Proposed Rules. Proposed rule
18,098 words·~82 min read·
/register/2006/05/31/06-5004A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0123; FRL-8061-7] Inorganic Bromide; Proposed Tolerance Actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that 12 specific inorganic bromide tolerances have been reassessed and is proposing to revoke them because they are no longer needed. These twelve tolerances are for residues of inorganic bromide from pre-plant (non-food) use in or on raw agricultural commodities grown in soil fumigated with combinations of chloropicrin, methyl bromide, and propargyl bromide.
Although methyl bromide is used as an agricultural pesticide, the Agency considers its application as a soil fumigant to be a non-food use because it is quickly degraded or metabolized in the soil, and subsequently incorporated into natural plant constituents.Methyl bromide is also emitted to the atmosphere. Residues of the parent compound are not likely to be found in foods as a result of prior treatment of fields. While residues of inorganic bromide may be present, these residues are indistinguishable from background because of inorganic bromide's ubiquity in the environment.
In addition, the Agency has concluded that inorganic bromide residue from such use is not of risk concern and has determined those twelve tolerances to be safe. Consequently, EPA is proposing to revoke them because no tolerances are needed for those non-food uses and the Agency considers these tolerances to be reassessed. Furthermore, since methyl bromide, when applied as a pre-plant soil fumigant is a non-food use, it should be added as an entry to 40 CFR 180.2020 noting the non-food use determination.
The regulatory actions proposed in this document contribute toward the Agency's tolerance reassessment requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA)of 1996. By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances that were in existence on August 2, 1996. The regulatory actions proposed in this document pertain to the proposed revocation of 12 tolerances that count as tolerance reassessments toward the August 2006 review deadline. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0123, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building); 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0123. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation for this docket facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Weiss, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-8293; e-mail address: *weiss.steven@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? Previously, EPA had established tolerances for residues of inorganic bromide for soil treatment with methyl bromide. However, EPA has classified methyl bromide as a non-food use pesticide with regard to its soil fumigant uses and proposes to revoke tolerances for inorganic bromide. The Agency stated that although methyl bromide is used as an agricultural pesticide, it is considered a non-food use chemical for soil fumigation uses since it is quickly degraded or metabolized in the soil, and subsequently incorporated into natural plant constituents. Methyl bromide is also emitted to the atmosphere. Residues of the parent compound are not likely to be found in foods as a result of prior treatment of fields. While residues of inorganic bromide may be present, these residues are indistinguishable from background because of inorganic bromide's ubiquity in the environment. Therefore, tolerances are not required for soil fumigant uses of methyl bromide, and tolerances currently established for residues of inorganic bromide resulting from methyl bromide soil fumigation (40 CFR 180.199) should be revoked. Supporting documents are available in the docket of this proposed rule. Tolerances and tolerance exemptions established under part 180 apply to residues from only preharvest application, unless otherwise specified, in accordance with 40 CFR 180.1(i). On April 17, 2003 (68 FR 18935) (FRL-7180-2), EPA made pesticide tolerance nomenclature changes including a nomenclature change in 40 CFR part 180 regarding the term “preharvest” such that in 40 CFR 180.199(c) the regional tolerance for “ginger, roots, pre-H and post-H” was revised to “ginger, roots, postharvest.” Nevertheless, the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.199(c) applies to the raw agricultural commodity grown in soil fumigated with combinations of methyl bromide and chloropicrin, and therefore the regional tolerance on ginger, roots, postharvest should be revoked because that tolerance is no longer needed for soil fumigant use and use on ginger, roots, post-harvest is covered by a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.123. Considering all the above factors (that the only residue of concern in pre-plant soil fumigation with methyl bromide is methyl bromide *per se* and there being no reasonable expectation of methyl bromide residues in most crops planted and grown in the fumigated soil, and that inorganic bromide is not of risk concern), as well as the low likelihood of identifying control samples for tolerance enforcement which would be bromide-free, the conclusion that soil fumigation uses of methyl bromide should be considered non-food uses means that the tolerances for residues of inorganic bromide resulting from such use are therefore unnecessary. Accordingly, EPA believes that the 12 tolerances in 40 CFR 180.199(a) for residues of inorganic bromides in or on broccoli, cauliflower, eggplants, muskmelons, peppers, pineapples, strawberries, and tomatoes; in 40 CFR 180.199(b) on asparagus, lettuce, and onions (dry bulb); and in 40 CFR 180.199(c) on ginger, roots are not required under FFDCA and can be revoked. The Agency considers the twelve tolerances to be reassessed and counts them toward meeting the tolerance reassessment requirements listed in FFDCA section 408(q). Furthermore, since methyl bromide, when applied as a pre-plant soil fumigant is a non-food use, it should be added as an entry to 40 CFR 180.2020 noting the non-food use determination. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? A “tolerance” represents the maximum level for residues of pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by the FQPA of 1996, Public Law 104-170, authorizes the establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements, modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore “adulterated” under section 402(a) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be sold and distributed, the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances under FFDCA, but also must be registered under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 *et seq* .). Food-use pesticides not registered in the United States must have tolerances in order for commodities treated with those pesticides to be imported into the United States. C. When do These Actions Become Effective? EPA is proposing that revocation of these tolerances become effective on the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** . The Agency has determined that there is no reasonable expectation that residues of the pesticides listed in this proposed rule will be found on the commodities discussed in this proposed rule and therefore the lack of the tolerances does not prevent sale of the commodities. D. What Is the Contribution to Tolerance Reassessment? By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996. As of May 18, 2006, EPA has reassessed over 8,130 tolerances. This document proposes to revoke a total of 12 tolerances and counts them toward the August 2006 review deadline of FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by FQPA in 1996. III. Are The Proposed Actions Consistent with International Obligations? The tolerance revocations in this proposal are not discriminatory and are designed to ensure that both domestically-produced and imported foods meet the food safety standard established by FFDCA. The same food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported foods. EPA is working to ensure that the U.S. tolerance reassessment program under FQPA does not disrupt international trade. EPA considers Codex Maximum Residue Limits
(MRLs)in setting U.S. tolerances and in reassessing them. MRLs are established by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, a committee within the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international organization formed to promote the coordination of international food standards. It is EPA's policy to harmonize U.S. tolerances with Codex MRLs to the extent possible, provided that the MRLs achieve the level of protection required under FFDCA. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual Reregistration Eligibility Decision documents. EPA has developed guidance concerning submissions for import tolerance support (65 FR 35069, June 1, 2000) (FRL-6559-3). This guidance will be made available to interested persons. Electronic copies are available on the internet at *http://www.epa.gov* . On the Home Page select “Laws, Regulations, and Dockets,” then select “Regulations and Proposed Rules” and then look up the entry for this document under “ **Federal Register** —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to revoke specific tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted this type of action (i.e., tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), the Agency previously assessed whether revocations of tolerances might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This analysis was published on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), and was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and the fact that there is no reasonable expectation that residues of the pesticides listed in this proposed rule will be found on the commodities discussed in this proposed rule (so that the lack of the tolerance could not prevent sale of the commodity), the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed action will not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. (This Agency document is available in the docket of this proposed rule). Furthermore, for the pesticide named in this proposed rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present proposal that would change the EPA's previous analysis. Any comments about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along with comments on the proposal, and will be addressed prior to issuing a final rule. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 19, 2006. James Jones, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as follows: PART 180—AMENDED 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. § 180.199 [Removed] 2. Section 180.199 is removed. 3. Section 180.2020 is amended by adding alphabetically the following entry to the table to read as follows. § 180.2020 Non-food determinations. Pesticide Chemical Chemical CAS Reg. No. Limits Uses Methyl Bromide 74-83-9 When applied as a pre-plant soil fumigant All pre-plant soil uses * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E6-8398 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket No. 03-123; FCC 06-57] Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Video Relay Service Interoperability AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether and how an open global database of proxy numbers of Video Relay Service
(VRS)users may be created so that a hearing person may call a VRS user through any VRS provider without having to ascertain the first VRS user's current Internet-Protocol
