In order to centralize and standardize the Department's Information Technology (IT) systems, procurement and training, the Secretary has named a Department CIO pursuant to the provisions of the Clinger-Cohen Act, Pub. L. No. 104-106. The CIO is responsible for Departmentwide IT system architecture, standardization, guidance, and training. The Office of Information Systems Management, which previously reported to the Assistant Secretary for Administration (hereinafter referred to as the Assistant Secretary), now reports to the CIO.

The Assistant Secretary has reorganized the offices which report to him to better utilize the resources of those offices. This reorganization restructured the functions of these offices so they can carry out their missions in a more effective and efficient manner as they meet the needs of their customers both within the Department of Agriculture and in the private sector.

The Assistant Secretary has consolidated all Departmentwide civil rights functions in an Office of Civil Rights. This office is headed by a Director who reports to the Assistant Secretary and who has responsibility for leadership, coordination, and direction related to both civil rights programs and equal employment opportunity complaints.

The Assistant Secretary has consolidated all Departmentwide personnel functions in an Office of Human Resources Management. This Office, headed by a Director who reports to the Assistant Secretary and who is responsible for establishing personnel policy for the entire Department of Agriculture (USDA), also provides operational support to specified organizations within USDA.

Also, as part of this reorganization, the Assistant Secretary has been named the Director of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization now reports to the Assistant Secretary. This Office previously reported to the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture.

Additionally, an Office of Procurement, Property, and Emergency Preparedness has been established. The Office is headed by a Director who reports to the Assistant Secretary. The Director is responsible for establishing policy related to procurement and property management, and for providing services relating to procurement operations for projects having a nationwide scope and for assigned Departmental offices. The Director is responsible for coordinating the Department's programs related to emergency preparedness, national security, and disaster emergency response. The Director also is responsible for designating a competition advocate to promote competition in Departmental acquisitions.

This document revises the delegations of authority to authorize the Assistant Secretary for Administration to obtain and furnish excess personal property to the 1890 Land Grant Institutions, 1994 Land Grant Institutions and the Hispanic-Serving Institutions, in support of research, educational, technical, and scientific activities or for related programs.

This document removes from the Assistant Secretary for Administration authority related to advisory committees. Responsibility for advisory committee management will remain within the Office of the Secretary.

Further, an Office of Planning and Coordination has been established. The Office is headed by a Director who reports to the Assistant Secretary. The Director is responsible for providing budget and financial management coordination, strategic planning support, and quality management to the Assistant Secretary for Administration, and the Director is also responsible for issuing policy and guidance related to conflict resolution programs.

Additionally, an Office of Ethics has been established. The Office is headed by a Director who reports for administrative purposes to the Assistant Secretary. The Director is responsible for the Department's worldwide ethics program which includes providing advice to all levels of management on ethics issues, and developing and disseminating policy and guidance on ethics and conflicts of interest.

Lastly, an Office of Outreach has been established. The Office is headed by a Director who reports to the Assistant Secretary. The Director is responsible for ensuring that opportunities are available for the provision of information, technical assistance, and training to USDA customers with emphasis on under-served populations. The Director is responsible for coordinating efforts to ensure that USDA customers have access to all the Department's programs and services.

This rule relates to internal agency management. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, notice of proposed rule making and opportunity for comment are not required, and this rule may be made effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Further, since this rule relates to internal agency management, it is exempt from the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 12866 and 12988. In addition, this action is not a rule as defined by Pub. L. No. 96-354, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and, thus, is exempt from the provisions of that Act. Accordingly, as authorized by section 808 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 10-121, this rule may be made effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

(viii) Actions to enforce related Executive Orders, Congressional mandates, and other laws, rules, and regulations, as appropriate;

(ix) Actions to develop and monitor compliance in the Department's Federal Women's Program; and

(x) Actions to develop and monitor the Department's Hispanic Employment Program.

(2) Evaluate Departmental agency programs, activities, and impact statements for civil rights concerns.

(3) Provide leadership and coordinate Department agencies and systems for targeting, collecting, analyzing, and evaluating program participation data and equal employment opportunity data.

(4) Provide leadership and coordinate Departmentwide programs of public notification regarding the availability of USDA programs on a nondiscriminatory basis.

(5) Coordinate with the Department of Justice on matters relating to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681, et seq ), and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), except those matters in litigation, including administrative enforcement actions, which shall be coordinated by the Office of the General Counsel.

(6) Coordinate with the Department of Health and Human Services on matters relating to the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. 6102, except those matters in litigation, including administrative enforcement actions, which shall be coordinated by the Office of the General Counsel.

(7) Order proceedings and hearings in the Department pursuant to §§ 15.9(e) and 15.86 of this title which concern consolidated or joint hearings within the Department or with other Federal departments and agencies.

(8) Order proceedings and hearings in the Department pursuant to § 15.8 of this title after the program agency has advised the applicant or recipient of his or her failure to comply and has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means.

(9) Issue orders to give a notice of hearing or the opportunity to request a hearing pursuant to part 15 of this title; arrange for the designation of an Administrative Law Judge to preside over any such hearing; and determine whether the Administrative Law Judge so designated will make an initial decision or certify the record to the Secretary of Agriculture with his or her recommended findings and proposed action.

(10) Authorize the taking of action pursuant to § 15.8(a) of this title relating to compliance by “other means authorized by law.”

(11) Make determinations required by § 15.8(d) of this title that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means, and then take action, as appropriate.

(12) Make determinations, after legal sufficiency reviews by the Office of the General Counsel, that program complaint investigations performed under § 15.6 of this title establish a proper basis for findings of discrimination, and that actions taken to correct such findings are adequate.

(13) Perform investigations and make final determinations, after legal sufficiency reviews by the Office of the General Counsel, on both the merits and required corrective action, as to complaints filed under part 15d of this title.

(14) Conduct investigations and compliance reviews Departmentwide.

(15) Develop regulations, plans, and procedures necessary to carry out the Department's civil rights programs, including the development, implementation, and coordination of Action Plans.

(16) Coordinate the Department's affirmative employment program, special emphasis programs, Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program, equal employment opportunity evaluations, and development of policy.

(17) Provide liaison on equal employment opportunity programs and activities with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office of Personnel Management.

(18) Monitor, evaluate, and report on agency compliance with established policy and Executive Orders which further the participation of historically Black colleges and universities, the Hispanic-serving institutions, 1994 tribal land grant institutions, and other colleges and universities with substantial minority group enrollment in Departmental programs and activities.

(19) Is designated as the Department's Director of Equal Employment Opportunity with authority to perform the functions and responsibilities of that position under 29 CFR part 1614, including the authority to make changes in programs and procedures designed to eliminate discriminatory practices and improve the Department's program for Equal Employment Opportunity, to provide equal employment opportunity services for managers and employees, and to make final agency decisions, after legal sufficiency reviews by the Office of the General Counsel, on EEO complaints by Department employees or applicants for employment and order such corrective measures in such complaints as may be considered necessary, including the recommendation for such disciplinary action as is warranted when an employee has been found to have engaged in a discriminatory practice.

(20) Maintain liaison with historically Black colleges and universities, the Hispanic-serving institutions, 1994 tribal land grant institutions, and other colleges and universities with substantial minority group enrollment, and assist Department agencies in strengthening such institutions by facilitating institutional participation in Department programs and activities and by encouraging minority students to pursue curricula that could lead to careers in the food and agricultural sciences.

(21) Administer the Department's EEO Program.

(22) Oversee and manage the EEO counseling function for the Department.

(23) Administer the discrimination appeals and complaints program for the Department, including all formal individual or group appeals, where the system provides for an avenue of redress to the Department level, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or other outside authority.

(24) Process formal EEO discrimination complaints, up to the appellate stage, by employees or applicants for employment.

(25) Investigate Department EEO and program discrimination complaints.

(26) Issue Departmental regulations, policies and procedures relating to the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution to resolve employment and program discrimination complaints.

(27) Make final decisions, after legal sufficiency reviews by the Office of the General Counsel, on both EEO and program discrimination complaints, except in those cases where the Director, Office of Civil Rights, has participated in the events that gave rise to the matter.

(28) Order such corrective measures in EEO complaints as may be considered necessary, including the recommendation for such disciplinary action as is warranted when an employee has been found to engage in a discriminatory practice.

(29) Provide liaison on EEO matters concerning complaints and appeals with Department agencies and Department employees.

(30) Make final determinations, or enter into settlement agreements, after legal sufficiency reviews by the Office of the General Counsel, on discrimination complaints in conducted programs subject to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

(31) Require corrective action on findings of discrimination on program complaints and recommend to the Secretary that relief be granted under 7 U.S.C. 6998(d), notwithstanding the finality of National Appeals Divisions decisions.

(32) Provide civil rights and equal employment opportunity support services, except for the equal employment opportunity support services provided by the Office of Human Resources Management, with authority to take actions required by law or regulation to perform such services for:

(i) The Secretary of Agriculture;

(ii) The general officers of the Department;

(iii) The offices and agencies reporting to the Assistant Secretary for Administration; and

(iv) Any other offices or agencies of the Department as may be agreed.

(b) [Reserved]

The Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-224), was enacted on June 20, 2000, and, among other things, mandates two modifications to WIC funding procedures. The first change modifies the methodology used to calculate the national administrative grant per participant, which is used to determine the amount of WIC funds to be used for food benefits and NSA. This change calls for a revision of the inflation rate calculation methodology. The second change provides greater flexibility for State agencies in noncontiguous States containing a significant number of remote Indian or Native villages by permitting them to convert food funds to cover allowable NSA costs incurred in providing services and breastfeeding support to those areas. This provision recognizes the higher costs associated with service delivery to these remote sites.

