How do I comment on the proposed AD? The FAA invites comments on this proposed rule. You may submit whatever written data, views, or arguments you choose. You need to include the rule's docket number and submit your comments in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. The FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date. We may amend the proposed rule in light of comments received. Factual information that supports your ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed AD action and determining whether we need to take additional rulemaking action.

Are there any specific portions of the proposed AD I should pay attention to? The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. You may examine all comments we receive before and after the closing date of the rule in the Rules Docket. We will file a report in the Rules Docket that summarizes each FAA contact with the public that concerns the substantive parts of the proposed AD.

We are re-examining the writing style we currently use in regulatory documents, in response to the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998. That memorandum requires federal agencies to communicate more clearly with the public. We are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document is clearer, and any other suggestions you might have to improve the clarity of FAA communications that affect you. You can get more information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain language initiative at http://www.plainlanguage.gov.

How can I be sure FAA receives my comment? If you want us to acknowledge the receipt of your comments, you must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. On the postcard, write “Comments to Docket No. 99-CE-73-AD.” We will date stamp and mail the postcard back to you.

What events have caused this proposed AD? The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all British Aerospace HP137 Mk1 and Jetstream series 200 airplanes. The CAA reports instances of delamination and corrosion of the vertical stabilizer skin. Such damage resulted in cracks around the rivet holes.

What are the consequences if the condition is not corrected? If not detected and corrected, a damaged vertical stabilizer skin could lead to failure of the vertical stabilizer with consequent airplane controllability problems.

Is there service information that applies to this subject? British Aerospace has issued Jetstream Alert Service Bulletin 55-A-JA-990640, Issued: September 1, 1999.

What are the provisions of this service bulletin? This service bulletin:

• Includes procedures for inspecting the vertical stabilizer skin for disbonding, corrosion, cracks, and loose rivets; and

• Specifies repairing any vertical stabilizer skin where discrepancies are found in accordance with the procedures in the maintenance manual or an FAA-approved repair scheme.

What action did the CAA take? The CAA classified this service bulletin as mandatory in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the United Kingdom. The CAA classifying a service bulletin as mandatory is the same in the United Kingdom as the FAA issuing an AD in the United States.

Was this in accordance with the bilateral airworthiness agreement? These airplane models are manufactured in the United Kingdom and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept FAA informed of the situation described above.

What has FAA decided? The FAA has examined the findings of the CAA; reviewed all available information, including the service information referenced above; and determined that:

• The unsafe condition referenced in this document exists or could develop on other British Aerospace HP137 Mk1 and Jetstream series 200 airplanes of the same type design;

• The actions specified in the previously-referenced service information should be accomplished on the affected airplanes, except for reporting any discrepancies to British Aerospace; and

• AD action should be taken in order to correct this unsafe condition.

What does the proposed AD require? This proposed AD would require you to inspect the vertical stabilizer skin for disbonding, corrosion, cracks, and loose rivets, and repair any vertical stabilizer skin where discrepancies are found.

Are there differences between the proposed AD and the Service Bulletin? British Aerospace Jetstream Alert Service Bulletin 55-A-JA-990640, Issued: September 1, 1999, specifies reporting the results of the inspections to British Aerospace Regional Aircraft. This NPRM does not specify this action. The FAA recommends that each owner/operator submit this information and we are including a note in the proposed AD to communicate this. British Aerospace and the British CAA will use this information to determine whether repetitive inspections are necessary, and, if so, at what intervals.

The FAA will evaluate the information from the British CAA and may initiate further rulemaking action to propose a repetitive inspection requirement.

How many airplanes does the proposed AD impact? We estimate that the proposed AD affects 85 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of the proposed AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate the following costs to accomplish the proposed inspection:

Does this proposed AD impact various entities? The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposed rule would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

How do I comment on this proposed AD? We invite your comments on the proposed rule. You may send whatever written data, views, or arguments you choose. You need to include the rule's docket number and send your comments in triplicate to the address mentioned under the caption ADDRESSES. We will consider all comments received by the closing date mentioned above, before acting on the proposed rule. We may change the proposals contained in this notice because of the comments received.

Are there any specific portions of the proposed AD I should pay attention to? The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule that might call for a need to change the proposed rule. You may examine all comments we receive. We will file a report in the Rules Docket that summarizes each FAA contact with the public that concerns the substantive parts of this proposal.

The FAA is reexamining the writing style we currently use in regulatory documents, in response to the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998. That memorandum requires federal agencies to communicate more clearly with the public. We are interested in your comments on the ease of understanding this document, and any other suggestions you might have to improve the clarity of FAA communications that affect you. You can get more information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain language initiative at http://www.faa.gov/language/. Q P='03'>

How can I be sure FAA receives my comment?

If you want to know that we received your comments, you must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. On the postcard, write “Comments to Docket No. 99-CE-79-AD.” We will date stamp and mail the postcard back to you.

What events have caused this proposed AD? Raytheon has identified several instances of missing rivets on these airplanes:

What are the consequences if the condition is not corrected? This condition results in the airplane being unable to carry the ultimate load.

What service information applies to this subject? Raytheon has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 53-3341, revised: May 2000.

What are the provisions of this service bulletin? The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting for missing rivets and installing rivets in the lower right hand fuselage panel assembly in the area above the right wing and below the cabin door threshold.

What has FAA decided? After examining the circumstances and reviewing all available information related to the incidents, we have determined that:

• The unsafe condition referenced in this document exists or could develop on other Raytheon Beech Models A36, B36TC, and 58 airplanes of the same type design;

• These airplanes should have the actions specified in the above service bulletin incorporated; and

• The FAA should take AD action to correct this unsafe condition.

What does this proposed AD require? This proposed AD would require you to:

• Inspect for missing rivets on the right hand fuselage; and

• If necessary, install rivets.

What are the differences between the service bulletin and the proposed AD?

Raytheon requires you to inspect for missing rivets and, if necessary, install rivets, as soon as possible after receipt of the Service Bulletin, but no later than the next scheduled 100 hour or annual inspection. We propose a requirement that you inspect and, if necessary, install the missing rivets within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of the proposed AD. We believe that 100 hours TIS will give the owners/operators of the affected airplanes enough time to have the proposed actions done without compromising the safety of the airplanes.

How many airplanes does this proposed AD impact? We estimate the proposed AD would affect 452 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of the proposed action for the affected airplanes on the U.S. Register? We estimate that it would take about 1 workhour for each proposed inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 an hour. Based on the cost factors presented above, we estimate that the total cost impact of the proposed inspection on U.S. operators is $27,120, or $60 per airplane.

We estimate that it would take 4 workhours to install the rivets. The cost of parts is about $100. Based on the cost factors presented above, we estimate that the total cost impact of replacing the rivets on U.S. operators is $340 per airplane.

The manufacturer will allow warranty credit for labor and parts to the extent noted in the service bulletin.

Does this proposed AD impact relations between Federal and State governments? The proposed regulations would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have determined that this proposed rule would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Does this proposed AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if put into effect, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We have placed a copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action in the Rules Docket. You may obtain a copy of it by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received.

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 94-ANE-38-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 94-ANE-38-AD, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299.

On April 17, 1995, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued airworthiness directive (AD) 95-09-02, Amendment 39-9206 (60 FR 20189, April 25, 1995), applicable to Textron Lycoming LTS101 series turboshaft and LTP101 series turboprop engines incorporating Chandler Evans (CECO) engine fuel pumps, Part Numbers 4-301-128-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -06, -07, -08, -09, -10. This AD superseded Priority Letter AD 94-19-01, issued on September 2, 1994. The current AD requires initial and repetitive inspections for wear of LTS101 and LTP101 engine fuel pump internal drive splines installed on single-engine aircraft and replacement with a serviceable part of engine fuel pumps that exhibit wear beyond the limits specified in the incorporated service bulletin. That action was prompted by a report of a helicopter accident that resulted in a total loss of engine power and subsequent autorotation of a helicopter powered by a Textron Lycoming Model LTS101-600A-3 turboshaft engine. Investigation of that accident and other engine failures showed that CECO Model MFP261 engine fuel pump internal drive spline teeth were worn away and failed to engage, resulting in loss of fuel delivery to the engine. That condition, if not corrected, could result in engine fuel pump failure, which can result in total engine power loss and possible loss of the aircraft.

Since the issuance of AD 95-09-02, a number of removed fuel pumps have been returned to CECO. The FAA has learned that 13 percent of the pumps that were returned from the field for the required 900-hour interval inspection revealed excessive internal drive spline wear. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that the inspection interval must be reduced to 600-hour intervals.

The FAA has reviewed and approved the contents of AlliedSignal Service Bulletin (SB) LT 101-73-20-0203, dated August 18, 1999, that informs operators of the new inspection intervals and the drawdown schedule for in-service pumps. This AD is applicable to pumps installed on single-engine aircraft only.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other engines of this same type design, this proposed AD would supersede AD 95-09-02 to require initial and repetitive inspections for wear of the engine fuel pump internal drive splines, and replacement of engine fuel pumps that exhibit wear beyond the limits specified in AlliedSignal Engines SB No. LT101-73-20-0203 dated August 18, 1999, with a serviceable part. Fuel pumps removed in accordance with this AD must be returned to CECO for disassembly, inspection, and repair because of the specialized tools and procedures required. These actions must be done in accordance with the SB described previously.