(IP)address. DATES: Comments are due on or before July 17, 2006. Reply comments are due on or before July 31, 2006. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the general public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before July 31, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [CG Docket number 03-123 and/or FCC Number 06-57], by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone
(202)418-0539 or TTY:
(202)418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. In addition, a copy of any comments on the PRA information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to Leslie Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to *Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov* , and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, or via the Internet to *Kristy_L._LaLonde@omb.eop.gov* , or via fax at
(202)395-5167. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Chandler, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office at
(202)418-1475 (voice),
(202)418-0597 (TTY), or e-mail at *Thomas.Chandler@fcc.gov.* For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Leslie Smith at
(202)418-0217, or via the Internet at *Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( *FNPRM* ), *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities* ; CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 06-57, contains proposed information collection requirements subject to the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review under section 3507 of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the proposed information collection requirements contained in this document. This is a summary of the Commission's FNPRM, FCC 06-57, adopted May 3, 2006, and released May 9, 2005, in CG Docket No. 03-123. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using:
(1)The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),
(2)the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or
(3)by filing paper copies. *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings* , 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. • For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number, which in this instance is CG Docket No. 03-123. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov* , and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form <your e-mail address>.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption in this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies of each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. • Commercial mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Pursuant to § 1.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1200, this matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's *ex parte* rules. Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. Other requirements pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202)418-0530 (voice),
(202)418-0432 (TTY). Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis The FNPRM contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comment are due July 31, 2006. Comments should address:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it may “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” *OMB Control Number:* 3060-XXXX. *Title:* Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Video Relay Service
(VRS)Interoperability, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 03-123. *Form No.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* New collection. *Number of Respondents:* 8. *Number of Responses:* 3,000,000. *Respondents:* Business and other for-profit entities; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Estimated Time per Response:* 40 to 1,000 hours. *Frequency of Response:* Annual and one-time reporting requirement; recordkeeping; third party disclosure. *Total Annual Burden:* 11,840 hours. *Total Annual Costs:* $0. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Needs and Uses:* On May 9, 2006, the Commission released a *Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM)* , In the Matter of Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 06-57. In this *FNPRM:* The Commission seeks comment on the feasibility of establishing a single, open, and global database of proxy numbers for VRS users that would be available to all service providers, so that a hearing person can call a VRS user through any VRS provider, and without having first to ascertain the VRS user's current IP address. The Commission also seeks comment on nature of the proxy numbers that might be used and how they might be administered. The Commission seeks comment on the role of the Commission in creating and maintaining the database. In this FNPRM, the Commission recognizes:
(a)That when a hearing person contact a VRS user by calling a VRS provider, the calling party has to know in advance the IP address of the VRS user so that the calling party can give that address to the VRS CA;
(b)that because most consumers' IP addresses are dynamic, the VRS consumer may not know the IP address of his or her VRS equipment at a particular time;
(c)that some VRS providers have created their own database of “proxy” or “alias” numbers that associate with the IP address of their customers, even if a particular person's IP address is dynamic and changes;
(d)that databases are maintained by the service provider and, generally, are not shared with other service providers; and
(e)that a person desiring to call a VRS consumer via the consumer's proxy number can only use the services of the VRS provider that generates the number. The FNPRM contains the following information collection requirements involving an open, global database of VRS proxy numbers. The FNPRM seeks comment on:
(1)Whether VRS providers should be required to provide information to populate an open, global database of VRS proxy numbers and to keep the information current;
(2)whether the Interstate TRS Fund administrator, a separate entity, or a consortium of service providers should be responsible for the maintenance and operation of an open, global database of VRS proxy numbers;
(3)whether Deaf and hard of hearing individuals using video broadband communication need uniform and static end-point numbers should be linked to the North American Numbering Plan
(NANP)that which would remain consistent across all VRS providers so that they can contact one another and be contacted to the same extent that Public Switched Telephone Network
(PSTN)and VoIP users are able to identify and call one another;
(4)whether participation by service providers should be mandatory so that all VRS users can receive incoming calls. Synopsis California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing is a coalition of eight community-based nonprofit agencies providing various social services to deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers in California, (CCASDHH or Petitioner) filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling that raises the issue of VRS providers using a proprietary database of “proxy” or “alias” numbers that allow their customers to use their existing telephone number (or some other number) as a proxy for their Internet Protocol
(IP)address. California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (CCASDHH or Petitioner), *Petition for Declaratory Ruling on Interoperability,* CC Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, filed February 15, 2005. This arrangement permits a VRS provider to determine automatically the IP address of a VRS user when a hearing person initiates a VRS call. These databases, however, are generally used only for calls made via one provider's service and using that provider's equipment. The FNPRM seeks comment on whether and how an open and global database of proxy number for VRS users may be created so that a hearing person may call a VRS user through any VRS provider without having to ascertain first the VRS user's current IP address. The Commission also seeks comment in the FNPRM on whether it should adopt specific Internet protocols or standards to ensure that all VRS providers can receive calls from, and make calls to, any VRS consumer, and all VRS consumers can make calls through any VRS provider. Traditional TRS and VRS When Congress enacted section 225 of the Communications Act, and the Commission implemented the TRS, relay calls were placed using a text telephone device
(TTY)connected to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). In such a “traditional” TRS call, a person with a hearing (or speech) disability dials a telephone number for a TRS facility using a TTY. In this context, the first step for the TRS user, the completion of the outbound call to the TRS facility, is functionally equivalent to receiving a “dial tone.” Both persons with hearing and speech disabilities and voice telephone users can initiate a traditional TRS call by dialing 711 to reach a TRS provider. *See, e.g.* , 47 CFR 64.601(1). VRS allows persons using American Sign Language
(ASL)to access the telephone system through a broadband Internet video connection between the VRS user and the communications assistant (CA). A VRS user may initiate a VRS call either via a VRS provider's Web site or directly through VRS equipment connected to the Internet. With VRS, the dial tone equivalent is when the VRS user establishes a video connection with the CA, who then places an outbound telephone call to a hearing person. During the call, the CA communicates in ASL with the VRS user and by voice with the hearing person. The conversation between the two end users flows in near real time and in a faster manner than with a TTY or a text-based TRS call. VRS, therefore, provides a degree of “functional equivalency” that is not attainable with text-based TRS by allowing those persons whose primary language is ASL to communicate in sign language, just as a hearing person communicates in, *e.g.* , spoken English. A hearing person may also initiate a VRS call by calling a VRS provider through a toll-free telephone number. However, unlike the voice telephone network, VRS equipment is not linked to a uniform numbering system that correlates to a VRS user's IP address. Most VRS users have “dynamic” IP addresses, which are temporary addresses assigned to the user by an Internet service provider, and change periodically. This makes it difficult for a hearing person to know in advance the IP address of the VRS user he or she desires to call. If the calling party is not calling a VRS user through a VRS provider that maintains a database of its customers' IP addresses, the calling party must determine in advance the VRS user's correct IP address and give that address to the VRS provider. The Petition Petitioner addresses Sorenson's practice of using a database of “proxy” numbers that allows its customers to use their existing telephone number (or some other number) as a proxy for their IP address. Petition at 3-4, notes 3, 5-6. This arrangement permits a hearing person to call a VRS user through Sorenson without having to know the VRS user's IP address. Petitioner asserts that this “restricted database” precludes a hearing person from making a VRS call through another provider's service using the VRS user's proxy number. Petition at 6. Petitioner notes thats although a hearing person may still be able to call a VRS user by providing the VRS provider with the VRS user's IP address, most VRS users have dynamic IP addresses so that they likely do not know their IP address to give to the calling party. Petition at 6. The Petition asserts that acquiring a static ( *i.e.* , permanent) IP address is costly and that consumers generally do not have such IP addresses. Petition at 3, notes 3, 6. The Comments Commenters addressed the use of proxy numbers for the IP addresses of VRS users. CSD notes, for example, that presently “there is no uniform means of identifying and accessing VRS users that offers the ease of the North American Numbering Plan