The changes to the WIC regulations made by this rule are mandated by Congress and require no Agency discretion. Further, section 263 of Pub. L. 106-224 requires that FNS promulgate regulations to implement these provisions as soon as practicable after the date of enactment without regard to the Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment provisions at 5 U.S.C. 553; the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture effective July 24, 1971 (36 FR 13804, July 24, 1971), relating to notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in rulemaking; and the Paperwork Reduction Act at 44 U.S.C. chapter 35. In addition, section 172 of Pub. L. 106-224 requires us to promulgate rules to carry out the Act and its amendments not later than 120 days after the date of enactment. For these reasons, we are not taking public comment prior to promulgating this rule. Finally, section 244(f)(2) of Pub. L. 106-224 provides that the WIC funding changes take effect on October 1, 2000. Accordingly, this rule is effective October 1, 2000.

We have used this opportunity to rewrite the affected provisions in a question and answer format to improve readability. This approach also complies with the President's Executive Memorandum requiring all Federal regulations published after January 1, 1999 to be in Plain Language, as recommended by the National Partnership for Reinventing Government.

The national administrative grant per person (AGP) is used in the WIC funding formula to determine the amount of funds allocated for: (1) Food benefits; and (2) NSA costs. The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 1989 (Pub.L. 101-147), amended section 17(h)(1) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (CNA) to require a specific methodology be used to calculate the AGP. (Section 17 of the CNA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 1786.) This legislation required the AGP for any fiscal year to be calculated by adjusting the actual national average per participant grant for fiscal year 1987 to reflect the percentage change between: (1) the value of the index for State and local government purchases (S&LP), using the implicit price deflator, for the 12-month period ending June 30, 1986; and (2) the estimate of the value of the index for the 12-month period ending June 30 of the previous fiscal year. This index is published by the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) in the National Income and Product Accounts as a component of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

A potential concern is that the implicit price deflator, although appropriate at the time, is no longer the best index to calculate the AGP for the WIC Program. The BEA recommends the use of the chain-type price index rather than the implicit price deflator for measuring inflation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) also requires the use of the State and Local chain-type price index rather than the implicit price deflator in projection of State and local costs in budget estimates. The continued use of the implicit price deflator in the WIC AGP calculations, rather than conversion to the now standard chain-type price index, is undesirable.

In addition, the primary problem of using current rules is that they require the AGP to be based upon the 1987 S&LP data, including annual and benchmark revisions. Occasionally, as in 1992, 1995 and 1999, the National Income and Product Accounts undergo benchmark or comprehensive revisions. These revisions typically involve revision of the entire S&LP series. The revisions over the last few years have led to a downward shift in the AGP from the level it would have been if the index had not been revised. Index revisions cause instability in the AGP because, although the S&LP continues to rise from year to year, the AGP has the potential to go down or up disproportionately when the historical series is adjusted. In turn, WIC NSA grants to State agencies are unstable.

In recognition of these concerns, section 244(d) of Pub. L. 106-224 amended section 17(h)(1)(B)(ii)(I) of the CNA by removing the requirement to use the implicit price deflator. In addition, section 244(d) amended section 17(h)(1)(B)(ii) to remove the reference to fiscal year 1987 as the base year and requires instead that the adjustment be made to the AGP for the “preceding fiscal year” with conforming changes to the adjustment methodology. This rule amends § 246.16(c)(2) of the WIC regulations to reflect these changes.

In recognition of higher costs associated with delivery of WIC services to remote Indian and Native villages, section 244(e) of Pub. L. 106-224 added a new section 17(h)(5)(D) to the CNA to allow for State agencies to convert food funds to NSA funds to cover allowable NSA expenditures necessary to provide WIC services and breastfeeding support in those areas. This new conversion authority is limited to State agencies in noncontiguous States containing a significant number of Indian or Native villages.

Current conversion authority, described in section 17(h)(5)(A) of the CNA and § 246.16(f) in Program regulations, allows for the conversion of food funds to NSA funds under two conditions: (1) An approved plan outlining food cost reduction strategies and increases in participation levels above the FNS-projected participation levels; and (2) actual participation increases achieved in excess of participation projected by FNS. Conversion of food funds to NSA funds are allowed to the extent that the funds are used to cover current year allowable NSA expenditures and the current fiscal year's per participant NSA grant for each State agency is maintained.

Under this new authority, food funds may be converted to NSA funds to the extent the conversion is necessary to cover expenditures incurred in providing services (including the full cost of air transportation and other transportation) to remote Indian or Native villages and to provide breastfeeding support in those areas. This rule amends § 246.16(g) of the WIC regulations to add this new conversion authority. New paragraph (g)(2) makes clear that funds may only be converted as necessary to cover costs in providing service and breastfeeding support in remote Indian or Native villages to the extent that they exceed the State agency's NSA funds, including any spent forward funds, for the fiscal year. This rule also revises § 246.16(i) to clarify how the converted funds will be treated in calculating a State agency's prior year food grant and base NSA grant. Finally, this rule also makes a conforming change to § 246.16(f)(2)(i) to incorporate the limitation in current § 246.16(g).

Section 244 (a) of Pub. L. 106-224 amended section 17(b) of the CNA to add a new definition of “remote Indian or Native village.” This definition is used both in connection with the new conversion authority and with a new provision concerning proof of residency by residents of remote Indian or Native villages. The new proof of residency provision and the definition of “remote Indian or Native village” were added to the WIC regulations by the WIC Certification Integrity final rule (published on December 11, 2000).

This rule has been determined to be “not significant” for purposes of Executive Order 12866, and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Pursuant to that review, Samuel Chambers, Jr., Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), has certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will only affect State and local WIC agencies. Although some of these agencies may fall within the definition of “small entities,” the number of affected entities will not be substantial. Further, the impact of the changes on small entities is not significant. Finally, because this rule contains only nondiscretionary provisions required by statute, we could not consider any alternatives.

This final rule does not contain reporting or record keeping requirements subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-20).

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under No. 10.557, and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials (7 CFR part 3015, Subpart V, and final rule-related Notice published June 24, 1983 (48 FR 29114)).

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is intended to have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect unless so specified in the EFFECTIVE DATE paragraph of this preamble. Prior to any judicial challenge to the application of the provisions of this rule, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Food and Nutrition Service generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Food and Nutrition Service to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of that rule.

This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 13132 does not require consultation with State and local officials and a federalism impact statement for rules that are required by statute. This rule is required by Pub. L. 106-244. Therefore, we determined that this rule does not meet the threshold criteria for further review under Executive Order 13132.

The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of specified animals and animal products into the United States in order to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases including rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), African swine fever, hog cholera, and swine vesicular disease. These are dangerous and destructive communicable diseases of ruminants and swine. Section 94.1 of the regulations lists regions of the world that are declared free of rinderpest or free of both rinderpest and FMD. Rinderpest or FMD exists in all other regions of the world not listed. Section 94.11 of the regulations lists regions of the world that have been declared to be free of rinderpest and FMD, but are subject to certain restrictions because of their proximity to or trading relationships with rinderpest- or FMD-affected regions.

Prior to the effective date of this interim rule, Uruguay was among the listed regions in §§ 94.1 and 94.11 considered to be free of rinderpest and FMD. However, on October 23, 2000, a suspected outbreak of FMD was detected in the Uruguayan department of Artigas, a region in northern Uruguay. On October 26, 2000, Uruguay's Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries notified us with clinical confirmation of the FMD diagnosis. On November 20, 2000, Uruguay sent a team of veterinary officials to the United States to provide us with detailed information on the outbreak history, measures taken to eradicate the disease, movement controls, monitoring and surveillance, and other relevant activities. Based on our discussions with Uruguay's team of veterinary officials and our own evaluation)  1 we have determined that: (1) FMD is not known to exist outside the department of Artigas; (2) Uruguay maintains strict control over the importation and movement of animals and animal products from regions of higher risk and has established barriers to the spread of FMD from the department of Artigas; (3) Uruguay maintains a surveillance system capable of detecting FMD should the disease be introduced into other regions of the country; and (4) Uruguay has the laws, policies, and infrastructure to detect, respond to, and eliminate any occurrence of FMD. Consequently, we have decided to remove the portion of Uruguay encompassing the department of Artigas from the list of regions recognized as free of FMD.

Therefore, to protect the livestock of the United States from FMD, we are amending the regulations in § 94.1 by removing the department of Artigas from the list of regions considered to be free of rinderpest and FMD. We are also removing Artigas from the list of regions in § 94.11 that are considered to be free of these diseases, but are subject to certain restrictions because of their proximity to or trading relationships with rinderpest- or FMD-affected regions. Other regions of Uruguay will remain on the list of regions considered to be free of rinderpest and FMD. As a result of this action, the importation into the United States of any ruminant or swine and any fresh (chilled or frozen) meat and other products of ruminants or swine that left Artigas on or after October 1, 2000, is prohibited or restricted. Because the disease may have been present in Artigas for some time prior to its detection on October 23, 2000, we are making these amendments effective on October 1, 2000. The date of October 1, 2000, takes into account the approximate incubation period for FMD of 14 days, and includes an additional margin of safety based on uncertainty as to how long the affected animals experienced clinical signs of the disease prior to discovery.

Although we are removing the department of Artigas from the list of regions considered to be free of rinderpest and FMD, we recognize that Uruguay's Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries responded immediately to the detection of the disease by imposing restrictions on the movement of ruminants, swine, and ruminant and swine products into and from the affected area and initiating measures to eradicate the disease. At the time of publication of this interim rule, it appears that the outbreak is well controlled. Because of the efforts of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries to ensure that FMD does not spread beyond the department of Artigas, we intend to reassess the situation in accordance with the standards of the Office International des Epizooties. Additionally, as part of our reassessment process, over the next 12 months we will conduct periodic inspections of Uruguayan slaughtering establishments and their operations and records, as well as review relevant documentation maintained by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries. We will also consider all comments received on this interim rule. This reassessment will determine whether it is necessary to continue to prohibit or restrict the importation of ruminants or swine and any fresh (chilled or frozen) meat and other products of ruminants or swine from Artigas, or whether we can restore the department of Artigas to the list of regions considered free of rinderpest and FMD.

