This interim rule is issued in conformance with Executive Order 12866 and has been determined to be significant and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this rule because the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is not required by 5 U.S.C. 533 or any other provision of law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the subject matter of this rule.

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

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988. The provisions of this rule preempt State laws to the extent such laws are inconsistent with the provisions of this rule. Before any legal action may be brought regarding determinations of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions set forth at 7 CFR part 780 must be exhausted.

This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3014, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).

This rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FSA has submitted an emergency information collection request (ICR) to OMB for the approval of the Lamb Meat Adjustment Assistance Program report as necessary for the proper functioning of the program.

Title: Lamb Meat Adjustment Assistance Program.

OMB Control Number: 0560—New.

Type of Request: Request for a New Information Collection Package .

Abstract: Sheep and lamb operations are eligible to receive direct payments provided they make certifications that attest to their eligibility to receive such payments. These operations must certify, as appropriate, with respect to: (1) The number of eligible rams purchased; (2) the number of sheep enrolled in an eligible sheep improvement program; (3) sheep and lamb facility improvements; (4) the number and condition of eligible slaughter and feeder lambs marketed; and (5) that the operation is still in the business of agricultural production. The information collection will be used by FSA to determine the program eligibility of the sheep and lamb operation in accordance with this subpart. FSA considers the information collected essential to prudent eligibility determinations and payment calculations. Additionally, without accurate information on sheep and lamb operations, the national payment rate would be inaccurate resulting in payments being made to ineligible recipients, and compromising the integrity and accuracy of the program.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 minutes per response.

Respondents: Sheep and Lamb Operations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 60,000.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 5

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 24,000 hours.

Proposed topics for comment include: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; or (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of the information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments should be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 and to Grady Bilberry, Director, Price Support Division, Farm Service Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, STOP 0512, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-0512 or telephone (202) 720-7901.

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

It has been determined that this rule should be issued as an interim rule, effective immediately, but subject to modification on the consideration of comments that are timely received. Delaying the implementation of the rule pending comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, based on consideration of the provisions of Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, as amended, the current market situation for lamb meat, and the lack of material adverse effect on other parties.

On July 7, 1999, the President issued a declaration concerning lamb meat that directed the Secretary of Agriculture to implement adjustment assistance programs based on authorized programs to facilitate efforts of the domestic lamb industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition. Market conditions have deteriorated since July 1997. Lamb producers have been some of the hardest hit, suffering major losses during 1997 and 1998 due to record high imports of low-priced lamb meat, so there is a critical need for action. Furthermore, while the need for immediate assistance is critical, potential harm to other parties, resulting from the issuance of this rule as an interim rule is expected to be minimal.

The finding made above, that this rule should be made effective immediately, applies for all purposes including, but not limited, to the provisions of section 808 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) (5 U.S.C. 808), which provides that a rule may, without regard to certain special Congressional oversight measures provided for in SBREFA, take effect at such time as the agency may determine if the agency finds for good cause that public notice is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. For the reasons set out, it has been determined that delay would be contrary to public interest and that the rule should be made effective immediately.

Clause (3) of section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, as amended, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to “reestablish farmers’ purchasing power by making payments in connection with the normal production of any agricultural commodity for domestic consumption.”

During the past few years a number of factors have produced a serious economic crisis that threatens the existence of sheep and lamb producers throughout the United States. There are an estimated 66,800 sheep and lamb operations in the United States that account for about 1 percent of the value of all U.S. farm production. Sheep and lamb prices, marketings, and production have declined steadily since July 1997. Lamb producers were one of the hardest hit segments of the sheep industry, suffering major losses during 1997 and 1998, when lamb meat imports reached record highs. Threatened by a surge of low-priced, imported lamb meat, many producers have lost the ability to remain competitive in the domestic marketplace.

This rule addresses that situation by providing for a new program to be administered by FSA utilizing the foregoing authority. Payments to sheep and lamb operations under the program provided for by this rule will offset a portion of the per-head losses producers have incurred marketing their lambs and will help the U.S. lamb industry achieve sustained competitiveness, while respecting international trade obligations. The program will be administered in two parts, one part covering activities occurring in what is referred to in the rule as “Year 1” ( the period running from July 22, 1999, and ending September 30, 2000) and the second part covering activities occurring in what are called “Year 2” and “Year 3” in the rules—those being respectively, the periods from August 1, 2000 through July 31, 2001, and August 1, 2001, through July 31, 2002. The rule contemplates that $30 million will be available for the program and limits expenditures to that amount with a provision for pro-rating payments in any program year in which the funds will be exhausted.

Payments under this new program will provide those eligible for the payments with an immediate infusion of funds to help pay operating expenses and meet other financial obligations. “Year 1” payments will be available to sheep and lamb operations that: (1) Between July 22, 1999, through September 30, 2000, purchased 90 day-old or older rams intended for breeding purposes which the operation held for at least 90 days continuously thereafter and continue to hold or use for breeding purposes, when the payments are to be made; (2) made lamb or feedlot facility improvements during the same period; or (3) in that period, enrolled sheep in an eligible sheep improvement program. The improvement program can be the National Sheep Improvement Program operated by the American Sheep Industry Association, or a similar program, if approved by FSA, to assist sheep and lamb producers by genetically evaluating animals in a flock for maternal, growth, and wool traits or to otherwise provide equivalent benefits to the producer's herd.

“Year 1” facility improvement payments will be made to sheep and lamb facilities only with respect to improvements that will be maintained and used in the sheep and lamb operation for at least the next 3 consecutive years from the date of the completion of the improvements. Eligible facility improvements may include, but are not limited to new and improved feedlots, lambing sheds, and shearing sheds. Eligible sheep and lamb operations in “Year 1” can receive up to $100 per eligible ram purchased, not to exceed $2,500 per operation; $.50 per head of eligible sheep enrolled in a sheep improvement program, not to exceed $500 per operation; and 20 percent of the sheep and lamb operation's eligible facility improvement costs, not to exceed $2,500 per operation. Accordingly, maximum payments to any operation during “Year 1” will be limited to $5,500 for the three parts of the “Year 1” program. The rule also makes provision for limiting payments for rams to the extent that such purchases would produce a ratio of rams to ewes of less than 1 to 15. In addition, eligible lamb producers must have in 1999 gross annual revenue of $2.5 million or less. The purpose of this and other limitations on payments is to help target limited financial resources to individual producers who are relatively less able to finance lamb improvements.

For “Year 2” and “Year 3”, payments will be made, subject to the availability of funds, with respect to marketings of (1) slaughter lambs and (2) feeder lambs. “Year 2” payments will be made for such marketings during “Year 2” and “Year 3” payments will be made for corresponding marketings in that year. “Year 2” and “Year 3” have been separated so that separate sign-ups can be held, separate payments can be made, and to ease proration problems in the event that the claims under the program should eventually exceed the amount of the available funds.

First, as to “Year 2” and “Year 3” marketings of slaughter lambs, the lambs must have been owned by the lamb-raising operation in the normal course of business for 30 days prior to the qualifying marketing and must produce a carcass which: (1) Grades “USDA Yield Grade 2”; (2) has “USDA Choice or Prime” quality; (3) has a muscling confirmation score of “Average Choice” or better; and (4) has a 55 to 75 pound dressed hot carcass weight.

With respect to the other category of marketings for which “Year 2” and “Year 3” payments can be made, “feeder lambs” are defined in this rule to be either ewes or wethers of less than 1 year of age that when sold are intended to be further fed a grain concentrate diet to reach an acceptable slaughter market weight. Payments for feeder lamb marketings will be made only if the lambs are, at the time of marketing, thick-muscled and large-framed lambs, as described in USDA Standards and were owned by the operation for 30 days, continuously immediately prior to the qualifying marketing. In addition, lamb producers eligible for payments must have in 1999 and subsequent years, an applicable gross annual revenue of $2.5 million or less.

Subject to the availability of funds, the per-head “Year 2” and “Year 3” payment rate is set by the rule to be $5 for each eligible slaughter lamb marketing and $3 for each eligible feeder lamb marketing. An additional $3 per slaughter lamb payment will be made for slaughter lambs marketed from June 1 through July 31 of the program year. For slaughter lambs, an Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) agent or an assigned representative of AMS must verify that lamb carcasses meet the payment criteria. The condition of qualifying feeder lambs must also be certified to by the AMS agent or an assigned AMS representative.

Payments for parts of this program (Years 1-3) are available to all eligible U.S. operations without herd or per operation or per person payment limitations, except as noted.

Eligible sheep and lamb operations making application for payments under this part must self-certify, as applicable: (1) The number of eligible rams purchased, as well as, information establishing the ratio of rams to ewes on the operation for all relevant times during the program year to which such information applies; (2) the number of sheep enrolled in a sheep improvement program; (3) the lamb or feedlot facility improvements during “Year 1”; (4) the intent to use the improvement for sheep production activities for the next 3 consecutive years; (5) the number of slaughter lamb and feeder lamb marketings that meet the specified criteria; and (6) the operation must also certify that it is still engaged in the business of producing and marketing agricultural products at the time of application for payment. Eligible operations must apply for payments during the sign-up period set by the FSA pursuant to these regulations.

Sheep and lamb operations may, during the applicable period, apply in person at county FSA offices during regular business hours. Alternatively, program applications may be obtained by mail, telephone, and facsimile from their designated county FSA office or obtained via the Internet. The Internet website is located at www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/psd/.

The Commission is publishing today the final text of new regulations to be added to 11 CFR 100.19 and 11 CFR 104.18 and revisions to the regulations at 11 CFR 101.1, 102.2, 104.5, 109.2, 114.10, 9003.1 and 9033.1 making electronic filing mandatory for certain political committees and other persons. These rules implement provisions of Public Law 106-58, (Pub. L. No. 106-58, 106th Cong., § 639, 113 Stat. 430, 476-477 (1999)) which amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. 431 et seq. (“FECA” or “the Act”), to require, inter alia, that the Commission make electronic filing mandatory for political committees and other persons required to file with the Commission who, in a calendar year, have, or have reason to expect to have, total contributions or total expenditures exceeding a threshold amount to be set by the Commission. The final rules announced today set the threshold at $50,000 per calendar year.

The 1999 amendment to the FECA and the regulations (11 CFR 104.18) maintain the voluntary electronic filing system for political committees or persons who do not exceed, or who do not have reason to expect to exceed, the $50,000 threshold of financial activity. The Commission encourages committees below these thresholds to voluntarily file their reports electronically.

Public Law 106-58 requires the mandatory system to be in place for reports covering periods after December 31, 2000.

Section 438(d) of Title 2, United States Code and sections 9009(c) and 9039(c) of Title 26, United States Code require that any rules or regulations prescribed by the Commission to carry out the provisions of Titles 2 and 26 of the United States Code be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate 30 legislative days before they are finally promulgated. These regulations were transmitted to Congress on June 16, 2000.

The Commission initiated this rulemaking by publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000, 65 FR 19339 (April 11, 2000). The NPRM contained proposed rules covering, inter alia, the threshold amount, what reports are covered and the requirement for publicly funded candidates to agree to file electronically.

The comment period ended on May 11, 2000. The Commission received three comments, one from U. S. Public Interest Research Group, and one from National Association of Business Political Action Committees. In addition, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) submitted a comment in which it said that the proposed rules are not inconsistent with IRS regulations or the Internal Revenue Code.

The goals of the electronic filing system include more complete and rapid on-line access to reports on file with the Commission, reduced paper filing and manual processing, and more efficient and cost-effective methods of operation for filers and for the Commission. The 1999 amendment to the FECA requires that the Commission make electronically filed reports, designations or statements available on its web site not later than 24 hours after the Commission receives them. Pub. L. No. 106-58, 106th Cong., § 639(a), 113 Stat. 430, 476 (1999). Currently, reports that are filed under the voluntary system of electronic filing are posted in viewable form on the Commission's web site within five minutes and detailed data are available in the Commission's databases within 24 to 48 hours (depending on the time of receipt). In contrast, under the current paper filing system, the time between receipt of a report and its appearance in viewable form on the Commission's web site is 48 hours. Additionally, while some summary data is available in the Commission's indexes within 48 hours, it can take as long as 30 days before the detailed data filed on paper is available in those databases. Thus, the greater the number of pages that are filed electronically, the greater the volume of data that is almost instantly available. Additionally, decreasing the volume of paper filed will decrease the processing time of the reports that are filed on paper, making them more rapidly available in the Commission's databases.

The Commission's regulations at 11 CFR 100.19 define file, filed, or filing with respect to reports filed on paper. New paragraph (c) is being added to section 100.19 to define these terms with respect to electronically filed reports. In order to be timely filed, the report must be received and validated by the Commission's computer system on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (or Eastern Daylight Time, as appropriate) on the prescribed filing date. The computer validation program ensures that all required information is disclosed. Additionally the validation program is being updated to require that the figures disclosed within the report add up to the figures reported on the Detailed Summary Page and that committees correctly indicate the type of report being filed. Incomplete or incorrect reports that do not pass validation will not be accepted and will not be considered filed. Please note, however, that using the Commission's FECFile software will ensure that all numbers in the report add up to the correct total. The Commission received one comment on this issue in response to its NPRM on its new administrative fine program. ( See 65 FR 16534, March 29, 2000.) The commenter, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., argued that the Commission's rules should clarify the date and time when an electronic report is considered “filed.” Thus, paragraph (c) is being added to this section.

The Commission is revising paragraph (a) of section 101.1 to clarify that if a candidate exceeds, or has reason to expect to exceed the $50,000 threshold, he or she must file his or her Statement of Candidacy electronically on FEC Form 2. The Commission anticipates that its free FECFile software will generate FEC Form 2 by January 1, 2001, when these regulations take effect. The Commission received no comments on this provision.

Commission regulations at 11 CFR 102.2(a)(1)(i) through (vi) require a political committee to provide certain identifying information on its Statement of Organization (FEC Form 1). New paragraph (a)(1)(vii) requires any political committee that has an Internet web site to provide the address of its web site as part of its address on FEC Form 1. Additionally, it requires any committee that is required to file electronically, and that has an electronic mail address, to include its electronic mail address as part of its address on FEC Form 1. The Commission received no comments on these changes.

Revisions to paragraph (a)(2) clarify that if a committee is required to file electronically, it must file amendments to its Statement of Organization (FEC Form 1) electronically. The Commission anticipates that its free FECFile software will generate FEC Form 1 by January 1, 2001, when these regulations take effect. The Commission received one comment on the issue of filing amendments by electronic letter. For the reasons explained at “F. Amending Reports,” infra, the Commission is not allowing filers to amend electronic reports by electronic letter, rather than using the appropriate electronic FEC form.

The Commission's regulations at 11 CFR 104.5(e) define when a paper report is considered filed with respect to when and how it is mailed. A new sentence is being added to paragraph (e) to provide that, in order to be timely filed electronically, the report, designation or statement must be received and validated by the Commission's computer system on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (or Eastern Daylight Time, as appropriate) on the prescribed filing date. Incomplete or incorrect reports that do not pass validation will not be accepted and will not be considered filed. The Commission is adding the new sentence to paragraph (e) of this section to follow the changes in 11 CFR 101.1.

Section 104.18 is being reorganized. New paragraph (a) sets forth the thresholds and rules for mandatory electronic filing. Former paragraph (a) “General” is redesignated as paragraph (b) “Voluntary” and sets forth the rules with regard to who may voluntarily file electronically. New paragraph (c) has been added to define which reports under the 1999 amendment to the FECA must be filed electronically. Former paragraphs (b) through (g) are being redesignated as paragraphs (d) through (i). These provisions apply to both mandatory and voluntary electronic filing. Paragraph (d) continues to state the format requirements for the electronic filing system (both mandatory and voluntary). Paragraph (e) sets forth the rules on the acceptance and validation of electronically filed reports. Paragraph (f) addresses amending electronic reports. Paragraph (g) sets forth signature requirements. Rules for schedules and forms requiring third party signatures are in paragraph (h), and paragraph (i) addresses the preservation of reports.

The mandatory electronic filing provisions of Public Law 106-58 and new paragraph (a) of 11 CFR 104.18 apply to those political committees and other persons who are required to file reports, statements and designations with the FEC. This includes House and Presidential candidates and their authorized committees, party committees, nonconnected committees, and separate segregated funds required to file with the Commission. Mandatory electronic filing does not apply to candidates for United States Senate and their authorized committees because Senate candidates and their committees must file with the Secretary of the Senate. Senate candidates are, however, encouraged to electronically file an unofficial copy of their reports, designations and statements with the FEC for the purposes of faster disclosure.

The Commission received one comment requesting clarification that the threshold applies to each individual committee and not to the total activity of all affiliated committees. While affiliated unauthorized committees share contribution limits, they do not file consolidated reports. Thus, the Commission has concluded that it would be overly burdensome to require all affiliated unauthorized committees to file electronically if, in the aggregate they exceed, or have reason to expect to exceed, the threshold. Therefore, the threshold applies to each individual unauthorized committee whether or not it is affiliated with other committees.

In contrast, authorized committees of a candidate are affiliated and share contribution limits, but the principal campaign committee files one consolidated report incorporating all reports from all other authorized committees (except joint fundraising committees, see infra ) for that candidate for that election. The principal campaign committee also forwards to the Commission, along with its own, the reports of the other authorized committees. Therefore, all authorized committees of a candidate must file electronically if the total of all contributions and expenditures from all authorized committees for that election exceeds, or the committees have reason to expect the totals to exceed, the threshold.

Joint fundraising representatives ( see 11 CFR 102.17) must file electronically if they have, or have reason to expect to have, total contributions or total expenditures exceeding the $50,000 threshold. Thus, if for example, a joint fundraiser raises total contributions of $65,000 that it divides equally between the three participating committees, including itself, the joint fundraising representative must file electronically.

Other persons, including individuals and qualified nonprofit corporations, must file electronically if they make independent expenditures exceeding $50,000 in a calendar year. 1 Please note, however, that the provision in the NPRM that would have applied the new electronic filing rules to corporations or labor organizations making communications in excess of $50,000 to their restricted classes has been deleted from the final rules because these disbursements are not expenditures. 2 U.S.C. 431(9)(B)(iii) and (v) and 441b(b)(2) and 11 CFR 100.8(b)(4). The Commission received no comments on this issue.

The Commission has set $50,000 as the appropriate threshold for all political committees and other persons because, as discussed below, data from the 1996 and 1998 election cycles indicate that at that threshold, the goals of the statutory amendment are maximized and the effect on the political committees and other persons is minimized.

The Commission received one comment requesting clarification that, since the purpose of the FECA is the disclosure of federal activity, the new rule applies only when a committee makes $50,000 in expenditures or receives $50,000 in contributions as defined in 2 U.S.C. 431(8) and (9) and 11 CFR 100.7 and 100.8. The commenter is correct that for purposes of determining if a filer has exceeded, or has reason to expect to exceed, the $50,000 filing threshold, nonfederal funds should be excluded from the calculation.

In addition, please note that cash on hand and debt that is outstanding at the beginning of the calendar year are not included in the threshold calculation. Thus, the calculation of the threshold takes into account only those contributions received or expenditures made, or expected to be received or made, within the calendar year.

To calculate whether the committee has exceeded the threshold, use the following formulas:  2

Unauthorized committees other than political party committees (FEC Form 3X).

Contributions: Total contributions (from individuals and other persons, political party committees and other political committees) minus refunds of contributions (to individuals and other persons, political party committees and other political committees) plus transfers from affiliated federal committees.

Expenditures: Total federal operating expenditures plus transfers to affiliated federal committees plus contributions to federal candidates/committees and other political committees plus independent expenditures.

Political Party Committees (FEC Form 3X).

Contributions: Total contributions (from individuals and other persons, political party committees and other political committees) minus refunds of contributions (to individuals and other persons, political party committees and other political committees) plus transfers from affiliated federal political party committees.

Expenditures: Total federal operating expenditures plus transfers to affiliated federal political party committees plus contributions to federal candidates/committees and other political committees plus independent expenditures plus coordinated expenditures.

Authorized committees (FEC Form 3, or FEC Form 3P (Presidential candidates only)).

Contributions: Total contributions (from individuals and other persons, political party committees, other political committees and the candidate, including the outstanding balance of any loans made, guaranteed or endorsed by the candidate or other person) minus any refunds of contributions (to individuals and other persons, political party committees or other political committees).

Expenditures: Total operating expenditures plus total contributions to other federal candidates, political party committees or other federal political party committees.

Data from the 1996 and 1998 election cycles show that this threshold would make 96% to 98%  3 of all financial activity reported by House and Presidential campaign committees almost immediately available on both the FEC's web site and in the agency's on-line databases. The historical information shows that of the 1,837 to 2,231 authorized committees filing with the Commission between 1995 and 1998, 31% to 44% of the committees (599 to 982 committees) had aggregate contributions or expenditures exceeding $50,000. These authorized committees filed 43% to 73% of the reports (2,162 to 12,646 reports), and 73% to 88% (66,569 to 282,339 pages) of the total number of pages filed by authorized committees. If 73% to 88% of the total number of pages filed by authorized committees is filed electronically, the Commission can manually process the remaining 12% to 29% of the pages more quickly to substantially reduce the amount of time before the information is available in Commission databases.

The effect of a $50,000 threshold on candidates and authorized committees will be minimal since, based on the 1996 and 1998 election cycle data, only the largest 30% to 40% of registered authorized committees would be required to file electronically.

At the $50,000 level, historical data from the 1996 and 1998 election cycles show that of the 373 to 451 party committees filing with the Commission, 36% to 41% of them (142 to 182 committees) consistently disclosed over 99% (between $213 million and $459 million) of party activity. Of the total number of pages filed by party committees, 93% to 96% (71,598 to 210,242 pages) would have been filed electronically, thereby greatly decreasing the amount of paper processing by the committees and the FEC and considerably increasing the amount of data that would be almost immediately available.

Based on the 1996 and 1998 election cycle data, the impact on party committees will be relatively small since only 36% to 41% of all party committees registered with the Commission during those election cycles would have been required to file electronically. Thus, the smallest 59% to 64% of party committees could continue to file paper reports.

At the $50,000 level, in the 1996 and 1998 election cycles, of the 840 to 933 nonconnected committees filing with the Commission, 15% to 22% of them (128 to 202 committees) disclosed 88% to 93% of the activity by nonconnected committees (representing approximately $29 million to $65 million of the total $33 million to $70 million disclosed by nonconnected committees). Additionally at that level, 59% to 68% (16,794 to 44,907 pages) of the total number of pages filed by nonconnected committees would have been filed electronically, causing a significant decrease in paper processing and a corresponding increase in the amount of data more rapidly disclosed.

The number of nonconnected committees affected will be relatively small since the historical data from the 1996 and 1998 election cycles show that only the largest 15% to 22% of the nonconnected committees registered with the Commission would have been required to file electronically.

At the $50,000 level, in the 1996 and 1998 election cycles, of the 2,938 to 2,976 SSFs registered with the Commission, 22% to 28% of them (632 to 825 committees) disclosed 85% to 89% ($138 million to $211 million) of the total SSF financial activity. This represents 63% to 68% (between 94,670 and 110,864 pages) of the total number of pages filed by SSFs. Based on historical data, the decrease in the amount of paper filed would represent approximately 100,000 pages of data and hundreds of millions of dollars available almost instantly on the Commission's web site and in the agency's databases.

The impact on SSFs will be small considering that, in the 1996 and 1998 election cycles, only 22% to 28% of all SSFs registered with the Commission would have been required to file electronically. Thus, the smallest 72% to 78% (approximately 2,300 committees) of SSFs will continue to have the option of filing paper reports.

The NPRM requested comments on whether SSFs should have a lower threshold than other filers because their administrative costs can be paid by their connected organizations. One commenter opposed setting a different threshold because that would lead to confusion and burden SSFs with higher administrative costs than those of other types of committees. The Commission has concluded that it is not appropriate to treat SSFs differently than other types of committees. Therefore it is establishing a uniform $50,000 threshold for all filers.

The 1999 amendment to the FECA requires that “a person” who is required to file under the Act must file electronically if that person exceeds, or has reason to expect to exceed, the threshold. Therefore, in addition to the committees discussed above, new paragraph (a) of section 104.18 also applies the $50,000 threshold to any other persons defined in 11 CFR 100.10 who are required to file a “designation, statement or report” with the Commission. This applies only to individuals or qualified non-profit corporations (“QNCs”) making independent expenditures. 11 CFR 109.2. Thus, under the new rules, individuals and QNCs will be required to file electronically if they make independent expenditures in excess, or that are expected to be in excess, of $50,000 in a calendar year.

Data from the 1996 and 1998 election cycles show that the between 7% and 19% (between 2 and 24 persons) of other persons filing with the Commission had aggregate contributions or aggregate expenditures exceeding $50,000 in a calendar year. During that four year period, those persons who exceeded the threshold accounted for 33% and 50% of all activity by other persons in the non-election years, and as high as 94% of all activity by other persons in the Presidential election year and 91% in the midterm election year.

The effect of the final rules in section 104.18(a) on this category of filer will be small because historical data show that the number of these other filings is very small. For example, in 1995 and 1997 (the non-election years), only two of 28 and 23 filers (less than 10% in each case), respectively, would have been required to file electronically under the proposed rules. In 1996 and 1998 (1996 being a Presidential election year), the total numbers of filers who would have been affected were 24 of 128 filers (19%) and 13 of 75 filers (17%), respectively.

The historical data for the 1996 and 1998 election cycles show that if a $50,000 mandatory electronic filing threshold had been in place at that time, hundreds of thousands of pages would have been filed electronically, dramatically decreasing the amount of paper processed by both committees and the Commission. Additionally, the amount of financial data that would have been almost instantly disclosed by electronic filing would have been between $544 million and $1.2 billion.

The Commission received two comments on the $50,000 threshold. While one commenter strongly favored electronic filing to improve disclosure, it urged the Commission to adopt a much lower threshold of $5,000 because that is the level at which candidates are required to register and begin filing with the Commission. The Commission has determined that a $5,000 threshold is not practical. The 1999 amendment to the FECA requires persons to file electronically if they “have reason to expect to” exceed the threshold. Under 2 U.S.C. 431(2) and 11 CFR 100.3, an individual is not a candidate and is not required to register and report financial activity until he or she actually exceeds $5,000 in contributions or expenditures. Therefore, to set the electronic filing threshold at $5,000 would require individuals to report electronically before they become candidates under the FECA. Additionally, setting the threshold at $5,000 might be overly burdensome to smaller political committees and other persons who do not have access to the computer hardware required to file electronically.

The second commenter stated that its membership was split over the $50,000 proposed threshold. The commenter recommended raising the threshold to $100,000 per calendar year. The Commission believes that setting the threshold at $100,000 for all committees and other persons would vastly increase the amount of paper to be filed and processed, thus greatly decreasing the amount of information immediately available to the public. For example, according to historical data from the 1996 and 1998 election cycles, by raising the threshold from $50,000 to $100,000 an additional 512-610 committees would be allowed to file paper reports numbering between 2,906 and 6,406. Those reports represented 35,341 to 61,275 pages and between $34 million and $41 million in financial activity. The Commission estimates that processing the increased number of reports and pages at a $100,000 threshold would take a minimum of thirty days to complete. If those additional reports are filed electronically, the information will be on the Commission's web site within a few minutes and in the Commission's indexes within twenty-four to forty-eight hours of receipt.

The second commenter also stated that the $50,000 threshold might be too burdensome on some committees that just slightly exceed the threshold. The Commission notes that some states have laws requiring electronic filing at much lower thresholds. For example, a recent Georgia statute  4 sets the threshold for candidates at $25,000 beginning January 1, 2001. On January 1, 2003, the threshold for candidates drops to $10,000 and the threshold for independent committees ( e.g., clubs, associations and political action committees) will be $5,000. In New York, any committee that raises or spends, or has reason to expect to raise or spend, more than $1,000 in a calendar year must file electronically.  5 Given the lower levels set by some states, the Commission has concluded that the $50,000 will not be overly burdensome on political committees.

The 1999 amendment to the Act requires that persons who are required to file with the Commission must “maintain and file a designation, statement or report for any calendar year in electronic form accessible by computers if the person has, or has reason to expect to have, aggregate contributions or expenditures in excess of a threshold amount determined by the Commission * * *” [emphasis added] 113 Stat. 430, 476 (1999). The NPRM proposed calculating the threshold on a calendar year basis but sought comments on whether the threshold should be calculated on an “election cycle basis” instead. The NPRM asked whether an election cycle threshold should be used for authorized committees only or for all committees and other persons.

The Commission received one comment on this issue. The commenter stated that SSFs typically operate on a calendar year basis, and therefore there is no basis for calculating the threshold on an election cycle basis.

The Commission has concluded that the threshold must be determined on the calendar year basis for the following reasons. First, the Commission notes that Congress specifically provided for an election-cycle approach regarding reporting of receipts and disbursements by authorized committees in the same legislation that specified a calendar-year approach to the electronic filing thresholds. (Election cycle reporting by authorized committees is being addressed in a separate rulemaking. See NPRM 65 FR 25672 (May 3, 2000)). In contrast, the legislative language regarding electronic filing refers to the calendar year and not the election cycle. Thus, the Commission concludes that Congress intended the threshold for mandatory electronic filing to be set on a calendar year basis. Second, there is no mention of treating authorized committees differently than any other committee in either the plain language of the statutory amendment requiring mandatory electronic filing or in its legislative history. Nor is there support for an election cycle approach in the underlying FEC legislative recommendation. Third, since the voluntary electronic filing system requires that once committees start filing electronically they must do so for the remainder of the calendar year, and since the statute requires the voluntary system to be left in place, the Commission believes the intent of the underlying legislative recommendation and of Congress was to maintain the “for the calendar year” requirement.

New paragraph (a)(2) of 11 CFR 104.18 requires that once a filer exceeds, or has reason to expect to exceed, the threshold, the filer must begin filing electronically with his or her next regularly scheduled report and continue filing electronically for the remainder of the calendar year. Paragraph (a)(2) does not require persons to electronically refile any reports, statements or designations that were properly filed on paper earlier in the calendar year or earlier in the election cycle. For example, if an authorized committee files its April quarterly report on paper because it has not exceeded and does not expect to exceed the appropriate threshold and, if in June it exceeds the $50,000 threshold, the committee must electronically file its July quarterly report, but is not expected to go back and electronically refile the April report.

The Commission received one comment on when a committee must begin filing electronically upon exceeding, or having reason to expect to exceed, the threshold. The commenter recommended allowing monthly filers a 90-day grace period between the time they are required to begin filing electronically and their first electronically filed report. The commenter argued that monthly filers would not have time to convert to the electronic filing system if they unexpectedly exceeded the threshold. The commenter noted that quarterly filers who exceed the threshold in the early part of the quarter have a period of time before the first electronic report must be filed at the end of the quarter. The Commission cannot adopt this approach for several reasons. First, the 1999 amendment to the FECA requires political committees to file electronically upon exceeding, or having reason to expect to exceed, the threshold. The Commission finds no Congressional intent to allow a grace period. The Commission notes that other sections of the FECA allow a specific number of days before filing is required. For example, an individual has 15 days upon becoming a candidate to designate a principal campaign committee, and a principal campaign committee has 10 days upon being so designated to register with the Commission. 2 U.S.C. 432(e)(1) and 433(a). Had Congress intended to allow electronic filers a similar period of time, it would have so stated. Second, unauthorized committees that file monthly have the option to file quarterly instead. Since the new regulations take effect on January 1, 2001—a non-election year—monthly filers could opt to file under the non-election year quarterly filer schedule. In non-election years, quarterly filers file only mid-year and year-end reports. 6 Thus, the monthly filers will have sufficient time to convert to electronic filing.

Under electronic filing regulations at 11 CFR 104.18(b), voluntary electronic filers must continue filing electronically for the remainder of the calendar year unless the Commission determines that an extraordinary and unforeseen circumstance makes electronic filing impracticable. The Commission sought comments on whether a similar provision allowing a committee or other person to stop filing electronically within the calendar year due to extraordinary and unforeseen circumstances should be included in the proposed rules for mandatory electronic filers. The Commission received no comments on this issue. Because the Commission does not have statutory authority to waive reporting requirements under these circumstances and because it is the intention of the new regulations that persons who are required to file electronically but who file on paper be treated as non-filers ( see “4. Non-filers,” infra ) the Commission has determined that no such waiver can be established for mandatory electronic filers.

The NPRM, in paragraph (a)(3) of 11 CFR 104.18 proposed two tests to determine when a filer has reason to expect to exceed the threshold. (1) A filer should expect to have financial activity above the $50,000 threshold if it exceeded this amount during the comparable year of the previous election cycle; or (2) A filer should expect to have financial activity exceeding the threshold if the committee's aggregate contributions or expenditures exceeded the threshold during the previous calendar year. In addition, comments were sought on three other possible approaches that were not included in the proposed rules—(1) Should the Commission base the expectation solely on the committee's or person's own projections during the year? If so, at what point during the year will political committees and other persons be expected to make the projection? Should it be a one-time forecast at the beginning of the year or a rolling projection that changes as necessary throughout the calendar year? (2) Should new filers having no historical data on which to base a projection, base their expectations of aggregate contributions and expenditures on historical data for similarly situated committees in the previous election cycle; or should such new committees be presumed to have no reason to expect to exceed the threshold until such time as they actually do so? (3) Should a filer have reason to expect to exceed the threshold if it raises or spends more than one quarter of the proposed yearly threshold in the first calendar quarter, or if it raises or spends more than half the threshold in the first half of the calendar year? For example, should a committee be required to file electronically if it raises $30,000 in the first calendar quarter on the grounds that it has reason to expect to exceed the $50,000 threshold within the calendar year?

The Commission received one comment on this issue. The commenter stated that under the first proposed test (the “comparable year” test), its members would be able to make a determination of whether they have reason to expect to exceed the threshold. The commenter pointed out, however, that many committees' non-election year receipts are much lower than the previous, election-year receipts. Therefore, the commenter believed that the second proposed test (the “previous year” test) would not provide an accurate expectation of contributions or expenditures for many committees.

New paragraph (a)(3)(i) contains a combination of the “comparable year” and the “previous year” tests proposed in the NPRM. While the Commission understands the commenter's concern with the “previous year” test, the Commission believes that the administrative inconvenience of going from electronic to paper filing for filers fluctuating above and below the threshold in election and non-election years, respectively, will be overly burdensome on the filers, as well as on the Commission. Therefore, the Commission is combining the two tests proposed in the NPRM to require that once a committee or other person actually exceeds the threshold, that committee or other person has reason to expect to exceed the threshold in the following two calendar years. For example, if a committee exceeds the threshold in May of 2001, it must electronically file its mid-year report due on July 31, and its year end report due on January 31 of the following year. Furthermore, under new paragraph (a)(3)(i), such a committee has reason to expect to exceed the threshold in 2002 and 2003, and must electronically file its reports for those years.

However, the new rules also contain an exception to electronic filing for certain candidates who do not intend to run in the next federal election. To qualify for this exception, an authorized committee must have $50,000 or less in net debts outstanding on January 1 of the year following the election and must anticipate terminating prior to the next election year. In addition, under this exception, the candidate must not have qualified as a candidate for the next election and must not intend to become a candidate for federal office in the next election. The Commission anticipates that this exception is likely to apply to the campaign committees of many candidates who have lost the election. Candidate's committees meeting these conditions are not likely to have financial activity in excess of the $50,000 threshold after the election because their only financial activity is likely to relate to raising funds to pay off their debts, which total less than $50,000.

The commenter also noted that the third alternative proffered in the NPRM, the “calendar quarter” test, would require a committee to extrapolate annual estimates based on first quarter or first half year receipts. The Commission understands the commenter's objection with regard to the “calendar quarter” test, however, the Commission concluded that this test will provide a limited means by which filers without any historical data would have reason to expect to exceed the threshold, thus requiring them to file electronically before they actually meet the threshold, more rapidly disclosing their financial activity. Therefore, the “calendar quarter” test is being added to the final rules as a test only for those filers who have no historical data.

New paragraph (c) adds a definition of reports. The 1999 amendment to the FECA defines report as “. . . a report, designation, or statement required by this Act to be filed with the Commission.” Thus, for purposes of 11 CFR 104.18, report means any statement required by the FECA and filed with the Commission. Therefore, reports, designations and statements that are required by the regulations but not the FECA, or that are required to be filed with the Secretary of the Senate, are not subject to the mandatory electronic filing regulations. The Commission received no comments on this provision.

The Commission received one comment on paragraph (f) (former paragraph (d)) of section 104.18 regarding amending electronic reports. The commenter urged the Commission to develop a system whereby electronic filers can file letter amendments electronically, rather than filing amended forms electronically. The commenter argued that letter amendments are easier to file and provide greater opportunity for explanation. The Commission's voluntary electronic filing system has required amendments to electronic reports to be filed electronically since the system's inception in 1996. This process has worked well and has provided sufficient information in amendments. Further, since electronic filing should decrease the number of errors in reports, the number and complexity of amendments may decrease as well.

The Commission is deleting the requirement from paragraph (f) that amended reports contain electronic flags or markings that point to the portions of the report that are being amended. The Commission now requires only that amendments comply with the formatting specifications contained in the Electronic Filing Specification Requirements document.

Previously, under 11 CFR 109.2(a), persons had the option of disclosing independent expenditures by filing either FEC Form 5 or a signed statement. Paragraph (a) is being revised to clarify that electronic filers do not have the option of reporting independent expenditures via signed statement. Beginning with reporting periods after December 31, 2000, anyone who exceeds, or has reason to expect to exceed, the $50,000 threshold, must disclose these independent expenditures electronically on FEC Form 5. Please note that FEC Form 5 must be notarized. Therefore, under paragraph (h) of 11 CFR 104.18, the filer must submit the notary seal and signature either by submitting a paper copy of FEC Form 5 in addition to the electronic form, or by including a digitized version of the notary seal and signature as a separate file in the electronic submission. The Commission anticipates that its free FECFile software will generate FEC Form 5 in the near future. The Commission received no comments on this section.

Previously, qualified nonprofit corporations (“QNCs”) could disclose independent expenditures by either filing FEC Form 5 or by filing a signed statement. Revised paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of 11 CFR 114.10 clarifies that if a QNC exceeds, or has reason to expect to exceed, the $50,000 threshold, it must disclose its independent expenditures electronically on FEC Form 5. Please note that FEC Form 5 must be notarized. Therefore, under paragraph (h) of 11 CFR 104.18, the filer may submit the notary seal and signature either by filing a paper copy of FEC Form 5 in addition to the electronic form or by including a digitized version of the notary seal and signature as a separate file in the electronic submission. The Commission anticipates that its free FECFile software will generate FEC Form 5 in the near future. The Commission received no comments on this section.

Former paragraph (b)(11) of 11 CFR 9003.1 stated that, as a condition of receiving public funding, Presidential candidates are required to agree to file electronically if their data is computerized. The Commission is removing electronic filing as a condition for receiving public funding because these federally financed Presidential candidates will have reason to expect to exceed and, in fact, will exceed the $50,000 threshold and, therefore, are required to file electronically. The Commission received no comments on this section.

Previously, under paragraph (b)(13) of this section, as a condition of receiving public funding Presidential candidates in the primary elections were required to agree to file electronically if their data is computerized. This requirement is being deleted for the reasons explained above. The Commission received no comments on this section.

The Commission's computer systems are currently capable of receiving all reports that are required under the new regulations. However, the Commission's FECFile software, which is available from the agency at no cost, does not currently generate all required forms. For example, the FECFile software does not currently generate FEC Form 1 and 2 (Statement of Organization and Statement of Candidacy, respectively), FEC Form 3P for Presidential candidates, FEC Form 4 for Convention and Host Committees to report their receipts and disbursements, or FEC Form 5 for persons other than political committees reporting independent expenditures. The Commission plans to update the FECFile software to generate FEC Forms 1 and 2 by January 1, 2001, and anticipates that FECFile will generate FEC Forms 3P, 4 and 5 in the near future. The Commission received one comment suggesting that the Commission's software should be updated to allow committees to import data from the software they currently use for reporting to FECFile. The Commission notes that committees are not required to use the Commission's filing software. The Commission's computer system is designed to accept properly formatted reports using other software packages. The Commission's Data Systems Development Division is working with the software vendor community to assist the vendors in updating their programs to comply with these mandatory electronic filing regulations. The comment was forwarded to the FEC Data Systems Development Division.

The NPRM proposed maintaining the standardization requirements that are present in the current voluntary electronic filing system. When the voluntary electronic filing system was designed, the Commission created “The Federal Election Commission's Electronic Filing Specifications Requirements” (EFSR) document and invited comment on that document at that time. The EFSR is available at no charge on the Commission's web site. The Commission is updating the EFSR and intends to use specifications embodied in the updated EFSR for this mandatory electronic filing program. The Commission uses several means of communication to relay changes in the EFSR or other system changes to electronic filers, including special notices, the FEC's web site, the Record newsletter, and electronic mail.

Please note that the validation program that checks incoming reports is also being updated. For example, upon completion of this update, the program will no longer accept forms on which the figures disclosed within the report do not add up to the figures reported on the detailed summary page and forms indicating the incorrect type of report.

The Commission received no comments on the EFSR or the validation program.

The Commission currently accepts properly formatted electronic reports on diskettes (either hand delivered or sent by other delivery means such as U.S. Postal Service). Although the Commission has no plans at this time to cease accepting electronic reports on disk, most electronic filers find it more convenient to file via electronic upload through an Internet connection.

The FECA and the new regulations at 11 CFR 104.18 make electronic filing mandatory for those political committees, candidates, and other persons who exceed or who have reason to expect to exceed the threshold set by the Commission. Consequently, political committees, candidates, and other persons who are required to file electronically, but who fail to do so, may be subject to the Commission's enforcement process for non-filers and may have their names published as non-filers under 2 U.S.C. 437g(b) and 438(a)(7). This includes those who are required to file electronically but who file paper reports instead. Additionally, in 1999, Congress amended 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(4) and (6)(A) to authorize the Commission to impose an administrative fine on late and non-filers pursuant to a schedule of civil money penalties. The Commission recently promulgated final rules and penalty schedules. See 65 FR 31787 (May 19, 2000). The Commission received no comments on this issue.

These final rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The basis of this certification is that the Commission's thresholds are set at a sufficiently high level that most, if not all, small political committees are not required to file electronically, although they could continue to do so voluntarily. In the event that any small committees do exceed the proposed threshold, the economic impact is not significant because the committees may obtain the FECFile software from the Commission at no cost, and the Commission anticipates this software will generate all required forms.

Section 203(a) of the Act establishes a limit, derived from a worker's primary insurance amount (PIA), on the total monthly benefits to which dependents or survivors may be entitled on the basis of one worker's earnings record (the family maximum). Under our previous regulations, the benefits of each claimant entitled on the worker's earnings record were reduced proportionally so that the total monthly benefits of those entitled on the record in one month did not exceed the family maximum. In calculating total monthly benefits, we included all benefits of the claimants who were entitled on the worker's record without considering whether the benefits were actually due or payable.

Our previous regulations were challenged in court by the child of a worker who was disabled. The worker and his dependent child, the plaintiff in this case, began receiving Social Security benefits on the worker's earnings record. The worker's spouse became entitled to retirement benefits (old-age benefits) based on her own earnings record. Under section 202(r) of the Act, she was deemed also to have applied for and become entitled to wife's benefits based on the worker's earnings record. SSA determined that because the monthly retirement benefits that she was entitled to receive on her own exceeded the amount of her monthly wife's benefits on the worker's earnings record, she could only receive payment for the retirement benefits payable on her own earnings record. However, SSA counted the benefits to which she was entitled on the worker's earnings record, but which were not actually paid to her, toward the monthly maximum amount of benefits payable on the worker's earnings record (the family maximum). Because the total monthly amount of the worker's disability benefits, the plaintiff's child's benefits, and the wife's benefits exceeded the monthly family maximum limit, SSA reduced the amount of the plaintiff's and the wife's monthly benefits.

In Parisi By Cooney v. Chater, 69 F.3d 614 (1st Cir., 1995), the court held that, when computing a reduction under the family maximum pursuant to section 203(a) of the Act, SSA should not include the monthly benefit that would otherwise be payable to a spouse if payment of that spouse's benefit is precluded (by section 202(k)(3)(A) of the Act), due to the spouse's dual entitlement to a higher benefit on the spouse's own earnings record. To implement the Court's ruling in the First Circuit, we issued an Acquiescence Ruling (AR) on January 13, 1997 (62 FR 1792). Under this ruling (AR 97-1(1)), which applied only to claims for benefits in the First Circuit, SSA considers only the amount of monthly dependent's or survivor's benefits actually due or payable to the dually-entitled person when determining the amount of the benefit reduction because of the family maximum. As a result of the Court's decision, we reassessed our interpretation in our prior regulations and consistent with our rules on acquiescence which were designed to restore national uniformity to our programs, we decided to adopt the court's holdings nationwide.

We amended § 404.403 of our regulations by adding a new paragraph (a)(5). This new paragraph specifies that, in cases involving benefits subject to reduction for both the family maximum and dual entitlement, we consider only the amount of monthly dependent's or survivor's benefits actually due or payable to the dually-entitled person when we determine how much to reduce total monthly benefits because of the family maximum. We included examples of how we compute benefits payable in such cases.

These changes are effective for benefits payable for months after September 1999.

On October 27, 1999, we published the interim final rules in the Federal Register at 64 FR 57774 and provided a 60-day period for interested individuals and organizations to comment. We received comments from five individuals and organizations concerning this action. One comment was from the firm that represented the plaintiff in the Parisi by Cooney v. Chater case. They expressed their pleasure that SSA was making this change nationwide. Following are summaries of the comments and our responses to them.

Comment: One commenter said that a person entitled as a husband or wife should still receive full benefits on his or her own record.

Response: When a husband or wife is entitled to benefits as a spouse and to benefits on his or her own earnings record, he or she receives the full benefit on his or her own record. This is in accordance with section 202(k)(3)(A) of the Act and is unaffected by these rules.

Comment: The same commenter believes that when a person can receive a higher benefit as a spouse, the family maximum should apply on the record where the spouse benefit is payable.

Response: When an excess benefit as a spouse is payable on a record, the benefits on that record are subject to the family maximum. While the family maximum will still apply if other family members are entitled, this change will allow more to be paid on that record because only the amount actually paid to the dually entitled person will be considered.

Comment: This commenter also felt children should be paid on the record with the higher benefit and those benefits should be based on the family maximums from both records.

Response: When each parent is entitled on his or her own record, children are paid on the record with the higher benefit amount. Benefits to the children are based on the total of both family maximums. This is in accordance with section 203(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Comment: This commenter finished by stating that the regulations should be adopted because they will liberalize the family maximum restrictions.

Response: These regulations do liberalize the family maximum provisions and will result in higher benefit amounts to those affected.

Comment: Two commenters believe the family maximum should be eliminated because it limits the benefits payable. One felt this is unfair to those with large families. One also believes workers should be allowed to opt out of Social Security coverage.

Response: The family maximum is set forth in the Act itself, and could be eliminated only by legislation. Similarly, legislative changes would be needed to permit workers to opt out of Social Security coverage. Such issues are beyond the scope of both these regulations and our rulemaking authority.

Comment: Another commenter suggested that we include an example of how benefits would be calculated for a surviving spouse who is also entitled on her own record.

Response: These regulations do not change the way benefits are computed for a surviving spouse who is also entitled on her own record. She will still receive her own benefit first, plus any excess over that amount which is payable to her as a surviving spouse.

Comment: The same commenter asked how these regulations affect the spouse of a retired military person because the military Survivor's Benefits program is affected by Social Security Offset.

Response: These regulations do not change how her Social Security benefit is computed. There is no change in how the benefit affects the receipt of a military Survivor's Benefit.

For the reasons discussed above, we have not changed the interim final rules based on the public comments. Therefore, the interim final rules are adopted as final without change.

FDA has discovered that two errors have become incorporated into the agency's current food additive regulations. In an amendment to 21 CFR 178.2010, published in the Federal Register of December 27, 1999 (64 FR 72273), there were errors regarding the food type VI-B. This document corrects those errors. Publication of this document constitutes final action under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). FDA has determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary because this amendment is nonsubstantive.

In the Federal Register of March 4, 1988 (53 FR 7076), FDA published a final monograph for OTC ophthalmic drug products in part 349 (21 CFR part 349). That monograph includes four ophthalmic vasoconstrictor active ingredients in § 349.18. Section 349.3(i) defines an ophthalmic vasoconstrictor as “A pharmacologic agent which, when applied topically to the mucous membranes of the eye, causes transient constriction of conjunctival blood vessels.” Section 349.75(a) and (b) provide that these products are labeled with the statement of identity “redness reliever” or “vasoconstrictor (redness reliever)” “eye” or “ophthalmic” [dosage form, e.g., “drops”] and with the indication for use “Relieves redness of the eye due to minor eye irritations.” Section 349.75(c)(2) requires these products to bear the warning statement: “If you have glaucoma, do not use this product except under the advice and supervision of a doctor.”

In the Federal Register of February 23, 1998 (63 FR 8888), the agency published a proposed amendment of the monograph for OTC ophthalmic drug products to revise this glaucoma warning by adding the words “narrow angle” before the word “glaucoma” and to add a new warning for ophthalmic vasoconstrictor drug products that states: “Pupils may become dilated (enlarged).” The agency also invited comment on whether to add the words “This is temporary and not serious” as a required or optional statement after the proposed new warning. The agency explained that these proposed labeling revisions were based primarily on the labeling approved in recent years for three new drug applications (NDA's) for ophthalmic drug products containing pheniramine maleate and naphazoline hydrochloride and adverse drug experience (ADE) reports submitted to those NDA's.

Interested persons were invited to submit comments on the proposal and on the agency's economic impact determination by May 26, 1998. In response to the proposed monograph amendment, one trade association of OTC drug manufacturers submitted a comment, a copy of which is on public display in the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

The agency has considered the comment in proceeding with this final rule. A summary of the comment with FDA's response follows.

The comment supported the agency's rationale for the proposed warning regarding narrow angle glaucoma, stating that the clarification of the warning was clinically rational and in the best interest of the public health. The agency is including this revision in this final rule.

The comment disagreed with the warning statement about pupils becoming dilated, stating that the warning is not appropriate for single ingredient ophthalmic vasoconstrictor drug products. The comment noted that the agency's proposal is based on ADE reports from combination antihistamine-vasoconstrictor ophthalmic products, while pupil dilation reports for single ingredient vasoconstrictor ophthalmic products are rare, given the high incidence of exposure to these products. The comment provided comparative figures to show that the ADE profile is different for the two types of products, concluding that the numbers do not justify a new warning on single ingredient products. The comment requested the agency to withdraw its proposal for this pupil dilation warning for single ingredient, monographed ophthalmic vasoconstrictor drug products.

The agency does not accept the comment's suggestion. Both the Advisory Review Panel on OTC Ophthalmic Drug Products (45 FR 30002 at 30033, May 6, 1980) and standard text books (Ref. 1) state that pupil dilation is a known pharmacologic effect of sympathomimetic drugs such as these ophthalmic vasoconstrictors. In both the combination (antihistamine-vasoconstrictor) and the single ingredient (vasoconstrictor) products, the vasoconstrictor ingredient is considered the cause of the pupil dilation. The difference in ADE reports between single ingredient and combination products may be because the combination products are marketed under NDA's, which have ADE reporting requirements. The agency stated in the proposal and concludes here that it would be beneficial and informative to consumers who use these products (single ingredient or combination) to know that their pupils may become enlarged temporarily. Therefore, the agency is including a warning in this final rule.

The comment contended that the pupil dilation warning appears to have little practical relationship to the goal of reducing ADE reports to the agency. The comment added that the potential for pupil dilation is not serious and, thus, questioned the need to mention the event in product labeling. The comment did not offer any alternative language for the warning.

The agency believes that the comment misunderstood the agency's objective, which was not to reduce the number of ADE reports to the agency. Rather, the agency's objective in proposing to add the warning was to inform consumers about this effect of the drug and to improve their self-use of these products. The agency concludes that information in the product's labeling about pupil dilation will enable many consumers to continue using these products and not discontinue use after one or two instillations because they do not know to expect possible temporary pupil enlargement to occur. The agency has decided to combine the second statement discussed in the proposal (“This is temporary and not serious.”) with the first statement in a shortened version in this final rule. The warning, in the new OTC drug labeling format, now reads: “When using this product [in bold type] pupils may become enlarged temporarily.”

The agency concludes that adding the following new warning in § 349.75(c)(5) would benefit consumers who use an OTC ophthalmic drug product containing a vasoconstrictor active ingredient: “When using this product [in bold type] pupils may become enlarged temporarily.” The agency is amending § 349.75(c)(2) to add the words “narrow angle” before “glaucoma.” The warning now reads, in the new OTC drug labeling format: “Ask a doctor before use if you have [in bold type] narrow angle glaucoma.”

1. “Drug Facts and Comparisons,” Facts and Comparisons, St. Louis, p. 483b, 1998 ed.

FDA has examined the impacts of this final rule under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq .). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, if a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, an agency must analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of the rule on small entities.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires that agencies prepare a written statement and economic analysis before proposing any rule that may result in an expenditure in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation).

The agency concludes that this final rule is consistent with the principles set out in the Executive Order and in these two statutes. The final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive Order and so is not subject to review under the Executive Order. This section constitutes the agency's final regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Further, because this final rule makes no mandates on government entities and will result in expenditures less than $100 million in any one year, FDA need not prepare additional analyses under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

The purpose of this final rule is to add a new warning and to revise an existing warning for OTC ophthalmic vasoconstrictor drug products. These warning statements should improve consumers' self use of these drug products and enable some consumers with glaucoma to self medicate when necessary. The agency stated in the proposal that manufacturers of these products will incur costs to relabel their products to include the new labeling information (63 FR 8888 at 8889). The agency indicated that relabeling costs of the type required by this rule generally average about $2,000 to $3,000 per stock keeping unit (SKU) (individual products, packages, and sizes). In determining this cost, the agency did not believe that manufacturers would need to increase the package size to add the few additional words in the new warning. Almost all of these products are marketed in an outer carton which should have adequate space for the additional information. The agency noted that 50 manufacturers, most of which are small manufacturers, together produce about 100 SKU's of OTC ophthalmic vasoconstrictor drug products marketed under the monograph. There may be a few additional small manufacturers or products in the marketplace that are not identified in the sources FDA reviewed. Assuming that there are about 100 affected OTC SKU's in the marketplace, FDA estimated that the rule would impose total one-time compliance costs on industry for relabeling of about $200,000 to $300,000. The agency did not receive any comments on these estimates.

The agency believes the actual cost could be lower for several reasons. First, most of the label changes will be made by private label small manufacturers that tend to use simpler and less expensive labeling. However, the final rule will not require any new reporting and recordkeeping activities. Therefore, no additional professional skills are needed. Second, the agency has made the compliance dates for this final rule the same as the dates for these monographed products to be in compliance with the new standardized format and standardized content requirements for the labeling of OTC drug products (21 CFR 201.66), which are now May 16, 2002 (and May 16, 2003, for products with annual sales less than $25,000). Thus, all required labeling changes can be made at the same time, thereby reducing the labeling cost of this final rule.

The agency considered but rejected several labeling alternatives: (1) A shorter or longer implementation period, and (2) an exemption from coverage for small entities. While the agency believes that consumers would benefit from having this new labeling in place as soon as possible, the agency also acknowledges that coordination of this labeling change with implementation of the new OTC “Drug Facts” labeling may significantly reduce the costs of this final rule. Both a shorter and a longer time period for this rule may cost more if firms would have to undertake two successive labeling revisions. In addition, a longer time period would unnecessarily delay the benefit of the new labeling to consumers who self-medicate with these OTC ophthalmic vasoconstrictor drug products. The agency rejected an exemption for small entities because the new labeling information is also needed by consumers who purchase products marketed by those entities. However, the agency is providing a compliance date of May 16, 2003 for products with annual sales less than $25,000.

This analysis shows that the agency has undertaken important steps to reduce the burden to small entities. Thus, this economic analysis, together with other relevant sections of this document, serves as the agency's final regulatory flexibility analysis, as required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

FDA concludes that the labeling requirements in this final rule are not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget because they do not constitute a “collection of information” under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq .). Rather, the warning statements are a “public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal Government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public” (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)).

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.31(a) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

In the final rule (FR Doc. 00-14150) published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2000 (65 FR 36617), make the following correction:

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

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

The Agency has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

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

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

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

The Associate Director, Mitigation Directorate, certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because final or modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required to establish and maintain community eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

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

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

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

Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

This is a summary of the Commission's Order , ET Docket 94-124, FCC 00-161, adopted May 8, 2000 and May 17, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

1. The NRAO filed a Petition for Reconsideration requesting a more stringent spurious emission limit of 2 pW/cm 2 rather than the limit of 1000 pW/cm 2 for vehicle radar systems operating in the 76-77 GHz band. NEDD filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the coordination channel and transmitter identification requirements of the spectrum etiquette for unlicensed operation in the 59-64 GHz band. These petitions requested reconsideration of the Commission's Third Report and Order (“Third Order”) in this proceeding, 63 FR 42276, August 7, 1998.

2. The NRAO requests a more stringent spurious emission limit of 2 pW/cm 2 as measured at three meters for unlicensed devices operating in the 76-77 GHz band. The NRAO petition provides no new information to support its request; it instead points to comments filed by the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Radio Frequencies (“CORF”) earlier in this proceeding as the basis for its request. NRAO alleges that, in the Third Order, the Commission did not adequately address the specific concerns or calculations set forth by CORF, nor did it explain the basis of its beliefs in rejecting CORF's proposed limits in favor of those recommended by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”). NRAO believes that such a failure to address the key argument is arbitrary and capricious and does not constitute reasoned decision-making.

3. Our review reveals that CORF essentially assumes that the vehicular radars will be within boresight of or targeted at the radio astronomy receive antenna and be capable of radiating a coherent and focused emission directly into a 0 dBi side lobe of a radio astronomy antenna without taking into account any attenuation from the atmosphere, intervening terrain, angular separation or elevation separation that may be present. In addition, we note that IEEE Vehicular Radar Standards Subcommittee document VRS-96-6 states that radio astronomy observatories typically have control over access to a distance of one kilometer from the telescopes to provide protection from interference caused by automobile spark plugs and other uncontrolled RFI sources. It is unclear from reading the comments why CORF selected a distance of 250 meters as a distance beyond which radio astronomy operations are not able to restrict operation of RF devices. We are aware that the radio astronomy observatory at Kitt Peak, Arizona may have had a controlled distance of less than 1 kilometer due to the public access afforded the site. We also note that NRAO has announced that they will be closing the millimeter wave telescope at Kitt Peak on July 1, 2000. The record in this proceeding has not made us aware of any other radio astronomy observatories that offer similar essential public access. We note that the IEEE standard implies that radio astronomy observatories do have control of areas surrounding their receive antennas. As a result there may be interference mitigation procedures, such as erecting a fence, that could be utilized to further minimize the potential for receiving any interference from the vehicular radars. Given the limited number of radio astronomy observatories and the potential benefit of these unlicensed devices we encourage the radio astronomy community and the automobile industry to work together to develop interference mitigation procedures.

4. We have carefully considered NRAO's petition for reconsideration and related comments and determine that the public interest will be best served by adopting rules that will permit the introduction of these unlicensed vehicular radar devices. We conclude that the public interest would best be served by maintaining the spurious emission level of 1000 pW/cm 2 , which provides adequate protection to radio astronomy observatories without being unreasonably restrictive for unlicensed vehicular radar devices. Accordingly, NRAO's petition for reconsideration is denied.

5. In the Third Order the Commission adopted a spectrum etiquette for unlicensed operation in the 59-64 GHz band. Included in the spectrum etiquette is the reservation of the 59.0-59.05 GHz band as a designated coordination channel. In addition, the etiquette requires that any transmitter operating with a peak power equal to or greater than 0.1 mW in the 59.05-64 GHz band must transmit once every second a transmitter identification data block that contains the following: (1) The FCC identifier, which is programmed at the factory; (2) a manufacturer's serial number, also programmed at the factory; and (3) at least 24 bytes of user definable data.

6. In its petition, NEDD states that the requirement for a special coordination channel at 59.0-59.05 GHz will impose an unfair burden on developers of point to point systems and appears to violate the spirit of unencumbered commercial development. NEDD further states that because there is no specific protocol or definition for the transmitter identification data block and no database for these identifiers, it appears that the Millimeter Wave Communications Working Group (“MWCWG”) has proposed this etiquette to gain a tactical advantage over other innovators. NEDD provides no new facts to support its assertions.

7. The Commission reserved 50 MHz of spectrum and named it a coordination channel. However, we believe that the 50 MHz of spectrum would be more aptly referred to as a reserve channel. The reserve channel was established in order to save a 50 MHz block of spectrum for use as a future test bed to determine techniques for mitigating or eliminating interference that may occur between different unlicensed transmitters operating in the 59-64 GHz band. We believe that NEDD may have viewed the coordination channel as a requirement to utilize the 59.0-59.05 GHz band to coordinate the simultaneous operation of multiple unlicensed devices. As indicated in our rules, the 50 MHz of spectrum can only be utilized after receiving approval under the experimental authorization provisions of part 5 of the Commission's rules. As a result, our rules do not require any operation in the 50 MHz of reserved spectrum.

8. In order to provide manufacturers with maximum flexibility in the design of unlicensed devices that operate in the 59-64 GHz band, no specific method of encoding the transmitter identification was included in the Commission's rules. In its opposition to the NEDD petition, the MWCWG notes that the Commission's rules require each application for equipment authorization to specify how interested parties can obtain sufficient information, at no cost, to enable them to detect fully and decode the transmitter identification information, which can be used to identify a source of interference. MWCWG observes that this requirement simply provides manufacturers and operators with a tool to mitigate and resolve interference among unlicensed users of the 59-64 GHz band, without the intervention of the FCC.

9. We agree with MWCWG's observation that the sharing and coordination benefits provided by the transmitter identification requirement outweigh any burden it imposes. We find that the transmitter identification requirement does not thwart or delay development or deployment of unlicensed devices. Nor does the rule provide any tactical advantage to any manufacturer because all manufacturers of unlicensed devices that operate in the 59-64 GHz band have to comply with the requirement. Accordingly, the petition for reconsideration filed by NEDD is denied.

10. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, It is Ordered that the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by National Radio Astronomy Observatory and New England Digital Distribution, Inc., Are Denied.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order (Report and Order) in the Matter of Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, FCC 00-56, adopted February 17, 2000 and released March 6, 2000. The full text of the item is available for inspection and copying during the weekday hours of 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or copies may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW, Suite CY-B400, Washington, DC 20554, phone (202) 857-3800. This Report and Order contains new or modified information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified information collections contained in this proceeding.

1. In January 1997, we released a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on the quality of TRS service. Based on the record developed in the NOI, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed rules to enhance the quality of telecommunications relay service. In response, the Commission received numerous suggestions on ways to improve TRS. After considering the many comments received, we released this Report and Order. These rules will greatly improve the quality of TRS and fulfill section 225's mandate by increasing the availability and usefulness of the telecommunications system for Americans with speech and hearing disabilities.

2. Specifically, in the Report and Order, we find that the statutory definition of telecommunications relay services is not limited to relay services using a TTY, and includes STS, VRI and non-English language relay services; require that common carriers provide STS and interstate Spanish relay services by March 1, 2001; do not require VRI, but encourage it by permitting the recovery of the costs of both intrastate and interstate VRI calls from the interstate TRS Fund.

3. Speech-to-speech relay service, or STS, involves the use of specially trained CAs who understand the speech patterns of persons with speech disabilities and can repeat the words spoken. The availability of STS gives persons with certain speech disabilities an efficient alternative to using a TTY, which requires the purchase and use of TTY hardware and which also can be a cumbersome form of conversation given the typing involved. Video relay interpreting, or VRI, allows TRS users with hearing or speech disabilities to communicate with voice telephone users through video equipment installed at the user's premises and at the relay center. This video link allows a CA to view and interpret the caller's sign language and relay the conversation to a voice caller.

4. In addition, in the Report and Order, we require that all relay services, whether mandatory or voluntary, funded by intrastate and interstate TRS Funds must comply with minimum service quality standards, which modifies the rules to accommodate STS and VRI service.

5. To improve the minimum standards for TRS, we modify the speed of answer requirement so that consumers will reach a communications assistant more quickly; impose a minimum typing speed of 60 wpm for CAs in order to speed the transmission of calls using TTYs; and amend the rules to minimize disruption during relay calls by establishing a minimum time that a CA must stay with a call.

6. The remainder of the Report and Order establishes that information gathered by relay providers on individual caller preferences and used to complete TRS calls is not customer proprietary network information (CPNI) under section 222 of the Act, must be transferred during a change in TRS provider and cannot be used for any purpose other than the handling of TRS calls; requires TRS providers to automatically and immediately transfer emergency calls to the appropriate 911 operator and relay the caller's number to the operator orally; clarifies that the existing rule requires outreach to all callers and for all forms of TRS; concludes that section 225 by its terms does not prohibit us from requiring relay services to accommodate enhanced or information services; requires states to notify the Commission about substantive changes in their TRS programs within 60 days of when they occur; adopts the Commission's informal complaint process for TRS complaints; and requires state programs and interstate TRS providers to maintain a log of consumer complaints that allege a violation of the minimum standards and annually report to the FCC the number of complaints received.

7. As required by the Paperwork Reduction of 1995, the NPRM invited the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the proposed information collection requirements contained in the NPRM. The changes to our information collection requirements on which we sought comment in the NPRM included the requirement that, except during network failure, TRS shall answer 85% of all calls by a CA prepared to place the TRS call, within 10 seconds of the time the incoming call reaches the TRS provider's network, and no more than 30 seconds shall elapse between receipt of dialing information and the dialing of the requested number. This calculation is required to be performed daily.

8. OMB's comment on this requirement urges us to explore the use of alternative means, including statistical sampling or periodic performance monitoring, to ensure that the ten second answering portion of the requirement is met, rather than require TRS operators to calculate response times as set forth in 47 CFR 64.604(b)(2). Because of the nature of the requirement that the calculation measures, we feel that statistical sampling or periodic performance monitoring will be inappropriate and inadequate. This requirement has been misinterpreted and misapplied by some TRS providers and our modification seeks to decrease the likelihood that the misinterpretation continues. We note that the speed-of-answer requirement is an existing rule and that, in this Report and Order, we simply modify that rule to further minimize delays in placing TRS calls. The new rule now forecloses the possibility that the TRS call will be placed in a distribution queue for a long period of time by requiring that a TRS call be handled immediately, whether by CA or an automated process.

9. In addition, OMB states that we must demonstrate that calculating the speed-of-answer on a daily basis has some practical utility to justify the burden it imposes. As set forth in this Report and Order, our main goal is to make the TRS calling experience functionally equivalent to the experience of voice callers. By modifying our speed-of-answer requirement to result in the TRS call being placed more quickly, we feel we meet that goal. As the Report and Order explains, reaching a CA ready to place the relay call is equivalent to getting a dial tone when picking up the phone. Thus, this portion of the call is the first crucial step to making the TRS calling experience functionally equivalent to placing a voice call and should be demonstrated daily.

10. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the NPRM in this docket. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 604.

1. This rulemaking proceeding was initiated in order to improve the level and quality of service provided through TRS for the benefit of the community of TRS users. The Commission's goal was to improve the overall effectiveness of the TRS program, and to improve the Commission's oversight of certified state TRS programs and its ability to compel compliance with the federal mandatory minimum standards for TRS.

12. None.

13. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The Regulatory Flexibility Act defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A small business concern is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 (1996). The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the Commission publishes annually in its Telecommunications Industry Revenue report, regarding the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). Telecommunications Industry Revenue, Figure 2.

14. TRS Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entity specifically applicable to providers of telecommunications relay services (TRS). The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632 (1996). The SBA defines such establishments to be small businesses when they have no more than 1,500 employees. 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 4813. According to our most recent data, there are 11 interstate TRS providers, which consist of interexchange carriers, local exchange carriers, state-managed entities, and non-profit organizations. We do not have data specifying the number of these providers that are either dominant in their field of operations, are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, and we are thus unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of TRS providers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. We note, however, that these providers include large interexchange carriers and incumbent local exchange carriers. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 11 small TRS providers that may be affected by the final rules.

15. Reporting and Recordkeeping: This Report and Order involves several reporting requirements. First, it requires that certified states notify the Commission of substantive changes in their state TRS program within 60 days of the effective date of the change. Second, states are required to file documentation demonstrating that the state TRS program remains in compliance with the Commission's mandatory minimum standards following the substantive change. Third, the Report and Order requires TRS administrators to submit the name and address of a contact person or office for filing consumer complaints about intrastate TRS service to the Commission by June 30, 2000. Finally, on an annual basis, beginning May 1, 2001, and upon the Commission's request, states are required to file a copy of their TRS complaint logs.

16. Other Compliance Requirements: The rules adopted in this Report and Order require that all common carriers providing voice transmission services must ensure that STS services are available to callers with speech disabilities throughout their service areas within one year of the publication in the Federal Register of this Report and Order. These rules will affect certified states. The rules also require that TRS calls be answered more promptly, that a minimum typing speed be implemented, and that communications assistants stay with a TTY TRS call for a minimum of ten minutes. These rules will affect TRS providers.

17. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities: (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. The proposals in the NPRM, and the comments the Commission sought regarding them, are part of the Commission's analysis of its role with respect to the implementation and operation of nationwide TRS for persons with hearing and speech disabilities. The guiding principal shaping our final conclusions is Congress' direction that TRS keeps pace with advancing technology and that the Commission's rules do not discourage the implementation of technological advances or improvements. Large interexchange carriers and incumbent local exchange carriers provide the majority of TRS service, and we believe that the number of small entities impacted by our conclusions would be potentially very small. With respect to the amendments to the Commission's rules governing TRS, by statute, common carriers providing voice transmission services who are subject to the TRS rules, including small entities, may comply with their obligations individually, through designees, through a competitively selected vendor, or in concert with other carriers. For these reasons, we conclude that the rule amendments will have a minimal impact on small entities.

18. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5 U.S.C. 801 (a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order, including FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Report and Order, and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register . See 5 U.S.C. 604(b).

19. Accordingly, pursuant to authority found in sections 1, 4(i) and 4(j), 201-205, 218 and 225 of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 218 and 225, part 64 of the Commission's rules are amended.

20. The amendments to sections 64.601 through 64.605 of the Commission's rules (other than the amendments to sections 64.604(c)(2) and 64.604(c)(7)), effective 180 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register . The amendments to section 64.604(c)(2) of the Commission's rules shall be effective June 30, 2000. The amendments to section 64.604(c)(7) of the Commission's rules shall be effective 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. The action contained herein has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and found to impose new or modified reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements or burdens on the public. Implementation of these new reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements will be subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMD) as prescribed by the Act, and will go into effect upon announcement in the Federal Register of OMB approval.

21. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, Shall Send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of Small Business Administration.

The Atlantic shark fishery is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP), and its implementing regulations found at 50 CFR part 635 issued under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq .).

On June 30, 1999, NMFS received a Court Order from Judge Steven D. Merryday relative to the May 1997 lawsuit challenging commercial harvest quotas for Atlantic sharks. Specifically, the order states: “* * * the Court hereby preliminarily, and until further order of the Court, expressly ENJOINS the defendant and his designees from enforcing the 1999 regulations, 64 Fed. Reg. 29090 (May, 28, 1999) with respect to Atlantic shark commercial catch quotas and fish-counting methods (including the counting of dead discards and state commercial landings after federal closures) that are different from the quotas and fish counting methods prescribed by the 1997 Atlantic shark regulations, 62 Fed. Reg. 16648 (April 7, 1997).” Therefore, effective July 9, 1999 (July 14, 1999, 64 FR 37883), NMFS reverted the LCS quota to its 1997 level of 1,285 metric tons dressed weight (all species of LCS included), with no minimum size on ridgeback LCS; reverted the pelagic and small coastal shark quotas to their 1997 levels; and applied the 1997 prohibited species list to commercial fisheries (i.e., did not apply the 1999 prohibited species list to commercial fisheries). The limited access provisions, including trip limits for directed and incidental shark permit holders, and all recreational shark provisions (including the 1999 prohibited species provisions) were implemented.

On May 19, 2000, the parties filed a joint motion requesting clarification of the June 30, 1999, order relative to the implementation and enforcement of the prohibited species provisions contained in the final rule (May 28, 1999, 64 FR 29090) of the HMS FMP.

On June 12, 2000, NMFS received a Court Order from Judge Steven D. Merryday relative to the joint motion stating: “Upon consideration, the motion (Doc. 142) is GRANTED . Pending further review, the defendant may proceed with implementation and enforcement of the prohibited species provisions in 64 Fed. Reg. 29090 (May 28, 1999).”

Therefore, effective July 1, 2000, the 1999 prohibited species provisions, including species designations (see Table 1 of Appendix A to 50 CFR part 635 for a list of prohibited species) and prohibitions on possession are effective and will be enforced. Effective July 1, 2000, the following species are prohibited: white, whale, basking, sand tiger, bigeye sand tiger, dusky, bignose, Galapagos, night, Caribbean reef, narrowtooth, Caribbean sharpnose, smalltail, Atlantic angel, longfin mako, bigeye thresher, sevengill, sixgill, bigeye sixgill.

Pursuant to 50 CFR 635.71(d)(10), it is prohibited to retain, possess, sell, or purchase a prohibited shark. All sharks not retained must be released in a manner that will ensure maximum probability of survival, but without removing the fish from the water.

Due to the implementation of the 1999 prohibited species provisions and, based on catch rate data from the second semiannual fishing seasons from 1997, 1998, and 1999 for LCS species, NMFS has determined that the available LCS quota of 542.5 mt dw will be attained within 46 days. Accordingly, the second semiannual season for LCS in or from the Western North Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, will close on August 15, 2000, at 11:30 p.m. local time. This closure date is 8 days later than the previously announced closure date of August 7, 2000 (June 6, 2000, 65 FR 35855). NMFS estimates that the available LCS quota will not be harvested as quickly when the prohibited species provisions are implemented because the available quota is unchanged but fewer species can be harvested against that quota.

During a closure, retention of, fishing for, possessing or selling LCS are prohibited for persons fishing aboard vessels issued a directed or incidental limited access permit under 50 CFR 635.4. After 11:30 p.m. local time August 15, 2000, the sale, purchase, trade, or barter of carcasses and/or fins of LCS harvested by a person aboard a vessel that has been issued a permit under 50 CFR 635.4 are prohibited, except for those that were harvested, offloaded, and sold, traded, or bartered prior to the closure and were held in storage by a dealer or processor.

Commercial fishing for pelagic and small coastal sharks may continue until further notice. When quotas are projected to be reached, NMFS will file notification of closure at the Office of the Federal Register. Those vessels that have not been issued a limited access permit under 50 CFR 635.4 may not sell sharks and are subject to the recreational retention limits and size limits specified at 50 CFR 635.20(d) and 635.22(c). The recreational fishery is not affected by this action.

This action is taken under 50 CFR part 635 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.