(NANP)enjoyed by voice users.” Instead, CSD asserts, each VRS provider has its own system for enabling hearing persons to make a relay call to a VRS user. CSD maintains that this results in serious confusion for hearing individuals who want to make a VRS call and requires them to have “the specific provider information and extension of the individual they are trying to reach.” CSD states that a “seamless numbering scheme” is needed that will allow all VRS users—deaf and hearing—to contact each other with the same ease that other telephone users do so. Finally, CSD notes that such a numbering scheme would facilitate the handling of emergency calls. Sorenson responds that, because VRS equipment is generally connected to the Internet through a dynamic IP address, it developed a means by which callers can reach a device identified by an IP address. Sorenson assigns a unique number to each videophone (usually the consumer's telephone number), and the VP-100 and Sorenson's servers “work together to match the unique identifier with the user's dynamic IP address.” As a result, Sorenson creates a directory “that matches pseudo phone numbers (which remain constant) with dynamic IP addresses,” so that a hearing person seeking to call a Sorenson VRS user can do so by calling a Sorenson and providing the CA with the VRS user's “phone number.” Sorenson states that this “proprietary videophone number dialing feature is part of Sorenson's integrated VRS solution and is not available independently of the VP-100.” Sorenson claims that “users find this feature very helpful because the videophone number does not change and there is no need to acquire a static (fixed) IP address or domain name.” The FNPRM In this FNPRM, the Commission addresses two issues:
(1)The feasibility of establishing a single global database of proxy numbers for VRS users that would be available to all service providers, so that a hearing person can call a VRS user through any VRS provider, and without having first to ascertain the VRS user's current IP address; and
(2)whether the Commission should adopt specific Internet protocols or standards to ensure that all VRS providers can receive calls from, and make calls to, any VRS consumer, and all VRS consumers can make calls through any VRS provider. *Proxy Numbers for VRS Users.* As noted above, a hearing person may contact a VRS user by calling a VRS provider's toll free number. The VRS CA, however, will be able to establish the video-to-video link with the VRS user only if the CA knows the IP address of the VRS user's equipment. Often, that requires that the calling party know in advance the IP address of the VRS user so that the calling party can give that address to the VRS CA. Because most consumers' IP addresses are dynamic, the VRS consumer may not know the IP address of his or her VRS equipment at a particular time. Some providers have created their own database of “proxy” or “alias” numbers that associate with the IP addresses of their customers, even if a particular person's IP address is dynamic and changes. These numbers often resemble telephone numbers, which makes it easier for VRS users to give their “number” to hearing persons who may wish call them via VRS. These databases, however, are maintained by the service provider and, generally, are not shared with other service providers. Therefore, a person desiring to call a VRS consumer via the consumer's proxy number can only use the services of the VRS provider that generates the number. *See, e.g.* , Sorenson *Ex Parte* (January 6, 2006) at 16. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on the feasibility of establishing a single, open, and global database of proxy numbers for VRS users that would be available to all service providers, so that a hearing person can call a VRS user through any VRS provider, and without having first to ascertain the VRS user's current IP address. In assessing the feasibility of this proposal, commenters should address both technical and the economic issues. Technical issues include the need for standard protocols so that the database system can work with all VRS equipment and services. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are aspects of proxy numbers that are dependent on functionalities outside of a database, such as functionalities in the user's equipment. If so, parties should address whether standardization is required. Commenters should address any other technical issues they believe are relevant to this issue. The Commission also seeks comment on nature of the proxy numbers that might be used and how they might be administered. As the Commission has noted, some VRS databases associate users with ten-digit telephone numbers. Others allow the user to create their own unique identification. Communication Service for the Deaf
(CSD)states that “in order for VRS to be functionally equivalent to voice telephone services, deaf and hard of hearing individuals using video broadband communication need uniform and static end-point numbers linked to the North American Numbering Plan
(NANP)that will remain consistent across all VRS providers so that they can contact one another and be contacted to the same extent that Public Switched Telephone Network
(PSTN)and VoIP users are able to identify and call one another.” CSD *Ex Parte* (October 20, 2005) at 3. Accordingly, CSD urges that this matter be referred to the North American Numbering Council (NANC). The Commission seeks comment on this approach. The Commission further seeks comment on the maintenance and operation of such a database. Commenters should address whether this type of database should be the responsibility of the Fund administrator, a separate entity, or a consortium of service providers. Commenters that urge creation of an oversight committee should specify the scope and composition of the committee. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the role of the Commission in creating and maintaining the database. Commenters should address what specific rule changes would be necessary to establish the database. Commenters should also address whether participation by service providers should be mandatory so that all VRS users can receive incoming calls. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on what ongoing Commission oversight or regulation, if any, would be necessary. *Adoption of Specific VRS Internet Protocols or Standards.* Videophones and other devices that send video via the Internet to make VRS calls operate via specific call signaling protocols or standards that connect the two endpoints to the call. Internet telephony requires standards or protocols so that the end-user devices can communicate with each other. H.323 is one standard for transmitting real-time voice and video over packet-based networks. Another newer standard is SIP (Session Initiation Protocol). In declining to mandate the provision of VRS in the *Improved TRS Order,* the Commission stated because VRS was in its early stages of technological development the Commission would “permit market forces, not the Commission, to determine the technology and equipment best suited for the provision of [VRS], and allow[] for the development of new and improved technology.” *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* CC Docket No. 98-67, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ( *Improved TRS Order* ), 15 FCC Rcd 5153, paragraph 23; published at 65 FR 38432 (June 21, 2000) and 65 FR 38490 (June 21, 2000). With traditional TRS, the Commission initially proposed requiring TTYs to be capable of communicating in either ASCII or Baudot formats. *Telecommunications Services for Hearing-Impaired and Speech-Impaired Individuals, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,* CC Docket No. 90-571, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 5 FCC Rcd 7187, 7188-7189, paragraph 12 (November 16, 1990); published at 55 FR 50037 (December 4, 1990) (noting that although ASCII offers a higher data transfer rate, not all TTY users have compatible equipment and rely instead “on Baudot code equipment”). Baudot code was developed in the late 1800's and is a 5 bit coding scheme limited to 32 characters. ASCII was developed in the 1960's and is a 7 bit coding scheme specifically intended for data processing. *See generally R. Horak, Communications Systems and Networks* at 196-198 (3rd edition 2002). In adopting the TRS regulations, the Commission noted that both codes were being used by TTY users and existing TRS providers, although ASCII was the superior technology and had the advantage of being able to be used by personal computers. *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* CC Docket No. 90-571, Report and Order and Request for Comments, ( *TRS I* ), 6 FCC Rcd 4661, paragraph 20; published at 56 FR 36729 (August 1, 1991). The Commission concluded that it would not adopt a phase-out period for Baudot because many persons who rely on TRS have access only to Baudot terminals. Therefore, the Commission adopted the proposed rule requiring TRS to be capable of communicating in both ASCII and Baudot formats. *TRS I* , 6 FCC Rcd 4661, paragraph 20. The rule states that “TRS shall be capable of communicating with ASCII and Baudot format, at any speed generally in use.” 47 CFR 64.604(b)(1). Subsequently, the Commission noted that new TTY transmission protocols had evolved since the initial TRS regulations were adopted, and therefore sought comment on whether these enhanced protocols, such as the V.18 protocol, should be required to be used by TRS providers. *Improved TRS Order,* 15 FCC Rcd 5197-5199, paragraphs 139-146. The Commission also noted that Baudot was still the dominant protocol. In the June 2003 Second Report and Order, the Commission stated that it did not receive adequate comments on this issue and sought further comment on “the extent to which innovative non-proprietary protocols for TTY products are currently being used, and any advantages or disadvantages such protocols may present to TRS providers.” *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* CC Docket No. 98-67 and CG Docket No. 03-123, Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( *Second Improved TRS Order* ), 18 FCC Rcd 12440-12441, paragraph 127; published at 68 FR 50093 (August 25, 2003) and 68 FR 50973 (August 25, 2003). In the *2004 TRS Report and Order,* the Commission concluded that the record did not reflect that there were any new non-proprietary TTY protocols available on the market. *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* CC Docket Nos. 90-571 and 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123 Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( *2004 TRS Report and Order* ), 19 FCC Rcd 12512, paragraph 88; published at 65 FR 53346 (September 1, 2004) and 65 FR 53382 (September 1, 2004). The Commission therefore declined to mandate the use of additional TTY protocols. At the same time, it recognized that it is desirable to make TRS “universal for all types of callers