This rulemaking is necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the introduction of FMD into the United States. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

We will consider comments that are received within 60 days of publication of this rule in the Federal Register . After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the Federal Register . The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule as a result of the comments.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review process required by Executive Order 12866.

This interim rule amends the regulations by removing the Uruguayan department of Artigas from the list of regions considered free of rinderpest and FMD. We are taking this action because Uruguay's Ministry of Agriculture has reported cases of FMD in that region. This action prohibits or restricts the importation into the United States of any ruminant or swine and any fresh (chilled or frozen) meat and other products of ruminants or swine that left the department of Artigas on or after October 1, 2000. This action is necessary to protect the livestock of the United States from FMD.

This emergency situation makes timely compliance with section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) impracticable. We are currently assessing the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. Based on that assessment, we will either certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or publish a final regulatory flexibility analysis.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has retroactive effect to October 1, 2000; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

This rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission amended its rule, 10 CFR 50.59, “Changes, Tests, and Experiments” on October 4, 1999 (64 FR 53582). This amendment clarified the rule requirements, and also provided licensees greater flexibility to make certain changes without NRC approval that involve only minimal increases in likelihood or consequences of events. The implementation date of this amendment was made dependent upon guidance being issued to nuclear reactor licensees on implementing the revised requirements.

Regulatory Guide 1.187 endorses a document prepared by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), NEI 96-07, Revision 1, dated November 2000. Regulatory Guide 1.187 was published for public comment (65 FR 24231) as DG-1095, “Guidance for Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, Tests, and Experiments”. The comments submitted by licensees and other commenters were addressed by revisions made by NEI to NEI 96-07, Revision 1, as submitted in November 2000; the NRC staff concurs in these revisions.

Therefore, the effective date of the October 4, 1999, amendment to 10 CFR 50.59 is March 13, 2001.

What events have caused this AD? The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all S.N. CENTRAIR Model 201B gliders. The DGAC reports an incident where a Model 201B rear canopy strap did not properly release during an actual emergency egress.

The DGAC advises that the problem is related to the unreliability of the rear canopy in completely separating from the glider during an emergency egress procedure.

What are the consequences if the condition is not corrected? If the rear canopy retaining strap does not release properly during the emergency egress procedure, the rear canopy will not completely separate from the glider. This could result in potential injury to the pilot during an emergency egress.

Has FAA taken any action to this point? We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all S.N. CENTRAIR Model 201B gliders. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on September 29, 2000 (65 FR 58495). The NPRM proposed to require you to install a mechanism that automatically releases the rear canopy strap when the emergency canopy lever is actuated.

Was the public invited to comment? Interested persons were afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposed rule or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

What is FAA's Final Determination on this Issue? After careful review of all available information related to the subject presented above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We determined that these minor corrections:

What is the compliance time of this AD? The compliance time of this AD is “within the next 3 months after the effective date of this AD.”

Why is the compliance time presented in calendar time instead of hours time-in-service (TIS)? Although the rear canopy retaining strap not releasing properly during the emergency egress procedure occurs during flight, the condition is not a direct result of glider operation. The chance of this situation occurring is the same for a glider with 10 hours TIS as it would be for a glider with 500 hours TIS. A calendar time for compliance will assure that the unsafe condition is addressed on all gliders in a reasonable time period.

What are the differences between the French AD and this AD?

The French AD requires installation of a mechanism that automatically releases the rear canopy strap when the emergency canopy lever is actuated. The French AD also requires a visual inspection to ensure that the modification is incorporated correctly.

The FAA does not require this inspection because we believe that the procedures are adequate to allow the maintenance personnel to accomplish the action correctly.

How many gliders does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD affects 41 gliders in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of the affected gliders? We estimate the following costs to accomplish the modification:

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

Does this 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 DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the final 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 .

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom (UK), recently notified the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that an unsafe condition may exist on Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 768-60, Trent 772-60, and Trent 772B-60 series turbofan engines having common nozzle assembly P/N FK16544 or FK16558. The CAA received reports of cracking and rivet loss on the outer and inner skin of the common nozzle assembly, with two reports of inner skin detachment. Rolls-Royce has determined that cracks and detachment of inner skin, and cracks of outer skin occurred due to a combination of missing rivets, loose rivets, and high stress levels on common nozzle assemblies with a high number of flight cycles. This condition, if not corrected, could result in inner skin detachment, release of common nozzle assembly debris from the engine, and possible damage to the airplane control surfaces. The compliance times specified in this AD are based on Rolls-Royce service bulletin criteria and CAA recommendations.

RR has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. RB.211-78-C931, Revision 1, dated June 13, 2000, that specifies procedures for initial visual inspections of inner and outer skin, including allowable limits, for cracks, missing rivets, and loose rivets. The MSB also specifies repair for common nozzle assemblies that are out of limits. The MSB also specifies on common nozzle assemblies with more than 1,500 cycles-since-new, initial visual inspections for cracks in inner and outer skins, missing rivets, loose rivets not later than 500 flight hours after release of AD, and repetitive inspections within 500 flight hours since the last inspection. The CAA classified this MSB as mandatory and issued airworthiness directive (AD) 005-06- 2000 in order to ensure the airworthiness of these engines in the UK.

This engine model is manufactured in the UK and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. As required by this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the CAA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for engines of this type design that could be used on airplanes certificated for operation in the United States.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other engines of the same type design that could be used on airplanes registered in the United States, this AD requires initial and repetitive in-service visual inspections of the common nozzle assembly to detect cracks, missing rivets, and loose rivets, including allowable acceptance limits. This AD also requires repair for common nozzle assemblies that are out of limits. The actions must be done in accordance with the MSB described previously.

A situation exists that allows the immediate adoption of this regulation. Since there are currently no domestic operators of this engine model, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary.

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NE-37-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

This proposal does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order (EO) 13132, because it would not have 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.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and is not a “significant regulatory action” under EO 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 98-19-21, Amendment 39-10762 (63 FR 50484, September 22, 1998, corrected by 63 FR 52961, October 2, 1998), applicable to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 800 series turbofan engines, was published in the Federal Register on December 3, 1999 (64 FR 67806). That action proposed to require the reduction of initial compliance thresholds and repetitive cyclic inspection intervals. The action also proposed the allowance for inspections to be accomplished within 100 cycles-in-service if the initial or repetitive thresholds are exceeded on the effective date of the AD.

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

The comment states that all RR Trent 800 series engines on the US registry that will be affected by the AD have already been modified to RR Service Bulletin RB.211-72-C629. Therefore, the estimate of the total cost impact of the proposed action on US operators is zero.

The FAA disagrees. Although some Trent 800 series engines on US registered airplanes may have already been modified to RR Service Bulletin RB.211-72-C629 and the actual cost may be reduced, the original economic analysis is retained.

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

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

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

This amendment adopts a new AD for BHTI Model 205A-1, 205B, 212, 412, and 412CF helicopters. This AD requires, within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS), inspecting the tab on the NAS513-6 locking washer on all actuators, part number (P/N) 41105950, serial number with an “HR” prefix up to and including 490 and P/N 41000470, serial numbers with a prefix of “HR” up to and including 10010, for a twisted or damaged tab. P/N's 41105950 and 41000470 were assigned by the manufacturer; the BHTI P/N's are 205-076-036 and 212-076-005. Replacing any twisted or damaged locking washer with an airworthy NAS1193K6C locking device is required before further flight. Replacing any NAS513-6 locking washer with an airworthy NAS1193K6C locking device, regardless of the condition of the tab, is required within 100 hours TIS or at the next actuator overhaul, whichever occurs first. Installing an airworthy NAS 1193K6C locking device on all actuators constitutes terminating action for the requirements of this AD. This AD is prompted by the discovery of a damaged locking washer. The damage to the locking washer was discovered when an operator experienced a problem with a collective control while attempting to take off. The collective control could not be moved upward from the full down position. Further inspection revealed that the lower piston of the actuator had unthreaded and separated from the lower rod end, causing the piston to make contact with the rod end support assembly and lodge itself against the rod end shank at an angle limiting any movement of the collective control. The collective servo cylinder assembly is used to provide irreversible collective control of the main rotor. Because the actuator end locking washer failed, the servo lower piston could rotate inside the lower servo head assembly and unthread itself from the rod end. This condition, if not corrected, could cause loss of control of the main rotor and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The FAA has reviewed HR Textron Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 41000470-67A-05, Revision 1 and HR Textron ASB No. 41105950-67A-01, Basic Issue, both dated October 19, 2000, which describe procedures for inspecting and replacing certain locking washers. BHTI has issued ASB No.'s 205-00-79, 205B-00-33, 212-00-109, 412-00-105, and 412CF-00-12, all dated October 19, 2000, which include the applicable HR Textron Alert Service Bulletins.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other BHTI Model 205A-1, 205B, 212, 412, and 412CF helicopters of the same type designs, this AD is being issued to prevent an actuator piston from unthreading itself from its rod end causing loss of collective control and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. This AD requires inspecting the locking washers on all actuators for twisting or damage to the tab and replacing any locking washer that has a twisted or damaged tab. Replacing certain locking washers, regardless of condition, is also required within 100 hours TIS or at the next actuator overhaul, whichever occurs first. Installing an airworthy NAS1193K6C locking device on all actuators constitutes terminating action for the requirements of this AD. The actions must be accomplished in accordance with the HR Textron service bulletins described previously. The short compliance time involved is required because the previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the controllability of the helicopter. Therefore, the actions described previously are required at the specified time intervals, and this AD must be issued immediately.

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

The FAA estimates that 500 helicopters will be affected by this AD. It will take approximately 1 work hour to inspect the locking washer, 6 work hours per helicopter to replace the three locking devices on each helicopter, and the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $20 per helicopter. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $190,000, assuming all the locking devices on all the helicopters are replaced.