Because initial removal and replacement activities are scheduled at intervals compatible with existing AD 95-09-02, no additional impact on part and labor cost is anticipated.

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

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)).

Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, OP:FS:FP, Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by November 27, 2000.

Comments are specifically requested concerning:

Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Internal Revenue Service, including whether the collection will have practical utility;

The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information;

How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced;

How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

The collection of information in the proposed regulations is in § 1.1502-77(d). This information is required for the common parent to notify the IRS of the designation of a new agent for the consolidated group when the common parent's existence is about to terminate and for the designated corporation to confirm that it agrees to serve as the group's new agent and qualifies to be the group's agent. The collection of information is required to obtain a benefit, i.e., to designate a new agent for the consolidated group. The likely respondents are business or other for-profit institutions.

The regulations provide that a common parent or a previously designated agent of a consolidated group should notify the Commissioner in writing, in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Commissioner, that it anticipates going out of existence and that it designates another corporation to serve as the group's agent for specified prior consolidated return years. In addition, the notification should include a statement by the designated corporation agreeing to serve as the group's agent and, if the designated corporation was not itself a member of the group, a statement that it is or will be liable for the tax. An agent designated by the Commissioner is required to give notice to each corporation (or any successor) that was a member of the group during any part of the relevant consolidated return year. The burden for the collection of information in § 1.1502-77(d) is as follows:

Estimated total annual reporting burden: 200 hours.

Estimated average annual burden per respondent: 2 hours.

Estimated number of respondents: 100.

Estimated annual frequency of responses: On occasion.

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

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

This document proposes amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under section 1502 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code). The proposed amendments clarify and supplement existing rules under § 1.1502-77 concerning the agent for a consolidated group and the designation of a new agent to act for the group. The proposed amendments also clarify rules concerning the common parent as agent for a corporation whose income is improperly included in a consolidated return. In addition, the proposed amendments modify and clarify the rules concerning the proper party to apply for and receive a refund payment due to a tentative carryback adjustment under § 1.1502-78. The proposed regulations also terminate § 1.1502-77T for tax years beginning on or after the effective date of final regulations amending § 1.1502-77.

Section 1.1502-77(a) currently provides that the common parent is the “sole agent” for the consolidated group with respect to nearly all procedural tax matters relating to the group's tax liability for a consolidated return year. Notwithstanding this general rule, § 1.1502-77(a) provides that the IRS may, upon notifying the common parent, deal directly with any member of the group in respect of its liability, in which case that member shall have full authority to act for itself.

Because the common parent's authority to act as agent for the group terminates when the common parent corporation ceases to exist, § 1.1502-77(d) provides for the designation of a new agent to act for the group. Section 1.1502-77(d) first grants the terminating common parent, prior to going out of existence, the authority to designate a remaining member to act as agent for the group (a designated agent) regarding the group's prior consolidated return years. If the common parent goes out of existence without designating a new agent, § 1.1502-77(d) provides that the remaining members of the group may designate a new agent. A designation of a new agent under this provision, by either the common parent or the remaining members, is subject to the approval of the district director with which the group files its return. Section 1.1502-77(d) also grants the IRS the authority to deal separately with each remaining member of the group with respect to its liability in the event that neither the common parent nor the surviving members designate a new agent.

Decisions of the United States Tax Court have highlighted difficulties in applying these rules to situations where a group continues to exist following a transaction described in § 1.1502-75(d) (a group structure change), in which a new common parent has replaced the former common parent (which may or may not have remained in existence or remained a member of the group). See Interlake Corp. v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 103 (1999); Union Oil Co. v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 130 (1993); Southern Pacific Co. v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 395, 404 (1985).

On September 8, 1988, various final and temporary regulations under section 1502 were published in the Federal Register (53 FR 34729). At the same time, a notice of proposed rulemaking (LR-66-88) cross-referenced to the text of the temporary regulations was also published (53 FR 34779). Included in the temporary regulations was § 1.1502-77T. In situations where the corporation that was the common parent of the group ceases to be the common parent, § 1.1502-77T provides alternative agents to act for a consolidated group, but only for purposes of mailing notices of deficiency and waiving periods of limitations. Specifically, § 1.1502-77T allows the following alternative agents to act on behalf of the group: (1) the common parent of the group for all or any part of the year to which the notice or waiver applies, (2) a successor to the former common parent in a transaction to which section 381(a) applies, (3) the agent designated by the group under § 1.1502-77(d), or (4) if the group remains in existence under § 1.1502-75(d)(2) or (3), the common parent of the group at the time the notice is mailed or the waiver given.

The IRS received no comments on § 1.1502-77T and has not issued final regulations concerning alternative agents.

Given the common parent's role as the agent for the group, issues arise about who has authority to act on behalf of the group for consolidated return years where the common parent has ceased to exist ( e.g., due to a merger or liquidation) or where, while continuing to exist, it has ceased to be the common parent of the group ( e.g., as a result of being acquired by another corporation). Other issues arise concerning the proper agent, as well as the scope of that agency, where a consolidated return improperly includes the income of a corporation that should have filed separately or when the IRS issues a tentative refund in response to a claim filed by a former member of the group.

Although the current provisions of §§ 1.1502-77 and 1.1502-77T provide guidance in limited situations, numerous issues have arisen in situations outside the scope of these provisions. The alternative agent approach of § 1.1502-77T addressed agency issues regarding notices of deficiency and waivers of periods of limitations. It was intended to offer flexibility in allowing both taxpayers and the IRS to choose from among several potential agents to act for the group and also to ensure that whichever corporation is selected would be a permissible agent to act for the group. However, an alternative agent provided by § 1.1502-77T is the agent for the group only for purposes of mailing notices of deficiency or for executing consents to extend periods of limitations. Under § 1.1502-77T, an alternative agent has no authority to act as the group's agent for other purposes (e.g., filing a refund claim, receiving refund payments or executing a closing agreement). As a result, under the current rules, absent a designation of one of the remaining members to act as agent under § 1.1502-77(d), the IRS may have no option other than to deal separately with each remaining member for any purpose not covered by § 1.1502-77T.

The IRS and Treasury initially considered the possibility of expanding the scope of the authority of alternative agents under § 1.1502-77T to include all matters under the common parent's scope of authority as set forth in § 1.1502-77(a). However, it was ultimately concluded that the shortcomings of the alternative agent approach outweigh its benefits. In particular, that approach lacks certainty because the IRS could deal with any one of several alternative agents and more than one corporation could initiate actions on behalf of the group. Also, a corporation could serve as an alternative agent without having been related to members of the group during the consolidated return year at issue or without being liable for the consolidated tax for that year.

In lieu of expanding the alternative agent approach of § 1.1502-77T, the IRS and Treasury propose to revise the rules of § 1.1502-77 and to terminate the application of § 1.1502-77T. Under the proposed regulations, as discussed in more detail below, the common parent remains the agent for the group's consolidated return year as long as it remains in existence, regardless of whether it continues to be a common parent or a member of the group, or whether the group continues under § 1.1502-75(d).

The proposed regulations set forth procedures for a common parent to designate a new agent for the group when the common parent ceases to exist, and permit the IRS to designate a new agent if the common parent fails to do so. The proposed regulations do not contain a provision allowing the remaining members to designate a new agent if the common parent fails to make a designation before it ceases to exist. The proposed regulations provide that the common parent acts as the agent with regard to the liability of any corporation whose income is improperly included in the group's return but whose liability is subsequently computed on the basis of a separate return or as a member of another consolidated group.

Finally, the proposed regulations modify the rule in § 1.1502-78(a) concerning an application under section 6411 for a tentative carryback adjustment with respect to a loss or business credit arising in a separate return limitation year. Under the proposed amendments, the application should be filed by the common parent for the carryback year instead of the corporation to which the loss or credit is attributable. In addition, the proposed amendments clarify that any refund under § 1.1502-78(b) related to a tentative carryback adjustment must be paid to the corporation that was the common parent (or is the designated agent) for the carryback year. The proposed amendments also replace the word “investment” with “business” in the term unused investment credit in § 1.1502-78(a) to conform to changes in section 6411.

In order to reduce uncertainty for both taxpayers and the IRS, the proposed amendments to § 1.1502-77(a) provide that the common parent for a consolidated return year remains the agent for the group for that year as long as it continues to exist. This rule applies even if the common parent, for whatever reason, ceases to be the common parent. Thus, for example, if the common parent becomes a subsidiary member of the consolidated group, which continues under § 1.1502-75(d), if the common parent becomes a stand-alone corporation, or even if the common parent becomes a subsidiary member of another group, it remains the agent of the group for those consolidated return years during which it was the group's common parent. Cf. Interlake Corp. v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 103 (1999); Union Oil Co. v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 130 (1993).

The proposed regulations provide a rule for situations where a corporation files a consolidated return as the common parent of an affiliated group but is subsequently determined not to be the actual common parent of that group. In such situations, the corporation that filed as the common parent is considered to be the agent for each member of the claimed group even though it was not actually the common parent. This situation may arise, for example, where the common parent fails to own stock satisfying the 80-percent voting and value requirement of section 1504(a)(2).