by ensuring its compatibility with various TTY protocols” and stated that it would continue to monitor this issue. *2004 TRS Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd 12512, paragraph 89 (internal quotation marks omitted). Presently, unlike with traditional TRS calls made using TTYs and the PSTN, the Commission has not mandated the use of particular protocols by VRS providers to ensure that all consumers and providers can communicate with each other. With the increasing use of VRS and changes in technology, we now seek comment on whether we should adopt specific protocols for VRS calls and if so, what protocol or protocols should be adopted. As the provision of VRS has developed, nearly all VRS equipment (the VP-100, the D-Link, and webcams) uses the H.323 protocol, and all present providers use this protocol. As a result, this equipment is inherently interoperable with any of the VRS providers' service, and vice versa. Some newer videophone equipment, however, uses other protocols, such as SIP. A SIP device cannot, without translation, communicate with an H.323 device. Without a translation mechanism, if a VRS consumer has a SIP-based videophone the consumer will only be able to use the relay services of a provider that can handle SIP-based calls. Similarly, if a provider can only accept SIP-based calls, a consumer with an H.323-based videophone will not be able to use that provider's service, nor will a hearing person attempting to call a VRS user with an H.323-based videophone. As a result, it is clear that the development and use of videophones that use new Internet protocols that are incompatible with existing videophone protocols creates a barrier to realizing the goal of ensuring that all VRS providers can receive calls from, and make calls to, any VRS consumer, and ensuring that all VRS consumers can make calls through any VRS provider. The Commission therefore seeks comment on whether, following the model of traditional TRS, it should mandate specific Internet protocols that VRS providers must use to receive and place VRS calls. The Commission notes that it does not regulate TRS equipment, but only providers to the extent they seek compensation from the Fund. If so, the Commission seeks comment on what standard or standards we should mandate, and an appropriate transition period for the adoption of these standards. The Commission also seeks comment on what costs may be involved if it requires all providers to be able to receive and make calls through specific multiple protocols, and whether such costs should be compensable by the Fund. The Commission further seeks comment on whether it should invite the providers, consumer groups, and other interested parties to work together to jointly propose standards to the Commission and if so, on the appropriate timing of such an endeavor. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it can ensure interoperability in some way other than mandating protocols, and on any other issues relating to ensuring that VRS consumers can use VRS equipment to call any of the VRS providers, and the VRS providers can make calls to all VRS consumers. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this FNPRM. *See* 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, 110 Statute 857 (1996). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM provided in paragraph 57 of the FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). *See* 5 U.S.C. 603(a). Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules Currently, it is difficult for a voice telephone user to call a VRS user because either the voice telephone user or the CA must know the IP address of the VRS user, and most VRS consumer's IP addresses are dynamic and therefore continually change. Some VRS have developed a solution to this problem by creating their own database of unique “proxy” number for their customers, which generally resemble telephone numbers. The provider has a method of ensuring that the proxy number will always correlate with the VRS user's IP address, even when the IP address changes. The record reflects, however, that these proxy numbers can be used only if the voice telephone user is using the VRS provider that assigned the consumer the proxy number. The FNPRM therefore seeks comment on the feasibility of establishing and maintaining an open and a single, open, and global database of proxy numbers for VRS users so that a hearing person may call a VRS user through any VRS provider and without having to ascertain first the VRS user's current IP address. This would permit VRS users to have one number for their VRS equipment that voice telephone users could “call” through any VRS provider, similar to the way that traditional TRS calls are presently made to the PSTN number of TTY users. The Commission asks if there are aspects of proxy numbers that are dependent on functionalities outside of a database, such as functionalities in the user's equipment and, if so, the Commission further asks whether standardization should be required. The Commission also seeks comment on any other technological considerations that may be relevant to this issue. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on the nature of the proxy numbers that might be used and how they might be administered. The Commission also asks whether this matter should be referred to North American Numbering Council (NANC). *See* 5 U.S.C. 603(a). The Commission seeks comment on the maintenance and operation of such a database. The Commission specifically seeks comment on whether the maintenance and operation of such a proposed database be the responsibility of the Fund administrator, a separate entity, or a consortium of service providers. The Commission invites further comment on the role of the Commission in creating and maintaining the database, including whether participation by service providers should be mandatory so that all VRS users can receive incoming calls. Finally, the Commission asks what ongoing Commission oversight or regulation, if any, would be necessary. The Commission notes that the development and use of videophones that use new Internet protocols are incompatible with existing videophone protocols, which creates a barrier to realizing the goal of ensuring that all VRS providers can receive calls from, and make calls to, any VRS consumer, and ensuring that all VRS consumers can make calls through any VRS provider. The Commission therefore invites comment on whether it should mandate specific Internet protocols that VRS providers must use to receive and place VRS calls. The Commission notes that it does not regulate TRS equipment, but only providers to the extent they seek compensation from the Fund. If so, the Commission seeks comment on what standard or standards it should mandate, and an appropriate transition period for the adoption of these standards. The Commission seeks comment on what costs may be involved if it requires all providers to be able to receive and make calls through specific multiple protocols, and whether such costs should be compensable by the Fund. The Commission further seeks comment on whether it should invite the providers, consumer groups, and other interested parties to work together to jointly propose standards to the Commission and if so, on the appropriate timing of such an endeavor. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it can ensure interoperability in some way other than mandating protocols, and on any other issues relating to ensuring that VRS consumers can use VRS equipment to call any of the VRS providers, and the VRS providers can make calls to all VRS consumers. Legal Basis The authority for the actions proposed in this FNPRM may be found in sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201-205, 218 and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 201-205, 218 and 225, and sections 64.601-64.608 of the Commission's regulations, 47 CFR 64.601-64.608. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the **Federal Register** .” A small business concern is one which:
(1)Is independently owned and operated;
(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 15 U.S.C. 632. As noted above, the FNPRM seeks comment on establishing a global database of proxy IP addresses for VRS users that would be available to all VRS providers. As a result, the Commission believes that the entities that may be affected by the proposed rules are only VRS providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of “small entity” specifically directed toward VRS providers. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, for which the small business size standard is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517110. Currently, there are eight VRS providers. Approximately two or fewer of these entities are small entities under the SBA size standard. *See* National Association for State Relay Administration (NASRA) Statistics. These numbers are estimates because of recent and pending mergers and partnerships in the telecommunications industry. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements The proposed rule establishing an open, global database of VRS proxy numbers would require VRS providers to provide information to populate the database and to keep the information current. Further, the proposed rule mandating specific Internet protocols and or standards would require VRS providers to use compatible video protocols in order to receive and place VRS calls. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, alternatives, specific to small businesses, that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(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.” 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4). As noted above, a hearing person may contact a VRS user by calling a VRS provider's toll free number. The VRS CA, however, will be able to establish the video-to-video link with the VRS user only if the CA knows the IP address of the VRS user's equipment. Often, that requires that the calling party know in advance the IP address of the VRS user so that the calling party can give that address to the VRS CA. Because most consumers' IP addresses are dynamic, the VRS consumer may not know the IP address of his or her VRS equipment at a particular time. Some providers have created their own database of “proxy” or “alias” numbers that associate with the IP addresses of their customers, even if a particular person's IP address is dynamic and changes. These numbers often resemble telephone numbers, which makes it easier for VRS users to give their “number” to hearing persons who may wish to call them via VRS. These databases, however, are maintained by the service provider and, generally, are not shared with other service providers. Therefore, a person desiring to call a VRS consumer via the consumer's proxy number can only use the services of the VRS provider that generates the number. *See, e.g.* , Sorenson *Ex Parte* (January 6, 2006) at 16. In this FNPRM, the Commission contemplates the feasibility of establishing a single, open, and global database of proxy numbers for VRS users that would be available to all service providers, so that a hearing person can call a VRS user through any VRS provider, and without having first to ascertain the VRS user's current IP address. In assessing the feasibility of this proposal, commenters should address both technical and the economic issues. Technical issues include the need for standard protocols so that the database system can work with all VRS equipment and services. The Commission asks whether there are aspects of proxy numbers that are dependent on functionalities outside of a database, such as functionalities in the user's equipment. If so, parties should address whether standardization is required. The Commission requests that commenters address any other technical issues they believe are relevant to this issue. The Commission considers the potential impact of these technical and economic issues on small business and the alternatives in easing the burden on small businesses. The Commission also invites comment on nature of the proxy numbers that might be used and how they might be administered. As the Commission has noted, some VRS databases associate users with ten-digit telephone numbers. Others allow the user to create their own unique identification. CSD states that “in order for VRS to be functionally equivalent to voice telephone services, deaf and hard of hearing individuals using video broadband communication need uniform and static end-point numbers linked to the North American Numbering Plan