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their mailed comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2000-SW-49-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Raytheon (Beech) Model MU-300, MU-300-10, 400, 400A, and 400T series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on August 10, 2000 (65 FR 48945). That action proposed to require a one-time inspection to detect hydraulic fluid leakage from the B-nut area, which attaches a hydraulic tube to the anti-skid valve assembly, and corrective actions, if necessary; and installation of an additional support for the hydraulic tube.

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

The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

There are approximately 567 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 522 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $31 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $78,822, or $151 per airplane.

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

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

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

On September 8, 2000, the FAA issued AD 2000-19-03, amendment 39-11904 (65 FR 56231, September 18, 2000), applicable to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and EMB-145 series airplanes, to require a one-time inspection of the coupling hinge and locking fastener of the Gamah couplings of the fuel system tubing located in the wing dry bay to detect discrepancies, and follow-on corrective actions. The actions required by that AD are intended to prevent failure of the rivets of the Gamah couplings and consequent fire in or around the wing.

Since the issuance of that AD, the manufacturer has advised the FAA that, certain airplanes were inadvertently not included in the effectivity of Embraer Alert Service Bulletin S.B. 145-28-A014, dated August 25, 2000 (the appropriate service information for AD 2000-19-03). Consequently, those additional airplanes are subject to the identified unsafe condition specified in this rule.

These airplane models are manufactured in Brazil 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.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, this AD supersedes AD 2000-19-03 to continue to require a one-time inspection of the coupling hinge and locking fastener of the Gamah couplings of the fuel system tubing located in the wing dry bay to detect discrepancies, and follow-on corrective actions. This AD also requires the addition of certain airplanes to the applicability of this AD.

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

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

Submit comments using the following format:

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

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

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-384-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

On November 13, 1998, the FAA issued AD 98-24-15 (Amendment 39-10900 (63 FR 64612, November 23, 1998), Docket No. 97-SW-20-AD. That AD required establishing a RIN tracking system for mast and trunnion torque events; creating component history cards or equivalent records; converting accumulated factored flight hours to a baseline accumulated RIN count; establishing a system for tracking increases to the accumulated RIN; and establishing a maximum accumulated RIN for certain masts and trunnions. That action was prompted by an accident involving a BHTI Model 205A-1 helicopter in which a mast failure caused a separation of the main rotor from the helicopter. A subsequent metallurgical examination revealed that the mast had fractured as a result of fatigue. Analyses and fatigue testing conducted by the manufacturer and assessed by the FAA confirmed that the remaining lives of the mast and trunnion are more accurately assessed by monitoring the number of torque events and flight hours on the helicopter rather than by monitoring only flight hours.

The FAA superseded AD 98-24-15 by issuing Emergency AD 2000-08-52 (Docket No. 2000-SW-20) on April 21, 2000. AD 2000-08-52 required a one-time special inspection for certain serial-numbered masts to detect burrs or inadequate radii in the snap ring groove areas that can cause fatigue failure. That AD was issued as a result of an accident involving a BHTI Model 212 helicopter following in-flight separation of its main rotor system. The post-accident investigation revealed a fatigue failure in the damper clamp splined area of the mast, part number (P/N) 204-011-450-007. Also, operators reported at least five other failures in the damper clamp splined area of masts, P/N 204-011-450-001, -007, and -105, in either the upper or lower snap ring grooves. That AD also reduced the maximum allowable RIN life for each affected mast and changed the RIN counting procedure to require application of a standard RIN factor for all external load lifts regardless of altitude change and the type of load lifted. The RIN factor assessed for each torque event was increased for masts installed on BHTI Model 204B and 205B helicopters. The requirements of AD 98-24-15 pertaining to trunnions, P/N 204-011-105-001 and -103, were not changed by AD 2000-08-52.

After issuing AD 2000-08-52, the FAA received a report of another cracked mast. Metallurgical inspection revealed that the mast cracked as a result of fatigue in snap ring groove radii that were smaller than the 0.020 inch minimum allowable dimension. Detailed takeoff (1,249) and lift (16,339) event data for the entire life of the mast confirmed that the accumulated RIN count at the time the fatigue crack was detected was approximately 68,000 when calculated in accordance with the most recent RIN counting procedure as defined in AD 2000-08-52. The FAA concluded that several corrections to the RIN counting procedure are required based on a review of the fatigue data and previously issued AD's.

On July 25, 2000, the FAA issued Emergency AD 2000-15-52 for BHTI Model 204B, 205A, 205A-1, 205B, and 212 helicopters. That Emergency AD reduces the RIN life limit for the mast and trunnion; increases the RIN factor for the masts and trunnions; applies standard RIN factors for all external load lifts; and requires a one-time inspection of the snap ring groove area of the mast. That Emergency AD also establishes RIN factors for masts and trunnions that have been previously installed on military or restricted category helicopters and removes from service those masts that have been previously installed with a hub spring. That action was prompted by an occurrence of a cracked mast at a lower value than the established RIN life limit. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of a mast or trunnion, separation of the main rotor system, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Since the unsafe condition described is likely to exist or develop on other BHTI Model 204B, 205A, 205A-1, 205B, and 212 helicopters of the same type designs, the FAA issued Emergency AD 2000-15-52 to prevent failure of a mast or trunnion, separation of the main rotor system, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. The AD retains the following requirements from previously issued AD 2000-08-52:

• Reduces the allowable RIN life limit established in AD 98-24-15 for masts, P/N 204-011-450-001, -007, -105, -113, and -119;

• Increases the RIN factor assessed for each torque event for BHTI Model 204B and 205B helicopters;

• Applies a standard RIN factor for all external load lifts regardless of altitude change and type of load lifted; and

• Requires a one-time special inspection of certain S/N masts for inadequate radii and presence of burrs in the snap ring groove areas.

The Emergency AD differs from AD 2000-08-52 in that it:

• Requires, before further flight, that the accumulated RIN for all mast and trunnion history prior to the implementation of RIN counting (required by AD 98-24-15) be corrected for inadequate factors used to calculate factored hours TIS and to convert factored flight hours to accumulated RIN;

• Increases the RIN factor for each takeoff and external load lift for masts and trunnions installed on BHTI Model 204B, 205A, and 205A-1 helicopters to properly reflect the actual level of torque (horsepower rating) applied to the mast when it is installed in these helicopter models;

• Expands the requirement for a one-time special inspection to detect inadequate radii and burrs in the snap ring grooves to include masts with S/N's 00000 through 52720, 61433 through 61444, and 61457 through 61465, regardless of prefix;

• Establishes RIN factors for masts and trunnions that have been previously installed on military helicopters (BHTI-manufactured Model HH-1K, TH-1F, TH-1L, UH-1A, UH-1B, UH-1C, UH-1D, UH-1E, UH-1F, UH-1G, UH-1H, UH-1L, UH-1M, UH-1N, and UH-1P; and Southwest Florida Aviation SW204, SW204HP, SW205, and SW205A-1) and restricted category helicopters (Firefly Aviation Helicopter Services (previously Erickson Air Crane Co.); Garlick Helicopters, Inc.; Hawkins and Powers Aviation, Inc.; International Helicopters, Inc.; Tamarack Helicopters, Inc. (previously Ranger Helicopter Services, Inc.); Robinson Air Crane, Inc.; Williams Helicopter Corporation (previously Scott Paper Co.); Smith Helicopters; Southern Helicopter, Inc.; Southwest Florida Aviation; Utah State University; Western International Aviation, Inc.; and U.S. Helicopter, Inc.).

• Requires the immediate removal from service of any mast that has been previously installed with a hub spring.

The short compliance time involved is required because the previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the structural integrity and controllability of the helicopter. Therefore, the actions previously stated are required at the specified time intervals, and this AD must be issued immediately.

Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required, notice and opportunity for prior public comment thereon were impracticable and contrary to the public interest, and good cause existed to make the AD effective immediately by individual letters issued on July 25, 2000 to all known U.S. owners and operators of BHTI Model 204B, 205A, 205A-1, 205B, and 212 helicopters. These conditions still exist, and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to all persons.

The FAA estimates that 147 helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. It will take approximately 10 work hours per helicopter to remove and replace the mast, if necessary; 10 work hours to remove and replace the trunnion, if necessary; and 6 work hours to inspect the mast for proper radius or a burr. The approximate time necessary for calculating the accumulated RIN, revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the maintenance manuals, and providing the information requested to the FAA is 15 work hours per helicopter. The average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $9,538 to replace a mast, if necessary, and $5,300 to replace a trunnion, if necessary. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,675,506 ($11,398 per helicopter, assuming one inspection, one mast replacement, not trunnion replacement, and that the helicopter's accumulated RIN is calculated, the maintenance manuals are revised, and the requested information is submitted to the FAA).

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their mailed comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2000-SW-28-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

History

The Lawson VOR was upgraded to a VOR/DME. As a result the airspace legal description must be amended. This rule will become effective on the date specified in the EFFECTIVE DATE section. Since this action has no impact on users of the airspace in the vicinity of the Columbus Metropolitan Airport, Columbus, GA, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9H, dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) amends Class E5 airspace at Columbus, GA.

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

The geographic position coordinates for the Vero Beach Municipal Airport have been updated. As a result the airspace legal descriptions must be amended. This rule will become effective on the date specified in the EFFECTIVE DATE section. Since this action has no impact on users of the airspace in the vicinity of the Vero Beach Municipal Airport, Vero Beach, FL, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. Class D airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from the surface of the earth and Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraphs 5000 and 6005 respectively of FAA Order 7400.9H, dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) amends Class D and Class E5 airspace at Vero Beach, FL.

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

In the September 21, 2000, Federal Register , volume 65, No. 184, 65 FR 57117-57119, BEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth revised reporting requirements for the BE-93 Annual Survey of Royalties, License Fees, and Other Receipts and Payments for Intangible Rights Between U.S. and Unaffiliated Foreign Persons. No comments on the proposed rules were received. Thus, these final rules are the same as the proposed rules.

These final rules amend 15 CFR part 801 by revising paragraph 801.9(b)(5)(ii) to set forth revised reporting requirements for the BE-93, Annual Survey of Royalties, License Fees, and Other Receipts and Payments Between U.S. and Unaffiliated Foreign Persons. The survey is conducted by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of Commerce, under the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (P.L. 94-472, 90 Stat. 2059, 22 U.S.C. 3101-3108, as amended). Section 3103(a) of the Act provides that the President shall, to the extent he deems necessary and feasible, conduct a regular data collection program to secure current information related to international investment and trade in services. In Section 3 of Executive Order 11961, as amended by Executive Order 12518, the President delegated the authority under the Act as concerns international trade in services to the Secretary of Commerce, who has redelegated it to BEA.

The BE-93 is an annual survey of U.S. royalty and license fee transactions for intangible rights with unaffiliated foreign persons. The data are needed to support U.S. trade policy initiatives, compile the U.S. international transactions accounts and national income and product accounts, assess U.S. competitiveness in international trade in services, and improve the ability of U.S. businesses to identify and evaluate market opportunities.

The change to the BE-93 annual survey contained in these final rules is to require a BE-93 from all U.S. persons whose total receipts from, or total payments to, unaffiliated foreign persons for intangible rights exceeded $2 million during the reporting year. The new exemption level is an increase from the current level of $500,000. The increase is intended to reduce respondent burden, particularly for small companies. The data collected on the BE-93 are disaggregated by country and by type of intangible right.

These final rules are not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

These final rules do not contain policies with Federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132.

The collection of information required in these final rules has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB Control Number; such a Control Number (0608-0017) has been displayed.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to vary from less than one hour to 25 hours, with an overall average burden of 4 hours. This includes time for reviewing the instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing the reviewing the collection of information.

Comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information should be addressed to: Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BE-1), U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; and to the Office of Management and Budget, O.I.R.A. Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0017, Washington, DC 20530. (Attention PRA Desk Officer for BEA.)

The Assistant General Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that these final rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While the survey does not collect data on total sales or other measures of the overall size of businesses that respond to the survey, historically the respondent universe has been comprised mainly of major U.S. corporations. With the proposed increase in the exemption level for the survey from $500,000 to $2 million in covered receipts or payments, even fewer small businesses can be expected to be subject to reporting than in the past. Of those smaller businesses that must report, most will tend to have specialized operations and activities and will likely report only one type of royalty or license transaction, often limited to transactions with a single partner country; therefore, the burden on them can be expected to be small.

Under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has the authority to conduct investigations into certain alleged unfair practices in import trade. Most complaints filed under this provision involve allegations of patent infringement, trademark infringement, or misappropriation of trade secrets. The Commission may determine that section 337 has been violated or, during the course of an investigation, that there is reason to believe that section 337 has been violated.

If the Commission finds a violation, or reason to believe there is a violation, of section 337, it may direct the Secretary of the Treasury to exclude the subject articles from entry into the U.S. During the period the Commission's exclusion order remains in effect, and prior to the date that the Commission's determination of a violation of section 337 becomes final, articles otherwise excluded may be entered under a single entry bond prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Certain statutory changes to section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 were enacted pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), Public Law 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809 (December 8, 1994). Paragraphs (e)(1) and (j)(3) of section 337, as respectively amended by sections 321(a)(3) and (6) of the URAA, provide that articles subject to a Commission exclusion order may be entered under bond prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury in an amount determined by the Commission to be sufficient to protect the complainant from any injury and that if the Commission later determines that the respondent has violated the provisions of section 337, the bond may be forfeited to the complainant.

On February 8, 2000, Customs published a document in the Federal Register (65 FR 6062) that proposed to amend the Customs Regulations to implement the statutory changes to section 337 effected by section 321 of the URAA.

In that document, it was proposed to create a new single entry bond that must be filed for articles subject to a Commission exclusion order. It was proposed that the amount of the single entry bond would be determined by the Commission to be sufficient to protect the complainant from any injury. It was proposed that if the Commission later determines that the respondent has violated the provisions of section 337, the bond may be forfeited to the 3 complainant. The procedures for importing merchandise subject to the bonding requirements of section 337 were proposed to be set forth in § 12.39, Customs Regulations. The new bond conditions were proposed to be set forth in part 113, Customs Regulations.

Further, it was proposed to remove any reference to Commission exclusion orders from § 113.62, as this section pertains to basic importation and entry bonds. The newly proposed bond to indemnify the complainant under section 337 is applicable where merchandise is subject to a Commission exclusion order and is set forth in appendix B to part 113. Customs wishes to emphasize that the proposed special importation and entry bond is in addition to, not in lieu of, the basic importation and entry bond (§ 113.62) and any other Customs requirements for the importation of merchandise subject to a Commission exclusion order.

It was also noted in the proposal that the “(a)(1)(A)” list of documents required for entry, set forth in the appendix to part 163 of the Customs Regulations, would be amended if the proposal were adopted. The (a)(1)(A) list would be amended to reflect the fact that the new bond would be required as an entry document for entry of merchandise covered by a Commission exclusion order.

In addition, it was noted in the proposal that part 178, which lists the information collections contained in the regulations and the control numbers assigned by OMB, would be amended accordingly if the proposal were adopted.

Comments were solicited on the proposal.

One comment was received by Customs in response to the solicitation of comments.

Comment: The commenter recommended four changes to the text of the proposed bond, as follows:

(1) Bond Obligee: That additional text be included in the bond to better identify the actual complainant. This is suggested to be achieved by including a blank space for the complainant's name to be typed on the bond and by including a blank space in which to type the specific Commission case or investigation number;

(2) Description of the Merchandise: That the bond text require the entry date and entry number for the merchandise so that there is certainty as to which merchandise is secured by which bond;

(3) Prompt Notice to the Principal from the Port Director Regarding the Commission Exclusion Determination: That a condition of the bond be that the port director's notice to redeliver to the importer be promptly issued after the Commission investigation; and

(4) Agreement to Pay Face Value of the Bond Upon Default of the Principal's Obligation to Export/Destroy the Merchandise: That the seventh paragraph of the proposed bond text be clarified to indicate that the principal and the surety, “jointly and severally,” agree to pay an amount equal to the face value of the bond in the event of default.

Customs Response: With respect to these four recommendations, Customs agrees with the adoption of all but the third ( i.e. , “Prompt Notice to the Principal from the Port Director regarding the Commission Exclusion Determination”). Unlike the previous Commission bond that indemnified the Government, the new Commission bond indemnifies the complainant. Consequently, the new bond should impose as few preconditions as possible on the Government. Since a Commission order is either served on the principal, or made by general announcement in the Federal Register , there is no need to add, as a condition of the bond, the requirement that a port director issue a notice to redeliver, let alone impose a requirement that such a notice be issued “promptly” within a specified time period.

After review of the comment and further consideration, Customs has decided that the proposed amendments, with the changes to the text of the proposed special importation and entry bond discussed above, should be adopted as a final rule.

Because these amendments conform the Customs Regulations to reflect the terms of an existing statute regarding bond procedures for articles subject to an exclusion order issued by the Commission, pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , it is certified that these amendments will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Further, these amendments do not meet the criteria for a “significant regulatory action” as specified in Executive Order 12866.

The collection of information contained in this final rule has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) under control number 1515-0222. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.

The collection of information in this final rule is in appendix B to part 113. Although other parts of the Customs Regulations are being amended, all information required by these amendments is contained or identified in appendix B to part 113. The information requested is necessary to enable Customs to permit the entry of merchandise the subject of a Commission exclusion order under a bond to indemnify a complainant under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The likely respondents are individuals or commercial organizations that seek to import merchandise that is the subject of a section 337 exclusion order into the U.S.

The estimated average annual burden associated with the collection of information in this final rule is 30 minutes per respondent or recordkeeper. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and suggestions for reducing this burden should be sent to the U.S. Customs Service, Information Services Group, Office of Finance, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20229, and to OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20503. A copy should also be sent to the Regulations Branch at the address set forth above.

The principal author of this document was Suzanne Kingsbury, Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs Service. However, personnel from other offices participated in its development.

By Presidential Proclamation No. 7208 dated July 7, 1999, as modified by Presidential Proclamation No. 7214 of July 30, 1999, the President, acting under the authority of section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2253), established a tariff-rate quota with respect to certain fresh, chilled or frozen lamb meat exported to the United States on or after July 22, 1999.

Under a tariff-rate quota, the United States applies one tariff rate, known as the in-quota tariff rate, to imports of a product up to a particular amount, known as the in-quota quantity, and another, higher rate, known as the over-quota rate, to imports of a product in excess of the given amount. The preferential, in-quota tariff rate would be applicable only to the extent that the aggregate in-quota quantity of a product allocated to a country had not been exceeded.

It is noted that the tariff-rate quota on lamb meat was established in response to a determination by the U.S. International Trade Commission under section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) that lamb meat was being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to substantially threaten serious injury to the domestic lamb meat industry. The tariff-rate quota is temporary in duration, being established for a period of three years and one day. It is intended to help facilitate efforts during this period by the domestic lamb meat industry to adjust to the increased import competition.

Specifically, the lamb meat covered by the tariff-rate quota consists of fresh, chilled or frozen lamb meat that is classified in subheading 0204.10.00, 0204.22.20, 0204.23.20, 0204.30.00, 0204.42.20, or 0204.43.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). In order to implement the tariff-rate quota for the described lamb meat, Presidential Proclamation No. 7208, as amended by Presidential Proclamation No. 7214, modified subchapter III of Chapter 99, HTSUS, so as to list the in-quota quantities of lamb meat allocated to those countries covered by the tariff-rate quota, together with the in-quota and over-quota rates of duty applicable to the lamb meat.

Under Presidential Proclamation No. 7214, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) was given authority to administer the tariff-rate quota on the imported lamb meat.

As part of the implementation of this tariff-rate quota, the USTR offered exporting countries that have an allocation of the in-quota quantity the opportunity to use export certificates for their lamb meat exports to the United States. While a country does not need to participate in the export-certificate program in order to receive the in-quota tariff rate for its share of the in-quota quantity, using export certificates assures an exporting country that only those exports that it intends for the United States market are counted against its in-quota allocation, and it helps ensure that such imports do not disrupt the orderly marketing of lamb meat in the United States.

The USTR issued an interim rule establishing regulations for this export-certificate program (15 CFR part 2014) (64 FR 56429; October 20, 1999). To this end, an exporting country wishing to participate in the export-certificate program must notify the USTR and provide the necessary supporting information. As defined in the USTR interim regulations (15 CFR 2014.2(c)), a participating country is a country that has received an allocation of the in-quota quantity of the tariff-rate quota, and that the USTR has determined, and has so informed Customs, is eligible to use export certificates for their lamb meat products exported to the United States. The USTR has stated that it intends to publish a notice in the Federal Register whenever a country becomes, or ceases to be, a participating country. In this connection, Australia and New Zealand have already requested, and have been approved by USTR, to use export certificates for their lamb meat that is exported to the United States, as noted in the USTR interim rule.

Accordingly, by a document published in the Federal Register (64 FR 67481) on December 2, 1999, as T.D. 99-87, Customs issued an interim rule setting forth a new § 132.16, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 132.16), in order to implement the USTR interim rule. Section 132.16 prescribes the form and manner by which an importer establishes that a valid export certificate exists, including a unique number for the certificate that must be referenced on the entry or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption. This was intended to ensure that no imports of the specified lamb meat products of a participating country would be counted against the country's in-quota allocation unless the products were covered by a proper export certificate. The export certificate enables the importer to claim the in-quota rate of duty on the lamb meat.

In addition, the interim rule revised the Interim (a)(1)(A) list of records required for the entry of merchandise, that is set forth in an Appendix to part 163, Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 163, Appendix). As amended, the list made reference to the requirement in § 132.15, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 132.15) and in new § 132.16, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 132.16), that an importer possess a valid export certificate, respectively, for beef or lamb meat subject to a tariff-rate quota that is the product of a participating country, in order that the importer may claim the applicable in-quota rate of duty. The interim rule also made a technical correction to § 132.15, Customs Regulations.

Two comments were received in response to the interim rule. Both were submitted by or on behalf of trade associations. One commenter unconditionally supported the interim rule. The other commenter supported the establishment of an export-certificate program for lamb meat subject to the tariff-rate quota, but raised a question about how the applicable quota year under the export-certificate program was to be determined. The specific issue raised by this commenter, together with Customs response, is set forth below.

The commenter sought clarification as to whether the quota year under the export-certificate program was to be based on the date of entry or withdrawal for consumption, or on the date of exportation. The commenter asserted that the quota period for purposes of administering the tariff-rate quota for lamb meat should be based on the yearly period in which the lamb meat is entered or withdrawn for consumption, rather than on the yearly period in which the lamb meat is exported to the United States. The commenter requested that § 132.16 add a specific provision to this effect. The commenter believed that basing the quota period and the validity of the export certificate on the date of exportation, rather than on the date of entry or withdrawal for consumption, represented a departure from law as well as customary practice.

The administration of the tariff-rate quota for lamb meat was delegated to the USTR by Presidential Proclamation No. 7214 of July 30, 1999 (64 FR 42265; August 4, 1999). Thus, the determination of the quota year for purposes of the export-certificate program implementing this tariff-rate quota properly falls within the scope of USTR's authority. In adopting its interim rule as a final rule (65 FR 40049; June 29, 2000), the USTR has directly addressed the definition of the quota year in this matter.

Specifically, in accordance with 15 CFR 2014.2(g) of the USTR final rule, for purposes of applying the tariff-rate quota for lamb meat under the export-certificate program, the quota year is the yearly period in which the subject lamb meat is exported to the United States (from July 22, 1999 through July 21, 2000, inclusive; from July 22, 2000 through July 21, 2001, inclusive; and from July 22, 2001 through July 21, 2002, inclusive). This means that lamb meat covered by a valid export certificate would be entitled, upon entry or withdrawal for consumption, to the in-quota rate of duty that is in effect for the period within which the lamb meat is exported to the United States (15 CFR 2014.2(g), 2014.3(b)(2) and 2014.3(b)(4) of the USTR final rule).

For example, lamb meat subject to the export-certificate program that is exported on July 20, 2000, and entered for consumption on July 25, 2000, would be entitled to the in-quota rate of 9% ad valorem, if it is covered by a valid export certificate, because this is the in-quota rate in effect for the yearly (quota) period running from July 22, 1999, through July 21, 2000, inclusive, during which the product is exported to the United States.

It is noted that the USTR final rule in this case is governed by the Annex to Presidential Proclamation No. 7214 (64 FR 42265, at 42267) which plainly applies the tariff-rate quota for lamb meat based upon its date of exportation, as described above. To this effect, the Annex so modified subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

It is further noted that textile quotas, which are usually absolute in nature, are also similarly determined based upon the date of export, as opposed to the date of entry or withdrawal for consumption.

For these reasons, and after careful consideration of the comment and further review of the matter, Customs concludes that the amendments regarding parts 132 and 163, Customs Regulations (19 CFR parts 132 and 163) that appeared in the interim rule published in the Federal Register (64 FR 67481) on December 2, 1999, as T.D. 99-87, should be adopted as a final rule without change.

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a), public notice is inapplicable to this final rule because it is within the foreign affairs function of the United States. Also, for the above reason, there is no need for a delayed effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Because this document is not subject to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553, as noted, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) do not apply; and because this document involves a foreign affairs function of the United States, it is not subject to the provisions of E.O. 12866.

The collections of information involved in this final rule have already been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) and assigned OMB Control Numbers 1515-0065 (Entry summary and continuation sheet) and 1515-0214 (General recordkeeping and record production requirements). This rule does not substantively change the existing approved information collections.

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

Accordingly, the amendments relating to parts 132 and 163 that appeared in the interim rule that was published at 64 FR 67481 on December 2, 1999, are adopted as a final rule without change.

The collection of information contained in these final regulations has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) under control number 1545-1603. Responses to this collection of information are mandatory.

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

The estimated annual burden per respondent varies from 1 hour to 3 hours, depending on individual circumstances, with an estimated average of 2 hours.

Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and suggestions for reducing this burden should be sent to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, W:CAR:MP:FP, Washington, DC 20224, and 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.

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

On January 26, 1998, the IRS published in the Federal Register (63 FR 3681) a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-104691-97) under section 6053 of the Internal Revenue Code relating to electronic tip reports. The notice proposed to amend § 31.6053-1 and § 31.6053-4 of the employment tax regulations.

No written comments responding to the notice of proposed rulemaking were received. No public hearing was requested or held. Accordingly, the proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations.

The final regulations are consistent with the provisions of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act.

It has been determined that these final regulations are not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. Further, it is hereby certified, pursuant to sections 603(a) and 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), that the collection of information contained in these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The collection of information in § 31.6053-1 is imposed solely on individuals, not on any small entities, and the regulations provide flexibility to employees who must provide the information required by statute, thereby reducing burden. With respect to the collection of information in § 31.6053-4, the certification is based on the expectation of the IRS that most businesses that choose to implement the electronic tip reporting provisions will be larger businesses with many employees and sophisticated computer systems. Moreover, because the provision is wholly elective, any small business that would be adversely impacted may choose not to use electronic tip reporting. Finally, the Service expects that for those small entities that choose to implement the provision, the use of electronic tip reporting will reduce overall burden by reducing paper collections. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

The principal author of these regulations is Karin Loverud, Office of Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

Through this document, the Corporation for National and Community Service adopts a final rule regarding AmeriCorps education awards. Under the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq. ), an individual who successfully completes a term of service in a national service position (referred to as an “AmeriCorps member”) is eligible for an education award. An AmeriCorps member may use an education award to repay qualified student loans or to pay for approved educational expenses.

We published a proposed rule on December 1, 1999 (64 FR 67235) to clarify one provision regarding eligibility for an education award and another provision concerning the use of the education award to pay current educational expenses at an institution of higher education. We have determined not to proceed on the proposed change regarding eligibility. Accordingly, this final rule involves only a change to the rules governing the payment of current educational expenses.

Section 148(c) allows an AmeriCorps member to use the education award to pay for “current” costs of attendance at a qualified institution of higher education. The previous rule published on July 12, 1999, defined “current” expenses as covering only those expenses incurred after the completion of service. This rule expands the definition of “current” educational expenses to include expenses incurred after an individual enrolls in a term of service as an AmeriCorps member. We believe that this change in definition will help to avoid unnecessary financial hardship for AmeriCorps members who serve while also attending an institution of higher education.

The proposed rule of December 1, 1999, gave the public sixty days to submit comments. We received one comment regarding current educational expenses. One commenter expressed concern that the change in definition of “current” educational expenses would place an undue administrative burden on the Corporation and local program operators to monitor the pace of such expenditures against the value of the education award as it is earned. We do not believe that this concern is well-founded. The change in definition will not require such monitoring, as there is no necessary connection between the two amounts. The rule simply authorizes an AmeriCorps member to use an education award to pay for costs of attendance at an approved institution of higher education for a period of attendance that begins after the member's term of service.

We have determined that this regulatory action is not a “significant” rule within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 because it is not likely to result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or an adverse and material effect on a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government or communities; (2) the creation of a serious inconsistency or interference with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) a material alteration in the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) the raising of novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866.

We have determined that this regulatory action will not result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Therefore, we have not performed the initial regulatory flexibility analysis that is required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) for major rules that are expected to have such results.

Because these changes do not authorize any information collection activity outside the scope of existing regulations, this regulatory action is not subject to review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3500 et seq. ). For purposes of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, as well as Executive Order 12875, this regulatory action does not contain any federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures in either Federal, State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or impose an annual burden exceeding $100 million on the private sector.

1. The Commission's Fourth Report and Order (4th R&O) PR Docket No. 92-257, FCC 00-370, was adopted October 13, 2000, and released on November 16, 2000. The full text of this Commission's 4th R&O is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00370.txt. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Martha Contee at (202) 418-0260 or TTY (202) 418-2555.

2. The Commission amends its rules to eliminate the application and engineering study requirements and to modify the broadcaster notification requirement for new AMTS stations whose predicted interference contours do not encompass any land area beyond the composite interference contour of the applicant's existing system. This is consistent with the Commission's treatment of certain other CMRS licensees ( i.e. , paging and radiotelephone service licensees, and SMR system licensees in the 800 MHz band).

3. The Commission concludes that the construction requirement for new AMTS systems and system extensions should be extended from eight months to two years because the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's licensing experience has shown that licensees generally have found eight months to be insufficient time in which to construct a system of coast stations. It believes that the one-year period that it has adopted for other site-based CMRS services would be insufficient in most AMTS cases.

4. The Commission amends its rules to eliminate the modulation and channelization requirements for AMTS coast stations, so long as transmissions do not exceed the adjacent channel emission limitations of each station's authorization. It concludes that modulation and channelization requirements are unnecessary with respect to AMTS because AMTS frequencies are assigned in channel blocks. AMTS transmitters will now be allowed to use any modulation or channelization scheme so long as emissions are attenuated at the band edges of each station's assigned frequency group(s) in accordance with § 80.211 of the Commission's Rules.

5. The Commission concludes that AMTS licensees should have the authority to provide fixed or hybrid CMRS services on a co-primary basis with mobile services. It believes that this operational flexibility will enhance AMTS licensees ability to meet customer requirements and demand, and promote regulatory parity among maritime CMRS providers and between maritime CMRS providers and other CMRS providers.

6. The Commission amends its rules to eliminate channel loading requirements for high seas public coast stations, including the limits that were placed on the number of frequencies that could be obtained in an initial or subsequent application, because it concludes that the imposition of such requirements could unfairly impair AMTS providers ability to compete with other maritime CMRS providers.

7. Finally, the Commission extends the existing construction requirement from eight months to twelve months for high seas public coast stations because a twelve-month construction period is consistent with the construction periods that have been adopted for other site-based CMRS licensees. The Commission believes that employing long-term construction requirements based on population or geographic service areas, in this case, is inappropriate.

8. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (2nd FNPRM) in this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the IRFA. The present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

9. Our objective is to promote operational, technical, and regulatory flexibility for Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS) and high seas public coast stations. Specifically, this action will: (1) Provide additional flexibility for AMTS coast stations by permitting the construction and operation of fill-in stations without prior Commission authorization, eliminating the current emission restrictions and channel plan, and increasing the permitted power levels for point-to-point communications, and (2) eliminate the required showing of channel loading and extend the construction period for high seas public coast stations. We find that these actions will allow maritime CMRS providers to better respond to market demand, increase competition in the provision of telecommunications services, promote more efficient use of marine spectrum, increase the types of telecommunications services available to vessel operators, and reduce regulatory burdens on coast station licensees. Thus, we conclude that the public interest is served by amending our rules as described above.

10. No comments were submitted in response to the IRFA. In general comments on the 2nd FNPRM, however, some small business commenters ( i.e. , Paging Systems, Inc., RegioNet Wireless LLC, Waterway Communications System LLC) raised issues that might affect small business entities. In particular, some small business commenters argued that the construction period for AMTS and high seas public coast stations should be extended from eight months to two years, and that AMTS licensees should be permitted to construct fill-in stations without prior Commission approval. The Commission carefully considered each of these comments in reaching the decision set forth herein.

11. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”

12. The rules adopted herein will affect licensees using AMTS and high seas public coast spectrum. In the Third Report and Order in this proceeding, the Commission defined the term “small entity” specifically applicable to public coast station licensees as any entity employing fewer than 1,500 persons, based on the definition under the Small Business Administration rules applicable to radiotelephone service providers. Since the size data provided by the Small Business Administration does not enable us to make a meaningful estimate of the number of AMTS and high seas public coast station licensees that are small businesses, and no commenters responded to our request for information regarding the number of small entities that use or are likely to use public coast spectrum, we have used the 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, conducted by the Bureau of the Census, which is the most recent information available. This document shows that only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such firms which operated in 1992 had 1,000 or more employees. There are three AMTS public coast station licensees and approximately thirteen high seas public coast station licensees. Based on the rules adopted herein, it is unlikely that more than seven licensees will be authorized in the future. Therefore, for purposes of our evaluations and conclusions in this FRFA, we estimate that there are approximately twenty-five AMTS and high seas public coast station licensees that are small businesses, as that term is defined by the Small Business Administration.

13. In order to permit AMTS licensees to construct fill-in stations without notifying the Commission, while still enabling amateur radio licensees to abide by the exclusion and notification distances in our rules, we are requiring AMTS licensees to notify two organizations that represent amateur licensees of the location of their fill-in stations. The estimated time for preparing these letters is twenty minutes per fill-in station. This is the same time requirement for both large and small entities, however, it is such a nominal requirement that it should not be a burden to any entity.

14. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

15. The Commission in this proceeding has considered comments on implementing broad changes to the maritime service rules. It has adopted alternatives which minimize burdens placed on small entities. First, it has decided to permit AMTS licensees to construct fill-in stations without notifying the Commission, avoiding the need to file an application. Also, it has extended the eight-month construction requirement to two years for all AMTS stations and one year for all high seas public coast stations. In addition, the Commission has eliminated the requirement that applicants for HF high seas frequencies show that their current channels are fully loaded before they may obtain additional channels.

16. The Commission considered and rejected several significant alternatives. It rejected the National Association of Broadcasters and Association for Maximum Service Television's alternative of moving the rules governing the Low Power Radio Service from Part 95 to Part 80 of its rules. This was rejected because it could have caused confusion among licensees. Instead, the Commission will leave the LPRS rules in place. The Commission also rejected the alternative of basing the construction requirement for high seas public coast stations on the population of the station's service area as it has for other services, such as AMTS. This would have required licensees to acquire and act upon additional data. Instead, the Commission used a time-based construction requirement because it will ensure rapid delivery of service to the public.

The Commission will send a copy of the 4th R&O, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the SBREFA, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the 4th R&O, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the 4th R&O and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register . See 5 U.S.C. 604(b).

A. Background

This interim rule amends the DFARS to implement Section 8064 of the DoD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-259) and Section 805 of the DoD Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398). Section 8064 of Public Law 106-259 restricts the acquisition of ball and roller bearings and vessel propellers to those produced by a domestic source and of domestic origin. The restriction does not apply to the purchase of commercial items, except ball or roller bearings purchased as end items. Section 805 of Public Law 106-398 extends the restriction on acquisition of ball and roller bearings at 10 U.S.C. 2534 through fiscal year 2005.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

This interim rule may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared and is summarized as follows: The objective of this interim rule is to protect the domestic industrial base for ball and roller bearings and vessel propellers as required by Section 8064 of Public Law 106-259 and 10 U.S.C. 2534. By restricting foreign competition, the rule will benefit domestic small business concerns that manufacture ball or roller bearings, bearing components, vessel propellers, or vessel propeller casings. This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other relevant Federal rules.

DoD has submitted a copy of the initial regulatory flexibility analysis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Interested parties may obtain a copy of the analysis from the point of contact specified herein. Comments are invited. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2000-D301.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to publish this interim rule prior to affording the public an opportunity to comment. This interim rule implements Section 8064 of the DoD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-259) and Section 805 of the DoD Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398). Section 8064 of Public Law 106-259 restricts the acquisition of ball and roller bearings and vessel propellers to those produced by a domestic source and of domestic origin. Section 805 of Public Law 106-398 extends the restriction on acquisition of ball and roller bearings at 10 U.S.C. 2534 through fiscal year 2005. Section 8064 of Public Law 106-259 became effective on August 9, 2000, and Section 805 of Public Law 106-398 became effective on October 30, 2000. DoD will consider comments received in response to this interim rule in the formation of the final rule.

This final rule amends DoD profit policy to implement Section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65). The rule amends the weighted guidelines method of profit computation at DFARS 215.404-71 to combine the management and cost control elements of the performance risk factor; to establish a new “technology incentive” range for technical risk; and to slightly modify some of the cost control standards. In addition, the rule amends DFARS 215.404-4(b) to clarify that DoD departments and agencies must use a structured approach for developing a prenegotiation profit for fee objective on any negotiated contract action when cost or pricing data is obtained.

DoD published a proposed rule at 65 FR 32066 on May 22, 2000. Five sources submitted comments on the proposed rule. DoD considered all comments in the development of the final rule. The final rule is similar to the proposed rule, except for changes at 215.404-71-2(c)(3) that: (1) Permit use of the technology incentive range for acquisitions that include application of innovative new technologies; and (2) specify that the technology incentive range does not apply to efforts restricted to studies, analyses, or demonstrations that have a technical report as their primary deliverable.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because most contracts awarded to small entities are below $500,000, are based on adequate price competition, or are for commercial items, and do not require submission of cost or pricing data.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

SBA issued a final rule at 65 FR 30836 on May 15, 2000, providing a new size standards listing that is based on NAICS rather than SIC codes. The SBA rule requires Federal agencies to use the new size standards to determine whether a business is a small business concern. An interim rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation was published at 65 FR 46055 on July 26, 2000, to establish policy for use of the new size standards in Government acquisitions. DoD published an interim rule at 65 FR 50148 on August 17, 2000, to make corresponding changes to the DFARS. One source submitted comments on the interim DFARS rule. DoD considered those comments in the decision to convert the interim rule to a final rule without change.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because this rule implements the final rule issued by SBA on May 15, 2000, and SBA has certified that the impact of the change from SIC to NAICS on each business will not be substantial.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR Parts 217, 219, 236, and Appendix I to Chapter 2, which was published at 65 FR 50148 on August 17, 2000, is adopted as a final rule without change.

This rule revises DFARS 225.7103-1 and 225.7103-3 to phase out restrictions on the acquisition of PAN carbon fiber from foreign sources. DoD conducted a review of the administratively imposed restrictions that included an evaluation of DoD applications for PAN carbon fiber, key domestic and foreign suppliers, supply and demand market information, potential impacts on DoD and key suppliers, and potential national security issues. As a result, DoD is phasing out the restrictions over the 5-year period ending May 31, 2005. The phased elimination will minimize short-term risks to both DoD and current domestic suppliers and will allow for a gradual introduction of competition that will encourage innovation and affordability. This action is consistent with DoD's interest in promoting vigorous competition in defense markets while ensuring that industrial capabilities essential to national defense are preserved. The market for PAN carbon fiber is projected to grow in the future as defense and commercial application demand increases. The 5-year phase-in period gives domestic suppliers time to adjust to market conditions and also gives DoD the flexibility to adjust its policy ( i.e., extend the restrictions) if projected circumstances do not materialize.

DoD published a proposed rule at 65 FR 41037 on July 3, 2000. Three sources submitted comments on the proposed rule. DoD considered all comments in the development of the final rule.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. , because the known domestic manufacturers of PAN carbon fiber are not small businesses.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

A. Background

This final rule makes the following changes to the DFARS:

1. Revises the prescription for use of the clause at 252.242-7004, Material Management and Accounting System, to—

a. Require inclusion of the clause only in cost-reimbursement contracts and in fixed-price contracts with progress payments made on the basis of costs incurred by the contractor as work progresses under the contract; and

b. Eliminate the requirement for inclusion of the clause in contracts with small businesses, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations.

2. Revises the clause at 252.242-7004 to replace the requirement for an MMAS “demonstration” with a requirement for the contractor to—

a. Have policies, procedures, and operating instructions that adequately describe its MMAS; and

b. Provide to the Government, upon request, the results of internal reviews that it has conducted to ensure compliance with established MMAS policies, procedures, and operating instructions.

3. Makes the dollar threshold for conducting an MMAS review consistent with the threshold for conducting a Contractor Insurance/Pension Review ($40 million of qualifying sales to the Government during the contractor's preceding fiscal year).

4. Clarifies the responsibilities of the ACO and the MMAS team members.

DoD published a proposed rule at 65 FR 41038 on July 3, 2000. Six sources submitted comments on the proposed rule. DoD considered all comment sin the development of the final rule.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the DFARS already exempts small business concerns from the major MMAS requirements.

The rule eliminates the requirement for contractors to demonstrate their material management and accounting systems, and will reduce the number of contractors that must disclose their systems to the Government. Therefore, this rule reduces the paperwork burden hours approved under Office of Management and Budget Control Number 0704-0250.

(a) Criteria for conducting reviews. Conduct an MMAS review when—

(1) A contractor has $40 million of qualifying sales to the Government during the contractor's preceding fiscal year; and

(2) The administrative contracting officer (ACO), with advice from the auditor, determines an MMAS review is needed based on a risk assessment of the contractor's past experience and current vulnerability.

(b) Qualifying sales. Qualifying sales are sales for which cost or pricing data were required under 10 U.S.C. 2306a, as implemented in FAR 15.403, or that are contracts priced on other than a firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment basis. Sales include prime contracts, subcontracts, and modifications to such contracts and subcontracts.

(c) System evaluation. Cognizant contract administration and audit activities must jointly establish and manage programs for evaluating the MMAS systems of contractors and must annually establish a schedule of contractors to be reviewed. In addition, they must—

(1) Conduct reviews as a team effort.

(i) the ACO—

(A) Appoints a team leader; and

(B) Ensures that the team includes appropriate functional specialists ( e.g., industrial specialist, engineer, property administrator, auditor).

(ii) The team leader—

(A) Advises the ACO and the contractor of findings during the review and at the exit conference; and

(B) Makes every effort to resolve differences regarding questions of fact during the review.

(iii) The contract auditor—

(A) Participates as a member of the MMAS team or serves as the team leader (see paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section); and

(B) Issues an audit report for incorporation into the MMAS report based on an analysis of the contractor's books, accounting records, and other related data.

(2) Tailor reviews to take full advantage of the day-to-day work done by both organizations.

(3) Prepare the MMAS report.

(d) Disposition of evaluation team findings. The team leader must document the evaluation team findings and recommendations in the MMAS report to the ACO. If there are any significant MMAS deficiencies, the report must provide an estimate of the adverse impact on the Government resulting from those deficiencies.

(1) Initial notification to the contractor. The ACO must provide a copy of the report to the contractor immediately upon receipt from the team leader.

(i) The ACO must notify the contractor in a timely manner if there are no deficiencies.

(ii) If there are any deficiencies, the ACO must request the contractor to provide a written response within 30 days (or such other date as may be mutually agreed to by the ACO and the contractor) from the date of initial notification.

(iii) If the contractor agrees with the report, the contractor has 60 days (or such other date as may be mutually agreed to by the ACO and the contractor) to correct any identified deficiencies or submit a corrective action plan showing milestones and actions to eliminate the deficiencies.

(iv) If the contractor disagrees with the report, the contractor must provide rationale in the written response.

(2) Evaluation of the contractor's response. The ACO, in consultation with the auditor, evaluates the contractor's response and determines whether—

(i) The MMAS contains any deficiencies and, if so, any corrective action is needed;

(ii) The deficiencies are significant enough to result in the reduction of progress payments or disallowance of costs on vouchers; and

(iii) Proposed corrective actions (if the contractor submitted them) are adequate to correct the deficiencies.

(3) Notification of ACO determination.

(i) The ACO must notify the contractor in writing (copy to auditor and functional specialists) of—

(A) Any deficiencies and the necessary corrective action;

(B) Acceptability of the contractor's corrective action plan (if one was submitted) or the need for a corrective action plan; and

(C) Any decision to reduce progress payments or disallow costs on vouchers.

(ii) The Government does not approve or disapprove the contractor's MMAS. ACO notifications should avoid any such implications.

(iii) From the time the ACO determines that there are any significant MMAS deficiencies until the time the deficiencies are corrected, all field pricing reports for that contractor must contain a recommendation relating to proposed adjustments necessary to protect the Government's interests.

(iv) The ACO should consider the effect of any significant MMAS deficiencies in reviews of the contractor's estimating system (see 215.407-5).

(4) Reductions or disallowances.

(i) When the ACO determines the MMAS deficiencies have a material impact on Government contract costs, the ACO must reduce progress payments by an appropriate percentage based on affected costs (in accordance with FAR 32.503-6) and/or disallow costs on vouchers (in accordance with FAR 42.803). The reductions or disallowances must remain in effect until the ACO determines that—

(A) The deficiencies are corrected; or

(B) The amount of the impact is immaterial.

(ii) The maximum payment adjustment is the adverse material impact to the Government as specified in the MMAS report. The ACO should use the maximum adjustment when the contractor did not submit a corrective action plan with its response, or when the plan is unacceptable. In other cases, the ACO should consider the quality of the contractor's corrective action plan in determining the appropriate percentage.

(iii) As the contractor implements its accepted corrective action plan, the ACO should reinstate a portion of withheld amounts commensurate with the contractor's progress in making corrections. However, the ACO must not fully reinstate withheld amounts until the contractor corrects the deficiencies, or until the impact of the deficiencies become immaterial.

(5) Monitoring contractor's corrective action. The ACO and the auditor must monitor the contractor's progress in correcting deficiencies. When the ACO determines the deficiencies have been corrected, the ACO must notify the contractor in writing. If the contractor fails to make adequate progress, the ACO must take further action. The ACO may—

(i) Elevate the issue to higher level management;

(ii) Further reduce progress payments and/or disallow costs on vouchers;

(iii) Notify the contractor of the inadequacy of the contractor's cost estimating system and/or cost accounting system; and

(iv) Issue cautions to contracting activities regarding the award of future contracts.

This final rule amends DFARS Part 250, Extraordinary Contractual Actions, to clarify that the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) may indemnify a contractor against unusually hazardous or nuclear risks, in accordance with the acquisition authority provided the Under Secretary at 10 U.S.C. 133.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

This final rule does not constitute a significant revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501 and Public Law 98-577 and publication for public comment is not required. However, DoD will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should cite DFARS Case 2000-D025.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The share of the 2000 TAC of Pacific cod allocated to catcher processor vessels using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI was established by the Revision of the 2000 BSAI Pacific cod Harvest Specifications of Groundfish for the BSAI (65 FR 51553, August 24, 2000) and subsequent reallocation (65 FR 65272, November 1, 2000) as a directed fishing allowance of 81,958 mt. See § 679.20(c)(3)(iii) and § 679.20(a)(7)(i)(A)&(C).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2000 TAC of Pacific cod allocated to catcher processor vessels using hook-and-line gear as a directed fishing allowance in the BSAI will soon be reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod for vessels using hook-and-line and pot gear in the BSAI.

Maximum retainable bycatch amounts may be found in the regulations at § 679.20(e) and (f).

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. It must be implemented immediately in order to prevent overharvesting the 2000 TAC of Pacific cod allocated to catcher processor vessels using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI. NMFS finds that the prevention of overharvesting of Pacific cod constitutes good cause to waive the requirement for prior notice and comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C 553(b)(B) as such procedures are contrary to the public interest. The Pacific cod directed fishing allowance established for catcher processor vessels using hook-and-line gear will soon be reached. Further delay would only result in overharvest. NMFS finds for good cause that the implementation of this action can not be delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effective date is hereby waived.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.