requires activation of the systems whenever icing conditions exist. Consequently, requiring a check of the ice detectors prior to every flight is considered to be redundant. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

The same commenter recommends that ice detection systems not be permitted to be deferred or placed on the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) due to increased reliance on ice detection systems.

The FAA does not concur. The current Canadair CL-65 Regional Jet Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL, Revision 4, dated November 27, 1996) is considered appropriate and is consistent with the AD. The MMEL allows one of the two ice detectors to be inoperative provided the wing and engine cowl anti-ice systems are ON when the static air temperature (SAT) on the ground is 10 degrees Celsius or less and visible moisture in any form is present; and the wing and engine cowl anti-ice systems are ON when total air temperature (TAT) in flight is 10 degrees Celsius or less and visible moisture in any form is present. The MMEL also allows both ice detectors to be inoperative provided the aircraft is not operated in known or forecast icing conditions; and repairs are made within one flight day. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

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

The FAA estimates that 133 Model Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 series 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 actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $7,980, 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 regulations proposed herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would 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 Boeing Model 747 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on May 5, 1999 (64 FR 24092). That action proposed to require a one-time inspection to determine whether latch pins on the lower lobe and main deck side cargo doors are installed backward, and corrective actions, if necessary. For certain airplanes, that action also proposed to require eventual modification of the latch pin fittings on certain cargo doors.

The FAA has revised the applicability statement of the final rule to reference “line numbers” instead of “line positions.” The airplane manufacturer has informed the FAA that “line numbers” is the proper reference, although some Boeing service bulletins still refer to “line positions.”

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 supports the proposed rule, and two commenters state no objection to the proposed rule. An additional commenter supports the proposed modification.

One commenter requests that the applicability of the AD be revised to remove the airplane having line number 1079. The commenter points out that that airplane was modified in production and was removed from the effectivity of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-52A2258, dated June 1, 1995, by Notice of Status Change 747-52A2258 NSC 03, dated December 14, 1995. The FAA concurs and has revised the applicability of the final rule accordingly.

In addition, one commenter requests that the one-time inspection of the latch pins of the main deck side cargo door be made applicable only to airplanes having line numbers 1 through 307 inclusive. The commenter states that the latch pins on airplanes having line numbers 308 and subsequent were modified in production with a bracket that prevents the latch pins from being installed backward. The FAA concurs with the commenter's request and has revised paragraph (a) of the final rule accordingly. [Also, as a result of the revision of paragraph (a) of this final rule, a new paragraph (b) has been added to incorporate the corrective actions specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the proposal, and all other paragraphs have been renumbered accordingly.]

One commenter requests that a statement be added to the proposed rule to clarify that no further action is required for airplanes inspected in accordance with the proposed rule prior to the effective date of this AD. The FAA agrees that no further inspection is required for these airplanes. Operators are always given credit for previously accomplished actions by means of the phrase in the compliance section of the AD that states, “Required * * * unless accomplished previously.” Therefore, no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that the compliance time for the modification required by paragraph (b) of the proposed rule [paragraph (c) of the final rule] be extended from two years after the effective date of this AD to six years or at the next removal of the latch pins. The commenter states that the immediate safety concern is addressed once the one-time inspection specified in paragraph (a) of the proposed rule is accomplished, and that the modification does not need to be accomplished until the next time the latch pins are removed.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request to extend the compliance time for the modification. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the modification. In consideration of these items, as well as the possibility that a latch pin may be misinstalled during maintenance until the modification is accomplished, the FAA has determined that two years represents an appropriate interval of time allowable wherein an acceptable level of safety can be maintained. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that the proposed rule be revised to allow a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative to approve procedures for the structural inspection specified in paragraph (a)(2) of the proposed rule [paragraph (b)(2) of the final rule]. The commenter states that, in the event that a latch pin is installed backward, an airplane would be grounded until inspection methods are approved and accomplished, because no structural inspection methods are currently approved by the Manager of the FAA's Seattle Aircraft Certification Office [as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of the proposed rule].

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. To date, the airplane manufacturer has not provided the FAA with structural inspection criteria. The extent of the area that must be inspected for damage is not defined because the extent of the inspection depends on the number and location of latch pins found to be installed backward. Procedures for the structural inspections are also not defined, and there are no published standards that can be used as a basis for a compliance finding. The FAA is not authorized to delegate a function for which there is no established standards [i.e., in accordance with Part 25 (“Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 25)]. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-52A2258 be revised to include the structural inspection methods specified in paragraph (a)(2) of the proposed rule [paragraph (b)(2) of the final rule]. The commenter states that this would reduce the number of requests for approvals of alternative methods of compliance that the FAA would have to review.

The FAA does not concur. As stated previously, the airplane manufacturer has not provided structural inspection procedures for inclusion in the final rule. The FAA has determined that further delay in issuance of this AD while the airplane manufacturer revises Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-52A2258 would not provide an acceptable level of safety. However, the airplane manufacturer may request approval of an alternative method of compliance for structural inspection procedures on behalf of all affected operators, thereby limiting the number of requests for approval of alternative methods of compliance from individual operators. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter, the airplane manufacturer, recommends that the proposed rule be revised to require accomplishment of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-52-2142, dated May 6, 1977. That service bulletin recommends a one-time inspection to detect interchanged latch pins between the lower lobe cargo doors and the main deck side cargo door, and installation of a pin stop bracket. The commenter provides no technical justification for its request.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. To require this modification would necessitate issuance of a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking and reopening of the comment period. The FAA finds that to further delay the issuance of this rule in this way would be inappropriate. Furthermore, though two interchanged latch pins were found during production, the FAA has not received any reports that operators have found such interchanged latch pins. Therefore, the FAA finds that mandatory action is not necessary. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

The FAA has clarified the inspection requirement contained in the proposed AD. Whereas the proposal specified a visual inspection, the FAA has revised this final rule to clarify that its intent is to require a general visual inspection. Additionally, a note has been added to the final rule to define that inspection.

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

There are approximately 990 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 235 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

It will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, at the average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $28,200, or $120 per airplane.

It will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required modification, at the average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $2,045 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $522,875, or $2,225 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.

The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

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 Raytheon Model Hawker 800 and 1000 airplanes and Model DH.125, HS.125, BH.125, and BAe.12 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on November 16, 1999 (64 FR 62129). That action proposed to require replacement of cadmium plated fittings and cone caps in the oxygen system plumbing with improved fittings and cone caps, a detailed visual inspection of the oxygen system plumbing in the area of the replaced parts, 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 determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

There are approximately 724 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 481 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

For Model DH.125, HS.125, BH.125 series 1A/1B, 3A/3B, 400A, 400B, 401B, 403A, 403B, 600A, 600B, 700A, 700B airplanes (236 airplanes of U.S. registry), it will take approximately 7 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately between $28 and $79 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators of these airplanes is estimated to be between $105,728, and $117,764, or between $448 and $499 per airplane.

For Model BAe.125 series 800A (C-29A) airplanes (6 airplanes of U.S. registry), it will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $61 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators of these airplanes is estimated to be $1,446, or $241 per airplane.

For Model BAe.125 series 800A, and 800B airplanes, and Model Hawker 800 airplanes (202 airplanes of U.S. registry), it will take approximately 10 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately between $16 and $22 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators of these airplanes is estimated to be between $124,432 and $125,644, or between $616 and $622 per airplane.

For Model BAe.125 series 1000A and 1000B airplanes, and Model Hawker 1000 airplanes (37 airplanes of U.S. registry), it will take approximately 6 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately between $66 and $122 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators of these airplanes is estimated to be between $15,762 and $17,834, or between $426 and $482 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. However, the FAA has been advised that manufacturer warranty remedies are available for some labor costs associated with accomplishing the actions required by this AD. Therefore, the future economic cost impact of this rule on U.S. operators may be less than the cost impact figures indicated above.

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

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 91-20-07, amendment 39-8041 (56 FR 47672, September 20, 1991), which is applicable to certain Airbus Model A300, A300-600, and A310 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on October 6, 1999 (64 FR 54249). The action proposed to continue to require repetitive dye penetrant inspections to detect cracks, rupture, or fuel leaks of the fuel feedline adapter, and replacement of the adapter, if necessary. The action also proposed to continue to require verification of the correct torque values of the starter motor cable terminals and the generator cable terminals. The action also proposed to require accomplishment of the previously optional terminating action.

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 clarification concerning the relationship between the adapter part number identified in the referenced French airworthiness directive and Airbus service bulletin and the adapter part number referred to in the Airbus Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC). The commenter has already modified its auxiliary power units (APU) to incorporate the adapter [part number (P/N) A4937021700200] specified in the service bulletin. The Airbus IPC suggests an alternative P/N for the adapter, i.e., P/N A4937021700400; yet the IPC makes no reference to any supersedure, nor does it refer to a service bulletin authorizing that P/N. The commenter asks whether the installation of an adapter having either P/N is acceptable for compliance with the French airworthiness directive and this proposed AD.

The FAA concurs that clarification is necessary. Airbus has advised the FAA that the only difference between the two referenced P/N's is that the tolerance for the B-nut thread of the adapter having P/N A4937021700400 has been modified following service experience. P/N A4937021700400 is installed on airplanes by Airbus Modification 10323 and is two-way interchangeable with P/N A4937021700200. Airbus advises that an adapter having either P/N will fully comply with the intent of the French airworthiness directive. The FAA has determined that installation of an adapter having either P/N will adequately address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. A NOTE has been added to the final rule to state that installation of an adapter having P/N A4937021700400 is also acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (b) of the AD.

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 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 165 airplanes of U.S. registry that will be affected by this AD.

The actions that are currently required by AD 91-20-07 take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $120 per airplane.

The new actions that are required by this new AD will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $274 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the new requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $394 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.

The 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 Boeing Model 747-100 and −200 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on August 20, 1999 (64 FR 45481). That action proposed to require repetitive inspections of the upper and lower chords of the wing front spar for cracks, 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 comments received.

One commenter requests that the FAA revise paragraph (a) of the proposal to allow accomplishment of an open hole high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection in lieu of the ultrasonic inspection that is specified in paragraph (a) of the proposal. The commenter asserts that accomplishment of an HFEC inspection “equals or exceeds the capability of surface ultrasonic inspections” for detecting cracking of the upper and lower chords of the wing front spar. The commenter states that the HFEC inspection should be accomplished in accordance with Figure 6 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-57-2305, Revision 1, dated January 21, 1999 (which was referenced in the proposal as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishment of the proposed actions).

The FAA concurs with the commenter's request to approve the alternative inspection method. However, the FAA finds that, rather than revising paragraph (a) of this AD, it is more appropriate to add a NOTE stating that accomplishment of an HFEC inspection in accordance with Figure 6 of the service bulletin is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD. NOTE 2 has been added to this final rule accordingly.

One commenter requests that the FAA revise paragraph (b) of the proposed rule to reference accomplishment of certain strut and wing modifications or certain other terminating actions as terminating action for the requirements of this AD. The commenter states that accomplishment of certain modifications meets the intent of the terminating action described in the proposed rule, provided that an HFEC inspection of affected fastener holes has been accomplished (in accordance with Boeing 747 Non-Destructive Test Manual D6-7170, Part 6, Subject 51-00-00, Figure 16) prior to oversizing of the holes, and the holes were found to be free of cracks, corrosion, or damage.

The FAA infers that the commenter is referring to the terminating action specified in paragraph (c) of this AD. The FAA concurs with the commenter's request. The FAA finds that the strut and wing modifications and terminating action referenced by the commenter are already required by certain other AD's, which are described below.

• AD 95-10-16, amendment 39-9233 (60 FR 27008, May 22, 1995), applies to certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes, and requires, among other things, modification of the nacelle strut and wing structure in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2159, dated November 3, 1994.

• AD 95-13-07, amendment 39-9287 (60 FR 33336, June 28, 1995), applies to certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes, and requires modification of the nacelle strut and wing structure in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2158, dated November 30, 1994.

• AD 99-10-09, amendment 39-11162 (64 FR 25194, May 11, 1999), applies to certain Model 747-100, -200, and 747SP series airplanes, and military type E-4B airplanes. That AD provides for replacement of the wing front spar web with a new shot-peened wing front spar web, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-57A2303, Revision 1, dated September 25, 1997, as an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of that AD.

The FAA has determined that accomplishment of the wing and strut modification specified in AD 95-10-16 or AD 95-13-07, or the optional terminating action specified in AD 99-10-09, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (a) of this AD, provided that an HFEC inspection of subject fastener holes has been accomplished (in accordance with Boeing 747 Non-Destructive Test Manual D6-7170, Part 6, Subject 51-00-00, Figure 16) prior to oversizing of the holes, and the holes were found to be free of cracks, corrosion, or damage. The FAA has added NOTE 3 to this final rule accordingly.

One commenter requests that the FAA revise the proposal by adding a paragraph that eliminates the requirement for certain inspections to be accomplished in accordance with the Supplemental Structural Inspection Document (SSID). The commenter justifies its request by saying that oversizing the web-to-chord fastener holes, as described in the optional terminating action in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-57-2305, Revision 1, will “zero time” the fastener holes, renewing the fatigue life. The commenter states that, if this optional terminating action is accomplished, SSID inspections W-24B at the front spar web-to-chord fastener holes between the upper link fittings and W-24C at the front spar web-to-chord fastener holes at the outboard upper link fittings would no longer be necessary.

The FAA partially concurs with the commenter's request. The FAA acknowledges that, following accomplishment of the optional terminating action, fatigue life will be renewed in the affected web-to-chord fastener holes. However, the SSID inspections that the commenter references are required, along with various other inspections, by AD 94-15-12, amendment 39-8983 (59 FR 37933, July 26, 1994), and AD 94-15-18, amendment 39-8989 (59 FR 41233, August 11, 1994). The FAA finds that deleting SSID inspections required by other AD's is not an appropriate action to take in this AD. Therefore, no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that the FAA revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of the proposal to reference the original issue of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-57-2305, dated October 8, 1998, in addition to Revision 1 of the service bulletin, as appropriate sources of service information for the actions required by this AD. The commenter states that there is no substantial difference between the two versions of the service bulletin, and the inspection methods and procedures for terminating action are the same. The commenter states that Revision 1 adds missing fastener codes and revises grip lengths of fasteners. Further, the commenter states that operators that accomplished inspections or terminating action in accordance with the original issue of the service bulletin should not be required to perform the inspections or terminating action in accordance with Revision 1, nor should they be required to apply for an alternative means of compliance.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The FAA considers the grip length of fasteners (one of the items changed between the original issue and Revision 1) important for proper clamp-up, and the FAA has been advised that certain fasteners specified in the original issue of the service bulletin had grip lengths that were too long. In addition, the FAA considers the fact that certain fastener codes were missing from the original issue of the service bulletin to be significant, in that it could result in installation of fasteners that are not structurally satisfactory. Also, Revision 1 of the service bulletin deleted inspections of the fasteners in the upper and lower chords between the upper link fittings. For these reasons, the FAA does not find that accomplishment of the actions required by this AD in accordance with the original issue of the service bulletin is acceptable for compliance with this AD. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter, the airplane manufacturer, requests that the FAA revise the reason for issuing the proposed rule. The proposed rule states that “the actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper and lower chords of the wing front spar, which could result in reduced structural capability and possible fuel leakage onto an engine and a resultant fire.” The commenter states that the correct reason for issuing the AD is that cracks addressed by Boeing Service Bulletin 747-57-2305 are subject to Item W-24A and W-24B in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document.” The commenter also states that the service bulletin was issued to address undetected cracks in the front spar chords that could result in extensive labor hours and downtime if the cracks propagate to the extent that replacement of a section of chord is necessary. The commenter concludes that there are no safety-of-flight issues associated with such cracking, and that fuel leakage due to undetected cracks is very unlikely because, for leakage to occur, cracks in the chord would have to grow through the thickness of the chord, beyond the upper or lower edges of the front spar web, and beyond the fillet seal.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The statement of unsafe condition, as stated in the proposal, specifies what could happen if the inspections of the front spar upper and lower chords that will be required by this AD are not accomplished. The fact that fuel leaks have not been detected to date does not preclude leaks from occurring in the future. For example, even though an operator may have accomplished the strut and wing modification required by another AD (as discussed previously), if an HFEC inspection to detect cracking of the fastener holes was not accomplished, a crack may still be present and could grow to the point that fuel leakage occurs. The FAA finds no justification for revising the statement of unsafe condition as the commenter suggested. Therefore, no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

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

There are approximately 332 Model 747-100 and −200 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 137 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 work hours 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 inspection required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $16,440, or $120 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

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.

Should an operator elect to accomplish the optional terminating action rather than continue the repetitive inspections, it will take approximately 37 work hours per airplane to accomplish the modification, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $5,000 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this optional terminating action is estimated to be $7,220 per airplane.

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

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

The Direction Ge ne rale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. The DGAC advises that, during a routine maintenance check, a horizontal crack of 35.6 inches was detected in the surrounding panel above the right mid-passenger door. The exact cause of the cracking is unknown at this time. The area of the crack is covered by a sealant bead at the junction of two skin panels and is not visible from the outside. After the insulation blankets were removed from the inside, the crack was visually detected 1 inch below stringer 11, and started 9 inches from frame 29 and extended 6.7 inches aft frame 30. Such cracking, if not detected and corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage pressure vessel.

Airbus has issued All Operators Telex (AOT) A300-53A0352, dated January 4, 2000, which describes procedures for a one-time ultrasonic inspection and repetitive detailed visual inspections to detect cracking of the longitudinal skin splice above the mid-passenger door panels below stringer 11 left- and right-hand and between frames 28A and 30A, and corrective actions, if necessary. The corrective actions involve installing either a temporary or permanent repair. The temporary repair consists of stop drilling all cracks and installing an external doubler attached with rivets. The temporary repair is to be replaced with a permanent repair within 2,000 flight cycles. The permanent repair consists of cutting out all cracked areas, and installing an external doubler with a milled step. The DGAC classified this AOT as mandatory and issued French airworthiness directive T2000-001-300(B), Revision 1, dated January 7, 2000, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France.

This airplane model is manufactured in France and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness 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 that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, this AD is being issued to detect and correct cracking of the longitudinal skin splice above the mid-passenger door panels, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage pressure vessel. This AD requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the AOT described previously, except as discussed below. This AD also requires that operators report results of all inspection findings to Airbus.

Operators should note that, unlike the procedures described in the Airbus AOT, this AD would not permit further flight if cracks are detected. The FAA has determined that, because of the safety implications and consequences associated with such cracking, any cracks must be repaired or modified prior to further flight.

This is considered to be interim action. The inspection reports that are required by this AD will enable the manufacturer to obtain better insight into the nature, cause, and extent of the cracking, and eventually to develop final action to address the unsafe condition. Once final action has been identified, 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.

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 2000-NM-16-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 General Electric Company CF34 series turbofan engines was published in the Federal Register on October 7, 1999 (64 FR 54584). That action proposed to require, within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revisions to the CF34 Engine Maintenance Program specified in the manufacturer's Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA), and, for air carriers, their approved continuous airworthiness maintenance program. General Electric Company, the manufacturer of CF34-3A1 and -3B1 series turbofan engines, has provided the FAA with a detailed proposal that identifies and prioritizes the critical rotating engine parts with the highest potential to hazard the airplane in the event of failure, along with instructions for enhanced, focused inspection methods. These enhanced inspections will be conducted at piece-part opportunity, as defined in this AD, rather than at specific inspection intervals.

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 (the manufacturer) states that the proposal should reference the Airworthiness Limitations Section instead of the Time Limits Section. The FAA concurs in part. The reference to the Time Limits Section will be removed and changed to the CF34 Engine Maintenance Program in this final rule.

One commenter notes that in Table 804 of the proposal, the Stage 2 High Pressure Turbine (HPT) Rotor Disk, P/N 5079T53 is incorrect. The correct P/N is 5079T73. The FAA concurs. To make this AD consistent with other enhanced inspection ADs, and in response to comments received on the other ADs, the P/Ns have been removed from Table 804 and the word “all” has been substituted for P/Ns.

One commenter concurs with the rule as proposed.

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.

The FAA estimates that 352 engines installed on aircraft of US registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 work hours per engine to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. The total cost of the new inspections per engine will be approximately $120 per year. Using average shop visit rates, 275 engines are expected to be affected per year. The annual cost impact of the AD on US operators is therefore estimated to be $33,000.

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 (EO) 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under EO 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 General Electric Company (GE) GE90-90B, -85B, and -76B series turbofan engines was published in the Federal Register on November 26, 1999 (64 FR 66415). That action proposed to reduce the cyclic life limits for certain fan mid shafts with undesirable microstructure, and remove from service those fan mid shafts prior to exceeding the new limits and replace with serviceable parts. That action was prompted by reports of magnetic particle inspections conducted by the manufacturer identifying segregation in the raw material, resulting in lower fatigue life properties. That condition, if not corrected, could result in fan mid shaft failure, which could result in a total loss of thrust and inflight engine shutdown.

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 that the statement of unsafe condition in the proposed rule is not accurate. The commenter believes that the language used does not correctly reflect the failure consequences of the fan mid shaft. The commenter also is concerned that the engine is not in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) 33 (14 CFR 33) requirements regarding shaft failure. The FAA concurs in part. Though the language used in the statement of unsafe condition in the proposal is typical of life limited parts ADs, a more accurate description of the failure consequences of the fan mid shaft would be a total loss of thrust and inflight engine shutdown. The statement of unsafe condition in this final rule has been changed accordingly.

The same commenter believes the proposal should apply to all GE90 engine models and not just those listed in the applicability. The FAA does not concur. The proposal addresses those fan mid shaft part numbers (P/Ns) and engine models that have had their published life limits reduced. This proposal does not address the fan mid shafts P/Ns and engine models that have had their published life limits increased. These fan mid shafts P/Ns and engine model combinations are discussed in GE90 Alert Service Bulletin 72-A0389, Revision 1, dated August 25, 1999.

The same commenter believes that the special flight permit authorization paragraph included in the proposal should be deleted. The commenter believes that ferry flight permits should not be authorized in the case of a life reduction AD. The FAA concurs and that paragraph has been removed from this final rule.

One commenter concurs with the rule as proposed.

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 118 engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 4 engines installed on aircraft of US registry will be affected by this AD and that the prorated life reduction will cost approximately $71,000 per engine. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on US operators is estimated to be $284,000.

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 (EO) 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under EO 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 .

(d) This amendment becomes effective on April 7, 2000.

On January 9, 2000, the Kansas City, Richard-Gebaur Airport, MO was closed. Based on the airport being closed the Class D and Class E airspace areas are no longer necessary.

This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 71) removes the Class D and Class E airspace areas at Kansas City, Richards-Gebaur Airport, MO, extending upward from the surface to 1200 feet Above Ground Level (AGL). The closing of the airport made this action necessary.

The FAA concludes that there is an immediate need to remove the Class D and Class E airspace in order to incorporate this change into the next Sectional Chart and avoid confusion on the part of the pilots. Therefore, it is found that notice and opportunity to prior public comment herein are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment 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. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This amendment to 14 CFR 71 revises the Class E airspace at Creston, IA. A review of the Class E airspace for Creston Municipal Airport, IA, indicates it does not meet the criteria for 700 feet AGL airspace required for diverse departures as specified in FAA Order 7400.2D. The criteria in FAA Order 7400.2D for an aircraft to reach 1200 feet AGL is based on a standard climb gradient of 200 feet per mile plus the distance from the Airport Reference Point (ARP) to the end of the outmost runway. Any fractional part of a mile is converted to the next higher tenth of a mile. The amendment at Creston Municipal Airport, IA, will provide additional controlled airspace for aircraft operating under IFR, and comply with the criteria of FAA Order 7400.2D. The area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9G, dated September 10, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. The amendment will enhance safety for a flight operations by designating an area where VFR pilots may anticipate the presence of IFR aircraft at lower altitudes, especially during inclement weather conditions. A greater degree of safety is achieved by depicting the area on aeronautical charges. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, 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 or withdrawn in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy-related 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 contract concerned with the substance of this action 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 No. 00-ACE-1.” 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 noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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.

This amendment to 14 CFR 71 revises the Class E airspace at Ord, NE. A review of the Class E airspace for Ord, Evelyn Sharp Field, NE, indicates it does not meet the criteria for 700 feet AGL airspace required for diverse departures as specified in FAA Order 7400.2D. The criteria in FAA Order 7400.2D for an aircraft to reach 1200 feet AGL is based on a standard climb gradient of 200 feet per mile plus the distance from the ARP to the end of the outermost runway. Any fractional part of a mile is converted to the next higher tenth of a mile. The amendment at Ord, Evelyn Sharp Field, NE, will provide additional controlled airspace for aircraft operating under IFR, revise the ARP, and comply with the criteria of FAA Order 7400.2D. The area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9G, dated September 10, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. The amendment will enhance safety for all flight operations by designating an area where VFR pilots may anticipate the presence of IFR aircraft at lower altitudes, especially during inclement weather conditions. A greater degree of safety is achieved by depicting the area on aeronautical charts. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, 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 or withdrawn in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy-related 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 action 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 No. 00-ACE-2” 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 noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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.

The FAA has developed RNAV RWY 13, RNAV RWY 31, RNAV RWY 17, and RNAV RWY 35 SIAPs to serve the Grand Island, Central Nebraska Regional Airport, NE. The amendment to Class E airspace at Grand Island, NE, will provide additional controlled airspace at and above 700 feet AGL in order to contain the new SIAPs within controlled airspace, and thereby facilitate separation of aircraft operating under Instrument Flight Rules. The amendment at Grand Island, Central Nebraska Regional Airport, NE, will provide additional controlled airspace for aircraft operating under IFR. The area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9G, dated September 10, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. The amendment will enhance safety for all flight operations by designating an area where VFR pilots may anticipate the presence of IFR aircraft at lower altitudes, especially during inclement weather conditions. A greater degree of safety is achieved by depicting the area on aeronautical charts. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, comment 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 or withdrawn in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy-related 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 action 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 No. 99-ACE-56.” 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 noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse on negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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.

The FAA has developed RNAV RWY 13 and RNAV RWY 31 SIAPs to serve the O'Neill Municipal-John L. Baker Field, O'Neill, NE. The amendment to Class E airspace at O'Neill, NE, will provide additional controlled airspace at and above 700 feet AGL in order to contain the SIAPs within controlled airspace, and thereby facilitate separation of aircraft operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). The amendment at O'Neill Municipal-John L. Baker Field, O'Neill, NE, will provide additional controlled airspace for aircraft operating under IFR. The area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9G, dated September 10, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. The amendment will enhance safety for all flight operations by designating an area where VFR pilots may anticipate the presence of IFR aircraft at lower altitudes, especially during inclement weather conditions. A greater degree of safety is achieved by depicting the area on aeronautical charts. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, 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 or withdrawn in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy-related 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 action 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 No. 99-ACE-55.” 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 noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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.

This action corrects the longitude and latitude coordinates for the Burlington International Airport. This action is necessary to accurately describe the controlled airspace necessary for aircraft arriving at the departing from the Burlington Airport under instrument flight rules. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9G, dated September 1, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule. 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. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register , and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, 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 or withdrawn in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this 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, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rule Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this action 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 No. 99-ANE-94,” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

This rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order No. 13132, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this rule.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as these routine matters will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation. It is certified that these proposed rules will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This action corrects the longitude and latitude coordinates for the Burlington International Airport. This action is necessary to accurately describe the controlled airspace necessary for aircraft executing instrument approaches to the Burlington Airport at times when Burlington Class C airspace area is active. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas designated as extensions to Class C surface areas are published in paragraph 6003 of FAA Order 7400.9G, dated September 1, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse of negative comment, and, therefore, issues its as a direct final rule. The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments as necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, 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 or withdrawn in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this 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, 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 action 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 No. 99-ANE-93.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

This rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order No. 13132, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this rule.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as these routine matters will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation. It is certified that these proposed rules will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This amendment to 14 CFR 71 revises the Class E airspace at Monticello, IA. A review of the Class E airspace for Monticello Regional Airport, IA, indicates it does not meet the criteria for 700 feet AGL airspace required for diverse departures as specified in FAA Order 7400.2D. The criteria in FAA Order 7400.2D for an aircraft to reach 1200 feet AGL is based on a standard climb gradient of 200 feet per mile plus the distance from the Airport Reference Point (ARP) to the end of the outermost runway. Any fractional part of a mile is converted to the next higher tenth of a mile. The amendment at Monticello Regional Airport, IA, will provide additional controlled airspace for aircraft operating under IFR, and comply with the criteria of FAA Order 7400.2D. The area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraphs 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9G, dated September 10, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. The amendment will enhance safety for all flight operations by designating an area where VFR pilots may anticipate the presence of IFR aircraft at lower altitudes, especially during inclement weather conditions. A greater degree of safety is achieved by depicting the area on aeronautical charts. unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register , and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, 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 or withdrawn in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy-related 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 action 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 No. 00-ACE-5.” 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 noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) Is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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.

On April 23, 1998, the IRS published in the Federal Register (63 FR 20156) a notice of proposed rulemaking under section 513 to clarify when the travel and tour activities of tax-exempt organizations are substantially related to the purposes for which exemption was granted. The notice of proposed rulemaking added Treas. Reg. § 1.513-7, which provides that whether travel tour activities are substantially related to an organization's exempt purposes is determined by examining all the relevant facts and circumstances. The proposed regulations also contain examples applying the facts and circumstances test in four situations.

The notice of proposed rulemaking solicited comments from the public. Nineteen commentators submitted written comments. A public hearing was held on February 10, 1999, at which eight speakers presented testimony. After consideration of all the comments, the proposed regulations under section 513 are adopted as revised by this Treasury Decision. The comments and revisions are discussed below.

Many of the commentators welcomed the proposed regulations as workable guidance that will promote tax compliance. Commentators differed on the approach that the IRS should adopt in final regulations. Some commentators suggested that the final regulations should adopt specific, weighted standards to be used in evaluating relatedness to exempt purpose. Other commentators recommended against adopting specific standards, arguing that no single set of standards would be appropriate given the broad range of tax-exempt organizations. One commentator suggested that the final regulations adopt a set of specific standards that would apply to test relatedness of tours in the educational context and a more general consistency standard that would evaluate whether the marketing, location, and execution of a tour are consistent with the organization's core exempt activities.

Section 513(a) generally defines an unrelated trade or business as any trade or business the conduct of which is not substantially related to the exercise or performance by the organization of its charitable, educational, or other purpose or function constituting the basis for its exemption under section 501(a). See also United States v. American Bar Endowment, 477 U.S. 105, 109-110 (1986). Treas Reg. § 1.513-1(d)(2) provides that, for the conduct of a trade or business to be substantially related to the purposes for which exemption was granted, the production or distribution of the goods or the performance of services must contribute importantly to the accomplishment of those purposes. Whether activities generating gross income contribute importantly to accomplishing any purpose for which an organization was granted exemption depends in each case upon the particular facts and circumstances. Id. This rule applies to travel tours.

Organizations exempt from tax under section 501(a) have diverse exempt purposes (for example: charities; social welfare organizations; labor, agricultural and horticultural organizations; business leagues; fraternal beneficiary societies). Accordingly, no one set of factors could be sufficiently comprehensive as to define relatedness for the variety of exempt organizations to which these travel tour regulations apply. Even among exempt organizations that share a common exempt purpose, such as education, the methods of accomplishing that purpose vary considerably. For this reason, the final regulations do not enumerate any specific factors that determine relatedness of travel tour activities to exempt purposes. The final regulations adopt the general facts and circumstances approach of the proposed regulations. See e.g, Hi-Plains Hospital v. United States, 670 F.2d 528 (5th Cir. 1982) (need for case-by-case analysis identifying exempt purpose and analysis of how activity in each case contributes to exempt purpose); Louisiana Credit Union League v. United States, 693 F.2d 525, 534 (5th Cir. 1982) (resolution of the substantial relationship test requires “an examination of the relationship between the business activities that generate the income in question* * * and the accomplishment of the organization's exempt purposes”). However, as discussed below, the final regulations include new examples that provide additional guidance regarding the application of this facts and circumstances approach in both educational and noneducational contexts.

Another commentator suggested that the final regulations should clarify that the manner in which an organization develops and promotes a tour is relevant to determining whether the tour activity is substantially related to exempt purposes. The development, promotion and operation of a tour are all indicators of whether an organization's offering of a tour is related or unrelated to its exempt purpose. See International Postgraduate Medical Found. v. Commissioner, 1989-36 T.C. Memo., 56 T.C.M. (CCH) 1140 (1989) (brochures promoting the trips emphasized recreational sightseeing activity and omitted educational course descriptions). Language has been added to the final regulations stating that relevant facts and circumstances include (but are not limited to) how a travel tour is developed, promoted and operated. Examples in the final regulations also illustrate the relevance of these factors.

Many commentators requested more examples addressing specific areas. As noted above, examples have been added that further illustrate the application of the facts and circumstances rule. Some commentators raised concerns regarding the number of hours of related activities a travel tour must offer. Examples in the final regulation clarify that the number of hours spent on any related travel tour activity is only one factor in determining relatedness of the tour as a whole to exempt purposes and is not by itself determinative. Examples in the final regulation clarify that the nature of the related activities, and the practicalities of engaging in such activities (for example, the hours during which the activity normally would be conducted), must also be taken into account.

One commentator suggested adding an example addressing whether income from travel tour activity is a royalty under section 512(b)(2) where the exempt organization does not operate the tour, but provides member names to a for-profit tour operator. Section 512(b)(2) excludes royalties from the computation of unrelated business taxable income. The question of what constitutes a royalty is beyond the scope of these regulations. For guidance as to whether income received by a tax-exempt organization from travel tour activities is excludable from unrelated business taxable income as a royalty, see generally Treas. Reg. § 1.512(b)-1(b) and Sierra Club v. Commissioner, 86 F.3d 1526 (9th Cir. 1996).

Some commentators suggested that the final regulations should contain provisions that prevent tax-exempt organizations from competing unfairly with taxable travel businesses. However, the test under section 513 is substantial relatedness to exempt purposes, not the presence or absence of unfair competition. Section 513 was enacted to prevent unfair competition between exempt organizations and taxable businesses. H.R. Rep. No. 2319, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. (1950), reprinted in 1950-2 C.B. 380, 409; S. Rep. No. 2375, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. (1950), reprinted in 1950-2 C.B. 483, 504; Portland Golf Club v. Commissioner, 497 U.S. 154, 161-162, fn. 12 (1990); Treas. Reg. § 1.513-1(b). Nevertheless, “Congress did not force exempt organizations to abandon all commercial ventures”, but rather imposed a tax on ventures that are not substantially related to an organization's exempt purposes. United States v. American College of Physicians, 475 U.S. 834, 838 (1986). See also Louisiana Credit Union League v. United States, 693 F.2d 525, 541 (5th Cir. 1982). Following this approach, the section 513(a) regulations, published in 1967, state that “any activity of a section 511 organization which is carried on for the production of income and which otherwise possesses the characteristics required to constitute ‘trade or business’ within the meaning of section 162—and which, in addition, is not substantially related to the performance of exempt functions—presents sufficient likelihood of unfair competition to be within the policy of the tax [imposed by section 511(a)].” Treas. Reg. § 1.513-1(b). In expanding the categories of organizations subject to unrelated business income tax in 1969, Congress revisited the unfair competition issue. “[A] business competing with taxpaying organizations should not be granted an unfair competitive advantage by operating tax free unless the business contributes importantly to the exempt function.” H.R. Rep. No. 413 (Part 1), 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 44, 50 (1969), reprinted in 1969 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1645, 1689, 1695 (emphasis added). If an organization's trade or business is substantially related to its exempt purposes, the tax under section 511 is not imposed, regardless of the existence of competition with taxable entities. Accordingly, the final regulations continue to focus on relatedness to exempt purposes, as required by section 513.

The preamble to the proposed regulations requested comments on whether the final regulations should include documentation and recordkeeping requirements specific to travel tours. Commentators split on the preferred approach. Some commentators requested general guidance as to the types of records that an organization should keep to establish a tour's purpose, but did not want the IRS to mandate specific recordkeeping requirements. Other commentators asked that the IRS specify what documentation is required. Section 6001 authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations that require taxpayers to keep records sufficient to establish whether a taxpayer is liable for any tax imposed under the Code. Currently, any person subject to tax under subtitle A of the Code, including the tax imposed under section 511, or required to file a return of information with respect to income, must keep permanent books or records sufficient to establish the amount of gross income, deductions, credits or other matters required to be shown by such person in any return of tax or information. See Treas. Reg. § 1.6001-1(a). In addition, every organization exempt from tax under section 501(a) must keep permanent books of account or records sufficient to show specifically items of gross income, receipts and disbursements, and to substantiate the information required by section 6033. See Treas. Reg. § 1.6001-1(c).

The IRS and Treasury Department believe that, with respect to travel tours, it is unnecessary to supplement the existing recordkeeping requirements under sections 6001 and 6033. Therefore, the final regulations do not impose additional recordkeeping requirements. However, in response to commentators' suggestions, examples in the final regulations illustrate that contemporaneous documentation showing how an organization develops, promotes and operates the travel tour is relevant to the facts and circumstances analysis.

It has been determined that these final regulations are not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply to these regulations, and, therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

The principal author of these regulations is Robin Ehrenberg, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits and Exempt Organizations). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

These regulations are being issued without prior notice and public procedure pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. section 553). For this reason, the collection of information contained in these regulations has been reviewed and, pending receipt and evaluation of public comments, approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1545-1672. Responses to this collection of information are required to obtain a benefit, i.e ., to elect to be subject to section 1374 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) and the regulations thereunder.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.

For further information concerning this collection of information, and where to submit comments on the collection of information and the accuracy of the estimated burden, and suggestions as to reducing this burden, please refer to the preamble to the cross-referencing notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register .

Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. section 6103.

Sections 631 and 633 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (the 1986 Act) (Public Law 99-514), as amended by sections 1006(e) and (g) of the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 (the 1988 Act) (Public Law 100-647), amended the Code to repeal the General Utilities doctrine. The 1986 Act amended sections 336 and 337 of the Code, generally requiring corporations to recognize gain when appreciated property is distributed in connection with a complete liquidation. Section 337(d) directs the Secretary to prescribe regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of General Utilities repeal, including rules to “ensure that such purposes shall not be circumvented * * * through the use of a regulated investment company [RIC], a real estate investment trust [REIT], or a tax exempt entity * * *.” The transfer of the assets of a C corporation to a RIC or REIT could result in permanently removing the built-in gain inherent in those assets from the reach of the corporate income tax because RIC and REIT income is not subject to a corporate-level income tax if such income is distributed to the RIC or REIT shareholders.

Accordingly, on February 4, 1988, the IRS issued Notice 88-19 (1988-1 C.B. 486). Notice 88-19 announced that the IRS intended to promulgate regulations under the authority of section 337(d) with respect to transactions or events that result in the ownership of C corporation assets by a RIC or REIT with a basis determined by reference to the corporation's basis (a carryover basis). Notice 88-19 served as an “administrative pronouncement,” and could be relied upon to the same extent as a revenue ruling or revenue procedure. Notice 88-19 also indicated that the regulations would be applicable retroactively to June 10, 1987. See also Notice 88-96 (1988-2 C.B. 420).

As a result of the issuance of Notice 88-19, many taxpayers have become uncertain about the current law applicable to their transactions, as well as the proper method of making a valid election to be subject to the rules of section 1374 and the regulations thereunder. In order to resolve this uncertainty and to provide taxpayers with guidance, the IRS and Treasury are issuing these temporary regulations.

These regulations implement Notice 88-19 by providing that when a C corporation (1) qualifies to be taxed as a RIC or REIT, or (2) transfers assets to a RIC or REIT in a carryover basis transaction, the C corporation is treated as if it sold all of its assets at their respective fair market values and immediately liquidated, unless the RIC or REIT elects to be subject to tax under section 1374. Any resulting net built-in gain is recognized by the C corporation and the bases of the assets in the hands of the RIC or REIT are generally adjusted to their fair market values to reflect the recognized net built-in gain. The regulations do not permit a C corporation to recognize a net built-in loss, and, in this case, the carryover bases of the assets in the hands of the RIC or REIT are preserved.

If the RIC or REIT elects to be subject to treatment under section 1374, its built-in gain, and the corporate-level tax imposed on that gain, is subject to rules similar to the rules applying to the net income of foreclosure property of REITs.

In the case of carryover basis transactions involving the transfer of property of a C corporation to a RIC or REIT, the regulations apply to transactions occurring on or after June 10, 1987. In the case of a C corporation that qualifies to be taxed as a RIC or REIT, the regulations apply to such qualifications that are effective for taxable years beginning on or after June 10, 1987.

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these temporary regulations will be submitted to the Chief Counsel of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

The principal author of these regulations is Christopher W. Schoen of the Office of Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate). Other personnel from the IRS and Treasury participated in their development.

The collections of information in these final regulations have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) under control number 1545-1555. Responses to these collections of information are mandatory for PFIC shareholders that wish to make the section 1295 election to treat the PFIC as a QEF.

Comments on the collections of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, OP:FS:FP, Washington, DC 20224.

The estimated average annual burden per respondent and/or recordkeeper varies from fifteen minutes to three hours, depending on individual circumstances, with an estimated average of twenty-nine minutes.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.

Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

On January 2, 1998, the Treasury and the IRS published temporary regulations regarding the section 1295 election and rules applicable to a PFIC shareholder under sections 1291, 1293, 1295 and 1297 (redesignated as section 1298 by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, and hereafter referred to as section 1298) (TD 8750, 63 FR 6). On that same date, the Treasury and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (63 FR 35). The text of the temporary regulations served as the text of the proposed regulations.

Sections 1291, 1293, 1295 and 1298 were added by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, effective for taxable years of foreign corporations beginning after December 31, 1986. As originally enacted, the section 1295 election was an election made by the PFIC. The Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 (TAMRA) amended section 1295, effective for taxable years of foreign corporations beginning after December 31, 1986, to change the section 1295 election to a shareholder-by-shareholder election. Sections 1291, 1293 and 1298 were also amended by TAMRA, and sections 1293 and 1298 were further amended by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Section 1298 also was amended by the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1989 and the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. In addition, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (1997 TRA) amended section 1 to provide categories of long-term capital gain and the maximum rates of tax to which the categories are subject. In certain cases, this amendment affects the calculation of net capital gain for purposes of section 1293.

No written comments were received on the proposed regulations, and no public hearing was requested or held. The proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations as revised by this Treasury Decision. The revisions are summarized in the explanations below.

A foreign corporation is a PFIC for a taxable year if the foreign corporation satisfies either the income or asset test of section 1297(a) for that year. A foreign corporation is a PFIC under the income test if 75 percent or more of its gross income for its taxable year is passive, or investment-type, income. Alternatively, under the asset test, a foreign corporation is a PFIC if 50 percent or more of the average fair market value of its assets during its taxable year are assets that produce or are held for the production of passive income. A shareholder of a foreign corporation that qualifies as a PFIC is subject to the interest charge regime of section 1291 with respect to certain distributions by the PFIC and certain dispositions of its stock. Generally, a shareholder of a PFIC may avoid the interest charge regime by making a timely election under section 1295 to treat a PFIC as a QEF, in which case the shareholder will be taxed annually pursuant to section 1293 on its pro rata share of the ordinary earnings and net capital gain of the PFIC. Under section 1295(a), a section 1295 election will apply with respect to the PFIC if the PFIC complies with requirements prescribed by the Secretary for purposes of determining the ordinary earnings and net capital gain of the PFIC and otherwise carrying out the purposes of the PFIC provisions.

Section 1295(b)(1), as enacted by TAMRA, provides that a shareholder may make a section 1295 election with respect to a PFIC for any taxable year of the shareholder (shareholder election year). Once made, the election will apply to that year and to all subsequent years of the shareholder unless revoked by the shareholder with the consent of the Secretary. Section 1295(b)(2) prescribes the time for making the election. In general, for the section 1295 election to be applicable to a taxable year, the shareholder must make the election by the due date, as extended under section 6081, for the shareholder's return for that taxable year. However, to the extent provided in the regulations, a section 1295 election may be made for a taxable year after the prescribed due date if the shareholder failed to make a timely election because the shareholder reasonably believed that the foreign corporation was not a PFIC.

Under temporary regulations § 1.1295-1T(d)(1) and (f)(1), the shareholder, as defined in § 1.1291-9(j)(3), of a PFIC makes the section 1295 election by filing a Form 8621 with the shareholder's Federal income tax return by the election due date for the shareholder election year, and by filing a copy of that form with the Philadelphia Service Center. In addition, under temporary regulation § 1.1295-1T(f)(2), the shareholder must file an annual Form 8621 with its Federal income tax return to report the shareholder's pro rata share of the ordinary earnings and net capital gain of the QEF. Temporary regulation § 1.1295-1T(f)(2) also required that a copy of the annual Form 8621 be filed with the Philadelphia Service Center. To reduce taxpayer burden, this final regulation eliminates the requirement for filing a copy of Form 8621 with the Philadelphia Service Center when the shareholder makes the section 1295 election or reports the shareholder's annual pro rata share of the ordinary earnings and net capital gain of the QEF.

In addition, this final regulation clarifies the rule in temporary regulation § 1.1295-1T(c)(2)(ii) for income inclusion by the shareholder of a QEF under section 1293 for any taxable year that the foreign corporation is not a PFIC under section 1297(a) and is not treated as a PFIC under section 1298(b)(1). This final regulation clarifies that in such case, the shareholder is not required to include pursuant to section 1293 the shareholder's pro rata share of ordinary earnings and net capital gain for such year, and the shareholder shall not be required to satisfy the section 1295 annual reporting requirement for such year. Cessation of a foreign corporation's status as a PFIC will not, however, terminate a section 1295 election. Thus, if the foreign corporation is a PFIC in any taxable year after a year in which it is not treated as a PFIC, the shareholder's original election under section 1295 continues to apply and the shareholder must take into account its pro rata share of ordinary earnings and net capital gain for such year and comply with the section 1295 annual reporting requirement.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 added section 1296 to provide PFIC shareholders with an alternative method for current income inclusion by making a mark-to-market election with respect to their PFIC stock that qualifies as marketable stock. The election is available to shareholders whose taxable years begin after December 31, 1997 for stock in a foreign corporation whose taxable year ends with or within the shareholder's taxable year. The effect of a mark-to-market election on a section 1295 election will be addressed in subsequent regulations under section 1296. In addition, temporary regulation § 1.1297-3T(c) governing the deemed dividend election by a United States person that is a shareholder of a PFIC will be finalized in a future regulation project.

Notice 98-22 (1998-17 I.R.B. 5) provides that taxpayers will be permitted to apply the rules of the temporary regulations under § 1.1295-1T(b)(4) (section 1295 election by shareholders who file a joint return) and § 1.1295-1T(f) and (g) (procedures for making a section 1295 election and annual information requirements by the PFIC or intermediary) to taxable years beginning before January 1, 1998, for which the statute of limitations on the assessment of tax has not expired and, with respect to § 1.1295-1T(b)(4), if certain consistency requirements are met. The rule of Notice 98-22 has been incorporated into § 1.1295-1(k) of this regulation. Final regulation § 1.1295-1(k) is changed to reflect the special effective dates for § 1.1295-1(b)(4), (f) and (g) as provided by Notice 98-22. Accordingly, Notice 98-22 is obsoleted since the effective date provisions are contained in this final regulation.

Notice 88-125 described the requirements a shareholder must satisfy to make and maintain a section 1295 election for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1998. As a result of the procedures and requirements set forth first in the temporary regulations published on January 2, 1998, and now in these final regulations, Notice 88-125 is obsoleted effective February 7, 2000.

Notice 88-125 and Notice 98-22 are obsoleted as of February 7, 2000.

It has been determined that the final regulations are not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. Further, it is hereby certified, pursuant to sections 603(a) and 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), that the collection of information contained in these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on substantial number of small entities. The cost of collection of information to small entities is insignificant because the primary reporting burden is on individual PFIC shareholders who make the section 1295 election. Therefore, the collection of information will not have a substantial economic impact. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

The principal author of the final regulations is Margaret A. Fung, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.

Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

On December 15, 1981, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Virginia program. You can find background information on the Virginia program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval in the December 15, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 61085-61115). You can find later actions on conditions of approval and program amendments at 30 CFR 946.11, 946.12, 946.13, 946.15, and 946.16.

By letter dated November 24, 1998 (Administrative Record No. VA-961), the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, Division of Mined Land Reclamation (DMLR) submitted a clarification to its interpretation of its regulations at 4 VAC 25-130-816/817.76 concerning the disposal of excess spoil.

We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the December 23, 1998, Federal Register (63 FR 71049), invited public comment, and provided an opportunity for a public hearing on the adequacy of the proposed amendment. The comment period closed on January 22, 1999. No one requested to speak at a public hearing, so no hearing was held. By letters dated December 6, 1999, and January 11, 2000 (Administrative Record No. VA-995 and VA-998, respectively), the DMLR submitted additional information concerning the amendment, and withdrew the proposal to dispose of excess spoil on bond forfeiture sites.

Following, according to SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17, are our findings concerning the proposed amendment.

The proposed clarification is as follows:

The Division of Mined Land Reclamation proposes to clarify the interpretation of 4 VAC 25-130-816.76. The regulation states that excess spoil may be placed on “another area under a permit issued pursuant to the Act, or on abandoned mine lands under contract for reclamation according to the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Guidelines and approved by the Division of Mined Land Reclamation.” The Virginia Division of Mined Land Reclamation interprets this regulation to mean excess spoil from a permitted coal mining operation may be used by the Division of Mined Land Reclamation to reclaim a bond forfeiture site or an AML project site. Through any of the contracting procedures available to the agency, including negotiated, no-cost, or competitively bid contracts, the agency may cause the placement of excess spoil on the forfeiture or AML site in accordance with the provisions of a contract executed between the Division and a contractor. The spoil material removed from the permitted area will be demonstrated to be excess spoil and unnecessary for the achievement of approximate original contour within the permitted area.

The forfeiture or AML project must be:

1. Located in general proximity to the permit area;

2. on the AML inventory list or bond forfeiture list; and

3. referenced in the permit plans, along with the demonstration that the spoil is excess and identified on the permit map. However, the forfeiture or AML site will not be included in the permit acreage; will not be subject to the requirements for permits, performance bonds; and will not delay or otherwise affect bond release on the permitted area.

In the event the contractor fails to perform the work specified in the “no-cost contract”, the Division will invoke the appropriate contact sanctions to cause completion of the contract terms. When the contractor and the mine operator happen to be one and the same, the contract will include an additional default provision. In this case, the contract will specify that the mine operator will revise the permit boundary to include the area upon which the excess spoil was placed pursuant to the “no-cost contract.” The permit performance bond requirements will become applicable.

In response to our comments on the proposal (Administrative Record Numbers VA-983, 984, and 985), DMLR submitted a letter on December 6, 1999, stating the following:

1. Virginia is proposing to follow the information contained in the letters of November 24, 1997, and November 24, 1998, as well as the AML Guidelines. The November 24, 1997, letter was a previous request by Virginia for OSM to approve an interpretation of 4 VAC 25-13-816.76 that would allow the placement of excess spoil on eligible AML sites pursuant to “no-cost” contracts. In that letter, Virginia committed to apply the following guidelines for such contracts:

2. For financial assurance, the DMLR would require the operator to post an AML bond on the site;

3. The DMLR withdraws its proposal to dispose of excess spoil on bond forfeiture sites; and

4. The DMLR stated that it will not allow fills to be constructed on abandoned mine land.

We disapproved a similar Virginia proposal to allow the placement of excess spoil on unpermitted abandoned sites through “no-cost” contracts in 1990. That proposal was disapproved for three reasons. First, Virginia failed to designate a fund that could be used in the event that the contractor defaults on his reclamation obligations. Second, the proposal did not contain a reference to the Federal AML policy guidelines. Finally, the proposal did not provide for “public notice or participation such as would occur on an AML contract or mining permit.” (55 FR 2240, 2243-4, January 23, 1990).

We have also addressed the placement of excess spoil on adjacent abandoned mine land previously in program amendment decisions in other states. Most recently, we approved a Pennsylvania amendment regarding the placement of excess spoil on abandoned mine sites (March 26, 1999; 64 FR 14610). In that approval, we explained that in order to obtain our approval of “no cost reclamation,” such reclamation would have to contain meaningful performance incentives or safeguards to ensure that spoil is placed only where it is needed to restore the approximate original contour (AOC) and where it will not destroy or degrade features of environmental value. In addition, the amendments must require that spoil be placed in an environmentally and technically sound fashion. In short, “no cost reclamation” amendments must provide a degree of security comparable to that afforded by a Federally funded AML reclamation contract. 64 FR at 14617.

The approved Virginia program at 4 VAC 25-130-816/817.76(a) provides that the DMLR may approve, where environmental benefits will occur, the placement of spoil not needed to restore the approximate original contour of the land and reclaim land within the permit area in a manner consistent with the Virginia Coal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Laws and the Virginia Coal Surface Mining Reclamation Regulations on abandoned mine lands under a contract for reclamation according to the AML Guidelines and approved by the Division. In the amendment, Virginia would authorize the placement of excess spoil, via a no-cost contract, on AML sites. “No-cost” contracts are so called because the contractor receives no moneys from the state AML agency in exchange for performance of the terms of the contract. Rather, the contractor receives the benefit of a free disposal area for its excess spoil in consideration for performance of the needed reclamation. To be approvable, the policies and procedures applicable to such no-cost contracts must provide a degree of security comparable to contracts under Federally-funded AML projects.

In Virginia's amendment, AML lands will be reclaimed in accordance with 4 VAC 25-130-816/817.76(a)(2). That is, all reclamation must be in accordance with the AML Guidelines, regardless of whether the contracts are “no-cost,” or Federally funded AML contracts. The DMLR confirmed in its December 6, 1999, letter that the disposal of excess spoil as incidental reclamation will be in accordance with the AML Guidelines, will require an AML bond to be posted, and that excess spoil fills will not be constructed on the AML sites.

We find, therefore, that Virginia's amendment regarding the use of “no-cost contracts” under the approved provisions at 4 VAC 25-130-816/817.76 concerning the disposal of excess spoil and incidental reclamation will afford the same degree of performance incentives and safeguards as Federally funded AML construction projects. We are approving the amendment for the reasons set below.

First, the requirements of 4 VAC 25-130-816/817.76 provide that the placement of the excess spoil under a contract for reclamation must be in accordance with the AML guidelines. These guidelines were published in the Federal Register at 61 FR 68777, December 30, 1996.

Second, the amount of excess spoil placed on an abandoned site will only be that needed to reclaim the bond forfeiture or AML site. Therefore, valley, head-of-hollow and durable rock fills will not be constructed on these AML sites, because the amount of material deposited would exceed that necessary to address the reclamation of the forfeited site or AML impacts and problems.

Third, the use of the “no-cost contracts” contains sufficient performance incentives to require compliance with all applicable requirements to ensure that the sites are fully reclaimed. In its December 6, 1999, letter, the DMLR stated that it will require the operator conducting a no-cost contract to post an AML bond on the site. In addition, in its January 11, 2000, letter, the DMLR stated that Virginia's AML grant funds would also be a source available to reclaim a site in the event of operator default or, after the project is released, to correct any failure of the project reclamation.

According to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we solicited comments on the proposed amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Virginia program. The U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) responded and stated that there appears to be no conflict with MSHA regulations and/or procedures. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service responded and stated that its position is that the amendment be accepted. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) responded and stated that it appears that no impacts to Federally listed or proposed species or critical habitat will occur and, therefore, it has no comments on the proposed amendments. The U.S. Forest Service responded that it concurs with the amendment, as long as the AML sites will not lose soil or water quality as a result of this additional spoil material. In response, we note that the DMLR has confirmed in its December 6, 1999, letter that the disposal of excess spoil as incidental reclamation will be in accordance with the AML Guidelines. By following these guidelines, soil and water quality will be protected at least to the extent that they are under Federally-funded AML projects.

Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), OSM is required to obtain the written concurrence of the EPA with respect to any provisions of the State program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards promulgated under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ).

None of the clarifications Virginia proposed pertain to air or water quality standards. Nevertheless, we requested EPA's comments on the proposed amendment. EPA did not provide any comments.

We solicited public comments on the amendment. The Virginia Department of Historic Resources responded that the amendment will not affect historic properties, and that it has no objection to the amendment.

Based on the above findings, we approve the Virginia amendment as submitted by Virginia on November 24, 1998, and clarified on December 6, 1999, and January 11, 2000.

To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 946 which codifies decisions concerning the Virginia program. We are making this final rule effective immediately to expedite the State program amendment process.

This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review).

The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) and has determined that, to the extent allowed by law, this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments since each such program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15 and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.

No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since section 702(d) of SMCRA [30 U.S.C. 1292(d)] provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).

This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq. ).

The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). The State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.

This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on any governmental entity or the private sector.

The Norfolk Southern Railroad bascule span drawbridge across the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal in New Orleans, Louisiana, has a vertical clearance of one foot above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited clearance in the open-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists of tugs with tows, fishing vessels, sailing vessels,and other recreational craft. The Port of New Orleans requested a temporary deviation from the normal operation of the drawbridge in order to accommodate the maintenance work, involving removal and replacement of the portions of the fender system.

This deviation allows the draw of the Norfolk Southern Railroad bascule span drawbridge across the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, mile 4.5, at New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana to remain closed to navigation daily from 7 a.m. until noon and from 1 p.m. until 6 p.m. from Monday, March 6, 2000 through Wednesday, April 19, 2000. The draw shall open on signal at any time for a vessel in distress.

In the Federal Register of November 12, 1998 (63 FR 63253), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Transportation (Coast Guard), and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposed amending subparts D, G, K, and L of 38 CFR part 21, as set forth in the SUMMARY portion of this document.

DOD, the Department of Transportation (Coast Guard), and VA gave interested persons 60 days to submit comments. VA received one letter from a service organization. The organization noted that the amendments would be beneficial for veterans and concurred in them.

Based on the rationale stated in this document and the proposed rule, we are adopting the provisions of the proposed rule as a final rule without change except to the authority citations for subparts D, G, and L.

DOD is issuing this final rule jointly with VA insofar as it relates to VEAP. DOD funds this program and VA administers it. DOD, the Department of Transportation (Coast Guard), and VA are jointly issuing this final rule insofar as it relates to the Montgomery GI Bill—Selected Reserve. DOD and the Coast Guard fund this program, and VA administers it. The remainder of this final rule is issued solely by VA.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553, there is a basis for dispensing with a 30-day delay of the effective date since the changes made by this final rule are restatements of statute, interpretive rules, and nonsubstantive changes for the purpose of clarity.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated with this final rule concerning 38 CFR 21.7131(l) and (m) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The proposed rule provided an opportunity to comment to OMB and VA on those requirements, but no comments were received on them. OMB has assigned OMB control number 2900-0607 to those information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Under the collection of information provisions in § 21.7131(l) and (m), a veteran may be required to submit evidence to show that the veteran's election to receive educational assistance under the MGIB was a valid one, and the date of VA's receipt of the evidence may have an effect on the effective date of an award of educational assistance.

OMB assigns a control number to each collection of information it approves. VA may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. We are displaying the OMB control number assigned to the collection of information in this final rule at the end of § 21.7131.

This final rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

The Secretary of Defense, Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs hereby certify 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, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule will not cause educational institutions to make changes in their activities and has minuscule monetary effects, if any. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule, therefore, is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses requirements of sections 603 and 604.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers for programs that this final rule affects are 64.117, 64.120, and 64.124. This final rule also affects the Montgomery GI Bill—Selected Reserve program, which has no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number.

On October 25, 1999, the Postal Service published for public comment in the Federal Register a proposed rule (FR 64 57419-57421) that expanded provisions for mailers who wanted nonautomated (manual) processsing and revised Line 2 of letter tray labels for First-Class Mail and Standard Mail (A). The Postal Service also invited comments on the proposed rule from interested parties and accepted comments until December 9, 1999. This final rule contains the DMM standards adopted by the Postal Service after review of the comments that were submitted.

The Postal Service received eight pieces of correspondence offering comments on the October 25 proposed rule. Respondents included major mailing associations, large business mailers, and mailing agents.

Based on additional costs expected to be incurred by mailers, four commenters objected to the use of facing slips on package bundles. An alternative to facing slips was proposed by two other commenters who suggested the use of optional endorsement lines with “DO NOT AUTOMATE” printed on mailpieces. For package identification of letter-size mail, the use of optional endorsement lines will be added to the DMM revisions. Mailers must use either facing slips or optional endorsement lines printed with “MANUAL ONLY” on all required bundles that are to be excluded from automated processing.

Three commenters objected to postal tabbing, claiming that marketing effectiveness could be compromised. Similarly challenged was the right of the Postal Service to change the physical properties of a mailpiece. However, according to the view of the Postal Service's General Counsel, the legal authority to make reasonable alterations to mailpieces in order to facilitate processing of the mail is implied within the Postal Service's express authority to provide for an efficient system of sorting and delivery of the mail. Tabbing by the Postal Service, placing labels on mailpieces, and spraying barcodes on letters are included in the Postal Service's authority to exercise powers incidental, necessary, or appropriate to the performance of its assigned functions.

One commenter noted problems from postal labeling when information on Standard Mail (A) carrier route pieces had been covered by LMLM (letter mail labeling machine) labels. This commenter suggested adding carrier route mail to the category of mailings that could be excluded from automated processing. This proposal will be deferred for publication and comment in the Federal Register at a later time.

Processing letter-size mail has been revolutionized during the past decade as the Postal Service deployed a network of automated equipment. Optical character readers, barcode sorters, tabbing machines, and labeling machines are among the pieces of automated equipment currently used to process mail. Today's infrastructure provides many efficiencies which contribute to holding postage rates down. Nationally, the average cost for a postal plant to process 1,000 letters through automation is around $5. Manual sortation, the alternative, costs the Postal Service nearly $60 per 1,000 letters.

In an effort to minimize more costly and slower manual processing, the Postal Service will attempt to sort machineable pieces through automation. Letter-size mailpieces, for which an automated postage rate has not been paid, are considered potentially upgradeable and subject to automated processing. Even though 95 percent of letter-size mail is processed through automation, some mailers prefer to have their mailpieces sorted manually. New processing instructions will provide a means for mailers to indicate if presorted pieces should be processed exclusively by manual operations. To maintain the handling request through downstream postal processes, mailers must use facing slips or optional endorsement lines with “Manual Only” applied to required packages. Additionally, letter tray labels for First-Class Mail and Standard Mail (A) are revised, with Line 2 reflecting new information.

The Domestic Mail Manual is revised as follows. These changes are incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR part 111.