(NANP)that will remain consistent across all VRS providers so that they can contact one another and be contacted to the same extent that Public Switched Telephone Network
(PSTN)and VoIP users are able to identify and call one another.” CSD *Ex Parte* (October 20, 2005) at 3. Accordingly, CSD urges that this matter be referred to the North American Numbering Council (NANC). CSD *Ex Parte* (October 20, 2005) at 3. The Commission seeks comment on this approach and the alternatives to this approach that may have a minimal burden on small businesses. The Commission further seeks comment on the maintenance and operation of such a database. The Commission invites commenters to address whether this type of database should be the responsibility of the Fund administrator, a separate entity, or a consortium of service providers and whether the proposed responsibility would pose a significant burden on small businesses. The Commission asks that commenters that urge creation of an oversight committee should specify the scope and composition of the committee. Finally, the Commission contemplates the role of the Commission in creating and maintaining the database. The Commission provisionally considers that specific rule changes may be necessary to establish the database and that the alternatives to these rule changes may be needed to alleviate the burden on small businesses. The Commission requests that commenters address whether participation by service providers should be mandatory so that all VRS users can receive incoming calls. The Commission considers the exemption of a mandatory participation by small entities as it may create a significant burden on small businesses. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on what ongoing Commission oversight or regulation, if any, would be necessary and on what would be the alternatives in considering the impact on small businesses. Videophones and other devices that send video via the Internet to make VRS calls operate via specific call signaling protocols or standards that connect the two endpoints to the call. Internet telephony requires standards or protocols so that the end-user devices can communicate with each other. H.323 is one standard for transmitting real-time voice and video over packet-based networks. Another newer standard is SIP (Session Initiation Protocol). In declining to mandate the provision of VRS in the *Improved TRS Order* , the Commission stated because VRS was in its early stages of technological development the Commission would “permit market forces, not the Commission, to determine the technology and equipment best suited for the provision of [VRS], and allow [* * *] for the development of new and improved technology.” *Improved TRS Order* , 15 FCC Rcd at 5153, paragraph 23. With traditional TRS, the Commission initially proposed requiring TTYs to be capable of communicating in either ASCII or Baudot formats. *Telecommunications Services for Hearing-Impaired and Speech-Impaired Individuals, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990* , CC Docket No. 90-571, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 5 FCC Rcd 7187, 7188-7189, at paragraph 12 (November 16, 1990) (noting that although ASCII offers a higher data transfer rate, not all TTY users have compatible equipment and rely instead “on Baudot code equipment”). Baudot code was developed in the late 1800's and is a 5 bit coding scheme limited to 32 characters. ASCII was developed in the 1960's and is a 7 bit coding scheme specifically intended for data processing. *See generally* R. Horak, *Communications Systems and Networks* at 196-198 (3rd edition 2002). In adopting the TRS regulations, the Commission noted that both codes were being used by TTY users and existing TRS providers, although ASCII was the superior technology and had the advantage of being able to be used by personal computers. *TRS I* , 6 FCC Rcd at 4661, at paragraph 20. The Commission concluded that it would not adopt a phase-out period for Baudot because many persons who rely on TRS have access only to Baudot terminals. Therefore, the Commission adopted the proposed rule requiring TRS to be capable of communicating in both ASCII and Baudot formats. *TRS I* , 6 FCC Rcd at 4661, at paragraph 20. The rule states that “TRS shall be capable of communicating with ASCII and Baudot format, at any speed generally in use.” 47 CFR 64.604(b)(1) of the Commission's rules. Subsequently, the Commission noted that new TTY transmission protocols had evolved since the initial TRS regulations were adopted, and therefore sought comment on whether these enhanced protocols, such as the V.18 protocol, should be required to be used by TRS providers. *Improved TRS Order* , 15 FCC Rcd at 5197-5199, paragraphs 139-146. The Commission also noted that Baudot was still the dominant protocol. *Improved TRS Order* , 15 FCC Rcd at 5197-5199, paragraphs 139-146. In the June 2003 Second Report and Order, the Commission stated that it did not receive adequate comments on this issue and sought further comment on “the extent to which innovative non-proprietary protocols for TTY products are currently being used, and any advantages or disadvantages such protocols may present to TRS providers.” *Second Improved TRS Order* , 18 FCC Rcd at 12440-12441, paragraph 127. In the *2004 TRS Report and Order* , the Commission concluded that the record did not reflect that there were any new non-proprietary TTY protocols available on the market. *2004 TRS Report and Order* , 19 FCC Rcd at 12512, paragraph 88. The Commission therefore declined to mandate the use of additional TTY protocols. At the same time, it recognized that it is desirable to make TRS “universal for all types of callers by ensuring its compatibility with various TTY protocols” and stated that it would continue to monitor this issue. *2004 TRS Report and Order* , 19 FCC Rcd at 12512, paragraph 89 (internal quotation marks omitted). Presently, unlike traditional TRS calls made using TTYs and the PSTN, the Commission has not mandated the use of particular protocols by VRS providers to ensure that all consumers and providers can communicate with each other. However, with the increasing use of VRS and changes in technology, the Commission now contemplates whether we should adopt specific protocols for VRS calls and if so, what protocol or protocols should be adopted. The Commission further contemplates the effects of adopting specific protocols on small businesses. As the provision of VRS has developed, nearly all VRS equipment (the VP-100, the D-Link, and webcams) uses the H.323 protocol, and all present providers use this protocol. As a result, this equipment is inherently interoperable with any of the VRS providers' service, and vice versa. Some newer videophone equipment, however, uses other protocols, such as SIP. A SIP device cannot, without translation, communicate with an H.323 device. Without a translation mechanism, if a VRS consumer has a SIP-based videophone the consumer will only be able to use the relay services of a provider that can handle SIP-based calls. Similarly, if a provider can only accept SIP-based calls, a consumer with an H.323-based videophone will not be able to use that provider's service, nor will a hearing person attempting to call a VRS user with an H.323-based videophone. As a result, it is clear that the development and use of videophones that use new Internet protocols that are incompatible with existing videophone protocols creates a barrier to realizing the goal of ensuring that all VRS providers can receive calls from, and make calls to, any VRS consumer, and ensuring that all VRS consumers can make calls through any VRS provider. The Commission therefore contemplates, following the model of traditional TRS, mandating specific Internet protocols that VRS providers must use to receive and place VRS calls. The Commission notes that it does not regulate TRS equipment, but only providers to the extent they seek compensation from the Fund. If so, the Commission seeks comment on what standard or standards it should mandate, and on an appropriate transition period for the adoption of these standards. The Commission provisionally considers what costs may be involved if it required all providers to be able to receive and make calls through specific multiple protocols, and whether such costs should be compensable by the Fund as a way to ease financial burden on small businesses. The Commission further seeks comment on whether it should invite the providers, consumer groups, and other interested parties to work together to jointly propose standards to the Commission and if so, on the appropriate timing of such an endeavor. The Commission also considers the alternatives of ensuring interoperability other than mandating protocols. The Commission further asks for comments on any other issues relating to ensuring that VRS consumers can use VRS equipment to call any of the VRS providers, and the VRS providers can make calls to all VRS consumers. The Commission also requests for comments that will propose any alternative that will minimize adverse economic impact on small entities. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules None. Ordering Clauses Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1.2 and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152 and 225, this further notice of proposed rulemaking is adopted. The Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-8374 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-988; MB Docket No. 06-97; RM-11254] Radio Broadcasting Services; Dundee and Odessa, NY AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Audio Division requests comment on a petition filed by Finger Lakes Radio Group, Inc. to reallot and to change the community of license for Station WFLR-FM from Channel 240A at Dundee, New York, to Channel 238A at Odessa, New York. *See* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 3, 2006, and reply comments on or before July 18, 2006. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, as follows: James L. Oyster, Esq., 108 Oyster Lane, Castleton, Virginia 22716-2839 (Counsel for Finger Lakes Radio Group, Inc). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau,