The proposed regulations clarify that the common parent's authority as agent for a taxable year extends to any successor of a member. For purposes of § 1.1502-77 only, the term successor means a party that, pursuant to applicable law, has become primarily liable for the tax liabilities of the common parent or any subsidiary member. Such determination is made without regard to § 1.1502-1(f)(4) (defining the term successor for purposes of the definition of a separate return limitation year). The proposed regulations also clarify that the common parent remains the sole agent with respect to the consolidated tax liability under § 1.1502-6 of a subsidiary (or its successor) that is or becomes a disregarded entity for Federal tax purposes.

Where transferee liability exists under applicable law, the proposed regulations provide that, for purposes of assessing, paying or collecting transferee liability, actions of the common parent with respect to the group's tax liability will derivatively affect the liability of a transferee of a member, regardless of whether the transferor member remains in existence. This provision is essentially an application of general principles of transferee liability in the context of a consolidated group. Under case law, the actions of a transferor derivatively affect the liability of a transferee, even if the actions are taken after the transfer occurs. See, e.g., United States v. Vassallo, Inc., 274 F.2d 791, 793-794 (3d Cir. 1960). As provided in the proposed regulations, the common parent's actions on behalf of the group are always binding on each member of the group. Therefore, any actions of a common parent with respect to the group's liability for a consolidated return year will derivatively affect the liability of a transferee of a transferor member that remains in existence, even if the action occurs after the transfer giving rise to the transferee liability.

The proposed regulations recognize the derivative effect of the common parent's actions on transferee liability and further provide that actions taken by or with respect to the common parent, as agent for the group, after a transferor member has ceased to exist, also derivatively affect the liability of a transferee of such member to the same extent as if the transferor member had remained in existence. For example, under this provision, a waiver extending the limitations period for assessment, executed by the common parent (as agent for the group) after a member ceases to exist, would have the derivative effect of extending the limitations period with respect to a transferee of such member.

The proposed regulations revise the rules governing the designation of a new agent for the group when the common parent ceases to exist. They retain the current provision under § 1.1502-77(d) for the common parent to notify the IRS and designate, subject to the approval of the IRS, another member to act as the group's agent for the consolidated return year.

As under the current rule, the proposed regulations provide that the common parent may designate one of the remaining members of the group as the new agent for the group. The proposed regulations provide that the member designated as the agent for a consolidated return year must have been a member of the group during the consolidated return year and must not subsequently have been disregarded as an entity separate from its owner or treated as a partnership for purposes of Federal taxes. However, the common parent may also designate a domestic corporation (that is not disregarded as an entity separate from its owner or classified as a partnership for Federal tax purposes) that is primarily liable as a successor of any corporation that was a member of the group during the consolidated return year. In addition, the common parent will be permitted to designate any domestic corporation (that is not disregarded as an entity separate from its owner or classified as a partnership for Federal tax purposes) that is to become primarily liable as the common parent's successor in connection with a transaction in which the common parent's existence terminates. If an agent previously designated under this provision ceases to exist, the proposed regulations provide for such terminating agent to designate a new agent in the same manner that is available to a common parent that is going out of existence.

For purposes of the designation provision, a corporation's existence is deemed to cease not only if the corporation ceases to exist under applicable law, but also if the corporation becomes a disregarded entity or reclassified as a partnership for Federal tax purposes. However, if treating a corporation as ceasing to exist when it becomes a disregarded entity or reclassified as a partnership would leave no other corporation eligible to serve as a designated agent for the group, its existence would not be deemed to terminate. As used in the proposed regulations, the term disregarded entity includes a qualified subchapter S subsidiary for which an election is made pursuant to section 1361(b)(3)(B), a qualified REIT subsidiary within the meaning of section 856(i)(2), or an entity that is disregarded as an entity separate from its owner under the “check-the-box” rules of § 301.7701-3. If, as a result of becoming a disregarded entity or reclassified as a partnership, the group's agent ceases to exist for Federal tax purposes without designating a new agent and subsequently purports to act on behalf of the group, any actions taken by the purported agent will, to the extent determined appropriate by the Commissioner, have the same effect as if the agent's existence had not terminated.

In the event the common parent (or a previously designated agent) fails to designate a new agent before going out of existence, the proposed regulations authorize the IRS to designate a new agent for the group. The IRS may designate one of the remaining members of the group for the consolidated return year (that has not been disregarded as an entity separate from its owner or reclassified as a partnership for Federal tax purposes), or any domestic corporation (that is not disregarded as an entity separate from its owner or classified as a partnership for Federal tax purposes) that is primarily liable as a successor of such a member, to act as the group's agent. This provides the IRS with a readily available option in cases where it needs to address a consolidated group's tax liability and no new agent has otherwise been designated. Any corporation that the IRS designates as the agent for the consolidated return year generally will continue as the group's agent as long as it remains in existence. At the request of one or more members, however, the IRS may (but is not required to) replace a designated agent with another member (or successor of a member) for the consolidated return year.

The proposed regulations direct the IRS and the designated agent to provide notification of the designation to the other remaining members/successors. Any failure by the IRS and/or the designated agent to give notification to a member/successor does not invalidate the designation.

Under the current regulations, the remaining members for a consolidated return year may designate a new agent in the event the common parent does not designate a new agent that is approved by the IRS. In practice, taxpayers have seldom utilized this provision because it is unwieldy and largely impracticable except for groups comprising only a few members. Accordingly, in light of the infrequency with which taxpayers use this provision, and in the interest of providing simple and administrable procedures, the IRS and Treasury have concluded that there is no longer a need to provide for any designation by the remaining members.

As under the current regulations, the proposed regulations provide that a designation by the common parent or a designated agent cannot become effective until it is approved by the IRS. The proposed regulations clarify that the Commissioner's approval of a designation by a common parent (or designated agent) will not be effective before the corporation making the designation ceases to exist. In the absence of an effective approved designation, a notice of deficiency or any other communication mailed to the former common parent or former designated agent, even if no longer in existence, is treated as having been properly mailed to all members and successors.

The proposed regulations retain the provision in the current regulations authorizing the Commissioner, upon notifying the common parent, to deal separately with a member concerning that member's several liability for the consolidated tax. In such a case, the member would have full authority to act for itself.

The proposed regulations eliminate § 1.1502-77T for consolidated return years beginning after the date that the final regulations under § 1.1502-77 are published in the Federal Register .

The proposed regulations provide that the common parent is the sole agent for any corporation that is improperly included in the group's return and whose tax liability should have been computed on the basis of a separate return or as a member of another consolidated group. This provision is consistent with the current rule of § 1.1502-77(c)(2), relating to the effect of waivers of periods of limitations on assessment that are executed by the common parent. The proposed regulations are also consistent with rulings of the Tax Court in several cases. See Intervest Enterprises, Inc. v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 91, 96-97 (1972); Lone Star Life Insurance Company v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-465; INI, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-112, aff'd per curiam, 107 F.3d 27 (11th Cir. 1997). See also Alumax Inc. v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 133, 196 (1997) (holding that the improper inclusion of a corporation in a consolidated return does not alter the agency relationship established under § 1.1502-77(c)), aff'd on other grounds, 165 F.3d 822 (11th Cir. 1999).

The proposed regulations amend § 1.1502-78(a) to provide that the common parent for the carryback year should file any application under section 6411 for a tentative carryback adjustment with respect to a loss or credit arising in a separate return limitation year that may be carried back to a consolidated return year. The current rule, which provides that the corporation to which such loss or credit is attributable should file such application, is inconsistent with the general rule of § 1.1502-77 that the common parent is the sole agent for the group and with the rule of § 1.1502-78(b) that payment of any resulting refund is made to the common parent.

In Interlake Corp. v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 103, 112-113 (1999), the Tax Court found that § 1.1502-78(b) is unclear as to whether the common parent in the carryback year or the common parent in the loss year should be the group's agent to receive a refund resulting from a tentative carryback adjustment. 112 T.C. at 112-113. The proposed regulations amend § 1.1502-78(b) to provide expressly that the refund should be paid to the common parent or designated agent for the group's carryback year.

Finally, because the position of district director will be eliminated in the restructuring of the IRS, the proposed regulations substitute “the Commissioner” for various references to the district director in § 1.1502-77. If the proposed rules are adopted, procedures for the designation of a new agent under the new IRS structure, by either a terminating common parent or the Commissioner, will be announced when final regulations are issued. It is anticipated that such procedures will be embodied in a revenue procedure that may also include provisions for one or more members of a group to request that the Commissioner designate an agent in situations where the common parent or previously designated agent failed to designate a new agent before it ceased to exist, whether or not the Commissioner has already designated an agent. Comments are invited concerning these procedures.

The amendments to § 1.1502-77 are proposed to apply to consolidated return years beginning on or after the date final regulations are published in the Federal Register . The current rules of §§ 1.1502-77 and 1.1502-77T continue to apply with respect to consolidated return years beginning before the effective date of final regulations under § 1.1502-77. Thus, the alternative agent approach of the temporary regulation would continue to apply for purposes of mailing notices of deficiency and executing waivers of periods of limitations on assessment with respect to consolidated return years beginning before the date final regulations are published in the Federal Register .

The amendments to § 1.1502-78 are proposed to apply to taxable years to which a loss or credit may be carried back and for which the due date (without extensions) of the original return is after the date final regulations are published in the Federal Register .

It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that these regulations do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that these regulations will primarily affect affiliated groups of corporations that have elected to file consolidated returns, which tend to be larger businesses, and, moreover, that any burden on taxpayers is minimal. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are timely submitted to the IRS.

The IRS and Treasury request comments on the clarity of the proposed rules and how they may be made easier to understand or to implement. In addition, comments are requested on the treatment in the proposed regulations of entities that become disregarded as entities separate from their owners or become partnerships for Federal tax purposes. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying.

A public hearing has been scheduled for January 22, 2001, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 4718, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the 10th Street entrance, located between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 15 minutes before the hearing starts.

For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must request to speak, and submit written comments and an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic (a signed original and eight (8) copies) by December 26, 2000.

A period of ten minutes will be allocated to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.

The principal authors of these proposed regulations are Gerald B. Fleming, George R. Johnson and Steven J. Hankin, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel (Field Service). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:

On August 23, 1978, ATF published Treasury Decision ATF-53 (43 FR 37672, 54624) revising regulations in 27 CFR part 4. These regulations allow the establishment of definitive viticultural areas. The regulations allow the name of an approved viticultural area to be used as an appellation of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. On October 2, 1979, ATF published Treasury Decision ATF-60 (44 FR 56692) which added a new part 9 to Title 27, CFR, for the listing of approved American viticultural areas, the names of which may be used as appellations of origin.

Section 4.25a(e)(1), title 27, CFR, defines an American viticultural area as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographic features, the boundaries of which have been delineated in subpart C of part 9.

Section 4.25a(e)(2) outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area. Any interested person may petition ATF to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. The petition should include:

(a) Evidence that the name of the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known as referring to the area specified in the petition;

(b) Historical or current evidence that the boundaries of the viticultural area are as specified in the petition;

(c) Evidence relating to the geographical characteristics (climate, soil, elevation, physical features, etc.) which distinguish the viticultural features of the proposed area from surrounding areas;

(d) A description of the specific boundaries of the viticultural area, based on features which can be found on United States Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) maps of the largest applicable scale; and

(e) A copy (or copies) of the appropriate U.S.G.S. map(s) with the boundaries prominently marked.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has received a petition from the “California Coast Alliance” proposing the establishment of a viticultural area located along the coast of California. It would include and join together currently established “coast” viticultural areas but would not cover the entire California Pacific coast. The proposed California Coast viticultural area would consist of 22,000 square miles, or 14 million acres of that land which the petitioner states is subject to maritime influences and which is warm enough for commercial premium winegrape growth. This proposed viticultural area would be consistent in size with other large areas (i.e. the Ohio River Valley, containing approximately 30,000 square miles, the Texas Hill Country, consisting of 15,000 square miles, and the Texas High Plains containing approximately 12,000 square miles).

Presently there are a number of wineries that use the term “Coastal” as additional information on their wine labels. ATF has no formal definition or criteria for the use of this term. These wine labels may also bear a recognized appellation such as “California.” The question that now arises is, if this viticultural area is approved, would ATF consider a label bearing the designation “California Coast” (as a viticultural area designation) and another label stating “California” as the appellation in direct conjunction with the term “Coastal” to be confusing. Would the establishment of this viticultural area foreclose the use of the term “Coastal” on labels not eligible for this viticultural area designation? The petitioners themselves have suggested that the unregulated use of the term “Coastal” on a label bearing the appellation California is misleading to the consumer. ATF is looking for specific comments on this situation and how the approval of this viticultural area should effect the future use of the term “Coastal.”

According to the petitioners, the name, “California Coast” is universally recognized. The petitioners point out that on a map of California, the state has, on the western edge, one long rugged coastline next to a relatively narrow area of flatter land, which is itself bordered, on the east, by a long, nearly continuous string of mountains known as the Coast Ranges. The other side of the Coast Ranges is accompanied by a long, north-south, interior strip of continental mass distinguished by the hot Central Valley and, east of that basin, the high peaks of the Sierra Nevada Range. The petitioners cite numerous books referring to “the California Coast” and the “California Coastal” region.

The petitioners claim that substantial evidence supports the common, widespread, and historical usage of the “California Coast” name and demonstrates that the term “California Coast” is sometimes used to cover the entire California coastal area from Mexico up to Oregon, and is sometimes used to cover much smaller portions of the coastal area of the state, depending on the subject matter at hand. Finally, the petitioners point out that of all the documentation reviewed for this petition, none of it includes in the description of “Coast” areas, any portion of California which is east of the California Coast, Transverse, and Peninsular Ranges.

The petitioners cite several references that support the early production of wines in missions which extended along the California Coast and fall within the boundaries of this proposed AVA. The historical evidence indicates the establishment of a chain of missions by the Spanish Franciscan monks extending from San Diego to their northernmost mission in Sonoma County but not all the way up the northern part of the coast of California. The petitioners have presented considerable evidence tracing the roots of this grape growing and wine production from the early settling of these missions along the California coast (A History of Wine in America by Thomas Pinney). There are many references in historical books written by noted wine experts that support the early production of wines in these missions which extended along the California Coast and fall within the boundaries of this AVA (see historical discussions by wine experts in The Wine Regions of America , by John J. Baxevanis (Vinifera Wine Journal 1992) at 257-8; Winemaking in California , by Teiser and Harroun (McGraw-Hill 1983) at 1-3; General Viticulture , by A.J. Winkler at 2-4; The World Atlas of Wine , by Hugh Johnson at 226; and Wine , by Amerine and Singleton (U.C. Press 1977) at 281-3.) In addition, the petitioners seek to coordinate the proposed “California Coast” viticultural area with the existing boundaries of the current North, Central, South, and Sonoma Coast viticultural areas in California along with the previously unconnected coastal areas which link the existing “Coast” viticultural areas. According to the petitioners, the northern, southern, and eastern boundaries set by these “Coast” viticultural areas correspond with the unique Mediterranean coastal climate which permits the commercial growth of premium winegrapes in the coastal area of California. Moreover, according to the petitioners, above the North Coast viticultural area northern boundary, the area becomes subject, to a higher degree, to the Arctic storm pattern and can no longer be characterized as “Mediterranean.” The petitioner states that this marine-influenced climate extends west to east from the shoreline to the first large barrier to marine influence, or the California Coast Ranges. The petitioners note that evidence must be provided to establish that “the name is locally and/or nationally known as referring to the area specified in the appellation,” not that a name for a viticultural area be locally or nationally known within the wine industry. The petitioners state that the name “California Coast” not only refers to the dominant physical characteristic of the petitioned area and to the name for which the area is best known, but corresponds directly to California wine history, climate data, and relevant information from wine experts.

According to the petitioner, because of the climate data and the historical distinctions of the proposed area, it is logical to end the “California Coast” viticultural area at the same point as the North Coast viticultural area. The petitioners do not feel that the name is misleading for not covering the area north of Mendocino County, since this term has been used by many others to cover several different portions of the California coast, as well as the entire coastline. The petitioners believe that if this could be considered misleading, then the North Coast viticultural area must also be renamed, because it stops at the identical location in Mendocino County and does not cover the entire area of the northern coast of California.

The petitioners apply the same logic to the consideration of the appropriate eastern boundary of the proposed “California Coast” viticultural area. The petitioners seek to establish the proposed area at exactly the same eastern boundaries as the North Coast, Central Coast, and the South Coast (with areas of joinder in between).

According to the petitioners, there is a definite and clear historical basis for establishing the proposed “California Coast” viticultural area. The petitioners claim that not only are there clear and important historical events which tie this area together, but these events are directly linked to the development of grape cultivation and to the beginning of the wine industry in the coastal regions of California, and directly correspond to the proposed area. According to the petitioner, the geographical area of “missionized” California very nearly matches the petitioned area. The petitioner claims that the mission chain formed the backbone for California's historical heritage, and is well known even today. The petitioners provided references relating to historical discussions by wine experts.

According to the petitioner, the history of California, and of its winemaking industry, have been deeply affected by its long Pacific coastline and its mild coastal weather. According to the petitioner, the area along the coast subject to “complete missionization” was the only area in which grapes were grown for the production of wine, and was the only area where California wines were available for 65 years.

Today, according to the petitioners, the area included within the proposed “California Coast” boundaries contains more than 468 wineries and well over 145,000 acres of vineyards. The petitioners state that wineries and winegrape vineyards abound up and down the “California Coast” area in varying densities, hampered only by a few localized and inhospitable extreme marine microclimates, some very steep elevations in the coastal hills, and by the state's population centers. According to the petitioners, these areas, known as coastal regions, all have very similar weather patterns, typified by cooling ocean breezes and fogs moving inland from the west, until they reach the barrier presented by the California Coast Ranges. The petitioners state that these same general climatic patterns prevail to support the growth of the many varietal grapes which are used to produce premium dry wines.

The petitioners are proposing to retain the same eastern boundaries for the proposed “California Coast” viticultural area as the current three “Coast” viticultural area boundaries and to unify these boundaries by filling in the areas between the North and Central Coasts, and between the Central Coast and the South Coast viticultural areas.

In order to complete the closure of the area between the North and the Central Coasts, the petitioners propose including those counties that are included in the San Francisco Bay viticultural area and the recently expanded Central Coast viticultural area. See, 27 CFR 9.75 and 9.157. This includes all of San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties. The petitioners are incorporating into the “California Coast” petition the reasoning of the San Francisco Bay and the amended Central Coast petition in seeking to include the same geographical area in the proposed “California Coast” viticultural area. See, 64 FR 3015 (Jan. 20, 1999). In addition, the petitioners are proposing to include the entire Marin County since it has the same general geography and coastal climate as the counties in the rest of the “Coast” viticultural areas. According to the petitioners, Marin County is affected by the ocean both by its long coastline, and also by its border on the San Francisco Bay. In support of this proposal, the petitioners cite The Wine Spectator's Wine Country Guide to California. This guide includes Marin County in its wine map of the San Francisco Bay area. Finally, the petitioners claim that the information found in the San Francisco Bay petition and supporting documents provides justification for placing Marin County fully into the proposed “California Coast” viticultural area. In the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast proposals, the Central Coast AVA is extended north to the Golden Gate Bridge, the northern edge of San Francisco County. According to the petitioners, Marin County, which has traditionally been considered part of the north coast area, is partially excluded from the North Coast viticultural area and completely excluded from the San Francisco Bay viticultural area. The petitioners feel that there are no practical or logical reasons to exclude Marin County from the proposed “California Coast” viticultural area since it has historical and present-day wine industry presence and virtually identical climate.

The proposed eastern boundary line, between the North Coast viticultural area and the San Francisco Bay viticultural area, would connect the towns Fairfield and Martinez by recognizable boundary markers. The rest of the boundary gap would follow the alignment of the Central Coast AVA and the same line as the San Francisco Bay viticultural area.

Between the Central and South Coast viticultural areas, the western boundary would follow the coastline between the two existing viticultural areas. The eastern boundary would take in the Oxnard/Malibu/Los Angeles/San Gabriel/Pasadena/Anaheim area. In addition, the petitioners feel that it is important to include the Los Angeles area in the proposed “California Coast” AVA because of this region's preeminence as the birthplace of the California wine industry, and because of its strong performance into this century as a producer of wines.

According to the petitioner, the land within the proposed “California Coast” viticultural area possesses a similar climate and geography along its length, in that this area is strongly affected by its proximity to coastal climate patterns, and shares the Mediterranean pattern of wet winters, dry summers, and cool marine influence. Climate and geography are deeply interconnected along the California coast. The petitioners stated that there is a great difference between the geography and climate of the coast area and the inland parts of California. Because of the geological barriers presented by the topography of California, the climate patterns tend to run west to east, depending upon their proximity to the ocean, and are not so much a function of north-south latitude as is true in most of the rest of the country.

The petitioners state that the California coast was created through several different processes: geologic upheaval, the draining of a large inland sea, and marine terracing. As a result, there is a great variety of different types of rocks and soils along the entire coastline. Variations are great even in very short distances along in the coast area, and within each of the existing “Coast” viticultural areas. The petitioners cite various references including Professor A. J. Winkler indicating that a number of grape varieties of the highest quality produce excellent wines when grown on a number of quite different soil types with climate being the largest determinant variable.

As an example, the petitioners cite Napa Valley as geographically containing an incredible mix of soil series varying dramatically between its southern and northern boundaries. The petitioners state that Napa Valley contains 36 soil series within its boundaries. The petitioners also cite the Alexander Valley viticultural area, containing 30 soil series.

As additional support, the petitioners note the strongly distinguished soils of the Central Valley, on the eastern side of the California Coast Ranges. This former inland sea, possesses highly fertile land. The soil is now rich river deposit, fertile and flat. According to the petitioners, these conditions are totally different in the Central Valley from those among the coastal hills. The Central Valley soils, combined with the very hot summers in the Valley, cause the grape vines to “go into overdrive producing excessive foliage and bland grapes.”

According to the petitioners, the soils information provides certain consolidating evidence as to the acidic soils of the coast and their distinction from the kinds of soils found in the Central Valley, while the geological data very strongly establishes the existence of a distinct coast of California, with a unique history, and entirely distinguishable land formations.

According to the petitioners, the coast of California has a unique climate in the United States and in most of the world, and despite its size, can specifically be distinguished from the surrounding areas. Further, the petitioners state that it is directly a result of the climate that the California coast has been demarked by enologists, vintners, and wine writers as a source of most of the premium varietal grapes in the United States, in contrast with the Central Valley, which lies on the far side of the Coast Ranges. According to the petitioners, most American enologists agree that climate has the greatest influence on the quality of wines produced in a particular area.

The California coast climate is generally classified as Mediterranean. According to the petitioners, only one percent of the world has this climate, and the area consisting of approximately the lower two thirds of the California coast is the only part of the United States that has this climate. The main reasons for this are the effects of the ocean itself, the existence of the “Pacific High” off the California coast, and the inland barrier presented by the coastal mountain chains. According to Weather of Southern California by Harry P. Bailey, “It is highly significant that all areas of Mediterranean climate are located between the 30th and 45th parallels of latitude, and are on the western borders of the land masses of which they are a part.” The proposed viticultural area would lie between the 32nd and 39th parallels of latitude.

According to the petitioners, the Pacific Ocean water cools and heats more slowly than land. It raises air temperatures in the winter and lowers them in the summer. Thus, the coast never becomes as hot or cold as regions several miles to the east. According to the petitioners, summer weather results in an often foggy coast, while it is hot in the Central Valley. Places near the coast experience remarkably uniform temperatures while the inland areas (such as San Joaquin Valley) are out of the fogs, and temperature ranges broaden considerably.

The petitioners state that the California coast is not cooled by sea air alone. The California Current, which runs southward along the coastline, brings cold waters from the north. Beginning in about March, the California current is driven offshore resulting in the dense morning fogs pulled inland by the rising heat of the Central Valley. This same effect occurs up and down the coast, although Southern California is tempered by warmer air from the south.

According to the petitioners, late in the Fall, the ocean reaches its peak temperatures, and the Pacific High begins to weaken and to move south with the seasonal path of the sun, ceasing its cooling effect on the California coast area. The extreme Central Valley temperature drop, and the cessation of cold bottom water upwelling along the coast, contributes to the coastal fog bank no longer occurring. The cool coastal summer weather pattern breaks, and the grape harvest takes place during the sunny September and October months.

According to the petitioners, the whole proposed “California Coast” area has a very similar air-conditioned climate. Further, temperatures over the ocean vary less than over the land, and the prevailing westerly winds give the California coast relatively moderate temperatures year round. The petitioners state that it is the location of the land near the coast that distinguishes the temperate climate, as opposed to the latitudinal location of a portion of the coast. In other words, San Diego is closer to San Jose in climate than it is to the hot Central Valley, because of its location on the coast.

According to the petitioners, the distinction between the land from Mendocino County south, and the far northern coast above that spot, results from the strong polar air mass which moves down from Alaska through Washington, Oregon, and into the top portion of Northern California. Because of the presence of the much colder polar air in the northernmost part of California, the northern line of the existing North Coast viticultural area generally is the upper limit to the Mediterranean climate. The wetter climate similar to western Washington extends down along the Coast Ranges well into California, with rainfall decreasing in a southerly direction. The petitioners cite The Wine Regions of California, indicating that the climatic “line” is drawn at the top of Mendocino County, since the two dominating agricultural climates (Mediterranean and desert) are distinguished from the humid upland climate (north of Mendocino County). In addition, The Wine Atlas of California notes that Lake and Mendocino Valleys sit at the edge of the Aleutian winter storm track. For this same reason, the petitioners propose limiting the California Coast AVA to the same northern line as the existing North Coast viticultural area.

According to the petitioners, late in the Spring, masses of air are pushed from behind by the Pacific High, and pulled up from the land by the heating of the Central Valley and other warm inland areas. This air mass begins to move toward the land with increasing speed. Because of the Coriolis effect, the air turns, and when it hits the western edge of the land, the air moves from a north-westerly direction, often parallel to the slant of the coastline. This air is prevented from moving inland by the wall of the Coast Range, and moves south down the coast and into any openings or valleys along the coast. According to the petitioners, the air is cooled off after it hits the upwelling cold ocean water, and so cools the California coast as well with the fog drying out as it moves inland and as the air warms.

According to the petitioners, the Coast Ranges generally contain the cool oceanic breezes and the moist fog along the coastline to the west of the mountains. The petitioners state that the influence of the California coast diminishes rapidly as the marine air reaches the physical barrier of the Coast Ranges in the north, and the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges in the south. The petitioners cited, The Weather of Southern California, which graphically demonstrates that the coastal sector, or the western side of the mountains, is substantially wetter, cooler, and cloudier than the interior. The petitioners state that these mountains also greatly reduce the amount of precipitation east of their crests, and tend to cause the rain to fall on the westerly slopes.

According to the petitioners, regions of the coast have climates markedly different than interior climates found at the same latitude. As the exhibits displaying the cutaway views of the coast of California demonstrate, the marine air crosses the flatter strip of land next to the ocean, and generally is stopped by the first significant barrier that it reaches. In the case of the coast of California, the first significant barrier that is reached along the coast is the upper elevations of the Coast Ranges. As the above discussion of the Pacific High displays, the cool air moves south along the Coast Ranges, and into the valleys and gaps along the coast.

The petitioners state that, by contrast, the Central Valley lies away from the climate influences of the coast. The influence of the coast diminishes rapidly as the marine air reaches the physical barrier of the Coast Range. As the marine air crosses the flatter strip of land next to the ocean, it is generally stopped by the first significant barrier that it reaches, which is the upper elevations of the coastal mountain ranges. This explains why the coast sector, or the western side of the mountains, is substantially wetter, cooler, and cloudier than the interior. Coastal regions have climates markedly different than interior climates found at the same latitude.

In comparison, the Central Valley lies on the far side of the Coast Ranges. Far inland from marine influence, the Central Valley is warmer than the coast in summer and colder in winter. Thus, the petitioners state that the climatic contrast between the coast and interior is marked in California.

According to the petitioners, the proposed California Coast viticultural area has “coastal Mediterranean” climatic characteristics: the cool summer weather reaches maximum warmth in September; the winters are wet, mild, and relatively frost-free; and the temperature fluctuations are minimal. The summers are generally dry, with a high percentage of sunny days. According to the petitioners, the coast has higher humidity year-round, while places farther from the ocean will tend to have less of a damp, marine climate and more of a dry, continental climate.

The petitioners state that this weather pattern is quite special, for the world distribution of the Mediterranean climate is sparse.

According to the petitioners, the Coast Range mountains catch the coastal moisture, permitting the Pacific Ocean to dominate the climate on the western side of the Coast Ranges. The moist air crosses the coastal strip and pushes up the mountain slopes, and its moisture is squeezed out as rain (occasionally snow at the highest elevations). Once over the top, the air is dry and warms rapidly as it drops down into the Central Valley. According to the petitioners, during the Summer, the dry heat of the Central Valley acts as a vacuum, sucking the cool marine air through the San Francisco Bay and other smaller gaps in the coastal mountain ranges. The petitioners state that this is one of the reasons that the cool westerly winds keep the California coast air-conditioned.

According to the petitioners, the same general pattern is followed in southern California. The petitioners state that as with the northern California coast climate, “the climate becomes warmer, drier, and more sunny as distance from the coast increases. These tendencies, though, are true only for lowlands. If the sea-to-interior movement involves crossing mountains, as it must with only a few exceptions, then the effects of altitude are also encountered.” And, as with the northern California coast, the southern California coast is known for its Mediterranean climate. “It is a common misconception that north means cool and south means hot. California's temperatures do not depend on latitude but on an area's proximity to the coast. There are parts of southern California, around San Diego, that are cooler than the Sacramento Valley in northern California.” The petitioners cite Grossman's Guide to Beer, Wine, and Spirits, for this statement. Thus, according to the petitioners, although Southern California is generally warmer than Northern California, the coast of the state which possess the Mediterranean climate possess substantially common characteristics which are not shared by the rest of the state, and which are extremely significant for winegrape growing purposes.

The petitioners claim that the cooling wind flow pattern is also reflected by precipitation and temperature. According to the petitioners, Coastline valleys are characterized by a gradual decrease in humidity as the marine air travels away from the coast.

Some of the most complete temperature data is collected and stored at the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). This Federal government entity is the repository for weather data collected by the National Weather Service (NWS), an agency within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Since the time that this cooperative observer network has collected data, there have been over 3,000 stations that have contributed data. Some of the data available from the WRCC reports degree days using various base temperatures ranging from 50 °F to 65 °F. The petitioners used a base temperature of 50 °F, as Professor Winkler did for his computations, to closely approximate cumulative results for grapes. They totaled the data extracted from the WRCC database adjusted for the time period of April 1st through November 1st for stations both inside and outside the proposed AVA. They then applied this data to each station, after plotting these stations using their latitude and longitude coordinates, and then overlaid the information on a map of California which is part of this petition. This map illustrates that the California Coast area is cooler than the inland areas when using the five degree day ranges.

In accordance with ATF regulations at 27 CFR 9.3, ATF requests comments from all interested persons, as to whether it should establish the California Coast viticultural area in accordance with the above described petition submitted by the “California Coast Alliance.” Because geographic features, including climate, which distinguish the viticultural features of the proposed area from the surrounding areas is an important consideration in establishing a viticultural area, ATF is especially interested in comments on this topic, particularly on whether the climate within the proposed viticultural area is distinctive. Comments received on or before the closing date will be carefully considered. Comments received after that date will be given the same consideration if it is practical to do so. However, assurance of consideration can only be given to comments received on or before the closing date.

ATF will not recognize any submitted material as confidential and comments may be disclosed to the public. Any material that the commenter considers to be confidential or inappropriate for disclosure to the public should not be included in the comments. The name of the person submitting a comment is not exempt from disclosure.

Comments may be submitted by facsimile transmission to (202) 927-8602, provided the comments: (1) Are legible; (2) are 8 1/2 ″ × 11″ in size, (3) contain a written signature, and (4) are three pages or less in length. This limitation is necessary to assure reasonable access to the equipment. Comments sent by FAX in excess of three pages will not be accepted. Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be acknowledged. Facsimile transmitted comments will be treated as originals.

Any person who desires an opportunity to comment orally at a public hearing on the proposed regulation should submit his or her request, in writing, to the Director within the 60-day comment period. The Director, however, reserves the right to determine, in light of all circumstances, whether a public hearing will be held.

The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507 (j)) and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this notice because there are no new or revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements being proposed. No new requirement to collect information is proposed.

It is hereby certified that this proposed regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the result of the proprietor's own efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from a particular area. No new requirements are proposed. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

It has been determined that this proposed regulation is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this proposal is not subject to the analysis required by this Executive order.

The principal author of this document is Tom Busey, Regulations Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 9, American Viticultural Areas, is proposed to be amended as follows:

The principal authors of this proposed rule are Larry Cobb of the Royalty Management Program (RMP), MMS, and Sarah L. Inderbitzin of the Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior.

Congress established the small refiner royalty-in-kind (RIK) program to ensure a diversified refining base essential for the national interest and defense. Regulations at 30 CFR Part 208 define the MMS process for awarding RIK volumes to small refiners.

Small refiner eligibility requirements for onshore leases are defined in 30 CFR part 208 and are based on the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act, and by regulations of the Small Business Administration for offshore leases. Under the small refiner program, MMS takes its royalty portion of production from one or more Federal leases “in kind” (as opposed to taking the royalty “in value” or cash) and sells it to a qualifying small refiner under an RIK contract. The goal of the program is to keep small refiners economically viable by providing:

1. Access to a crude oil marketplace where integrated oil companies and larger refiners account for the majority of the crude oil traded;

2. A stable source of supply at equitable prices to sustain operations at or near normal operating capacity; and

3. A vital source of trade stock, thereby creating the opportunity to “exchange” royalty oil for the quality or type of crude oil feed stock needed to sustain their mix of refined products.

Before recent program changes, small refiners took delivery of the royalty oil MMS had awarded them from designated Federal lessees/producers. After the lessees reported to MMS the value of the crude oil they had supplied, MMS then billed the small refiners according to those values.

If MMS later determined that the values lessees reported understated the market value of the oil, MMS billed the small refiners for additional payments. This process created much uncertainty for both MMS and the small refiners and, in some cases, threatened the financial solvency of the small refiners when they received large bills from MMS.

MMS required small refiners to pay a cost recovery fee to cover MMS's direct and indirect costs of running the small refiner program. In 1999, small refiners paid about $430,000 to cover the Government's costs. Because fewer refiners participated in the program in 1999 than in previous years, their individual shares of the full cost increased to cover the entire program.

Small refiners had said they were dropping out of the program as a result of the pricing liabilities. Participation in the program declined from 13 refiners in 1995 to only five in 1999. Refiners cited the great uncertainty about the ultimate price of the RIK oil as a major impediment to the effective operation of their businesses.

MMS now conducts a competitive bidding process for all eligible small refiners. Small refiners must bid on the oil using market-based prices, and MMS selects the highest bidders (highest offered prices) for each RIK sale. The market-based prices are applicable spot market prices, with appropriate location, quality, and market-value adjustments for a particular area.

The revised program procedures greatly streamline royalty-in-kind oil sales resulting in a more efficient, business-like approach. The process assures that MMS receives market value for its in-kind production, provides small refiners with greater pricing certainty by avoiding the potential for retroactive charges, and eliminates the administrative burdens of value auditing and billing.

Because of the new competitive procedures for selling RIK oil, MMS receives market value for the oil and, therefore, believes the cost recovery fee under 30 CFR 208.4(b)(4) is no longer justified under the requirements of OMB Circular No. A-25. Therefore, in this rulemaking MMS is proposing to remove the fee provision from the regulations.

OMB Circular No. A-25 (July 8, 1993) established guidelines for Federal agencies to assess fees under the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952, 31 U.S.C. 9701, to cover the costs of Government-provided services or benefits beyond those accruing to the general public. In determining the amount of user fees to assess, section 6a.2.(b) of OMB Circular No. A-25 states:

Section 6.d.2. describes market price as the price for a good, resource, or service that is based on competition in open markets, and creates neither a shortage nor a surplus of the good, resource, or service. Under the current RIK program, MMS: (1) Is not acting in its capacity as a sovereign in the sale of RIK oil, and (2) is receiving market prices for the oil. When disposing of the RIK production under a contractual agreement in the market place, MMS acts in the same manner as other entities selling production in the marketplace. That is, MMS's role as a seller of RIK production to small refiners is divorced from its role as lessor in receiving RIK production from Federal lessees.

Further, OMB Circular No. A-25 states that when a substantial competitive demand exists for a good, resource, or service its market price will be determined using commercial practices, for example:

(1) competitive bidding; or

(2) by reference to prevailing prices in competitive markets for goods, resources, or services that are the same or similar to those provided by the Government * * * with adjustments as appropriate that reflect demand, level of service, and the quality of the good or service.

OMB guidelines do not limit Federal agencies to the recovery of actual costs when disposing of goods that have market value. Under procedures now in place, by receiving market value, MMS will not only recover the value of the oil sold but also the direct and indirect costs of conducting the sale. Therefore, MMS is in compliance with OMB guidelines and does not need to assess a separate cost recovery fee for the small refiner program.

Accordingly, MMS proposes to discontinue assessing the cost recovery fees currently recovered under 30 CFR 208.4(b)(4) by removing that paragraph in the regulation.

Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours and on our Internet site at www.rmp.mms.gov. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

We have summarized below the economic impacts of this rule to the three affected groups: industry, State and local governments, and the Federal Government. This cost and benefit information in this Item 2 of Procedural Matters is used as the basis for the Departmental certifications in Items 3-11.

The revised small refiners royalty-in-kind program and this associated rule will benefit small refiners by—

• Eliminating the separate cost recovery fee;

• Providing certainty in the prices they will pay for the royalty oil; and

• Reducing administrative costs due to a more efficient, commercial-like sales procedure.

Currently, only oil produced from offshore leases is offered for sale in the small refiner RIK program. States are unaffected by the offshore RIK program because only those offshore leases where 100 percent of the royalty revenues belongs to the Federal Government are designated for inclusion in the program. Should the small refiner program be expanded to onshore leases, States will incur their pro rata share of the cost of administering the onshore portion of the RIK program and will receive their share of royalties, per applicable revenue distribution formulas.

With the changes to the RIK program that created the need for this rule, MMS will no longer have to rely on prices reported by third-parties and impose separate cost recovery fees because it will receive full market value for its royalty oil. Moreover, because it will now recover market value, MMS believes that the financial impact to the government of the elimination of the cost recovery fee, if any, will be nominal.

Also, MMS will achieve administrative savings because it will no longer have to take action to collect the additional monies owed by small refiners when later audits show that prices quoted by lessees understated the oil's market value.

This document is not a significant rule and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

(1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.

(2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.

(3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients.

(4) This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues.

The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant adverse effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ).

Alternatively, the small refiner program provides noteworthy benefits to eligible small refiners including:

• Access to a crude oil marketplace where the major integrated oil companies and large refiners account for the majority of the crude oil traded;

• A stable source of supply at equitable market-based prices which helps the small refiner sustain operations at or near normal operating capacity; and

• A vital source of trade stock, thereby creating the opportunity to “exchange” royalty oil for the quality or type of crude oil feed stock needed to sustain their mix of refined products.

Your comments are important. The Small Business and Agricultural Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments from small businesses about Federal agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on the enforcement actions in this rule, call 1-888-734-3247.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. This rule does not impose conditions or limitations on the use of any private property; consequently, a takings implication assessment is not required.

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this proposed rule does not have Federalism implications. This rule does not substantially or directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State governments or impose costs on States or localities.

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

This proposed rule does not contain an information collection, as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the submission of Office of Management and Budget Form 83-I is not required.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not required.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, MMS proposes to amend 30 CFR part 208 as follows:

These proposed regulations implement the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended by the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-231), and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a. They apply to all Foundation programs, including the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (USIECR). The Foundation proposes the following set of regulations to discharge its responsibilities under the FOIA and Privacy Act. The FOIA establishes: Basic procedures for public access to agency records and guidelines for waiver or reduction of fees the agency would otherwise assess for the response to the records request; categories of records that are exempt for various reasons from public disclosure; and basic requirements for federal agencies regarding their processing of and response to requests for agency records. The Privacy Act establishes: Basic procedures for individuals' access to all records in systems of records maintained by the Foundation that are retrieved by an individual's name or personal identifier. These proposed rules describe the procedures by which individuals may request access to records about themselves, request amendment or correction of those records, and request an accounting of disclosures of those records by the Foundation. The Foundation invites comments from interested groups and members of the public on these proposed regulations.

The Foundation, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 606(b)), has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under the Freedom of Information Act, agencies may recover only the direct costs of searching for, reviewing, and duplicating the records processed for requesters. Thus, fees assessed by the Foundation will be nominal. Further, the “small entities” that make FOIA requests, as compared with individual requesters and other requesters, are relatively few in number.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Morris K. Udall Foundation proposes to amend Title 36 CFR by adding a new Chapter XVI consisting of Part 1600 to read as follows:

The Agency in its review of the September 14, 2000 proposed rule (65 FR 55684) identified formatting and typographical errors in certain sections of the preamble and regulations.

Today's notice corrects these errors.

Today's notice does not create any new regulatory requirements; rather EPA is publishing these corrections to enable members of the public to understand the notice of the proposed rulemaking more quickly and easily. EPA believes that the September 14, 2000 notice presented the substance of the proposed rule, the rationale and the supporting data clearly enough to allow interested persons to understand all aspects of the proposed rule and to make comments. Consequently, EPA finds that it is not necessary to extend the comment period for the proposed rule. The comment period will still close on November 13, 2000.

If you do not submit comments electronically, we ask you to voluntarily submit one additional copy of your comments on labeled personal computer diskettes in ASCII (text) format or a word processing format that can be converted to ASCII (text). It is essential to specify on the disk label the word processing software and version/edition as well as your name. This will allow us to convert the comments into one of the word processing formats we utilize. Please use mailing envelopes designed to physically protect the submitted diskettes. We emphasize that submission of comments on diskettes is not mandatory nor will it result in any advantage or disadvantage to any commenter.

You should not submit electronically any confidential business information (CBI). You must submit an original and two copies of CBI under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Any CBI data should be specifically and clearly marked. In addition, please submit a non-CBI version of your comments for inclusion in the public record.

Supporting documents in the docket for this proposal are also available in electronic format on the Internet: ­http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/inorchem/pr2000.htm. We will keep the official record for this action in paper form. Accordingly, we will transfer all comments received electronically into paper form and place them in the official record, which also will include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record is the paper record maintained at the RCRA Information Center, also referred to as the Docket.

Our responses to comments, whether the comments are written or electronic, will be in a notice in the Federal Register or in a response to comments document placed in the official record for this rulemaking. We will not immediately reply to commenters electronically other than to seek clarification of electronic comments that may be corrupted in transmission or during conversion to paper form, as discussed above.

You may view public comments and supporting materials in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review docket materials, we recommend that you make an appointment by calling 703-603-9230. You may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/page.

The following corrections are made in the preamble to FRL-6864-5, Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste: Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes; Proposed Rule, published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2000 (65 FR 55684):

1. On page 55684, in the second column, first full paragraph, in the ADDRESSES Section, change the electronic mail address for the docket from “rcradocket@epamail.epa.gov” to “rcra-docket@epa.gov.”

2. On page 55687, in the first column, in Section C, in the second paragraph the appropriate quotes and indentations were missing. The entire Section C is reprinted below with the appropriate corrections:

The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA require EPA to make listing determinations for several specified categories of wastes, including “inorganic chemical industry wastes” (see RCRA section 3001(e)(2)). In 1989, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed a lawsuit to enforce the statutory deadlines for listing decisions in RCRA Section 3001(e)(2). ( EDF v. Browner; D.D.C. Civ. No. 89-0598). To resolve most of the issues in the case, EDF and EPA entered into a consent decree, which has been amended several times to revise deadlines for EPA action. Paragraph 1.g (as amended) of the consent decree addresses the inorganic chemical industry:

As described above, the consent decree provides that EPA does not need to make listing determinations for certain wastes that it has exempted from hazardous waste regulations under the “Bevill amendments” to RCRA. See the discussion of “exempt mineral processing” wastes in section III.B.1 below.

3. On page 55693, in Section 4. Evaluation of Secondary Materials, in the first paragraph, enclose “40 CFR 261.2(e)” in parenthesis.

4. On page 55720, Table III-12 was incorrectly formatted. Table III-12 should read as follows:

11. On page 55751, in the first column, in section (6), a dash and an indentation were missing. The corrected text should read as follows:

(6) Recovered solids from the reaction area. Housekeeping results in the collection of coke and ore solids from the vicinity of the reaction area.

These wastes are Beville exempt.

13. On pages 55775-55776, in section “C. Paperwork Reduction Act” in the last paragraph EPA reported the three year burden estimates as opposed to the annual burden estimate. The corrected text should read as follows:

The total annual respondent burden and cost for all existing paperwork associated with this proposed rule presented here represents the incremental increase in paperwork burden under four existing Information Collection Requests (ICRs). We estimate the total annual respondent burden for all information collection activities to be approximately 150 hours, at an annual cost of approximately $6,819.

The following corrections are made to the text of the proposed rules in FRL-6864-5, Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste: Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes; proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2000 (65 FR 55684):

1. On page 55778, in the third column, amendatory instruction 2, showing amendments to § 148.18 incorrectly refers to “§ 148.19” in the regulatory heading. The correct text is: § 148.18 Waste specific prohibitions—newly identified wastes.

For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register .

This proposed rule updates, streamlines, and clarifies FPMR part 101-46 and moves the part into the Federal Management Regulation (FMR). The proposed rule is written in a plain language question and answer format. In this format, a question and its answer combine to establish a rule. This means the employee and the agency must follow the language contained in both the question and its answer.

Proposed updates include:

1. A revised definition of “replacement.”

2. A new provision regarding the fixed price sale of exchange/sale property to a State Agency for Surplus Property before conducting an exchange/sale with a non-Government entity.

3. Revised restrictions on types of personal property that are ineligible for exchange/sale, including removal of large weapons, fire control equipment, guided missiles, and furniture from the list of such property.

4. Clarified restrictions on the exchange/sale of combat material.

5. A revised requirement for documentation of exchange/sale transactions.

6. Removal of the requirement that the number of items acquired must equal the number of items exchanged or sold unless certain exceptions are met.

7. Removal of the requirement that proceeds from the sale of personal property under the exchange/sale authority be accounted for in accordance with General Accounting Office regulations.

8. A new annual reporting requirement for exchange/sale transactions.

GSA has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant rule for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993.

A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. , because there is no requirement that this proposed rule be published in the Federal Register for notice and comment.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because this proposed rule does not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public which require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

This proposed rule is exempt from Congressional review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to agency management and personnel.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, GSA proposes to amend 41 CFR chapters 101 and 102 as follows:

1. Part 101-46 is revised to read as follows:

2. Part 102-39 is added to subchapter B of chapter 102 to read as follows:

The Federal Communications Commission published a document proposing to amend part 22 of the Commission's rules in the Federal Register on April 25, 2000 (65 FR 24168). The Commission inadvertently omitted to include the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and comment dates for the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. This document corrects the Federal Register as it appeared. In FR Doc. 00-10221, published on April 25, 2000, 65 FR 24168, the Commission is adding the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis immediately preceding the Paperwork Reduction Act on page 24169, in column one.

Comments and reply comments may be filed with the FCC using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (“ECFS”) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24,121 (1998). Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If you want each Commissioner to receive a copy of your comments, you must file an original plus eleven copies. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, TW-A306, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their comments on diskette. A 3.5-inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using Microsoft Word for Windows or compatible software Diskettes should be submitted to: Davida Grant, Federal Communications Commission, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 4-C241, Washington, D.C. 20554. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in “read only” mode. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding (including the docket number in this case—WT Docket No. 97-112, CC Docket No. 90-6), type of pleading (comments or reply comments), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label also should include the following phrase, “Disk Copy—Not an Original.” Each diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file. In addition, commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

In FR Doc. 00-10221 published on April 25, 2000 (65 FR 24168) add the following information.

As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) of the expected impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making provided above in section V(D). The Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Reason for Action: In order to reexamine our cellular service rules as they apply to the Gulf of Mexico Service Area (“GMSA”) we initiated this rulemaking proceeding. Since the establishment of the GMSA, conflict has arisen between the GMSA licensees, and the land-based cellular service providers in the Gulf of Mexico Region over the provision of service to coastal areas. Further, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has instructed us to reexamine certain of our cellular licensing policies insofar as they apply to GMSA licensees. 1

Objectives: Our objectives in this rulemaking proceeding are (1) to establish comprehensive rules that will reduce conflict between GMSA licensees and land-based cellular service providers, (2) provide regulatory flexibility, to GMSA licensees, that recognizes the inherent transitory nature of water-based cellular cites, and (3) award licenses so as to maximize the use of spectrum in, and provide high quality service to, highly traveled coastal waters.

Legal Basis: The proposed action is authorized under the Communications Act, Sections 4(i), 7, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 332, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 332, as amended.

Description of and, Number of, Small Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule: The rule changes proposed in this proceeding will affect all small businesses which provide cellular service in the GMSA or coastal areas. The Commission will be required, in its Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to estimate the number of small entities to which the rule will apply, provide a description of such entities, and assess the impact of the rule on such entities. To assist in this analysis, commenters are requested to provide information regarding how many total entities, existing and potential, will be affected by the rules proposed in this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. We particularly seek estimates of the number of entities, existing and potential, that will be considered small businesses. The definition of “small business” approved by the Small Business Administration, and used in the PCS C-Block auction, is a firm that has had revenues of less than $40 million in each of the last three calendar years. 2 We seek comment as to whether it would be appropriate to extend this definition to this context. We further request that each commenter identify whether it is a small business under this definition. If the commenter is a subsidiary of another entity, this information should be provided for both subsidiary and the parent entity.

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements: This information is supplied in the Paper Work reduction Act, infra.

Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With These Rules: None.

Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities Consistent with the Stated Objectives: The objective of the current rulemaking proceeding is to improve the quality of service provided in the Gulf region, and to establish rules that accurately reflect the realities of both water-based and land-based service providers. To the extent that this rulemaking modifies existing regulations, it is our objective to communicate a benefit to all service providers in the Gulf region without regard to the size of the entity. The impact on small entities in the proposals in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is the opportunity to provide service in accordance with a regulatory framework that accurately reflects the geographic and demographic realities of the region. Given the low burden of compliance, reporting, and performance requirements for the provision of cellular service, no alternatives to these requirements were deemed necessary for small entities. This Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking solicits comment on the variety of alternatives discussed herein, any significant alternatives submitted in the comments will be considered.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 99-284, adopted September 13, 2000, and released September 15, 2000. The full text of this Commission action is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. The complete text of this action may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, Washington, D.C. 20036.

Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts. For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-169 adopted September 6, 2000, and released September 15, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, located at 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

Section 4(b)(3)(D)(ii) of the Act and our listing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(c)(3)) require that within 12 months after receiving a petition that is found to present substantial information indicating that the requested revision may be warranted, we shall determine how we intend to proceed with the requested revision, and promptly publish notice of such intention in the Federal Register .

On February 2, 1999, Mr. Eric Huber, EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund, submitted a petition to us, on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, to revise the critical habitat designation for three endangered species: Alabama beach mouse ( Peromyscus polionotus ammobates ), Perdido Key beach mouse ( P. p. trissyllepsis ), and Choctawhatchee beach mouse ( P. p. allophrys ). We received the petition on February 8, 1999. Mr. Huber submitted additional information on April 16, 1999.

After considering the petition and other available information, we found that it contained substantial information indicating that the requested action may be warranted. We published a notice announcing our finding in the Federal Register on November 18, 1999 (64 FR 63004).

The processing of this petition conforms with our Final Listing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Year 2000, published in the Federal Register on October 22, 1999 (64 FR 57114). The highest priority under this guidance is the processing of emergency listing rules for any species determined to face a significant and imminent risk to its well being. The second priority is the processing of final determinations on proposed additions to the lists of endangered and threatened wildlife plants. The third priority is processing new proposals to add species to the lists. The processing of administrative petition findings filed under section 4 of the Act is considered the fourth priority. Critical habitat determinations (prudency and determinability decisions) and proposed or final designations of critical habitat are no longer subject to prioritization under the Listing Priority Guidance. Critical habitat determinations and designations are undertaken as conservation efforts demand and in light of resource constraints.

We have reviewed the petition, the information provided in the petition, other literature, and information available in our files. On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information available, we find that revision of critical habitat is warranted for the Alabama beach mouse, Perdido Key beach mouse, and Choctawhatchee beach mouse. Additional secondary and/or scrub dunes may be required for Alabama beach mouse habitat, and these habitats also may be required for the Perdido Key beach mouse and the Choctawhatchee beach mouse since they are ecologically equivalent. The petition contains much of the same information already present in our files and supports our conclusions reached in our previously issued Biological Opinion on the Reaffirmation of the Beach Club and Martinique on the Gulf Incidental Take Permits. Available information and data indicate that those areas that include a greater diversity of habitat, including secondary and/or scrub dunes, may be essential to the survival and recovery of all three subspecies.

Section 4(b)(3)(D)(ii) of the Act provides that with a 12-month warranted finding, we shall determine how we intend to proceed with the requested revision. The steps outlined below fulfill this requirement.

1. Habitat Assessment: Criteria for designating critical habitat are provided in our regulations at 50 CFR 424. Areas to be considered include physiological, behavioral, ecological, and evolutionary requirements that are essential to the conservation of a species and that may require special management considerations or protection. Such requirements include, but are not limited to: (1) Space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distribution of a species.

When considering the designation of critical habitat, we focus on the principal biological or physical constituent elements that are essential to the species' conservation. Known primary constituent elements are listed with the critical habitat. The current constituent elements for the three subspecies include dunes and interdunal areas, and associated grasses and shrubs that provide food and cover.

Recent research and trapping data indicate that optimum beach mouse habitat comprises a matrix of beach-dune habitats that includes primary, secondary, and scrub dunes. In particular, data analyzed within the last two years indicate that dunes in the higher elevations provide essential habitat for beach mice survival and recovery. While data still support the conclusion that primary dunes support higher densities of beach mice (under non-storm conditions), it is highly unlikely that primary dunes alone could support a beach mouse population over a long period due to susceptibility to storm overwash and damage. Potential for long term survival is the best criterion for defining optimum habitat; this would be highest in areas that include a scrub dune component. Thus, these habitats should be considered critical for the survival and recovery of beach mice. Areas that contain optimum habitat must be determined individually for each subspecies.