Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 240 / Monday, December 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 65619

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

State Plan approvals under section

111 of the Act do not create any new

requirements, but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal State Plan approval does not

impose any new requirements, I certify

that it does not have a significant impact

on small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal-state

relationship under the Act, preparation

of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Act forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning State Plans on such grounds.

Union Electric Co.T1 v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of this rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by February 13,

1998. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time

within which a petition for judicial

review must be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements (see section

307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Methane, Municipal solid

waste landfills, Nonmethane organic

compounds, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 24, 1997.

William P. Yellowtail,

Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:

PART 62—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 62

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7642.

2. Subpart JJ is added to read as

follows:

Subpart JJ—North Dakota

LANDFILL GAS EMISSIONS FROM

EXISTING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

LANDFILLS

Sec.

62.8600 Identification of plan.

62.8601 Identification of sources.

62.8602 Effective date.

Subpart JJ—North Dakota

LANDFILL GAS EMISSIONS FROM

EXISTING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

LANDFILLS

§ 62.8600 Identification of plan.

‘‘Section 111(d) Plan for Municipal

Solid Waste Landfills’’ and the

associated State regulation in section

33–15–12–02 of the North Dakota

Administrative Code, submitted by the

State on September 11, 1997.

§ 62.8601 Identification of sources.

The plan applies to all existing

municipal solid waste landfills for

which construction, reconstruction, or

modification was commenced before

May 30, 1991 that accepted waste at any

time since November 8, 1987 or that

have additional capacity available for

future waste deposition, as described in

40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc.

§ 62.8602 Effective date.

The effective date of the plan for

municipal solid waste landfills is

February 13, 1998.

[FR Doc. 97–32640 Filed 12–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 69

[CC Docket Nos. 96–262 and 91–213; FCC

97–401]

Access Charge Reform; Transport

Rate Structure and Pricing

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In the Third Report and

Order, FCC 97–401, adopted and

released November 26, 1997 (Third

Report and Order), in its Access Charge

Reform and Transport Rate Structure

Pricing proceedings, the Commission

amends its cost allocation rules to

increase the allocation of certain general

purpose computer and other general

support facilities (GSF) costs by price

cap local exchange carriers (LECs) to

their nonregulated billing and collection

categories and the Third Report and

Order also requires affected price cap

LECs to reduce their price cap indices

(PCIs) and related basket indices to

ensure that their regulated access and

interexchange services do not continue

to recover GSF costs attributable their

nonregulated billing and collection

services. These rule amendments and

related exogenous adjustments are

intended to reduce the subsidization of
65620 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 240 / Monday, December 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

nonregulated services by regulated

services, foster competition in the

provision of these services, and move

access charges to more economically

efficient levels.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Allen A. Barna or Richard Lerner,

Competitive Pricing Division, Common

Carrier Bureau, (202) 418–1530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Third

Report and Order adopted and released

November 26, 1997. The full text is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center, Room 239, 1919

M St., N.W., Washington, D.C. The

complete text also may be obtained

through the World Wide Web at http:/

/www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/

CommonlCarrier/Orders/1997/

fcc97401.wp, or may be purchased from

the Commission’s Copy Contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20036. On May 16,

1997, the Commission adopted a First

Report and Order in the Access Charge

Reform proceeding, FCC 97–158, 62 FR

31868 (June 11, 1997) and 62 FR 48485

(September 16, 1997), that included a

Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemmaking (Further Notice), 62 FR

31040 (June 6, 1997). The Further Notice

sought comment on several specific

proposals regarding the allocation of

costs attributable to general purpose

computers and other general support

facilities (GSF) used by incumbent LECs

to provide nonregulated billing and

collection services to interexchange

carriers. On May 7, 1997, the

Commission adopted a Second Report

and Order in CC Docket No. 96–262,

FCC 97–159, 62 FR 31939 (June 11,

1997), that addressed separate matters

in this proceeding. The rule

amendments adopted in the Third

Report and Order were made in

response to the Further Notice and the

comments received in the response to

the Further Notice or otherwise in the

course of these proceedings. This Third

Report and Order was submitted to

OMB for review under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.

§§ 3501–3520. The Commission

received emergency approval of this

collection from OMB on December 9,

1997.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Act

Analysis and Certification

1. In the Further Notice, the

Commission stated that it intended to

limit the scope of its proposals

regarding the allocation of general

purpose computer and general support

facilities (GSF) costs to incumbent price

cap LECs. That Further Notice

tentatively concluded that, because all

such LECs have more than 1500

employees, they would not qualify as

small entities. Because the Commission

intended to limit the scope of its

proposals to such incumbent price cap

LECs, it stated that these options, if

adopted, would not affect small entities.

Currently, 14 incumbent LECs are

subject to price cap regulation. The

Commission sought comment on these

proposals and tentative conclusions. No

comments were received specifically

concerning the conclusion that price

cap carriers were not small entities or

the limitation of the proposed rules to

such carriers. As noted in the Third

Report and Order, however, one

comment was received concerning the

impact on smaller carriers of the first of

the two options presented, the special

study option. That option was not

adopted in the Third Report and Order.

Given that comment and for the reasons

described in the Further Notice and this

Third Report and Order, the

Commission certified that the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5

U.S.C. § 601 et seq., did not apply to this

rulemaking proceeding because none of

the rule amendments adopted in the

Third Report and Order would have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This certification conforms to the RFA,

as amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq.,

has been amended by the Contract with

America Advancement Act of 1996,

Public Law 104–121, 110 Stat. 847

(1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA

is the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

(SBREFA). We hereby affirm this

analysis.

2. The Commission is sending a copy

of this final certification, along with this

Third Report and Order, in a report to

Congress pursuant to the SBREFA, 5

U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A), and to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration, 5 U.S.C.

§ 605(b).

Paperwork Reduction Act

3. The Federal Communications

Commission (Commission) has received

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) approval for the following public

information collections pursuant to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. An agency may not

conduct or sponsor and a person is not

required to respond to a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid control number.

OMB Approval Number: 3060–0760.

Title: Access Charge Reform Third

Report and Order.

Expiration Date: May 31, 1998.

Frequency of Response: One-time

requirement.

Respondents: Business and other for

profit.

Number of Respondents:

Approximately 14 respondents.

Description: A one-time burden of 4

hours per respondent for all 14

respondents to calculate their

exogenous price cap index (PCI)

adjustments plus an additional one-time

average burden of 318 hours per

respondent for 4 of these respondents to

make the necessary additional tariff

filings.

Estimated Annual Burden: A one-time

burden of 54 hours for all respondents

to calculate the exogenous adjustments

and an additional one-time burden of

1272 hours for four of these respondents

for a total one-time burden of 1328

hours for this group of respondents.

Estimated Annual Reporting and

Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $600 per

respondent.

Description: In the Third Report and

Order, the Commission adopts,

consistent with principles of cost

causation and economic efficiency, that,

where price cap LECs use general

purpose computers and other general

support facilities (GSF) to provide

nonregulated billing and collection

services to interexchange carriers, such

GSF costs should not be allocated to

these LECs’ regulated access and

interexchange categories but, instead,

should be allocated to their

nonregulated billing and collection

categories. The related collection of

information follows:

a. In the Third Report and Order, the

Commission requires affected price cap

LECs to make certain exogenous

adjustments to their respective price cap

indices (PCIs) and related basket

indices. LECs affected by this Third

Report and Order are those price cap

LECs that use regulated assets to

provide nonregulated billing and

collection services to interexchange

carriers. For the purposes of estimating

the information collection burdens, we

assume all price cap LECs are affected

by the Third Report and Order. Such

LECs must determine the amount of

GSF costs that they allocated to their

respective access and interexchange

categories during 1996 and then

calculate the amount of such costs that

would have been allocated to those

categories during that year if the rule

changes adopted in this Third Report
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 240 / Monday, December 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 65621

and Order had been in effect at that

time. Once that difference is

determined, each affected price cap LEC

is required to make an exogenous

adjustment to its PCIs and related basket

indices to prevent the earlier

misallocation of these costs from

continuing to inflate the rates charges

for regulated services. Separate from the

possible tariff filing burden described

below, we estimate that it would take

each of these price cap LECs four (4)

hours to complete the steps necessary to

determine the amount of the exogenous

price cap index (PCI) and related basket

adjustments required by the Third

Report and Order. Because we assume

this particular burden applies to all 14

price cap LECs, we estimate the total

burden to be 56 hours as indicated

above.

b. Under the Third Report and Order,

affected price cap LECs are required to

make tariff revision filings on or before

December 17, 1997, to implement these

exogenous price cap adjustments. The

Commission scheduled these filings to

coincide with other access reform tariff

filings to be made by price cap LECs on

or before December 17, 1997, under

other orders in the Access Charge

Reform proceeding. Because most of

these 14 price cap LECs have not yet

made such filings, there should be little

or no additional tariff filing burdens

associated with these LECs’ compliance

with this Third Report and Order. For

the four price cap LECs that have

already made access reform tariff filings

under other orders, we estimate that

there will be an additional tariff filing

burden of 1272 hours for these LECs as

a group. Because this estimated

additional burden of 1272 hours reflects

an average burden of 318 hours for each

of these four LECs, we have used the

latter figure above to facilitate

calculation of the overall hour burdens.

4. The public reporting burden for

this collection of information is noted

above. Comments regarding the burden

estimates or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing the burden,

may be mailed to Performance

Evaluation and Records Management,

Federal Communications Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

Synopsis of the Third Report and Order

5.–6. Where LECs use general purpose

computer and other general support

facilities (GSF) to provide nonregulated

billing and collection services to

interexchange carriers, the Further

Notice sought comment on the existence

of significant problems with regard to

the existing part 69 allocation of these

GSF costs to the LECs’ regulated access

and interexchange categories and, if

such problems exist, whether the

Commission should amend Part 69 to

increase the allocation of these costs to

the nonregulated billing and collection

categories. Specifically, the Commission

sought comment on two options to

amend part 69 to address such

misallocation of GSF costs by LECs.

7. Under the first option, each affected

price cap LEC would conduct a special

study of the uses made of the assets

recorded in its general purpose

computer account (Account 2124) to

determine the percentage of interstate

investment in this account that is

actually used to provide nonregulated

billing and collection services. That

percentage would be used to allocate an

appropriate portion of that LEC’s

Account 2124 investment to its

nonregulated billing and collection

category. Also, under existing

Commission rules, this allocation of

general purpose computer account

investment would result in similar

allocation of the LEC’s general purpose

computer account expenses (Account

6124).

8. Under the second option, the

Commission would require use of a

general expense allocator to apportion

the interstate share of summary Account

2110 (Land and support assets) between

the billing and collection category and

all other elements and categories. Any

investment in Account 2110 not

allocated to the billing and collection

category would then be apportioned

among the access elements and the

interexchange category using the current

investment allocator. Regarding GSF

expenses, the interstate portion of these

expenses in Account 6120 would be

apportioned among all elements and

categories, including billing and

collection, based upon the overall

apportionment of GSF investment in

Account 2110. The Commission also

sought comment on its proposals to

limit the application of these rule

changes to price cap LECs and to require

exogenous adjustments by these LECs to

prevent the past misallocation of these

costs from inflating future access rates.

9. In the Third Report and Order, the

Commission acts on the proposals made

in the Further Notice. In particular, the

Commission found that significant

problems continue to exist with regard

to the allocation of general purpose

computer and other GSF costs to the

regulated categories. To address those

problems, the Commission adopted a

variation on the second option proposed

in the Further Notice. Rather than apply

the general expense allocator to the

entire interstate portion of Account

2110, as proposed in the second option,

and rather than apply that allocator

narrowly to only the general purpose

computer account (Account 2124) as

recommended by some commenters, the

Commission, instead, applied that

allocator to four of the accounts that

comprise Account 2110, as

recommended by other commenters.

Under the four account approach

adopted by the Commission, not only

the general purpose computer account

(Account 2124) but also three additional

accounts, in which LECs also record

investment attributable to their

nonregulated billing and collection

activities, will also be subject to the

general expense allocator. Accordingly,

appropriate portions of these accounts

as well as the general purpose computer

account (Account 2124) will be

allocated the nonregulated billing and

collection category. No change was

needed in the rules applicable to the

allocation of GSF expense accounts

because, in general, such expense

accounts are allocated in the same

manner as their counterpart investment

accounts. Accordingly, the Commission

amended its part 69 cost allocation rules

to provide for the increased allocation of

these GSF costs to the nonregulated

billing and collection categories and

their reduced allocation to the regulated

categories.

10. In addition, pending decisions in

a related proceeding involving the

allocation of such GSF costs by other

LECs, the Commission determined that

this new allocation rule would apply

only to price cap LECs. Also, as

explained above, the Commission

required affected price cap LECs to

reduce their price cap indices (PCIs) and

related basket indices to ensure that

regulated access and interexchange

categories do not continue to recover

GSF costs attributable to these

nonregulated billing and collection

services.

Ordering Clauses

11. Accordingly, it is ordered,

pursuant to sections 1–4, 201–205, 218,

220, and 303(r) of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.

§§ 151–154, 201–205, and 303(r) that the

Third Report and Order is adopted.

12. It is further ordered that the

provisions in this Order will be effective

December 17, 1997. Although this date

is less than thirty days after publication

of the rule in the Federal Register, we

find good cause under 5 U.S.C.

§ 553(d)(3) to make the rule effective

less than thirty days after publication,

because local exchange carriers subject

to price cap regulation must file access

reform tariffs no later than December 17,

1997, in order for them to be effective
65622 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 240 / Monday, December 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

by January 1, 1998. In addition, to

ensure that the local exchange carriers

subject to price cap regulation have

actual notice of this rule immediately

following its release, we are serving

those entities by overnight mail. The

collections of information contained are

contingent upon approval by the Office

of Management and Budget.

13. It is further ordered that, for local

exchange carriers subject to price cap

regulation making tariff revisions

pursuant to this Order, prior to

December 17, 1997, to become effective

January 1, 1998, §§ 61.58 and 61.59 of

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 61.58

and 61.59, are hereby waived. For these

purposes, affected local exchange

carriers shall cite the ‘‘FCC 97–401’’ as

the authority for making such filings.

14. It is further ordered, that 47 C.F.R.,

Part 69, is amended as set forth in the

rule changes.

15. It is further ordered, that the

Commission’s Office of Managing

Director shall send a copy of this Third

Report and Order, including the Final

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis and

Certification, to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 69

Communications Common Carriers,

Tariffs.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

Rule Changes

Part 69 of title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 69—ACCESS CHARGES

1. The authority citation for part 69

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154 (i) and (j), 201,

202, 203, 205, 218, 254, and 403.

§ 69.30 [Amended]

2. Section 69.307 is amended by

revising paragraph (c) and adding new

paragraph (d) to read as follows:

* * * * *

(c) For all local exchange carriers not

subject to price cap regulation and for

other carriers that acquire all of the

billing and collection services that they

provide to interexchange carriers from

unregulated affiliates through affiliate

transactions, from unaffiliated third

parties, or from both of these sources, all

other General Support Facilities

investments shall be apportioned among

the interexchange category, the billing

and collection category, and Common

Line, Local Switching, Information,

Transport, and Special Access elements

on the basis of Central Office

Equipment, Information Origination/

Termination Equipment, and Cable and

Wire Facilities, combined.

(d) For local exchange carriers subject

to price cap regulation and not covered

by Section 69.307(c), a portion of

General purpose computer investment

(Account 2124), investment in Land

(Account 2111), Buildings (Account

2121), and Office equipment (Account

2123) shall be apportioned to the billing

and collection category on the basis of

the Big Three Expense Factors allocator,

defined in Section 69.2 of this Part,

modified to exclude expenses that are

apportioned on the basis of allocators

that include General Support Facilities

investment. The remaining portion of

investment in these four accounts

together with all other General Support

Facilities investments shall be

apportioned among the interexchange

category, the billing and collection

category, and Common Line, Local

Switching, Information, Transport, and

Special Access Elements on the basis of

Central Office Equipment, Information

Origination/Termination Equipment,

and Cable and Wire Facilities,

combined.

[FR Doc. 97–32695 Filed 12–11–97; 9:59 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 971208295–7295–01; I.D.

111897A]

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Gulf of Alaska;

Interim 1998 Harvest Specifications

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Interim 1998 harvest

specifications for groundfish and

associated management measures.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues interim 1998

total allowable catch (TAC) amounts for

each category of groundfish and

specifications for prohibited species

bycatch allowances for the groundfish

fishery of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). The

intended effect is to conserve and

manage the groundfish resources in the

GOA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0001 hrs, Alaska local

time (A.l.t.), January 1, 1998, until the

effective date of the final 1998 harvest

specifications for GOA groundfish,

which will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: The preliminary 1998 Stock

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation

(SAFE) Report, dated September 1997,

is available from the North Pacific

Fishery Management Council, 605 West

4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK

99501–2252, telephone 907–586–7237.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Pearson, 907–486–6919.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Groundfish fisheries in the GOA are

governed by Federal regulations at 50

CFR part 679 that implement the

Fishery Management Plan for

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP).

The FMP was prepared by the North

Pacific Fishery Management Council

(Council) and approved by NMFS under

the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The FMP

is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR

part 679. General regulations that also

pertain to the U.S. fisheries appear at 50

CFR part 600.

The Council met September 22–29,

1997, to review scientific information

concerning groundfish stocks. The

Council adopted for public review the

preliminary SAFE Report for the 1998

GOA groundfish fisheries. The

preliminary SAFE Report, dated

September 1997, provides an update on

the status of stocks. Copies of the

preliminary SAFE Report are available

from the Council (see ADDRESSES). The

Council recommended a preliminary

total TAC of 309,715 metric tons (mt)

and a preliminary total acceptable

biological catch (ABC) of 532,020 mt for

the 1998 fishing year.

Under § 679.20(c)(1)(ii), NMFS is

publishing in the Proposed Rules

section of this issue of the Federal

Register for review and comment

proposed harvest specifications for

groundfish and associated management

measures in the GOA for the 1998

fishing year. That document contains a

detailed discussion of the 1998

specification process and of the

proposed 1998 ABCs and overfishing

levels, proposed establishment of the

1998 annual TAC and initial TAC

amounts and apportionments thereof

and reserves for each target species and

the ‘‘other species’’ category,

apportionments of pollock and Pacific

cod TAC, apportionments of the

sablefish TAC to vessels using hookand-line and trawl gear, and halibut

prohibited species catch (PSC) limits.