(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 06-97, adopted May 10, 2006, and released May 12, 2006. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW. Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW. Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20054, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Pursuant to § 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, we shall not accept competing expressions of interest pertaining to the use of Channel 238A at Odessa, New York. Channel 238A can be allotted to Odessa at proposed reference coordinates of 42-20-38 NL and 76-53-03 WL. Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contact. For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under New York, is amended by removing Dundee, Channel 240A and by adding Odessa, Channel 238A. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-8378 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P 71 104 Wednesday, May 31, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 24, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Rural Utilities Service *Title:* Use of Consultants Funded by Borrowers, 7 CFR 1789. *OMB Control Number:* 0572-0115. *Summary of Collection:* The Rural Utilities Service
(RUS)is a credit agency of the Department of Agriculture that makes mortgage loans and loan guarantees to finance electric, telecommunications, and water and waste facilities in rural areas. The loan programs are managed in accordance with the Rural Electrification Act (RE Act) of 1936, 7 U.S.C. 901 *et seq.* , as amended, and as prescribed by Office of Management and Budget Circular A-129, Policies for Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax Receivable, which states that agencies must, based on a review of a loan application, determine that an applicant complies with statutory, regulatory, and administrative eligibility requirements for loan assistance. RUS has the authority to use consultants voluntarily funded by borrowers for financial, legal, engineering, and other technical services. However, all RUS borrowers are eligible to fund consultant services but are not required to fund consultants. *Need and Use of the Information:* RUS will collect information to determine whether it is appropriate to use a consultant voluntarily funded by the borrower to expedite a particular borrower application. If the information were not submitted, RUS would be unable to determine if using a consultant would accelerate the specific application process. *Description of Respondents:* Not-for-profit institutions; Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 1. *Frequency Of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 2. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-8318 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 24, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Rural Housing Service *Title:* 7 CFR 1951-A, “Account Servicing Policies.” *OMB Control Number:* 0575-0075. *Summary of Collection:* The Rural Housing Service
(RHS)provides supervised credit in the form of Single Family Housing, Multi-Family Housing, and Community Facility loans and grants. Regulation at 7 CFR part 1951, subpart A sets forth the policies and procedures, including the collection and use of information, regarding the application of payments on loans made under the programs administered by the agencies and the return of paid-in-full and satisfied promissory notes. *Need and Use of the Information:* The Agency borrowers submit the information to the local Agency office servicing the county in which their operation is located. The agency-servicing officials reviews and verifies the information. The information is collected when needed and on an individual case basis. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 110. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion; Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 28. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-8319 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XT-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 25, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Agricultural Research Service *Title:* Web Forms for Research Data, Models, Materials, and Publications as well as Study and Event Registration. *OMB Control Number:* 0518-0032. *Summary of Collection:* OMB Circular 130 Management of Federal Information Resources, establishes that “agencies will use electronic media and formats * * * in order to make government information more easily accessible and useful to the public. * * *” The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), 44 U.S.C. 3504, Title XVII, required agencies to provide the option of electronic submission of information to the public. In order to provide information and services related to its program responsibilities defined at 7 CFR 2.65, the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS)needs to obtain certain basic information from the public. Online forms are needed to allow the public to request from the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS)research data, models, materials, and publications as well as registration for scientific studies and events. *Need and Use of the Information:* ARS will use the information to respond to requests for specific services. The information will be collected electronically, by telephone, or by mail. If this collection is not conducted, ARS will be hindered from reducing the burden on its customers by providing them the most timely and efficient was to request services. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Number of Respondents:* 25,000. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 1,250. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-8371 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 25, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Rural Utilities Service *Title:* 7 CFR 1744-E, Borrower Investments—Telecommunications Loan Program. *OMB Control Number:* 0572-0098. *Summary of Collection:* The Rural Economic Development Act of 1990, Title XXIII of the Farm Bill, Public Law 101-624, authorized qualified Rural Utilities Service
(RUS)borrowers to make investments in rural development projects without the prior approval of the RUS Administrator, provided, however that such investments do not cause the borrower to exceed its allowable qualified investment level as determined in accordance with the procedures set forth in 7 CFR part 1744, subpart E. RUS requests that the borrower submit
(1)a description of the rural development project and type of investment;
(2)a reasonable estimate of the amount the borrower is committed to provide to the project including future expenditures; and
(3)a pro forma balance sheet and cash flow statement for the period covering the borrower's future commitments to determine that the “excess” or proposed “excess” investments will not impair the borrower's ability to repay the loan or cause financial hardship. *Need and Use of the Information:* RUS will collect information to consider whether or not to approve a borrower's request to make an investment in a rural development project when such an investment would cause the borrower to exceed its allowable investment level. If this information was not collected, RUS could not thoroughly assess the economic impact of such an investment. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 25. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 238. Rural Utilities Service *Title:* 7 CFR 1730, Review Rating Summary. *OMB Control Number:* 0572-0025. *Summary of Collection:* The Rural Utilities Service
(RUS)manages loan programs in accordance with the Rural Electrification Act (RE Act) of 1936, 7 U.S.C. 901 *et seq.* , as amended. An important part of safeguarding loan security is to see that RUS financed facilities are being responsibly used, adequately operated, and adequately maintained. Future needs have to be anticipated to ensure that facilities will continue to produce revenue and that loans will be repaid as required by the RUS mortgage. Regular periodic operations and maintenance (O&M) review can identify and correct inadequate O&M practices before they cause extensive harm to the system. Inadequate O&M practices can result in public safety hazards, increased power outages for consumers, added expense for emergency maintenance, and premature aging of the borrower's systems, which could increase the loan security risk to RUS. *Need and Use of the Information:* RUS will collect information using form 300 Review Rate Summary to identify items that may be in need of additional attention; to plan corrective actions when needed; to budget funds and manpower for needed work; and to initiate ongoing programs as necessary to avoid or minimize the need for “catch-up” programs. *Description of Respondents:* Not-for-profit institutions; Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 229. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 916. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-8372 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 25, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Forest Service *Title:* Urgent Removal of Timber. *OMB Control Number:* 0596-0167. *Summary of Collection:* Periodically, catastrophic events such as severe drought conditions, insect and disease outbreaks, wildfires, floods, and windthrow occur on forested lands within, or near, National Forest System
(NFS)lands. As a result of such catastrophic event, substantial amounts of private and other public timber may be severely damaged. The damaged timber must be harvested within a relatively short time period to avoid substantial losses in both the quantity and quality of the timber due to deterioration. The critical time period available for harvesting this damaged timber and avoiding substantial deterioration varies with the season of the year, the species of timber, the damaging agent, and the location of the damaged timber. The following statute is applicable to extension of National Forest System timber sales: The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a), and 36 CFR part 223.115 and 36 CFR part 223.53. *Need and Use of the Information:* The Forest Service
(FS)will collect the following information:
(1)Name of the timber sale purchaser;
(2)Identity of catastrophic event creating the need for urgent removal of timber;
(3)Name of the NFS sale contract(s) for which an urgent removal extension is requested;
(4)Quantity of urgent removal from qualifying catastrophic event purchaser has under contract and/or plans to harvest subject to approval by FS of urgent removal extension of sale(s) identified in purchaser's request; and
(5)General information showing the manufacturing and/or logging equipment capacity available to purchaser. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; Individuals or households; Federal Government; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 25. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 100. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-8373 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket Number FV-04-301] United States Standards for Grades of Greenhouse Tomatoes AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)of the Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is soliciting comments on its proposal to revise the United States Standards for Grades of Greenhouse Tomatoes. AMS is proposing to revise the standards to allow that percentages of defects and size classifications be determined by count rather than weight. This would result in a revision of the following sections of the standards: Tolerances, Size Classification, Standard Pack, Damage, and Serious Damage sections. Additionally, AMS is proposing to delete the “Unclassified” section, add moldy stems as a damage defect, and add a scoring guide for damage and serious damage for skin checks. The proposed revisions would bring the standards for greenhouse tomatoes in line with current marketing practices, thereby improving their usefulness in serving the industry. DATES: Comments must be received by July 31, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to the Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1661 South Building, Stop 0240, Washington, DC 20250-0240; Fax
(202)720-8871, E-mail *FPB.DocketClerk@usda.gov.* Comments should make reference to the dates and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be made available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours. The proposed United States Standards for Grades of Greenhouse Tomatoes are available either through the address cited above or by accessing the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/fpbdocketlist.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri L. Emery, at the above address or call
(202)720-2185, E-mail *Cheri.Emery@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “To develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA/AMS/Fruit and Vegetable Programs. AMS is proposing to revise the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Greenhouse Tomatoes using procedures that appear in part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). These standards were last revised in 1966. Background Prior to undertaking research and other work associated with revision of the grade standards, AMS published a notice in the **Federal Register** (68 FR 68859) on December 10, 2003, soliciting comments on the possible revision of the United States Standards for Grades of Greenhouse Tomatoes. In response to this notice, a comment was received from an international industry group asking for an extension of the comment period. Following a review of the request AMS published a notice in the **Federal Register** (69 FR 12299) on March 16, 2004, extending the comment period from February 9, 2004, to March 31, 2004. Further, after the comment period, AMS prepared a discussion draft of the proposed greenhouse tomato standard, and distributed copies for input to all commenters, industry associations, and other interested persons. As a result, we are adding a scoring guide for damage and serious damage by skin checks and including moldy stems as a damage defect. In response to our request for comments, AMS received seven comments on the possible revisions. Two from domestic trade organizations, two from international trade organizations, two from foreign trade organizations, and one from a foreign government agency. The comments are available by accessing the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/fpbdocketlist.htm.* Four comments were in favor of the revisions to allow that percentages of defects and size classifications be determined by count rather than weight, stating the proposed change would significantly increase the speed of the inspection process while not changing the integrity of the inspection. AMS received one comment specifically requesting a subsection for Tomatoes on the Vine
(TOV)in the Greenhouse Tomato Standard. Three comments asked to include information to make the standards more useful to other types of greenhouse tomatoes and TOV. Based on these comments, we believe that it is preferable to address this issue by the development of a new standard for TOV. AMS received two comments requesting a standard definition as to what represents a greenhouse tomato, and four comments that were opposed to including such a definition. The commenters opposed to defining “greenhouse tomatoes” stated that a strict definition would limit some growers from producing or marketing their product. Historically, the industry has been able to market this product without such a definition in the standards. Accordingly, AMS has decided not to take further action concerning the definition. AMS received four comments requesting that destination tolerances be reviewed. However, no specific change was requested. Accordingly, the tolerances will remain unchanged. AMS received four comments expressing concerns with changing to a size classification based on a diameter calculation due to the variations in the shape of the varieties. They requested using a count basis for determining size. AMS is proposing to revise the size classification section to add that the size of tomatoes may be specified by count per container, or in accordance with the defined diameter specifications. Because of the change from weight to count, AMS is also proposing to change the size designations from ounces to diameter, define the minimum and maximum diameter in inches of a small tomato to mean 2 4/32 to 2 9/32 , a medium tomato to mean 2 8/32 to 2 17/32 , a large tomato to mean 2 16/32 to 2 25/32 , and an extra large tomato to mean 2 24/32 and larger, and add a definition for minimum and maximum diameter. The proposed revisions will result in a modification of the following four sections of the standards: The tolerance section will change from weight to count. The standard pack section would be revised to base the “standard pack” on marked count by defining “Fairly uniform in size” as: “not more than 10 percent, by count, of the tomatoes in any container may vary more than 1/2 inch in diameter.” The damage section will be revised to include that all references to area, aggregate area, length, or aggregate length definitions are based on a 2 1/2 inch in diameter tomato. The damage by catfaces scoring guide will be changed to 1/2 inch aggregate area based on a tomato 2 1/2 inches in diameter. The serious damage section will also be revised to include references to area, aggregate area, length, or aggregate are based on a 2 1/2 inch in diameter tomato. The serious damage by catfaces scoring guide will be changed to 1 inch aggregate area based on a tomato 2 1/2 inches in diameter. Based upon input from industry, AMS is proposing to add a scoring guide for damage and serious damage by skin checks. Damage will be defined as, “when the appearance of the tomato is affected to a greater extent than that of a tomato 2 1/2 inches in diameter having skin checks which has an aggregate area equivalent to that of a circle three-eighths inch in diameter.” Serious damage will be defined as, “when the appearance of the tomato is affected to a greater extent than that of a tomato 2 1/2 inches in diameter having skin checks which has an aggregate area equivalent to that of a circle five-eighths inch in diameter.” In addition, AMS is also proposing to add moldy stems as a damage defect in the requirements for a U.S. No. 1. Finally, AMS is proposing to eliminate the “Unclassified” category. This section is being removed in all standards when they are revised. The category is not a grade and only serves to show that no grade has been applied to the lot. The official grade of a lot of greenhouse tomatoes covered by these standards is determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection, Certification, and Standards of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other Products (Sec. 51.1 to 51.61). This notice provides a 60-day comment period for interested parties to comment on the proposed changes to the standard. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: May 25, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-8375 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Seek OMB Approval To Collect Information, Forms Pertaining to the Peer Review of ARS Research Projects AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service (ARS), USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and OMB implementing regulations. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. DATES: Written comments on this notice must be received by July 31, 2006. ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Michael S. Strauss, Peer Review Program Coordinator, Office of Scientific Quality Review; Agricultural Research Agency, USDA; 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Beltsville, Maryland 20705; Phone: 301-504-3283; Fax: 301-504-1251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael S. Strauss, 301-504-3282. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Scientific Quality Review will seek approval from OMB to update six existing forms that will allow the ARS to efficiently manage data associated with the peer review of agricultural research. All forms are transferred and received in an electronic storage format that does not include on-line access. *Abstract:* The Office of Scientific Quality Review was established in September of 1999 as a result of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act 1998 (“The Act”) (Pub. L. 105-185). The Act included mandates to perform scientific peer reviews of all research activities conducted by the USDA. The Office manages the ARS peer review system by centrally planning peer panel reviews for ARS research projects on a five-year cycle. Each set of reviews is assigned a chairperson to govern the review process. The majority of the peer reviewers are non-ARS scientists. Peer review panels are convened to provide in-depth discussion and review of the research project plans. Each panel reviewer receives information on between 1 and 20 ARS research projects. On average, 220 research projects are reviewed annually by an estimated 100 reviewers; whereby approximately 200 are reviewed by panel and approximately 20 are reviewed through an ad hoc process. The organization and management of this peer review system, particularly panel reviews, is highly dependent on the use of forms. The Office of Scientific Quality Review will seek OMB approval of the following forms: 1. *Confidentiality Agreement Form* —USDA uses this form to document that a selected reviewer is responsible for keeping confidential any information learned during the subject peer review process. The Confidentiality Agreement is signed prior to the reviewer's involvement in the peer review process. This form requires an original signature. 2. *Panelist Information Form* —USDA uses this form to gather up-to-date background information about the reviewer. Reviewers often include sensitive information on this form. This form requires an original signature. 3. *Peer Review of an ARS Research Project Form (Peer Review Form)* —USDA uses this form to guide the reviewer's comments on the subject project. The form contains the reviewing criteria and space for the reviewer's narrative comments and evaluation. 4. *Recommendations for ARS Research Project Form* —(Recommendations Form, formerly known as “Critique Form”). USDA uses this form to guide the panel's evaluation and critique of the review process. The form contains recommendations for the subject research project. 5. *Panel Expense Report Form (Expense Report)* —USDA uses this form to document a panel reviewer's expense incurred traveling to and attending a peer review meeting. The Expense Report includes lodging, meals, and transportation expenses. When completed, the form contains sensitive information. *Panel Invoice Form (Invoice)* —USDA uses this form to document the transfer of an honorarium to a peer reviewer. Reviewers receive honoraria as compensation for serving as peer review panelists. This form requires an original signature.
(1)USDA's collection of information on the Confidentiality Agreement Form is needed to document that a selected reviewer is responsible for keeping confidential any information learned during the subject peer review process. The Confidentiality Agreement would be signed prior to the reviewer's involvement in the peer review process.
(2)USDA's collection of information on the Panelist Information Form is needed to gather up-to-date background information about the reviewer. It contains sensitive information.
(3)USDA's collection of information on the Peer Review Form is needed to guide the reviewer's comments on the subject project. It contains the reviewing criteria and space to insert comments.
(4)USDA's collection of information on the Recommendations Form is needed to guide the panel's critique of the review process. It contains recommendations for the subject research project.
(5)USDA's collection of information on the Expense Report Form is needed to document a panel reviewer's expenses incurred by attending a peer review meeting. The Expense Report includes lodging, meals, and transportation expenses. It includes sensitive information.
(6)USDA's collection of information on the Invoice is needed to document the transfer of a stipend to the peer reviewer. The stipend is given to reviewers as appreciation for their time spent on the panel review process. *Estimate of Burden:* The burden associated with this approval process is the minimum required to achieve program objectives. The information collection frequency is the minimum consistent with program objectives. The following estimates of time required to complete the forms are based on OSQR's experience in working with reviewers and accepting their input into our procedures. 1. Confidentiality Agreement Form: This form takes 10-15 minutes to complete. It only requires a signature and date, but the reviewer must read the terms of the agreement. 2. Panelist Informational Form: This form takes 20-30 minutes to complete. It resembles a typical request for personal information; many reviewers provide the same data as grant reviewers in other peer review programs. 3. Peer Review of an ARS Research Project Form (Peer Review Form) This form takes 4-6 hours to complete. Because this is a review, the page length significantly varies. Reviewers are free to write as much as they wish. 4. Recommendations for ARS Research Project Form (Recommendations Form, formerly known as “Critique Form”). This form takes 1 hour to complete. Because this is a review, the page length significantly varies. Reviewers are free to write as much as they wish. 5. Panel Expense Report Form (Expense Report) This form takes 10-15 minutes to complete. 6. Panel Invoice Form (Invoice): This form takes 5-10 minutes to complete. This form has the reviewer's personal info pre-filled and the reviewer only verifies it's accuracy and signs. *Respondents and Estimated Number of Respondents:* Scientific experts, currently working in the same discipline as the research projects under review, are selected to review research projects. These experts are notable peers within and external to the ARS. Annually, about 100 peer reviewers complete these forms. Ad hoc reviewers are not, typically, paid a stipend, and do not travel to meet with other reviewers; and thus they do not complete Expense Report and Invoice Forms. On occasion, ad hoc reviewers may participate in a Web-based panel and be paid a nominal honorarium, thus necessitating completion of and Invoice Form. Ad hoc reviewers, retained for special situations, will make up about a 25 percent of all the reviewers retained annually. *Frequency of Response:* Form Number of respondents Annual frequency Confidentiality Agreement 100 1 per respondent. Peer Review Forms (Required for all reviewers and they have 1-4 review assignments on average) 100 ~4 per respondent (Total of 400). Expense Report, Invoice, & Panelist Information Forms 75 1 per respondent for each form (Total of 225). Recommendations Form (Required on panel reviews, whereby comments from the peer review form are combined into one file) 75 ~2.5 per respondent (Total of 200). Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents Form (time required to complete) Number completed annually Total burden Confidentiality Agreement (12 min.) 100 1200 min. Peer Review Forms (~5 hrs.) 400 2000 hrs. Panelist Information Forms (25 min.) 225 5625 min. Recommendations Form (1 hr.) 200 200 hrs. Invoice (7 min.) 225 1575 min. Expense Report (12 min.) 225 2700 min. Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35. *Comments:* The Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:
(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of ARS functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the estimated burden from proposed collection of information;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Dated: April 24, 2006. Antoinette Betschart, Associate Administrator for Operations and Management, Agricultural Research Service, USDA. [FR Doc. 06-5004 Filed 5-26-06; 11:38 am]
Connectionstraces to 25
Traces to 25 documents
U.S. Code
- Tolerances and exemptions for pesticide chemical residues§ 346a
- Adulterated food§ 342
- Prohibited acts§ 331
- Definitions§ 136
- Purposes§ 3501
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Definitions§ 601
- Definitions; generally§ 321
- Federal agency responsibilities§ 3506
- Initial regulatory flexibility analysis§ 603
- Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission created§ 151
- Definitions§ 632
- Federal Communications Commission§ 154
- Short title§ 901
- Authority and functions of Director§ 3504
- Timber sales on National Forest System lands§ 472a
register
33 references not yet in our index
- 40 CFR 180
- 40 CFR 180.2020
- 40 CFR 2
- 40 CFR 180.199
- 40 CFR 180.1(i)
- 40 CFR 180.199(c)
- 40 CFR 180.123
- 40 CFR 180.199(a)
- 40 CFR 180.199(b)
- Pub. L. 104-170
- Pub. L. 104-4
- Pub. L. 104-113
- 47 CFR 64
- Pub. L. 104-13
- 47 CFR 1.415
- 47 CFR 1.1200
- Pub. L. 107-198
- 47 CFR 64.601(1)
- 47 CFR 64.604(b)(1)
- 5 USC 601-612
- Pub. L. 104-121
- 47 CFR 64.601-64
- 47 CFR 73
- 47 CFR 1.1204(b)
- 7 CFR 1789
- 7 CFR 1951
- 7 CFR 2.65
- 7 CFR 1744
- Pub. L. 101-624
- 7 CFR 1730
- 7 USC 1621-1627
- 7 CFR 36
- Pub. L. 105-185
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Proposed rule
Cite40 CFR 180
Cite40 CFR 180.2020
Cite40 CFR 2
Cites 58 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources