These final regulations reflect three changes in law. Section 1104 of Public Law 105-261, the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act, 1999 (October 17, 1998), amends the back pay law (5 U.S.C. 5596(b)). Section 1104 adds a new provision to clarify that back pay awards are subject to a 6-year statute of limitations unless a shorter statute of limitations period applies. Section 1104 also adds a new provision to 5 U.S.C. 7121 to clarify that settlement of grievances and arbitration awards under 5 U.S.C. 7121 is subject to the same 6-year statute of limitations. This change in law became effective on October 17, 1998.

Section 7 of Public Law 105-266, the Federal Employees Health Care Protection Act of 1998 (October 19, 1998), amends 5 U.S.C. 5948(a). Section 7 increases the maximum physicians' comparability allowance (PCA) from $20,000 to $30,000 per year for an employee who has served as a Government physician for more than 24 months. Section 7 also provides that agencies may modify any PCA service agreement in effect on the effective date of the Act to increase the PCA for a physician up to the new maximum amount during the time remaining under the service agreement. However, section 7 provides that any modification of an existing service agreement to increase a PCA cannot cause the total PCA paid to the employee during the calendar year to exceed the new $30,000 maximum or any other applicable limitation (e.g., the aggregate limitation on pay under 5 U.S.C. 5307). These changes became effective on October 19, 1998. The Office of Management and Budget advises that agencies may authorize a PCA in excess of $20,000 only after revising their existing PCA plan and obtaining OMB approval of the changes.

Section 1107 of Public Law 105-261, the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act, 1999 (October 17, 1998), adds a new provision to 5 U.S.C. 6103 to change the designation of holidays for certain Federal employees who work at duty posts outside the United States. Section 1107 provides that whenever Monday is designated as a holiday under 5 U.S.C. 6103(a), the first regularly scheduled workday in the week is the holiday for a Federal employee at a duty post outside the United States whose basic workweek includes Monday, but is not the typical Monday through Friday work schedule found in the United States. The intent of this new provision of law is to create a 3-day weekend with a holiday on Sunday for Federal employees who work Sunday through Thursday with nonworkdays on Friday and Saturday. This change in law became effective on October 17, 1998.

Interim regulations to reflect these three changes in law were published in the Federal Register on December 28, 1999 (64 FR 72457). The Federal Register notice provided that OPM must receive comments on the interim regulations within 60 days, or by February 28, 2000. No comments were received on the interim regulations. Therefore, the interim regulations are adopted as final without any substantive changes.

The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this rule in accordance with Executive Order 12866.

I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they will apply only to Federal agencies and employees.

This final rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 89 and Order No. 927, both as amended (7 CFR part 927), regulating the handling of winter pears grown in Oregon and Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The marketing agreement and order are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

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

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

This final rule establishes quality requirements under the order for Anjou variety pears. This rule will require that Anjou pears shipped to North America (Continental United States, Canada, or Mexico) during the period of August 15 through November 1 of each year, be certified by the Federal-State Inspection Service as having their core/pulp temperature lowered to 35 degrees Fahrenheit or less and having an average pressure test of 14 pounds or less. The quality and inspection requirements will only apply to shipments to these three markets because shipments to other important markets outside of North America are transported in cold storage containers and arrive after November 1. This rule will also establish a minimum quantity exemption under which Anjou pear shipments of 8,800 pounds or less on any one conveyance may be shipped without regard to the proposed inspection and quality requirements.

Section 927.51 of the order provides authority for the issuance, modification, suspension, or termination of regulations for grade, size, and quality for any variety of winter pears grown in any district during a specified period and for different requirements applicable to shipments for different export markets.

Section 927.60 provides that when such regulations are in effect, no person shall handle such pears unless they are inspected and certified by the Federal-State Inspection service as meeting such requirements. Section 927.60 further provides authority for the establishment of minimum quantity exemptions from such requirements.

Section 927.52 provides that any vote on size, grade, and quality regulations be conducted based upon an affirmative vote of not less than 80 percent of the applicable total number of votes for that variety. This section provides that for the Anjou variety of pears, each member shall have one vote as an individual and, in addition, shall have an equal share of the vote of the district represented by the member. Each district is given an additional vote for each 25,000 boxes of the average quantity of Anjou pears produced in the particular district and shipped therefrom during the immediately preceding three fiscal periods. Using this formula, there are 453 applicable total votes for Anjou pears.

At its meeting on March 30, and further discussed at subsequent meetings on May 4 and June 2, 2000, the Committee recommended the establishment of quality and inspection requirements for the Anjou variety of pears for shipments to North America from August 15 through November 1 of each year. The Committee recommended, with 83 percent (373 votes) of the applicable total number of votes voting in favor, that it be required that such pears have their core/pulp temperature lowered to 35 degrees Fahrenheit or less and have an average pressure test of 14 pounds or less. The Committee, for over 20 years, has recommended that handlers of Anjou pears voluntary comply with these two quality requirements because they are necessary for Anjou pears to ripen properly. In addition, the Committee has regularly provided handlers with research studies collected over the years supporting the importance of proper chilling for Anjou pears and the fruit being harvested and shipped at appropriate hardness.

While the voluntary program worked well for many years, an increasing number of handlers in recent years have not consistently complied with these voluntary recommendations. At these three meetings, all Committee members supported the need for Anjou pears meeting these minimum quality requirements prior to shipment to North American markets (Continental United States, Canada, or Mexico). The three members who voted against the establishment of quality regulations supported continuation of the voluntary program.

Anjou pears are unique to most other pear varieties because they are harvested in a mature, but unripe condition. For Anjou pears to ripen properly, these pears should be stored in cold storage facilities until their core/pulp temperature is reduced to 35 degrees Fahrenheit or less. Once the core/pulp temperature is reduced to 35 degrees Fahrenheit or less, these pears will ripen properly when purchased by a consumer. To further assist the ripening process and result in a higher quality pear, Anjou pears should also have an average pressure of 14 pounds or less prior to shipment. Anjou pears that have been properly chilled will naturally ripen, and soften, over time. The storage and handling practices of a few handlers have allowed Anjou pears to be marketed at much higher pressure levels, sometimes well over 20 pounds, as well as without adequate chilling. In such cases, the consumer finds it is virtually impossible to ripen these pears after purchasing them. This has caused consumer dissatisfaction, hurt repeat purchases, depressed the market for later market pears and resulted in decreased producer returns.

The Committee does not anticipate the establishment of these quality requirements will prevent any producer from ultimately being able to have his fruit marketed. The requirements will simply ensure the proper handling practices that are necessary to prevent poor quality fruit from being shipped early in the marketing year. The Committee further anticipates that these requirements will be relatively easy for each handler to meet. Winter pears are marketed throughout the year. Therefore, all handlers either have cold storage facilities or have access to such facilities.

In the same motion recommending quality requirements, the Committee also recommended the establishment of a minimum quantity exemption under which shipments of 8,800 pounds or less on any one conveyance may be shipped without regard to the inspection and quality requirements. This minimum quantity exemption will eliminate any adverse impacts on handlers making small shipments or on sales at roadside stands and farmer markets.

The Committee recommended that this rule be effective by August 15 because shipments of Anjou pears are expected to begin shortly thereafter. This rule will apply only through November 1 of each year. Anjou pears harvested in August and stored in cold storage facilities through November 1 will naturally drop to the proposed minimum temperature because the pears are stored at that temperature, or lower. It is also unusual for pressure to be a problem in pears shipped after this date because pears soften naturally. Therefore, after November 1, enforcement of this regulation will no longer be necessary. Similarly the Committee recommended exemption of shipments to areas other than North America since Anjou pears shipped to overseas ports are refrigerated during transit and most shipments are sold and arrive at foreign ports after November 1. Consistent with the experience of many years with the voluntary program, the Committee's intent is to keep regulations at the minimum level necessary to ensure that a quality product is shipped to the consumer and to maintain reasonable returns to producers.

The Committee estimates the total 2000-2001 winter pear shipments at approximately 15,300,000 standard boxes. Of that amount, Anjou pear shipments are estimated at approximately 11,800,000 standard boxes. Last year, the total winter pear crop was about 13,800,000 standard boxes. Of that amount, Anjou pear shipments were approximately 10,100,000 standard boxes. In recent years approximately 7-8 percent of the total Anjou pear crop has been shipped from August 15 through November 1 into the domestic market.

To facilitate communications between the Committee and growers, handlers, and other interested persons, this final rule also updates § 927.105 to include the Committee's current address.

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

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

There are approximately 90 handlers of winter pears who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 1,800 winter pear producers in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $5,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $500,000.

The Committee estimates, based upon handler shipment totals and an average price of $14 per standard box, that about 87 percent of winter pear handlers could be considered small businesses under SBA's definition, excluding receipts from other sources. In addition, based on acreage, production, and producer prices reported by the National Agricultural Statistic Service, and the total number of winter pear producers, the average annual producer receipts are approximately $43,200, excluding receipts from other sources. In view of the foregoing, it can be concluded that the majority of handlers and producers of winter pears may be classified as small entities.

This rule will require that Anjou pears shipped to North America (Continental United States, Mexico, or Canada) during the period of August 15 through November 1 of each year, be certified by the Federal-State Inspection Service as having their core/pulp temperature lowered to 35 degrees Fahrenheit or less and having an average pressure test of 14 pounds or less. Shipments to other markets outside of North America are transported in cold storage containers and the fruit arrives after November 1. This rule will also establish a minimum quantity exemption under which Anjou pear shipments of 8,800 pounds or less on any one conveyance may be shipped without regard to the inspection and quality requirements.

At its meeting on March 30, and further discussed at subsequent meetings on May 4 and June 2, 2000, the Committee recommended the establishment of quality and inspection requirements for the Anjou variety of pears for shipments to North America from August 15 through November 1 of each year. The Committee recommended, with 83 percent (373 votes) in favor, that it be required that such pears have their core/pulp temperature lowered to 35 degrees Fahrenheit or less and have an average pressure test of 14 pounds or less. The Committee, for over 20 years, has recommended that handlers of Anjou pears voluntarily comply with these two quality factors necessary to enhance the ripening process. In addition, the Committee has regularly provided handlers with a compilation of research data that has been collected over the years supporting the importance of proper chilling for Anjou pears and the fruit being harvested and shipped at appropriate hardness.

While the voluntary program has worked well for many years, an increasing number of handlers in recent years have not consistently complied with these voluntary recommendations. At these three meetings, all Committee members supported the need for Anjou pears to meet these quality requirements prior to shipment. The three members who voted against the establishment of quality regulations supported continuation of the voluntary program.

Anjou pears are unique to most other pear varieties because they are harvested in a mature, but unripe condition. For Anjou pears to ripen properly, these pears should be stored in cold storage facilities until their core/pulp temperature is reduced to 35 degrees Fahrenheit or less. Once the core/pulp temperature is reduced to 35 degrees Fahrenheit or less, these pears will ripen properly when purchased by a consumer. To further assist the ripening process and result in a higher quality pear, Anjou pears should have an average pressure test of 14 pounds or less prior to shipment. Anjou pears that have been properly chilled will naturally ripen, and soften, over time. The storage and handling practices of a few handlers have allowed Anjou pears to be marketed at much higher pressure levels, sometimes well over 20 pounds, as well as without adequate chilling. In such cases, the consumer finds that it is virtually impossible to ripen these pears after purchasing them. This has caused consumer dissatisfaction, hurt repeat purchases, depressed the market for later market pears and resulted in decreased producer returns.

The Committee does not anticipate the establishment of these quality requirements will prevent any producer from ultimately being able to have his fruit marketed. The requirements will simply ensure that handlers follow the handling practices necessary to prevent poor quality fruit from being shipped early in the marketing year. The Committee further anticipates that these requirements will be relatively easy for each handler to meet. Winter pears are marketed throughout the year. Therefore, all handlers either have cold storage facilities or have access to such facilities.

In the same motion recommending quality requirements, the Committee also recommended the establishment of a minimum quantity exemption under which shipments of 8,800 pounds or less on any one conveyance may be shipped without regard to the inspection and quality requirements. This minimum quantity exemption will eliminate any adverse impacts on handlers making small shipments or on sales at roadside stands and farmer markets.

The Committee recommended that this rule be effective by August 15 because shipments of Anjou pears are expected to begin shortly thereafter. This rule will apply only through November 1 of each year. Anjou pears harvested in August and stored in cold storage facilities through November 1 will naturally drop to the minimum temperature because they are stored at that temperature, or lower. It is also unusual for pressure to be a problem in pears shipped after this date because pears soften naturally. Therefore, after November 1, enforcement of this regulation will no longer be necessary. Similarly the Committee recommended exemption of shipments to areas other than North America since Anjou pears shipped to overseas ports are refrigerated during transit and most shipments are sold and arrive at foreign ports after November 1. Consistent with the experience of many years with the voluntary program, the Committee's intent is to keep regulations at the minimum level necessary to ensure a quality product is shipped to the consumer and to maintain reasonable returns to producers.

This rule will impose some additional costs on handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. In recent years, approximately 9-10 percent of the total Anjou pear crop has been shipped from August 15 through November 1 into North American markets. The Committee currently estimates the Anjou pear crop to be approximately 11,800,000 standard boxes. An average inspection rate for pears within the production area will approximate $0.05 per standard box. Therefore, it is estimated that the establishment of quality and inspection requirements will result in mandatory inspection costs of approximately $56,050 (9.5 percent × 11,800,000 standard boxes × inspection rate of $0.05 per standard box). The actual increase in costs to the industry because of mandatory inspection requirements will be significantly less, however, because approximately 65-75 percent of the Anjou pear crop is currently being inspected on a voluntary basis. These costs are expected to be significantly offset by the benefits of this final rule. The benefits for this final rule are not expected to be disproportionately greater or less for small handlers or producers than for larger entities.

The Committee discussed alternatives to the quality requirements, including a longer time period of mandatory inspection as well as continuing with the voluntary program. The Committee believes that the requirements in this final rule are the minimum level necessary to ensure a quality product. The Committee believes that voluntary compliance is no longer effective. The Committee believes that this action will benefit producers, handlers, and consumers.

This final rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large winter pear handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, the Department has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this final rule.

In addition, the Committee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the winter pear industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the March 30, May 4, and June 2, 2000, meetings were public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2000 (65 FR 41018). Copies of the rule were mailed or sent via facsimile to Committee members. Finally, the rule was made available through the Internet by the Office of the Federal Register. A 15-day comment period ending July 18, 2000, was provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposal. No comments were received.

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

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

It is further found that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register (5 U.S.C. 553) because: (1) This rule needs to be in place by August 15, 2000, because shipments of Anjou pears from the 2000 crop are expected to begin shortly thereafter; (2) handlers are aware of this rule, which was discussed and recommended at several public meetings, and are prepared to operate under the quality and inspection requirements established herein; and (3) a 15-day comment period was provided for in the proposed rule and no comments were received.

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 930, both as amended (7 CFR part 930), regulating the handling of tart cherries grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The marketing agreement and order are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

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

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

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Board for the 2000-2001 and subsequent fiscal periods for cherries that are utilized in the production of tart cherry products other than juice, juice concentrate, or puree from $0.00225 to $0.0017 per pound of cherries. The assessment rate for cherries utilized for juice, juice concentrate, or puree is decreased from $0.001125 to $0.00085 per pound.

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

For the 1999-2000 fiscal period, the Board recommended, and the Department approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended or terminated by the Secretary upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or other information available to the Secretary.

The Board met on March 2, 2000, and unanimously recommended 2000-2001 expenditures of $455,000 and an assessment rate of $0.0017 per pound for cherries that are utilized in the production of tart cherry products other than juice, juice concentrate, or puree and an assessment rate of $0.00085 per pound of cherries utilized for juice, juice concentrate, or puree. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $497,780. Decreased assessment rates were recommended by the Board because the 2000 crop is expected to be large. In addition, the Board wants to reduce handler costs and keep its monetary reserve within the authorized maximum of approximately one year's operational expenses specified in § 930.42(a) of the order. The decreased assessment rates together with funds from the Board's operating reserve and interest income are expected to generate enough income to meet the Board's reduced operating expenses in 2000-2001.

The major expenditures recommended by the Board for the 2000-2001 fiscal period include $175,000 for personnel, $120,000 for compliance, and $75,000 for Board meetings. Budgeted expenses for these items in 1999-2000 were $222,780 for personnel, $100,000 for Board meetings, and $100,000 for compliance.

The order provides that when an assessment rate based on the number of pounds of tart cherries handled is established, it should provide for differences in relative market values for various cherry products. The discussion of this provision in the order's promulgation record indicates that proponents testified that cherries utilized in high value products such as frozen, canned, or dried cherries should be assessed one rate while cherries used to make low value products such as juice concentrate or puree should be assessed at one-half that rate.

Data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) states that for 1998, tart cherry utilization for juice, wine, or brined uses was 28.3 million pounds for all districts covered under the order. The total processed amount for 1998 was 303.8 million pounds. Juice, wine, and brined tart cherries represented less than 10 percent of the total processed crop, and about 8 percent over the last three seasons (1996 through 1998).

In deriving the recommended the assessment rates, the Board estimated assessable tart cherry production for the 2000-2001 crop year at 260 million pounds. It further estimated that about 245 million pounds of the assessable poundage would be utilized in the production of high-valued products, like frozen, canned, or dried cherries, and that about 15 million pounds would be utilized in the production of low-valued products, like juice, juice concentrate, or puree. Potential assessment income from the high valued products would be approximately $416,500 (245 million pounds × $0.0017 per pound). The potential income from tart cherries utilized for juice, juice concentrate, or puree would be $12,750 (15 million pounds × $0.00085 per pound). Therefore, the total assessment income for 2000-2001 is estimated at $429,250. This amount plus adequate supplies in the reserve and interest income will be sufficient to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (currently $300,000) will be kept within the approximately one year's operational expenses permitted by the order (7 CFR 930.42(a)).

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

Although the assessment rates are effective for an indefinite period, the Board will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Board meetings are available from the Board or the Department. Board meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. The Department will evaluate Board recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rates are needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Board's 2000-2001 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by the Department.

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities and has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) would allow AMS to certify that regulations do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, as a matter of general policy, AMS' Fruit and Vegetable Programs (Programs) no longer opt for such certification, but rather perform regulatory flexibility analyses for any rulemaking that would generate the interest of a significant number of small entities. Performing such analyses shifts the Programs' efforts from determining whether regulatory flexibility analyses are required to the consideration of regulatory options and economic or regulatory impacts.

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

There are approximately 900 producers of tart cherries in the production area and approximately 40 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers have been defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts less than $500,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $5,000,000. The majority of tart cherry producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Board and collected from handlers for the 2000-2001 and subsequent fiscal periods cherries that are utilized in the production of tart cherry products other than juice, juice concentrate, or puree from $0.00225 to $0.0017 per pound, and the assessment rate for cherries utilized for juice, juice concentrate, or puree from $0.001125 to $0.00085 per pound. The Board unanimously recommended 2000-2001 expenditures of $455,000 and the reduced assessment rates. The quantity of assessable tart cherries for the 2000-2001 crop year is estimated at 260 million pounds. Assessment income, based on this crop, along with interest income and reserves will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Board for the 2000-2001 fiscal period include $175,000 for personnel, $120,000 for compliance, and $75,000 for Board meetings. Budgeted expenses for these items in 1999-2000 were $222,780 for personnel, $100,000 for compliance, and $100,000 for Board meetings.

Decreased assessment rates were recommended by the Board this year because the Board expects the 2000 crop to be large. In addition, the Board wants to reduce handler costs and wants to keep its monetary reserve within the authorized maximum of approximately one year's operational expenses as specified in § 930.42(a).

The Board discussed the alternative of continuing the existing assessment rates, but concluded that the Board should operate as efficiently as possible and the amount collected at the higher rates could cause the operating reserve to exceed what is actually needed. In deriving the recommended assessment rates, the Board estimated assessable tart cherry production for the crop year at 260 million pounds. It further estimated that about 245 million pounds of the assessable poundage would be utilized in the production of high-valued products, like frozen, canned, or dried cherries, and that about 15 million pounds would be utilized in the production of low-valued products, like juice, juice concentrate, or puree. Potential assessment income from the high valued products would be approximately $416,500 (245 million pounds × $0.0017 per pound). The potential income from tart cherries utilized for juice, juice concentrate, or puree would be $12,750 (15 million pounds × $0.00085 per pound). Therefore, the total assessment income for 2000-2001 is estimated at $429,250. This amount plus adequate supplies in the reserve and interest income will be sufficient to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (currently $300,000) will be kept within the approximately one year's operational expenses permitted by the order (7 CFR 930.42(a)).

This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers. In addition, the Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout the tart cherry industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the March 2, 2000, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons were invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

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

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

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2000. Copies of the rule were mailed by the Board's staff to all Board members and cherry handlers. In addition, the rule was made available through the Internet by the Office of the Federal Register. That rule provided a 30-day comment period which ended June 21, 2000. No comments were received.

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

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

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because the fiscal period began July 1, 2000, and the assessment rates apply to all cherries received during the 2000-2001 and subsequent fiscal periods. Further, handlers are aware of this rule which was recommended at a public meeting. Also, a 30-day comment period was provided for in the proposed rule.

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 98 and Marketing Order No. 945, both as amended (7 CFR part 945), regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in certain designated counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

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

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

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

Sections 945.51 and 945.52 of the order provide authority for the establishment and modification of regulations applicable to the handling of potatoes. Section 945.341 establishes minimum maturity and pack requirements for potatoes handled subject to the Idaho-Eastern Oregon potato marketing order. Prior to this action, pack requirements specified that all potatoes packed in cartons were to be inspected and certified as meeting U.S. No. 1 grade or better, and that potato size be conspicuously marked on all cartons (except when used as a master container). Grade and size requirements in the order are based on the U.S. Standards for Grades of Potatoes (7 CFR 51.1540-51.1566), and the size must be marked consistent with § 51.1545 of the standards. Also, all varieties shall meet the maturity requirement of slightly skinned (except the Norgold variety from August 1-15, and the White Rose and red skinned varieties from August 1-December 31 can be moderately skinned). During other periods of the year, the White Rose and red skinned varieties are not subject to maturity requirements.

This rule continues in effect pack requirements which allow handlers to ship U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes in one-piece 50-pound fiberboard cartons of natural kraft color provided each carton is permanently and conspicuously marked as to grade. This change allows handlers to ship a substantial amount of U.S. No. 2 potatoes in cartons, thus meeting customer demands and maximizing producer returns.

The Committee met on January 18, 2000, and again by telephone on February 3, 2000, and unanimously recommended the relaxation of pack requirements to allow handlers to ship U.S. No. 2 or better grade potatoes in one-piece 50-pound fiberboard cartons of natural kraft color provided the cartons are permanently and conspicuously marked as to grade.

To meet the needs of the food service industry, the Committee recommended the relaxation of pack requirements to allow handlers to ship U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes in one-piece 50-pound fiberboard cartons of natural kraft color that are permanently and conspicuously marked as to grade. Currently, potatoes packed in cartons are required to grade at least U.S. No. 1. At its meeting on January 18, 2000, the unanimous consensus of the Committee was that pack requirements should be relaxed. The Committee subsequently conducted a telephone vote on February 3, 2000, and unanimously passed a motion to relax the pack requirements.

Customers have been requesting U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes in 50-pound cartons because of difficulties encountered in handling the currently used 50-pound burlap or paper bags. The burlap bags are messy, difficult to handle, and do not stack well on pallets. The paper bags often tear and are equally difficult to handle or stack. Warehouses that use electronic bar codes have reported less administration and recordkeeping problems with cartons than bags because the codes are more legible on cartons.

Many customers purchase potatoes from other areas where U.S. No. 2 potatoes are packed in 50-pound cartons. The Committee is responding to these changing market conditions so that handlers will remain competitive with the other areas and not lose sales.

The Committee also recognized the need to distinguish these U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes in cartons from the industry's traditional premium U.S. No. 1 grade pack in cartons. Without such a distinction, buyers might become confused and the U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes in cartons might have a price depressing effect on the premium U.S. No. 1 grade pack in cartons. The Committee was also concerned that buyers not have the opportunity to re-lid cartons with misleading or erroneous information on the pack and grade of the potatoes. Therefore the Committee included in their recommendation that fiberboard cartons be of one-piece construction, of a natural kraft color, and permanently and conspicuously marked to grade.

In addition to finalizing the interim final rule published at 65 FR 25625, this final rule also corrects an error in that interim final rule that removed the maturity requirement for Norgold variety potatoes. This rule restores that maturity requirement as was in effect in § 945.341(b)(2) prior to the changes made in 65 FR 25625, and restores the paragraphs that were redesignated as paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) in the interim final rule, as paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4), respectively. That is, the Norgold variety shall meet the maturity requirement of slightly skinned (except from August 1-15 this variety can be moderately skinned).

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

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

There are approximately 63 handlers of Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and about 1,600 potato producers in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $5,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $500,000. A majority of these handlers and producers may be classified as small entities, excluding receipts from other sources.

This rule continues to relax the order's pack requirements to allow handlers to ship U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes in one-piece 50-pound fiberboard cartons of natural kraft color, provided the cartons are permanently and conspicuously marked as to grade. This change enables handlers to ship a substantial amount of U.S. No. 2 potatoes in cartons, thus meeting customer demands and maximizing producer returns. Prior to this action, the order required that all potatoes packed in cartons be inspected and certified to meeting U.S. No. 1 or better grade. At its meeting on January 18, 2000, it was the Committee's unanimous consensus that pack requirements should be relaxed. The Committee subsequently conducted a telephone vote on February 3, 2000, and unanimously passed the pack relaxation motion.

Customers have been requesting U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes in 50-pound cartons because of difficulties experienced in handling 50-pound burlap or paper bags. The burlap bags are messy, difficult to handle, and do not stack well on pallets. The paper bags often tear and are equally difficult to handle or stack. Warehouses that use electronic bar codes have reported less administration and recordkeeping problems with cartons than bags because the codes are more legible on cartons.

Many customers purchase potatoes from other areas where U.S. No. 2 potatoes are packed in 50-pound cartons. In recommending this change, the Committee is responding to changing market conditions so that handlers will remain competitive with other areas and not lose sales.

The Committee also recognized the need to distinguish U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes packed in cartons from the traditional premium U.S. No. 1 grade packed in cartons. Without such a distinction, buyers might become confused and the U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes in cartons might have a price depressing effect on the premium U.S. No. 1 grade pack in cartons. The Committee was also concerned that buyers not have the opportunity to re-lid cartons with misleading or erroneous information on the pack and grade of the potatoes. Therefore, the Committee included in its recommendation the provision that the fiberboard cartons be of one-piece construction, of a natural kraft color, and permanently and conspicuously marked as to grade.

During the meetings, the Committee discussed the impact one-piece 50-pound cartons of U.S. No. 2 potatoes might have on the industry. The Committee believes that the recommendation will increase the sale of U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes to the food service industry. Information from the Committee indicates that during an average season, approximately 10 percent of the fresh potato shipments from the production area are of U.S. No. 2 grade, and that approximately 20 percent of the potatoes going to the food service industry are of U.S. No. 2 grade. This action is expected to further increase shipments to the food service industry, and help the Idaho-Eastern Oregon potato industry benefit from the increased growth in the food service industry.

The relaxation of pack requirements allowing handlers to ship U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes in cartons might require the purchase of new equipment that can handle one-piece cartons. However, these costs are expected to be minimal and would be offset by the benefits of being able to ship U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes in that manner. The benefits of this rule are not expected to be disproportionately greater or lesser for small entities than large entities.

As alternatives to this action, the Committee considered various methods to distinguish cartons of U.S. No. 2 grade potatoes from the traditional premium carton pack of U.S. No. 1 grade potatoes. The Committee decided that it was important that there be a clear distinction between the packs to ensure that the shipments of U.S. No. 2 potatoes in cartons not negatively impact the market for U.S. No. 1 potatoes in cartons.

This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large potato handlers and importers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, as noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, the Department has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

Further, the Committee's January 18, 2000, meeting was widely publicized throughout the potato industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, this was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.

An interim final rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on May 3, 2000. A copy of the rule was faxed and mailed to the Committee's staff, which in turn, made the rule available to Committee members and potato handlers. In addition, the rule was made available through the Internet by the Office of the Federal Register. That rule provided for a 60-day comment period which ended July 3, 2000. No comments were received.

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

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that finalizing the interim final rule, with change, as published in the Federal Register (65 FR 25625, May 3, 2000) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it also is found that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this action until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) This action corrects maturity requirements for Norgold variety potatoes which were inadvertently removed; (2) no useful purpose would be achieved by delaying the effective date of this action; and (3) no comments were received in response to the interim final rule.

On May 18, 2000, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued AD 2000-10-23, amendment 39-11748 (65 FR 34061, May 26, 2000), which applies to certain Boeing Model 747-100, -200, -300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the longeron splice fittings at stringer 11, on the left and right sides at body station 2598, and replacement of any cracked fitting with a new fitting. That AD was prompted by reports that fatigue cracking was found on longeron splice fittings. The actions required by that AD are intended to detect and correct such fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced controllability of the horizontal stabilizer.

Since the issuance of AD 2000-10-23, the manufacturer has informed the FAA that the correct compliance time for certain airplanes is unclear. Paragraph (a)(1) of the AD states the applicable compliance time, “For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 17,000 total flight cycles or 63,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD.” Paragraph (a)(2) of the AD states the applicable compliance time, “For airplanes that have accumulated 17,000 total flight cycles or more, or 63,000 total flight hours or more, as of the effective date of this AD.” The manufacturer points out that the use of the word “or” (“* * * fewer than 17,000 total flight cycles or 63,000 total flight hours * * *”) in paragraph (a)(1) makes it possible that some airplanes may inadvertently be subject to the compliance times in both paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2).

The FAA has reviewed this wording and determined that a correction to AD 2000-10-23 is necessary. The FAA's intent is that the compliance times in paragraph (a)(1) apply to airplanes with relatively fewer flight cycles. That is, as of the effective date of this AD, if an airplane's total number of flight cycles is less than 17,000, and the same airplane's total number of flight hours is less than 63,000, then the compliance times in paragraph (a)(1) apply. Therefore, this correction will revise paragraph (a)(1) to state that the compliance time in that paragraph applies to “airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 17,000 total flight cycles and 63,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD.”

This document corrects the error and correctly adds the AD as an amendment to § 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13).

The AD is reprinted in its entirety for the convenience of affected operators. The effective date of the AD remains June 30, 2000.

Since this action only corrects and clarifies a current requirement, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, the FAA has determined that notice and public procedures are unnecessary.

On June 23, 2000, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by establishing Class D airspace at Oak Grove, NC (65 FR 39111). Designations for Class D airspace extending upward from the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9G, dated September 1, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received.

This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) establishes Class D airspace at Oak Grove, NC.

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

On June 20, 2000, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by establishing Class D airspace at Boca Raton, FL (65 FR 38225). Designations for Class D airspace extending upward from the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9G, dated September 1, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received.

This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) establishes Class D airspace at Boca Raton Airport.

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

On March 23, 2000, the FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71 to realign a segment of J-151 that is unusable for navigation (65 FR 15586). Flight inspection revealed that the segment between the Farmington, MO, VORTAC, and the Candu navigational fix is affected by co-channel radio interference from another navigational aid that uses the same frequency. This problem renders the affected segment unusable for navigation purposes.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments. No comments to the proposal were received. Except for editorial changes, this rule is the same as that proposed in the notice.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by realigning a segment of J-151. Currently, the segment of J-151 between the Farmington VORTAC and the Candu navigational fix has been found to be unusable for navigation due to frequency interference. The FAA has issued Flight Data Center Notices to Airmen advising users of this problem. To correct this problem, it is necessary to realign J-151 between the Farmington VORTAC and the Vulcan VORTAC as a direct route.

Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004 of FAA Order 7400.9G, dated September 1, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR section 71.1. The jet route listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The Rule was promulgated by the Commission on December 16, 1971, 36 FR 23883 (1971), and amended on May 20, 1983, 48 FR 22733 (1983). The Rule makes it an unfair or deceptive act or practice for manufacturers and importers of textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods to sell these items without attaching care labels stating “what regular care is needed for the ordinary use of the product.” (16 CFR 423.6(a) and (b)) The Rule defines a care label as a “permanent label or tag * * * that is attached or affixed in such a manner that it will not become separated from the product * * *.” (16 CFR 423.1(a))

Section 423.8(b) of the Rule states that manufacturers or importers can ask for an exemption from the requirement of attaching a permanent care label for any textile wearing apparel product or product line if the label would harm the appearance or usefulness of the product. Section 423.8(c) of the Rule states that if an item is exempt from care labeling under subparagraph (b) of section 423.8, the consumers still must be given the required care information for the product, but the care information can be provided on a hang tag, on the package, or in some other conspicuous place, so that consumers will be able to see the care information before buying the product.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending Parts 125, 225, and 356  1 of its regulations to update, reduce, and clarify records retention requirements for jurisdictional public utilities and licensees, natural gas companies and oil pipeline companies. This final rule is part of the Commission's ongoing program to update and eliminate burdensome and unnecessary requirements. These changes will significantly reduce the burden of maintaining records for regulated companies. This process was also initiated to respond to requests made by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the industry.

Both the Federal Power Act  2 and the Natural Gas Act  3 require jurisdictional companies to keep records that the Commission may prescribe “as necessary or appropriate for purposes of administration” of these acts. 4 In 1977, the Commission assumed jurisdiction over transportation of oil by oil pipeline companies from the Interstate Commerce Commission by 705(a) of the Department of Energy Organization Act. 5 Section 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act  6 requires oil pipeline companies to keep records that the Commission determines are necessary to effectively regulate those companies. In 1983, the Commission last amended its records retention regulations applicable to the public utilities and licensees, natural gas companies, and oil pipeline companies. 7

In response to an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) request during recertification of the information collection requirements of FERC Form 555, Preservation of Records of Public Utilities and Licensees, Natural Gas Companies, and Oil Pipeline Companies, the Commission agreed to review the media and records retention requirements for the public utilities and licensees, natural gas companies, and oil pipeline companies. OMB also requested that the Commission review the possibility of reducing the records retention requirements for general ledgers from 50 years to 10 years and plant ledgers from 50 years to 25 years. In January, the Commission updated the media requirements  8 and this final rule is the result of a review of the current records retention regulations for public utilities and licensees, natural gas companies, and oil pipeline companies.

On December 21, 1999, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in Docket No. RM99-8-000. 9 The Commission received eight comments on the NOPR representing the electric and gas pipeline industries. 10 No comments were received from oil pipeline companies or licensees.

The Commission has made modifications to the current public utilities and licensees, natural gas companies, and oil pipeline companies records retention regulations. These changes to parts 125, 225, and 356 include revising the general instructions, shortening various records retention periods, increasing retention periods for a few categories of records, and removing all but one retention reserve item. Therefore, the final order will reduce or eliminate burdensome and unnecessary regulatory requirements for public utilities and licensees, natural gas companies, and oil pipeline companies. All respondents to the NOPR commended the Commission's efforts in reducing retention requirements. However, several respondents felt the Commission had not gone far enough in reducing requirements for accounting records and ledgers. Specific comments are addressed below.

The final rule makes the following changes to the general instructions of parts 125 and 225, incorporates the Commission's new regulation on record storage media, and clarifies the Commission's regulations on keeping records used to support costs in rate cases and depreciation.

1. 125.2(d) and 225.2(d)—Incorporate the accounting issuance AI99-2-000  11 on record storage media.

2. 125.2(k) and 225.2(k)—Incorporate the need to keep records that will be used for “rate cases” until the next rate case.

3. 125.2(m) and 225.2(m)—Incorporate a paragraph on life or mortality study data needed to be retained for depreciation purposes.

The Commission also made some minor editorial corrections to reflect changes proposed in the NOPR.

The Commission believes that these changes are needed to bring clarity to the Commission's records retention instructions and regulations.

The Commission shortened certain retention periods in §§ 125.3 and 225.3 of the Commission's regulations to reduce the record keeping burden on the industries. The records retention periods for the following item numbers and description of records found in the regulations are reduced for both the public utilities and licensees, and natural gas companies except where noted:

2. (a) of Organizational documents.

3. (a) of Contracts and agreements (public utilities and licensees only).

3. (b) of Contracts and agreements.

4. (a) and (b) of Accountants' and auditors' reports.

6. (a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1), and (b)(2) of General and subsidiary ledgers.

7. Journals.

8. (a) of Journal vouchers and journal entries.

9. Cash books.

10. Voucher registers.

11. (a), (b), (c), (d) of Vouchers.

12.1. (b) of Production—Nuclear (public utilities and licensees only).

15. (a), (b), (c) of Maintenance work orders.

16. (a), (b) of Plant ledgers.

17. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) of Construction work in progress ledgers.

18. (a), (b) of Retirement work in progress ledgers, work orders, and supplemental records.

18. (c) of Retirement work in progress ledgers, work orders, and supplemental records (public utilities and licensees only).

19. Summary sheets, distribution sheets, reports, and statements.

20. (a) Appraisals and valuations.

33. (a) and (b) of Revenue summaries.

34. (a)(1), (3), (5), (6) and (b), (c) of Tax records.

36. (b) of Records of deposits with banks.

38. (a) of Statistics.

41. Reports to Federal and State regulatory commissions.

42. Advertising.

ANR Pipeline Company and Colorado Interstate Gas Company (ANR & CIG), Edison Electric Institute (EEI), The United Illuminating Company (UI), Southern Companies (Southern), and Association of Records Managers and Administrators—Houston Chapter (ARMA) stated that the retention requirements for general ledgers, journal vouchers, and indexes thereto should be reduced to 10 years, or if the requirement for ledgers (both general and plant) is maintained at 25 years, then the retention requirements for supporting documentation (journal entries, vouchers, etc.) should be reduced to no more than 10 years. Additionally, clarification was requested for retaining general accounting records for 25 years.

The request to further reduce retention requirements to 10 years for general ledgers, journal vouchers and indexes thereto is granted, and the electric and gas schedules have been revised. However, companies must maintain sufficient records to support fully any current, future, or pending rate case (see the revised regulatory text for §§ 125.2(k) and 225.2(k)).

EEI, UI, and Southern requested that record retention requirements in part 125 (and 225) be further reduced to conform to the retention periods in part 356. Additionally, EEI and UI wanted the Commission to provide substantive reasons for longer time periods for utilities and licensees than for oil pipelines for each category of information.

The retention period needs for both electric and gas differ greatly from those of oil due to the nature of the industries, the licensing aspects of hydroelectric projects, the certification process in gas, and the cost based ratemaking in both electric and gas. Additionally, the regulatory/statutory requirements of the electric and gas industries differ greatly from those of the oil industry. As stated in the NOPR, the oil industry retention requirements and the reductions in part 356 are based on a statutory mandate that limits oil pipeline company reparations recovery to 3 years from the time the cause of action accrues. Therefore, retention of records beyond statutorily mandated reparation periods in the oil industry is not necessary. The Commission denies the request.

EEI and UI requested the Commission provide a business purpose or regulatory need for periods in excess of 10 years (general ledgers), and substantive reasons for longer time periods for utilities and licensees than for oil pipelines.

The Commission has revised the retention period for general ledgers to 10 years for public utilities and licensees and natural gas pipeline companies, but denies the request to reduce the retention period to bring it in line with the period required for oil pipeline companies. The Commission needs sufficient data available for scrutiny in order to carry out its regulatory mandates. As rate case filings become more infrequent, it is imperative that the Commission, and its staff, have access to supporting rate-case documentation, as well as documentation that might be pertinent to complaint proceedings. Because there is no statutory mandate that limits utilities and licensees reparations recovery time frames, records must be maintained for a significant period longer than those for an oil pipeline which is subject to statutorily mandated recovery period of 3 years from the time the cause of action accrues.

EEI and UI stated that the revised retention requirements do not conform to the Commission's new stated focus. They stated that:

We agree that the Commission has expressly changed its audit focus. That change illustrates the need for the retention of records as outlined in the final rule. The “ad hoc” nature of audits in the future requires that data necessary to complete those audits be retained for a period long enough to provide sufficient data for review. The final rule does reduce the overall retention requirements significantly from the current regulation. Additionally, records are not retained solely for the purpose of audit. Data must be maintained to support current, future, or pending rate cases submitted to the Commission.

ANR & CIG requested a reduction in the proposed retention period for service applications to 1 year after the date of the application versus 4 years because the terms of the contract would supersede any in the service application.

The statute of limitations for imposing civil penalties for violations is 3 years. A 4 year retention period covers the statute of limitations time period of 3 years plus 1 additional year to conduct any extensive investigation. Service applications for awarded contracts are to be maintained for the same period so it is possible to go back, for audit purposes, to determine the circumstances that existed at that time and not just the current circumstances. The Commission denies the request.

ANR & CIG requested that the retention period for gas measurement data be increased from 7 months to 1 year, which could be extended in the event of an unresolved dispute. The concern of the company is that, if measurement data for interconnections was destroyed after seven months because no dispute was filed, it would be difficult to identify and determine the cause of any equipment malfunctions. The companies stated that a year would be sufficient to identify malfunctions in the absence of a complaint, but that seven months would be too short a time. The companies further stated that maintaining measurement data for a year would not be burdensome.

Considering that most companies maintain records for a complete business year regardless of when such records can be destroyed, the Commission grants this request and has revised the schedule to require gas measurement data be retained for a year. Additionally, the Commission takes this opportunity to clarify that for retention item 13(e) related to “well records, including clearing, bailing, shooting etc., records; rock pressure; open flow; production, gas analysts' reports etc.,” records must be maintained for 1 year after the field or relevant production area is abandoned.

ANR & CIG, EEI, UI, and Southern requested clarification of the retention requirements for plant in service and the seeming conflict between §§ 125.2(g) and 225.2(g) and §§ 125.3 and 225.3 items 16 (a) and (b) plant ledgers. The companies wanted to know if there were any records related to plant in service which must be retained for a period that is longer than that set forth in the NOPR schedule, and whether the schedule or text controlled.

Sections 125.2(g) and 225.2(g) state that plant in service records must be maintained for 25 years or until the plant is removed from service, all removal/restoration activities are complete, and all costs are removed from the accounting records unless accounting adjustments from reclassification and original cost studies have been approved by the commission having jurisdiction. Therefore, if the plant in question has a life longer than 25 years, §§ 125.2(g) and 225.2(g) govern. Additionally, EEI and UI recommended that general instruction 125.2(g) be deleted as it does not add clarity to the requirement. The Commission denies this request. Sections 125.2(g) and 225.2(g) address more than just the retention periods for plant, they address additions, retirements, and betterments.

The American Gas Association (AGA), EEI, and UI requested clarification of the changes to §§ 125.2(i) and 225.2(i) regarding imposing retention requirements on affiliates. AGA believes the Commission intends to impose retention requirements on a natural gas company or jurisdictional electric utility only with respect to situations where an affiliate performs services for it. EEI and UI are concerned that the proposed revised language may be interpreted to expand the Commission's authority inappropriately beyond the current regulation, and recommends the Commission not make the proposed change to the regulations.

The Commission grants the request for clarification, but denies EEI's request not to change the language in § 125.2(i). The Commission does not intend to expand its authority or retention requirements to non-regulated affiliates. Only those records supporting services provided to pipelines or utilities by affiliates must be maintained by the affiliates. Records supporting services performed for affiliates must be maintained by utilities to provide information related to the nature of the transaction, the amounts involved, and the accounts used to record the transactions.

ARMA requested clarification of the requirements related to §§ 125.3 and 225.3—item 5 Information Technology Management which states “retain as long as it represents an active viable program or for periods prescribed for related output data, whichever is shorter.”

The Commission clarifies that this item is strictly referring to software program documentation and any revisions thereto. The original source data used as input for data processing and data processing report outputs must be maintained for the retention period established for that data type, as identified elsewhere in the schedule. To further clarify, the schedule has been modified to include “software” as part of the item text.

ARMA felt that the non-standardization of retention periods across media types, i.e. , paper versus electronic record retention requirements could lead to confusion if an oil, gas, and/or electric company chose electronic records retention to meet Commission requirements. ARMA cited §§ 125.3 and 225.3 item 5 as the source of the confusion. Sections 125.3 and 225.3 item 5 states: “Retain as long as it represents an active viable program or for periods prescribed for related output data, whichever is shorter.”

This requirement speaks only to the documentation supporting computer programs still in use by the utility. As long as the program is active and viable the supporting documentation for that program should be retained. If the program has been superseded, the supporting software documentation can be destroyed. Additionally, ARMA states that “the Commission is not requiring the electronic, non-graphic, data and programs be maintained for the same periods as required paper documents. This is incorrect. Sections 125.3 and 225.3 item 5 addresses only computer software documentation and revisions thereto. The original source data used for input for data processing and data processing report printouts must be retained for the applicable periods identified elsewhere in the schedule.

ARMA, EEI, UI, and Southern want the Commission to adopt uniform retention periods across media types and record types. ARMA stated that the Commission opened the door for companies to maintain records in various media, including digital media, tape disk, or image files.

The Commission purposefully established no specific media type to allow companies flexibility in the selection of media which would provide the ability to adapt quickly to changes in technology without the necessity of obtaining Commission approval of the use of media not provided for in the regulations. We do not see this as leading to confusion but rather to efficiencies of storage. EEI and UI recommend uniformity in retention periods and lowering requirements to maximize efficiencies of business operations. The proposed regulations provide uniformity by type of information to be retained. Further the retention periods are reduced from those presently in place. We believe that the revised regulations will provide for efficiencies and savings from reduced retention periods and unrestricted use of storage media.

ARMA requested clarification to §§ 125.3 and 225.3 item 20(b)(1) Mergers and Acquisitions. ARMA states that the use of the phrase “* * * or as ordered by the Commission” along with the identified 10 year time frame for retention of plant and depreciation records relevant to mergers and acquisitions does not provide a true retention guideline. ARMA suggests that a defined period, such as audit completion, should be used.

The Commission does not concur with using audit completion as the retention requirement. The stated 10 year retention period is valid. A longer period would be on an exception basis as merited by the specifics of a particular case. The longer period would not be an across-the-board, generally applicable requirement. As such, this requirement would not be burdensome on the industry as a whole.

EEI and UI raised the issue that excessive record retention imposes substantial costs. They argued that documents with long retention requirements require migration of data to updated or new media several times during their lives. They stated that the migration of data to new media is “costly, time-consuming, and labor intensive” and that savings resulting from the current reduction in retention requirements will not be as significant as the Commission envisions. They pointed out that the Commission's accounting release on Records Storage Media  12 gave regulated utilities “flexibility to select storage media other than those previously prescribed, the new media requirements will not alleviate the burden of long retention requirements.”

The Commission purposefully did not mandate a storage media in order to reduce additional burden on industry. Migration to updated media is only necessary for those records that are maintained on media that does not provide an archival feature, or cannot be moved to archival media.

EEI and UI stated that the NOPR failed to adhere to the conditions contained in the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) reauthorization of the FERC Form 555, “Preservation of Records of Public Utilities and Licensees, Natural Gas Companies and Oil Pipeline Companies” of July 22, 1998. The companies stated that the Commission followed OMB's terms of clearance for reduction of the retention period for plant ledgers (from 50 to 25 years), but did not reduce the retention period of general ledgers as outlined in the clearance (from 50 to 10 years).

The Commission has revised the retention period for general ledgers with this final rule to the 10 year period as requested in the OMB reauthorization and by industry.

EEI and UI believe that the estimated reporting burden included in the NOPR is inaccurate and low. The companies state that the revised retention requirements may allow utilities to reduce record storage costs, but reductions in labor costs will be minimal. Additionally, long retention requirements will require data to be transferred to different media several times during their lives as companies upgrade their systems.

Burden estimates were based on projected reductions to retention periods and only serve as an average. Staff found no definitive studies on the ratio of staffing to record storage, but substantial savings should result due to the reduction in retention periods coinciding with the opportunity to retain records in whatever medium companies select. Although EEI and UI performed a informal survey and determined that from 9 (small companies) to 26 (large companies) full-time staff were needed to comply with record retention requirements, a report on information management  13 concluded “There is definitely no simple relationship between the number of records maintained and the number of people needed to maintain them.” The report continued that an informal survey determined that, in many cases, very few people can adequately manage a great deal of paper, especially when there is high control, high automation, and low retrieval rates. The Commission does not concur with industry's comments.

Southern noted an apparent inadvertent omission in retention item 13.1 Production—Electric (less Nuclear), where an entry for “station and system generation reports and clearance logs” was omitted from the schedule, and the sub-items below that entry were associated with “generation and output logs with supporting data”. The Commission concurs, and retention item 13.1(c) “Station and system generation reports and clearance logs,” has been added. Additionally, sub-items 13.1(b)(1) and (b)(2) have been renumbered to sub-items 13.1(c)(1) Hydro-electric, and (2) Steam and others, and been properly associated with item 13.1(c). Retention items 13.1(c) through (f) have been renumbered to 13.1(d) through (g).

Southern requested clarification of the textual descriptions of retention items 34(c) and (d) tax records between the schedule and the NOPR appendix. The NOPR appendix was included for informational purposes only, and may have included preliminary language revised in the final NOPR; the language included in the regulatory text governs.

Southern noted that the retention period for retention item 38 Statistics, was listed as 5 years in the schedule and 3 years in the NOPR appendix, and requested clarification of the proposed retention period. The NOPR appendix was included for informational purposes only; the language included in the regulatory text governs, and the correct retention period is 5 years.

Southern requested clarification on whether the Commission would categorize customer service orders as contracts, work orders, or some other record item under the proposed rule. The characterization of a service order lies in the nature of the order, there is no generic definition or answer.

EEI and UI request clarification of the revised retention requirement for Journal Vouchers, retention item 8(b)(1) “Charging Plant Accounts,” in the appendix to the NOPR. They point out that the change between the current and proposed retention periods is summarized as revised, but that the current period is 6 years and the proposed revised period is 25 years, and state that this represents an increase and not a reduction to the current schedule. All the Commission has done is clarify an already existing regulation. The current schedule identifies a retention period of 6 years for journal vouchers charging plant accounts, but also requires regulated companies to see current § 125.2(j) for additional governing language. Section 125.2(j) requires records related to plant be retained a minimum of 25 years. EEI and UI are correct that there has been no reduction in the retention requirement, but neither has there been an increase.

Southern requested adoption of consistent retention periods for the same or similar record types, i.e. , service contracts and commodity contracts. Southern points out that in § 125.3 items 3(a) service contracts, and 3(b) commodity contracts the retention periods are 3 years and 4 years respectively. Also, in § 125.3 item 29 customer service contracts, the retention period is 4 years. The Commission concurs and clarifies that the retention period for service, commodity, and customer service contracts is 4 years. Section 125.3 item 3(a) has been revised to reflect this clarification.

In addition, the Commission is revising the public utilities and licensees and natural gas companies requirements that are tied to “FERC audit reports.” The Commission no longer audits on a 3 year cycle. Instead it conducts industry wide audits on specific Commission accounting issues. The Commission's changes to its regulatory requirements regarding audits range between two and six years.

1. Annual reports or statements to stockholders.

26. Material ledgers.

29. Customers service applications and contracts.

30. Rate Schedules.

To continue to meet its regulatory requirements the Commission is adding records retention requirements for the following public utilities and licensees, and natural gas companies record categories:

20. (b) Appraisals and valuations.

21. (a) The original or reproduction of engineering records, drawings and other supporting data.

35. Statement of funds and deposits.

Retention item 20 (b) is added to include property or investments that are written up or down as a result of mergers or acquisitions, asset impairments, and other basis. The records retention item 20 (b) will be 10 years after the event. These added records retention requirements will allow the Commission adequate time to review these events as necessary.

Retention item 21 (a) maps, diagrams, profiles, photographs, field survey notes, plot plan, detail drawings, and records of engineering studies and similar records showing the location of proposed or as-constructed facilities is changed to include retention until retired. These records are needed for our environmental reviews, and therefore should be retained until the facilities are retired.

Retention item 35, Statement of funds and deposits, is revised in response to FERC policy statement on Post-Employment Benefits Other Than Pension  14 (PBOP), to require retention of records until the fund is dissolved or terminated. This information is necessary to allow the Commission to ensure the proper disposition of rate payer contributions for PBOPs.

The Commission is removing all but one reserve item in both public utilities and licensees, and natural gas companies (see schedules at §§ 125.3 and 225.3). The removal of these reserve items allows the records retention schedule to reflect only the records the Commission needs to fulfill its mission. However, we will keep reserve item 37 as a place holder in the public utilities and licensees records retention schedule in order to align the public utilities and licensees and natural gas companies item numbers.

Southern requested that the Commission refrain from deleting the reserve items and from renumbering the § 125.3 schedule, as such actions would require the company procedures and guidelines citing items in the schedule to be revised. Southern Company stated that re-numbering the schedule solely for the purpose of deleting [reserved] items creates an unnecessary burden for Southern.

The purpose of the NOPR was to bring the retention periods up-to-date. Therefore, this wholesale change and a complete renumbering of the regulatory text is appropriate. Removal of the reserved items better identifies only those records the Commission needs to fulfill its mission, and eliminates confusion for those entities that consist of both public utilities and licensees and natural gas companies. The Commission also feels that the prospective nature and the implementation date of the final rule provides sufficient time for companies to update their regulations prior to the new schedule going into effect. Therefore, the Commission denies this request.

The Commission is reorganizing the oil pipeline companies general instructions to better align them to the public utilities and licensees, and natural gas companies general instructions (see § 356.2). This reorganization makes the general instructions for all industries consistent.

The Commission shortened certain oil pipeline companies retention periods for 7 of the 24 items to 3 years for § 356 (see schedule at § 356.3). These reductions represent a significant reduction in the reporting burden on the oil industry. They are based on the statutory mandate that limits oil pipeline company reparations recovery to 3 years from the time the cause of action accrues.  15 We are reducing the following oil pipeline companies records retention requirements to 3 years:

2. Minutes of Directors and other corporate meetings.

4. (a) Contracts and related papers.

7. (a) and (b) Ledgers.

8. (a) and (b) Journals.

9. (a) and (b) Vouchers.

11. Records of accounting.

24. (a) Annual financial operating reports.

The Commission revised records retention requirements for the following oil pipeline companies record items (see schedule at § 356.3):

12. (d) (1) Group method and depreciation rate.

12. (g) Files of detailed authorizations for expenditures.

Record item 12 (d) (1) is revised from 10 years to 3 years after disposition of property because the Commission needs to review these records at any time during the life of the asset. Retention item 12 (g) is also revised to extend the period from 3 years from acquisition to 3 years after disposition of property because the Commission must be able to review any records related to property or equipment at any time during the life of the asset.

Commission regulations require that an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement be prepared for any Commission action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.  16 No environmental consideration is necessary for the promulgation of a rule that is clarifying, corrective, procedural or that does not substantially change the effect of legislation or regulations being amended,  17 and also for information gathering, analysis, and dissemination.  18 The final rule changes do not substantially change the effect of the underlying legislation or change the forms. Accordingly, no environmental assessments are necessary.

The Commission received no comments on its certification, in the NOPR, that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and that an initial Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)  19 analysis is not required.

In Mid-Tex Elect. Coop. v. FERC , 773 F. 2d 327 (D. C. Cir. 1985), the court found that Congress, in passing the RFA, intended agencies to limit their consideration “to small entities that would be directly regulated” by proposed rules. Id. at 342. The court further concluded that “the relevant ‘economic impact' was the impact of compliance with the proposed rule on regulated small entities.” Id. at 342.

This final rule will not have an adverse impact on small entities, nor will it impose upon them any significant costs of compliance. Rather, this rule will significantly reduce the record keeping burden on all jurisdictional entities, including small entities. Most entities regulated by the Commission do not fall within the RFA's definition of a small entity.  20 Therefore, the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The following collection of information contained in this final rule was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.  21 FERC identifies the information retained under parts 125, 225, and 356 as FERC Form 555. The reporting burden to implement this final rule is as follows:

The NOPR was submitted to OMB at the time of issuance. OMB terms of clearance, provided in their May 19, 2000 response, was that the NOPR “engendered significant public comment and that OMB will review the package at the final rule stage after FERC has completed any revisions to the information collection.” Comments were received from EEI and UI and are addressed in Section III—Discussion. The retention requirements remain essentially the same as those in the NOPR, therefore, the estimated annual filing burden remains the same. The burden estimates for complying with this rule are set out in the preceding Table.

Total Annual Hours for Collection (Reporting + Record keeping, (if appropriate) = 556,200). Based on the Commission's experience with current record keeping requirement practices, it is estimated that about 1,080 hours  22 are needed to retain records per year, for a total annual burden of 556,200 hours. The Commission estimates that the final rule will significantly decrease the burden of the current regulations by shortening the retention periods for certain records.

Information Collection Costs: The Commission has projected the average annualized cost for all respondents to comply with these requirements to be:

Annualized Capital/Startup Costs: $0.00.

Annualized Costs (Operations & maintenance): $29,274,430.

Total Annualized Costs: $29,274,430.

The OMB regulations require OMB to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule.  23 Accordingly, pursuant to OMB regulations the Commission provided notice of information collection to OMB.

Title: FERC Form 555, Preservation of Records of Public Utilities, Natural Gas Companies, and Oil Pipeline Companies.

Action: Data Collection.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0098, the respondent shall not be penalized for failure to respond to this collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.

Respondents: Business or other for profit, including small businesses.

Frequency of Responses: On Occasion.

Necessity of Information: The final rule revises the requirements contained in 18 CFR parts 125, 225, and 356.

Internal Review: The Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the recordkeeping. The official records maintained by the regulated companies in accordance with the Schedules provided in parts 125, 225, and 356 are used by the companies as the basis of their required rate filings and reports to the Commission. The Federal Power Act, the Natural Gas Act, and Interstate Commerce Act, require regulated companies to keep such records as the Commission may prescribe “as necessary or appropriate for purposes of administration” of these acts. One of the Commission's most important functions under these acts is ensuring that rates charged by regulated companies for certain transactions are “just and reasonable.” Almost all the records the Commission requires to be retained are for the purpose of providing an adequate base of information to make decisions on the “reasonableness” of rates. Similarly, the length of retention periods have been based on the time that information will be needed to make decisions on the impact of rates. The records are necessary as they are used by the Commission's staff during compliance reviews and special analyses performed as deemed necessary by the Commission. These requirements conform to the Commission's plan for efficient information collection within the public utilities and licensees, natural gas companies, and oil pipeline companies.

Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, (Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Phone: (202) 208-1415, fax: (202) 208-2425, email: mike.miller@ferc.fed.us ).

For submitting comments concerning the collection of information and the associated burden estimate, please send your comments to the contact listed above and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503. (Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 395-3087, fax: (202) 395-7285).

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

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

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

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

This rule will take effect on January 1, 2001. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, that this Rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966. 24 The Commission will submit the final rule to both houses of Congress and the General Accounting Office.  25

The proposed rule was published on May 18, 2000, at 65 FR 31505. No comments were received, therefore, the Department of the Navy is adopting this rule as final.

The Postal Service is changing conditions for certain mailing categories to automatically reduce every payment transaction by 5 percent for all EMS purchased at basic published prices and paid through an EMCA.

An EMCA is an advance deposit account developed for Express Mail, which enables customers to deposit funds with the Postal Service for payment of anticipated future Express Mail mailings. Express Mail Corporate Accounts can be used for domestic and international Express Mail. The discount will be available only for Express Mail sent internationally. Federal agencies will also be eligible for the discount. The discount will be deducted from the total postage amount on the mailer's monthly account rather than from each piece.

The 5 percent discount will be offered on postage only; it does not apply to pickup fees, any special fees, nor postage for shipments being made under an International Customized Mail agreement.

As required under the Postal Reorganization Act, these changes will result in conditions of mailing that do not apportion the costs of the service, so the overall value of the service to users is fair and reasonable, and not unduly or unreasonably discriminatory or preferential.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 announces the deletion of the Windom Municipal Landfill Site, Windom, Cottonwood County, Minnesota, from the National Priorities List (NPL), Appendix B of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part 300. EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of these sites. EPA and the State of Minnesota have determined that the remedial action for the Site has been successfully executed. EPA will accept comments on this action thirty days after publication of this action in the Federal Register .

Section II of this action explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses the procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the history of the Windom Site and explains how the Site meets the deletion criteria. Section V states EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless dissenting comments are received during the comment period.

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that Sites may be deleted from, or recategorized on the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making a determination to delete a Site from the NPL, EPA shall consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria has been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA have been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

(iii) The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

Even if the Site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, EPA's policy is that a subsequent review of the Site will be conducted at least every five years after the initiation of the remedial action at the Site to ensure that the Site remains protective of public health and the environment. In the case of this Site, EPA conducted a Five-Year Review in February 1995 and a second one in December 1999. Based on these reviews, EPA determined that conditions at the Site remain protective of public health and the environment. As explained below, the Site meets the NCP's deletion criteria listed above. If new information become available which indicates a need for further action, EPA may initiate remedial actions. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the site shall be restored to the NPL without the application of the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).

The following procedures were used for the intended deletion of the Site:

(1) All appropriate response under CERCLA have been implemented and no further action by EPA is appropriate; (2) The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency concurred with the proposed deletion decision; (3) A notice has been published in the local newspaper and has been distributed to appropriate federal, state, and local officials and other interested parties announcing the commencement of a 30-day dissenting public comment period on EPA's Direct Final Action to Delete; and, (4) All relevant documents have been made available for public review in the local Site information repositories. EPA is requesting only dissenting comments on the Direct Final Action to Delete.

For deletion of the Site, EPA's Regional Office will accept and evaluate public comments on EPA's Final Notice before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, the Agency will prepare a Responsiveness Summary, responding to each significant comment submitted during the public comment period. Deletion of the Site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist Agency management. As mentioned in Section II of this document, § 300.425(e) (3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a Site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions.

The following site summary provides the Agency's rationale for the proposal to delete this Site from the NPL.

The City operated a municipal landfill from the 1930's to 1974. The Site covers approximately 11.4 acres and accepted municipal refuse, and manufacturing waste including paint sludges, from the Toro Company. Concern about the proximity of the Site to the City's municipal well field prompted the MPCA to evaluate the potential of the landfill to impact the wells. Analysis of the groundwater consistently revealed volatile organic compounds downgradient of the landfill. The Site was listed on the National Priorities List in April 1986. On June 24, 1986, the MPCA issued a Request for Response Action (RFRA) to the City and the Toro Company, which required them to conduct a Remedial Investigation (RI), and Feasibility Study (FS), and to prepare a Response Action Plan (RAP).

The City conducted the RI to determine the extent and magnitude of contamination in 1987, and followed that with a Feasibility Study in 1988. The City submitted the RAP in January 1989, which was revised in March 1989, and subsequently, approved by the MPCA. The RAP included the following response action objectives:

• Protect the municipal water supply;

• Minimize leachate generation; and

• Control contaminant migration.

The EPA Region V Administrator concurred with the MPCA Record of Decision (ROD) and the selected remedy for the Site on September 29, 1989. The major components of the selected remedial action included: (i) protection of the municipal water supply through modifications to the existing water plant; (ii) minimization of leachate generated by grading and capping of the Site; and (iii) monitoring of groundwater quality with a contingency plan to be implemented if significant groundwater impacts are detected at the Site perimeter.

The groundwater at the Site is located in glacial outwash deposited from the Des Moines lobe during the Wisconsin glaciation. The glacial outwash is underlain by a thick, low permeability clay layer, which serves as a natural barrier to water flow and protects deeper aquifers from contamination. Depth to the water table is about 50 feet the ground surface. The saturated thickness of the sand and gravel deposit ranges from 50 to 150 feet. The direction of groundwater flow is generally to the southwest toward the Des Moines River, but can be locally affected by extended pumping from the municipal system.

Water quality monitoring in the early 1980s revealed that chlorinated volatile compounds (VOCs) were detected near the fill area, most notably 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethene (PCE), 1,1,2-trichloroethene (TCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene(DCE), and vinyl chloride (VC). As a result of active groundwater pumping and treatment and natural attenuation, contaminant concentrations have declined to the point that DCE and VC have become the only compounds detected consistently at the landfill since 1996. There have been no quantified detections of VC since April 1998. In fact there have been no quantified detections of any VOC compound analyzed at the Site since July 1998.

Various inorganics historically have been detected slightly above background levels. A notable exception is nitrate, which was detected at a level of 15 milligrams per liter (mg/l) at MW1. Inorgancis were dropped from the monitoring program in 1997. Two consecutive years of inorganic data indicated levels below the action levels, including MW1 where the nitrate concentration dropped to 0.1 mg/l.

The City well field is located northwest of the Site. City Well 7 is the closest well to the Site, and is approximately 500 feet northwest of the Site. City Well 7 was impacted with VOC concentrations, most notably VC as high as 26 micrograms per liter (ug/l) in April 1990. As a result, City Well 7 was removed from the municipal supply system. City Well 7 was used as a groundwater recovery well and connected to the spray treatment system at the landfill. City Well 7 operated as a recovery well until August of 1994. City Well 7 remains disconnected from the public water supply and monitoring shows there have been no detections of vinyl chloride since July 1993.

To protect the water supply, the filter units at the municipal water treatment plant were modified in September 1988. The purpose of the modifications was to enhance aeration of raw water and hence, remove low levels of VOCs. Modifications of the filter unit involved installation of: (1) a series of pressure spray nozzles on the header distribution pipe to the filter; and (2) power roof ventilators with mist eliminators in the filter venting system. These modifications break the raw water into fine droplets when sprayed onto the gravity filter and increase airflow through the existing vents.

The City constructed a new water treatment plant in 1997. The first step in the new water treatment plant process is aeration. The primary purpose of the aerator is to enhance oxidation of iron and manganese but this aerator also has the dual purpose of volatizing any VOCs. The aerator is comprised of numerous slotted trays through which a forced draft fan blows to aerate the water much like a stripping tower. After the aerator, the water flows to an open detention tank and filter basins that provide additional opportunities for volatilization.

Construction of the landfill cap began on June 1, 1989. The landfill surface was graded to obtain a minimum slope of 2 percent and a maximum slope of 25 percent. After grading, the landfill was covered with two layers of low-permeability material compacted in six-inch lifts. A six inch granular buffer was placed on the low-permeability material layer which, in turn, was covered by a layer of topsoil. Vegetation was established on the final cover. A gas venting system was also installed upon completion of the cap. The cap has been regularly inspected and maintenance performed as required. Maintenance has included mowing the vegetation, repairing minor erosion as necessary, and pocket gopher control.

The ROD called for initial periodic monitoring of groundwater with subsequent implementation of a contingency plan for contaminant migration control if established water quality limits were exceeded. The contingency action specified in the FS, and adopted in the ROD was a groundwater pump-out treatment system to control and treat the VOCs in the groundwater. When monitoring of City Well 7 and monitoring well MW-9C detected concentrations of vinyl chloride above the action level, initiation of groundwater remedial activities were triggered in accordance with the RAP.

A groundwater recovery well (RWA) was installed along the western property boundary in September 1989. An aquifer test, coupled with a pilot treatment test, was conducted in October 1989. The tests showed that spray treatment of groundwater at the Site was effective in removing VOCs from recovered groundwater and the spray treatment process did not pose a significant health threat.

Following approval of the final design, Recovery Wells B and C (RW-B and RW-C) were completed on October 24, 1990. On October 31, 1990, the final recovery system began operation. This system consisted of Wells RW-A and RW-C, and City Well 7 discharging through two spray guns to the main spray treatment area, and RW-B pumping to spray area B. This system operated continuously in this configuration, except for brief period of downtime for operation and maintenance, until August 1, 1994, when City Well 7 was removed from the treatment system. City Well 7 was removed from the recovery system because it had not had a detection of vinyl chloride since April 1993.

The system operated with the RW-B and RW-C configuration from August 1994 until April 9, 1998. RW-C was removed from the groundwater extraction system for the following reasons: it was always a clean well (except for a few one time unconfirmed VOC detections); landfill capture was able to be maintained without it; and it would change the groundwater flow stagnation points between recovery wells, thus enchancing cleanup. The system has operated with RW-A and RW-B since April 9, 1998.

Each of the remedial objectives specified in the ROD has been accomplished. The City water supply has been protected through modifications to the former water treatment plant along with the construction of the new water treatment plant. The landfill capping has effectively reduced infiltration thereby reducing the risk of further groundwater impacts. The groundwater recovery and treatment system has effectively contained the VOC-impacted groundwater on-site and the treatment has now reduced all concentrations to below the laboratory detection limits.

This site meets all the site completion requirements as specified in OSWER Directive 9320.2-3C, Procedures for Completion and Deletion of National Priorities List Sites and Update. In addition, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (40 CFR Parts 141-146) establishes federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for public drinking water supplies. The MCL for vinyl chloride is 2.0 ug/1. Since there are non-detectable levels of vinyl chloride in each city well and the distribution system, the municipal water supply is in compliance with the SDWA and the established MCL for vinyl chloride.

Monitoring of the landfill monitoring wells and city wells will continue on a semi-annual basis to maintain protection of the city water supply. MPCA will maintain project oversight reviewing data submitted and approving the monitoring plans.

The City employees perform a monthly inspection of the Site as part of their routine monitoring. The inspections include an evaluation of soil erosion, settlement, vegetative cover maintenance, groundwater monitoring wells, and site security. Two times a year, typically April and October, a similar but more comprehensive inspection is performed by the PRPs.

The City of Windom, submitted a Five-Year Review and 1998-1999 Annual Evaluation Report to the MPCA in June 1999. This Five Year Review concluded that all remedial action objectives had been met and recommended that the groundwater extraction system be shut down and the site delisted from the NPL and the Minnesota Permanent List of Priorities (PLP). The MPCA concurred and the system was shut down on September 21, 1999. The Site was delisted from the PLP on February 2, 2000. A contingency plan is in place to reactivate the system if MCLs are exceeded in any monitoring well or municipal well. Semi-annual groundwater monitoring will continue until the next Five-Year Review, which is scheduled for June 2004. At that time, the MPCA will determine if groundwater monitoring will continue.

The remedy selected for this Site has been implemented in accordance with the Records of Decision. The remedy has resulted in the significant reduction of the long-term potential for release of contaminants, therefore, threats to human health and the environment have been minimized. EPA and the State of Minnesota find that the remedy implemented continues to provide adequate protection of human health the environment.

The MPCA concurs with the EPA that the criteria for deletion of the Site have been met. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.

This action will be effective October 6, 2000. However, if EPA receives dissenting comments by September 6, 2000, EPA will publish a document that withdraws this action.

This is a summary of the Commission's Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order , adopted June 27, 2000, and released July 3, 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, S.W., Washington, D.C., and also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036.

1. In this Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order , the Commission confirms its decision to require new Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) licensees in the 1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands to relocate incumbent BAS and FS licensees with which they are unable to share spectrum. In the March 1997 First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ETN Docket No. 95-18, 62 FR 19509, April 22, 1997, we allocated the 1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands to the Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS).

2. In response to a Petition for Further Limited Consideration filed by ICO, Ltd., we reaffirm our decision in the First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making , that new MSS licensees in the 1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz band will be required to relocate incumbent licensees in those bands, at the expense of the MSS licensees. This decision is consistent with the policy we established in the First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making , ET Docket No. 92-9, 58 FR 46457, September 2, 1993; and proposed throughout that proceeding. ICO presented no new arguments justifying a change to this policy.

3. In response to a Petition for Expedited Reconsideration filed by the ICO U.S.A. Service Group (IUSG), we decline to change our decision, made in the Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Memorandum Opinion and Order and Order in this proceeding, ET Docket No. 95-18, 63 FR 69606, December 17, 1998, to deny a request filed by IUSG to require incumbent BAS and FS licensees to submit extensive information to facilitate the relocation process. We note that much of the information requested by IUSG is already available in our data bases, and that the remainder would be made available by incumbent BAS and FS licensees in the relocation negotiation process.

4. In response to an Emergency Petition for Further Limited Consideration filed by IUSG, we decline as moot a request to impose a “freeze” on the licensing of new BAS facilities. We reject this petition because we made no prior decision on the issue of freezing BAS licenses, and therefore the issue was not ripe for reconsideration. Further, we address the freezing of BAS licenses in the Second Report and Order.

5. This allocation will require that the candidate bands be cleared of BAS incumbents in the 1990-2025 MHz band. In order to accommodate these incumbents, we confirm our decision to require MSS licensees to bear the costs of moving BAS licensees to their new band, at 2025-2110 MHz. The relocation of BAS licensees will occur in two phases. In Phase I, the BAS band, which currently consists of seven channels of 17 or 18 megahertz, will be narrowed by reducing the channels to 14.5 or 15 megahertz each, freeing 18 megahertz of spectrum at 1990-2008 MHz for initiation of MSS operations. When this 18 megahertz is fully occupied, and MSS licensees require the remaining 17 megahertz of spectrum, at 2008-2025, Phase II of the BAS relocation will begin, and the BAS band will be reduced to its final form of seven channels of 12.1 or 12.4 megahertz width, at 2025-2110 MHz. BAS licensees and MSS licensees will negotiate the terms of relocation, but generally, the costs of relocation will be borne by MSS.

6. The MSS allocation will also require relocation of FS microwave incumbents. We addressed this issue in the First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket No. 92-9, 58 FR 46457, September 2, 1993, and will follow the same procedures, requiring that MSS licensees negotiate relocation with FS licensees and bear the cost of relocating them from the 2165-2200 MHz band.

7. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 1 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making   2 and the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order (Third Notice)  3 in this docket, ET Docket No. 95-18. The Commission sought written comment on the proposals in the First R&O/Further Notice and the Third Notice , including comment on the IRFAs. The present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in this Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order (Second R&O/Second MO&O) conforms to the RFA. 4

8. This Second R&O/Second MO&O establishes rules to govern the relocation of Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS), Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS), and Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) licensees from the 1990-2025 MHz band to the remainder of the BAS band, at 2025-2110 MHz. The 1990-2025 MHz band has been reallocated to the Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS). This Second R&O/Second MO&O also establishes rules to govern the relocation of Fixed Service (FS) licensees from the 2165-2200 MHz spectrum, reallocated to the MSS, to FS bands above 4 GHz. These rules are designed to ensure an orderly and expeditious transition of these licensees from the 2 GHz spectrum so that MSS operations may be conducted in a designated segment of the spectrum. At the same time, the rules are designed to ensure that incumbent BAS, LTTS, CARS, and FS licensees suffer no harm from relocation.

9. No comments were filed in response to the IRFAs. Nonetheless, the Commission considered the impact of our rules governing the relocation of the BAS, LTTS, CARS, and FS licensees, some of whom may be small entities, from the 2 GHz spectrum. This 2 GHz spectrum was reallocated to the MSS, none of whose licensees will be small entities. The Commission considered several different relocation scenarios, some of which would have imposed the economic burden of relocation on BAS, LTTS, CARS, and FS licensees, including small entities. The Commission rejected a variety of scenarios which would have shifted some or all of the economic burden of relocation from MSS licensees to BAS, LTTS, CARS, and FS licensees. See Section E infra for a discussion of the alternatives considered by the Commission.

10. 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 The RFA 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. 6 A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 7 The term “small entity” also has the same meaning as “small governmental jurisdiction,” which means “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000.”  8

(a) BAS, LTTS, and CARS Licensees: This service involves a variety of transmitters, generally used to relay broadcast programming to the public (through translator and booster stations) or within the program distribution chain (from a remote news gathering unit to the studio). CARS includes transmitters generally used to relay cable programming within cable television system distribution systems. BAS and LTTS licensees are entities classified by the SBA as Category 4833 (Television Broadcasting Stations), which are small businesses if they have annual revenues below 10.5 million dollars. 9 CARS licensees are classified as Category 4841 (Cable and Other Pay Television Services), which are small businesses if they have annual revenues below 11 million dollars. 10

(1) The Commission estimates that there are a total of approximately 2200 BAS, LTTS, and CARS licensees in the United States. Neither the Commission nor the Department of Commerce collect financial information on any broadcast facility, including these auxiliary facilities. We believe, however, that few, if any, of these licensees could be classified as small businesses. Most auxiliary transmitters are owned by parent stations that would likely have annual revenues that exceed the SBA maximum to be designated as a small business ($10.5 million for a TV station and $11 million for a cable system). Furthermore, they do not meet the Small Business Act's definition of a “small business concern” because they are not independently owned and operated.

(b) MSS Licensees: The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to MSS licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Category 4899 (Communications Services “Not Elsewhere Classified” (NEC)). This definition provides that a small entity is one with $11.0 million or less in annual receipts. 11 Eight potential MSS licensees will be affected by this rule making proceeding. Given the extremely high start-up costs for MSS companies, none will be small entities.

(c) FS Licensees: The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to FS microwave licensees. Licensees in this service are State and local governments and SBA Categories 4813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone), 12 4619 (Pipelines, N.E.C.), 13 4911 (Electric Services) and other utility companies, 14 and Major Group 47 (Transportation Services, i.e., railroads). 15 Therefore, the applicable definitions of small entity are the definition under the SBA rules applicable to these activities. This definition provides that small entities are Telephone Communications companies employing fewer than 1500 employees, Pipeline companies with annual receipts of less than $25 million, Electric Services companies generating less than 4 million megawatt hours annually, and Transportation Services, including railroads, with annual receipts of less than $5 million annually. Licensees in the FS also include State and local governments with populations of less than 50,000.

(1) Some FS licensees are likely to be small entities. Using Census Bureau data we estimate that 81,600 of the State and local Governments are small entities. 16 There are approximately 4200 FS microwave links licensed to Telephone Communications companies. The Commission has no data on how many of these links belong to each licensee. Therefore, the total number of telephone licensees must be 4200 or less, of whom a minority may be small entities. Approximately 4000 FS microwave links are licensed to Pipeline companies, Electric Services companies, Transportation Services including railroads, and local and State governments. The Commission has no data on how many of these links belong to each licensee. Therefore, the total number of Pipeline companies, Electric Services companies, Transportation Services including railroads, and local and State government licensees must be 4000 or less, of whom a minority may be small entities.

(d) Using the best data available, the Commission estimates that a large majority of BAS, LTTS, CARS, and FS licensees are not small entities. Because of the high costs attendant to the start-up of MSS operations, none of the eight MSS licensees affected by this rule making will be small entities.

11. The adopted rules would require affected BAS, LTTS, CARS, and FS licensees, some of whom may be small entities, to negotiate with MSS licensees for relocation (including replacement or retuning of equipment) or rechannelization or both. These negotiations would include negotiating timetables for relocation and costs. These negotiations are likely to require the skills of accountants and engineers to evaluate the economic and technical requirements of relocation, and of attorneys or other negotiators to conduct negotiations. The estimated cost per incumbent BAS, LTTS, CARS, or FS licensee of relocation negotiations is $2000 to $8000. The Commission has permitted BAS, LTTS, CARS, and FS licensees to negotiate collectively for relocation. Collective negotiations, if employed by these licensees, will reduce the costs of negotiation for each licensee.

12. The Commission decided that new MSS licensees, none of whom will be small entities, will be required to relocate or rechannelize incumbent BAS, LTTS, CARS, and FS licensees in the 2 GHz band, some of whom are likely to be small entities, at the expense of the new MSS licensees. The Commission considered the alternative of requiring current BAS, LTTS, CARS, and FS licensees in the 2 GHz band to relocate or rechannelize at their own expense. The Commission rejected this alternative as excessively burdensome on these incumbent licensees, including small entities, and not in the public interest.

13. MSS commenters advocated requiring BAS, LTTS, and CARS licensees to finance their own relocation as their equipment depreciated and they purchased new equipment, claiming that the total costs of relocation, added to the high cost of launching satellites, would cripple the nascent MSS industry. MSS commenters also asserted, however, that there is a huge, underserved demand for MSS. We believe that MSS licensees will build the cost of relocating BAS, LTTS, and CARS licensees into their financial plans, and still will be able to provide service at a profit. In the alternative, MSS may choose to defer expeditious access to the spectrum currently heavily used by BAS, LTTS, and CARS licensees and defer deployment of MSS systems for ten years, in which case no relocation or rechannelization would be required.

14. MSS commenters advocated requiring MSS licensees to pay only the depreciated value of the equipment of incumbent FS licensees, some of which may be small entities. The Commission rejected this position, adhering to our requirement that MSS licensees must provide relocated incumbent FS licensees with comparable facilities in the bands to which the FS licensees are relocated.

15. In the case of involuntary relocation of BAS, LTTS, CARS, and FS licensees, the Commission applied the requirements of our Emerging Technologies policies: (1) payment of all relocation expenses by the MSS operator, (2) full comparability of replacement facilities, and (3) the right of the incumbents to demand that MSS licensees cure any defects, should the replacement facilities prove not to be fully comparable after relocation. The relocation requirements adopted by the Commission will guarantee that BAS, LTTS, CARS, and FS licensees, some of whom are likely to be small entities, will suffer no, or minimal, economic impact as a result of relocation.

Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the Second R&O/Second MO&O , including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the SBREFA, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Second R&O/Second MO&O , including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-265, adopted August 2, 2000, and released August 3, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-317, adopted August 2, 2000, and released August 3, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

When DOT last revised its regulations implementing the Privacy Act (62 FR 23666; May 1, 1997), we unintentionally omitted the Maritime Administration as an agency of DOT subject to these regulations. It is and has been all along; hence, this correction merely clarifies that fact.

This editorial correction is not a change in the existing rule; therefore, it is not a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, or significant within the definition in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, 49 FR 11034 (1979). It has no economic impact. I certify that this correction will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This editorial correction does not significantly affect the environment, and therefore an environmental impact statement is not required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It has also been reviewed under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, and it has been determined that it does not have sufficient implications for federalism to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Finally, the correction does not contain any collection of information requirements requiring review under the Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended.