Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

11,801 words·~54 min read·/register/2007/03/21/07-1318

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4312-FN-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Part 7 RIN 1024-AD40 Special Regulations; Areas of the National Park System, National Capital Region AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The National Park Service

(NPS)proposes to add a regulation governing parking violations. The addition is needed to address situations in which the vehicle's operator is absent when the vehicle is illegally parked. The proposed amendment provides that a parking citation is subject to fine, allows the citation to name the registered owner if the operator is not present, and creates a rebuttable prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the illegally parked vehicle was the person who committed the violation. This proposed rule is similar to provisions in the parking laws of the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland. DATES: Comments must be received by May 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the number RIN 1024-AD40, by any of the following methods: —Federal rulemaking portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. —E-mail Sean Doyle, Park Ranger, National Park Service at *Sean_Doyle@nps.gov.* Use RIN 1024-AD40 in the subject line. —Mail or hand delivery to Sean Doyle, Park Ranger, National Park Service National Capital Region, 1100 Ohio Drive SW., Room 236, Washington, DC 20242. —Fax to:

(202)260-9582. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Lee, Special Assistant, 1849 C St., NW., Room 3319, Washington, DC 20240, *jennifer_lee@nps.gov* , 202-219-1689. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Parking violations on Federal parkland administered by the NPS in the National Capital Region are regulated by 36 CFR 4.12 (traffic control devices). This section provides that “Failure to comply with the directions of a traffic control device is prohibited unless otherwise directed by the superintendent.” Prohibitions included within 36 CFR 4.12 are violations of handicapped parking signs, no parking, parking times limitations, and parking outside of marked parking spaces. This regulation is routinely used by United States Park Police officers and National Park Service law enforcement commissioned rangers. When a citation is issued and the operator is not identified on the notice, it results in the violation being dismissed if the registered owner fails to appear at trial and the court declines to proceed. Parking spaces on parkland are limited in number and are intended to provide visitors with safe, convenient, and legal areas to park while they visit the parks. In urbanized areas of parks in the National Capital Region, violation notices have been dismissed because the operator has not been identified. This is a concern as the U.S. Park Police have documented instances of operators repeatedly parking illegally without consequence, which denies others the ability to legally use the parking places. Description of Proposed Rulemaking In response to this problem, the National Park Service proposes to amend the National Capital Region special regulations to establish an enforcement process for parking violation notices issued under 36 CFR 4.12. The proposed rule: 1. Provides that a parking violation notice is subject only to a fine; 2. Provides that the violation notice will name the registered owner if the operator is not present; and 3. Creates a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the illegally parked vehicle was the person who committed the violation. The prima facie presumption, however, remains rebuttable if the owner comes forward with evidence that someone else was operating the vehicle. This proposed rule is similar to provisions that already exist in the parking laws of many jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland (D.C. Code Ann. § 50-2303.03(c) (2004); Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-1220 (2004); Md. Trans. Code Ann. § 26-302(b)(2002)). Prima facie presumption is a reasonable and standard provision found in parking codes of many jurisdictions. The connection between the registered owner of an automobile and its operation is a natural one. Indeed, courts have noted, not only the practical impossibility of a police agency to keep a watch over all parked vehicles to ascertain who in fact operates them, but that a traffic regulation's prima facie presumption of responsibility on the registered owner is reasonable, and places neither too great an inconvenience nor an unreasonable hardship if the owner desires to make an explanation. This presumption has been generally upheld by the courts if, as the Park Service proposes here, it also allows the owner to come forward with evidence that someone else was operating the vehicle in order to rebut the inference that the registered owner was responsible. Such parking regulation presumptions have also been upheld as consistent with due process. The National Park Service proposes to amend 36 CFR 7.96 by adding a new paragraph (f)(5), that provides that a violation of a traffic control device regulating parking under 36 CFR 4.12 is punishable by a fine. Proof that the described vehicle was parked in violation, together with proof that the defendant was at the time the registered owner of the vehicle, shall constitute a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle was the person who committed the violation. This presumption allows the owner to come forward with evidence that someone else was operating the vehicle in order to rebut the presumption that the registered owner was responsible. Compliance With Other Laws Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866) In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget makes the final determination as to the significance of this regulatory action and it has determined that this document is not a significant rule and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

(1)This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. This rule will only affect those drivers who park illegally in areas administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region, and are issued a citation as a result. Based upon the number of parking violation citations currently being issued, and the nominal fine associated with a citation, there will not be an annual economic effect of $100 million or more. This rule will not adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government since the rule will have no impact at all for those drivers parking legally in these areas.

(2)This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. This rule will result in establishing consistency with other agencies' actions, since it is similar to provisions already existing in the parking laws of many jurisdictions, including District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland law.

(3)This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients. This rule has no effect on entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.

(4)This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues. The rule provides that a parking citation is subject only to a fine, that the citation will name the registered owner if the operator is not present, as well as create a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the illegally parked vehicle was the person who committed the violation. The prima facie presumption, however, remains rebuttable if the owner comes forward with evidence that someone else was operating the vehicle. Since the prima facie presumption is both a reasonable and standard provision found in the parking codes of many jurisdictions, this rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). The primary purpose of this rule is to establish consistency between the parking laws already existing in the local jurisdictions, and the parking laws in adjoining parklands administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region. There will not be a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, since the rule will only affect those drivers who park illegally in areas administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region, and are issued a citation as a result. All parties have the ability to completely avoid any economic effect simply by parking legally in these areas. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This rule will only affect those drivers who park illegally in areas administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region, and are issued a violation notice as a result. Based upon the number of parking violation notices currently being issued, and the nominal fine associated with a violation, there will not be an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. No costs will be incurred by any parties unless a parking violation is issued for parking illegally in areas administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region. All parties have the ability to completely avoid any increase in cost simply by parking legally in these areas. c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. The primary purpose of this rule is to establish consistency between the parking laws already existing in the local jurisdictions, and the parking laws in adjoining parklands administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region. This rule will not change the ability of United States based enterprises to compete in any way. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This rule does not impose any unfunded mandate on industry, state, local or tribal governments, or the private sector. This rule applies only to Federal parkland administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region, and no costs will be incurred by any parties unless a parking violation notice is issued for parking illegally in these areas. This rule will establish consistency between the parking laws already existing in the local jurisdictions, and the parking laws in adjoining lands administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region. As a result, there will not be any “significant or unique” affect on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Takings (Executive Order 12630) In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have significant takings implications. Since this rule does not apply to private property, or cause a compensable taking, there are no takings implications. Federalism (Executive Order 13132) In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The provisions of this rule apply to land under the jurisdiction of the United States. This rule does not relate to the structure and role of the States, nor will it have direct, substantial, and significant effects on States. This rule imposes no requirements on any governmental entity other than the National Park Service. Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988) In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Paperwork Reduction Act This regulation does not require an information collection from 10 or more parties and a submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. An OMB form 83-I is not required. National Environmental Policy Act We have analyzed the proposed rule in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act and 516 DM. It does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and can be Categorically Excluded under NPS exclusion 3.4 A

(8)“Modifications or revisions to existing regulations, or the promulgation of new regulations for NPS-administered areas, provided the modifications, revisions, or new regulations do not:

(a)Increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature and character of the area or cause physical damage to it.

(b)Introduce non-compatible uses that might compromise the nature and characteristics of the area or cause physical damage to it.

(c)Conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses.

(d)Cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.” Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government to Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2: We have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects. As this rule only applies to parkland administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital Region, there will not be any effect on Federally recognized Indian tribes. Clarity of Rule Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:

(1)Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?

(2)Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?

(3)Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?

(4)Would the rule be easier to read if it were divided into more, but shorter sections?

(5)Is the description of the rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand? Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. *Drafting Information:* The primary authors of this regulation were Sean Doyle, Park Ranger, National Park Service, National Capital Region, and Jerry Case and Jennifer Lee, Regulations Program, WASO. *Public Participation:* If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods. You may mail or hand deliver comments to Sean Doyle, National Park Service, National Capital Region, 1100 Ohio Drive SW, Room 236, Washington, DC 20242, or fax to

(202)260-9582. Comments may also be submitted on the Federal rulemaking portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments, and identify comments by RIN 1024-AD40. You may also submit comments by e-mail to *Sean_Doyle@nps.gov.* Use RIN 1024-AD40 in the subject line. *Public Availability of Comments:* Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7 Parking violation notice, prima facie presumption, traffic control device. For reasons stated in the preamble, the National Park Service proposes to amend 36 CFR Part 7 as follows: PART 7—SPECIAL REGULATIONS, AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM 1. The authority for part 7 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also issued under D.C. Code 8-137

(1981)and D.C. Code 40-721 (1981). 2. Add new paragraph (f)(5) to § 7.96 to read as follows: § 7.96 National Capital Region.

(f)* * *

(5)*Parking.* Violation of a traffic control device regulating parking is punishable by fine. In any violation of a traffic control device regulating parking, proof that the described vehicle was parked in violation, together with proof that the defendant was at the time the registered owner of the vehicle, shall constitute a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle was the person who committed the violation. Dated: February 9, 2007. David M. Verhey, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E7-5112 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-70-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0920, FRL-8290-1] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Low Emission Vehicle Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to approve a New Jersey state implementation plan revision that adopts California's second generation low emission vehicle program for light-duty vehicles, LEV II. Clean Air Act section 177 sets forth requirements by which other states may adopt new motor vehicle emissions standards that are identical to California's standards. Specifically, the State's implementation plan revision adopts changes to its existing light duty vehicle rule by incorporating California's LEV II program. The intended effect of this action is to approve, as consistent with section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act, a control strategy that will help New Jersey achieve attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0920, by one of the following methods: *http://www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. *E-mail:* *Werner.Raymond@epa.gov* . *Fax:* 212-637-3901. *Mail:* Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. *Hand Delivery:* Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0920. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online 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 *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site 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 *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Laurita, *laurita.matthew@epa.gov* at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, telephone number

(212)637-3895, fax number

(212)637-3901. Copies of the State submittals are available at the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Public Access Center, 401 East State Street 1st Floor, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Description of the SIP Revision A. Background B. What are the relevant EPA and CAA requirements? C. What is the California LEV Program? D. What is the history and current content of the New Jersey LEV Program? II. Proposed EPA Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Description of the SIP Revision A. Background Under the Clean Air Act

(CAA)Amendments of 1990, all 21 counties in New Jersey were designated as nonattainment with respect to the former 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The counties were divided into four separate nonattainment areas with ozone attainment deadlines varying by area; however, no counties in New Jersey were redesignated to attainment prior to the revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005. On June 15, 2004 all 21 counties in New Jersey were designated as nonattainment with respect to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS as part of either the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT or the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE moderate nonattainment areas. Both of these areas have attainment dates of no later than June 2010. To bring the state into attainment New Jersey adopted, among other measures, the National Low Emission Vehicle

(NLEV)program on February 3, 1999. The NLEV program was a voluntary agreement between EPA, vehicle manufacturers, and the states to introduce vehicles that met emission standards that were more stringent than the Federal Tier 1 standards in effect at the time. The NLEV program would only take effect after all auto manufacturers and a sufficient number of states “opted-in” to the program. EPA made an NLEV in-effect finding on March 2, 1998 (63 FR 11374), after which participating states submitted state implementation plan

(SIP)revisions to ensure continuation of the program. New Jersey submitted an NLEV SIP revision on February 22, 1999, and EPA issued a direct final rule to approve New Jersey's NLEV program on November 3, 1999 (64 FR 59638). In January 2004 the New Jersey Legislature passed legislation requiring the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to adopt the California low emission vehicle

(LEV)program, known as the LEV II program. Pursuant to this legislation, New Jersey promulgated regulations to adopt a LEV program identical to California's LEV II program. New Jersey's regulations became effective on January 27, 2006. On June 2, 2006, New Jersey submitted a SIP revision to EPA, seeking federal approval of the regulations. New Jersey's LEV program will affect light-duty motor vehicles manufactured in model year 2009 and later. B. What are the relevant EPA and CAA requirements? Section 209(a) of the CAA prohibits states from adopting or enforcing standards relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. However, under section 209(b) of the CAA, EPA may grant a waiver of the section 209(a) prohibition to the State of California, thereby allowing California to adopt its own motor vehicle emissions standards. Section 209(b) of the CAA requires California to show that its standards will be “* * * in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards * * *.” Section 209(b) further provides that EPA will grant a waiver unless it finds that:

(1)The State's determination is “arbitrary and capricious,”

(2)the State “does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions,” or

(3)the State's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are “not consistent” with CAA section 202(a). Section 177 of the CAA allows other states to adopt and enforce California's standards relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles, provided that, among other things, such state standards are identical to the California standards for which a waiver has been granted under CAA section 209(b). In addition to the identicality requirement, the state must adopt such standards at least two years prior to the commencement of the model year to which the standards will apply. New Jersey has met the requirements of section 177. C. What is the California LEV II program? The California Air Resources Board

(CARB)adopted the first generation LEV regulations in 1990, which were effective through the 2003 model year. CARB adopted California's second generation LEV regulations (LEV II) following a November 1998 hearing. Subsequent to the adoption of the LEV II program in February 2000, the U.S. EPA adopted separate Federal standards known as the Tier 2 regulations (65 FR 6698). In December 2000, CARB modified the LEV II program to take advantage of some elements of the Federal Tier 2 regulations to ensure that only the cleanest vehicle models would continue to be sold in California. EPA granted California a waiver for its LEV II program on April 22, 2003 (68 FR 19811). The LEV II regulations expand the scope of the LEV I regulations by setting strict fleet-average emission standards for light-duty, medium-duty (including sport utility vehicles) and heavy-duty vehicles. The standards began with the 2004 model year and increase in stringency through the 2010 model year and beyond. The LEV II regulations provide flexibility to auto manufacturers by allowing them to certify their vehicle models to one of several different emissions standards. The different tiers of increasingly stringent LEV II emission standards to which a manufacturer may certify a vehicle are: Low-emission vehicle (LEV), ultra-low-emission vehicle (ULEV), super-ultra low-emission vehicle (SULEV), partial zero-emission vehicle (PZEV), advanced technology partial zero-emission vehicle (ATPZEV) and zero-emission vehicle (ZEV). The manufacturer must show that the overall fleet for a given model year meets the specified phase-in requirements according to the fleet average non-methane hydrocarbon requirement for that year. The fleet average non-methane hydrocarbon emission limits are progressively lower with each model year. The program also requires auto manufacturers to include a “smog index” label on each vehicle sold, which is intended to inform consumers about the amount of pollution coming from that vehicle relative to other vehicles. In addition to the LEV II requirements, minimum percentages of passenger cars and the lightest light-duty trucks marketed in California by a large or intermediate volume manufacturer must be ZEVs. This is referred to as the ZEV mandate. California has modified the ZEV mandate several times since it took effect. Most recently, CARB has put in place an alternative compliance program

(ACP)to provide auto manufacturers with several options to meet the ZEV mandate. The ACP established ZEV credit multipliers to allow auto manufacturers to take credit for meeting the ZEV mandate by selling more PZEVs and ATPZEVs than they are otherwise required to sell. On December 28, 2006, EPA granted California's request for a waiver of federal preemption to enforce provisions of the ZEV regulations through model year 2011. On October 15, 2005, California amended the LEV II program to include greenhouse gas

(GHG)emission standards for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. On December 21, 2005, California requested that EPA grant a waiver of preemption under CAA section 209(b) for its greenhouse gas emission regulations. As of the date of this Notice, EPA has not taken action on California's request. D. What is the history and current content of the New Jersey LEV Program? On February 3, 1999, New Jersey adopted the NLEV program. The NLEV program was a voluntary agreement between EPA, vehicle manufacturers, and the states to introduce vehicles that met emission standards that were more stringent than the Federal Tier 1 standards in effect at the time. The NLEV program would only take effect after all auto manufacturers and a sufficient number of states “opted-in” to the program. EPA made an NLEV in-effect finding on March 2, 1998 (63 FR 11374), after which participating states submitted state implementation plan

(SIP)revisions to ensure continuation of the program. New Jersey submitted an NLEV SIP revision on February 22, 1999, and EPA issued a direct final rule to approve New Jersey's NLEV program on November 3, 1999 (64 FR 59638). On January 27, 2006, New Jersey amended its low emission vehicle program to be identical to California's LEV II program. New Jersey has adopted California's LEV II program, which includes provisions for light-duty, medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, by incorporating the California LEV II regulations into the New Jersey Administrative Code by reference. New Jersey is requesting that EPA approve its LEV program regulations as submitted in its SIP submission. EPA's approval would make the program federally enforceable, further ensuring that planned emissions reductions will continue to take place. II. Proposed EPA Action EPA is proposing to approve the portion of New Jersey's low emission vehicle program that is identical to the California standards for which a waiver has been granted. However, because the waiver granted for the ZEV portion of the program is limited to model year 2011 and earlier vehicles, EPA is proposing to take no action on the ZEV component. In addition, EPA is proposing to take no action on the greenhouse gas component of the program. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also 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 action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: March 8, 2007. Alan J. Steinberg, Regional Administrator, Region 2. [FR Doc. E7-5157 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 07-951; MB Docket No. 07-39, RM-11360] Radio Broadcasting Services; Prineville, OR AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making filed by Terry A. Cowan (“Petitioner”) proposing the allotment of Channel 226C3 at Prineville, Oregon. The proposed coordinates are 44-26-17 NL and 120-57-12 WL with a site restriction of 11.4 km (7.1 miles) north of city reference. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 23, 2007, and reply comments on or before May 8, 2007. 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's counsel, as follows: William D. Silva, Esquire, Law Offices of William D. Silva, 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20015-2003. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen McLean, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2738. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Notice of Proposed Rule Making,* MB Docket No. 07-39, adopted February 28, 2007, and released March 2, 2007. 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. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, 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). The Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all *ex parte* contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. *See* 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible *ex parte* 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 Oregon, is amended by adding Channel 226C3 at Prineville. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E7-5073 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 76 [MB Docket No. 05-311; FCC 06-180] Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as Amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on its proposal to apply the findings in Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket No. 05-311, FCC 06-180, *Report & Order* , (“ *Order* ”) to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements as they negotiate renewal of those agreements with LFAs. The Commission also seeks comment on the tentative conclusion that it cannot preempt State or local customer service laws that exceed the Commission's standards, nor can it prevent LFAs and cable operators from agreeing to more stringent standards. DATES: Comments for this proceeding are due on or before April 20, 2007; reply comments are due on or before May 7, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 05-311, 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: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. For additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this proceeding, contact Holly Saurer, *Holly.Saurer@fcc.gov* or Brendan Murray, *Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov* of the Media Bureau, Policy Division,

(202)418-2120. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM)* , FCC 06-180, adopted on December 20, 2006, and released on March 5, 2007. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS ( *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* ). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at

(202)418-0530 (voice),

(202)418-0432 (TTY). Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “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). In this present document, we have assessed the effects of the application filing requirements used to calculate the time frame in which a local franchising authority shall make a decision, and find that those requirements will benefit companies with fewer than 25 employees by providing such companies with specific application requirements of a reasonable length. We anticipate this specificity will streamline this process for companies with fewer than 25 employees, and that these requirements will not burden those companies. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 1. As discussed above, this proceeding is limited to competitive applicants under Section 621(a)(1). Yet, some of the decisions in this *Order* also appear germane to existing franchisees. We asked in the *Local Franchising NPRM* whether current procedures and requirements were appropriate for any cable operator, including existing operators. NCTA argues that if the Commission establishes franchising relief for new entrants, we should do the same for incumbent cable operators because imposing similar franchising requirements on new entrants and incumbent cable operators promotes competition. Somewhat analogously, the BSPA argues that any new franchise regulatory relief should extend to all current competitive operators and new entrants equally; otherwise, the inequities would effectively penalize existing competitive franchisees simply because they were the first to risk competition with the incumbent cable operator. The record does not indicate any opposition by new entrants to the idea that any relief afforded them also be afforded to incumbent cable operators. Some incumbent cable operators discussed the potential impact of Commission action under Section 621 on incumbent cable operators. For example, Charter argues that granting competitive cable providers entry free from local franchise requirements would affect Charter's ability to satisfy its existing obligations; funds that Charter might use to respond to competition by investing in new facilities and services would instead be tied up in franchise obligations not imposed on Charter's competitors, which would undermine the company's investment and render its franchise obligations commercially impracticable. AT&T argues that competition will not harm incumbent cable operators: Cable has handled the competition that DBS presents, and analysts predict that the new wave of competition will not put them out of business. 2. We tentatively conclude that the findings in this *Order* should apply to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements as they negotiate renewal of those agreements with LFAs. We note that Section 611(a) states “A franchising authority may establish requirements in a franchise with respect to the designation or use of channel capacity for public, educational, or governmental use” and Section 622(a) provides “any cable operator may be required under the terms of any franchise to pay a franchise fee.” These statutory provisions do not distinguish between incumbents and new entrants or franchises issued to incumbents versus franchises issued to new entrants. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on our authority to implement this finding. We also seek comment on what effect, if any, the findings in this *Order* have on most favored nation clauses that may be included in existing franchises. The Commission will conclude this rulemaking and release an order no later than six months after release of this *Order* . 3. In the *Local Franchising NPRM* , we also sought comment on whether customer service requirements should vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In response, AT&T urges us to adopt rules to prevent LFAs from imposing various data collection and related requirements in exchange for a franchise. AT&T claims that LFAs have imposed obligations that franchisees collect, track, and report customer service performance data for individual franchise areas. AT&T states that it operates its call centers and systems on a region-wide basis, and that it is not currently possible or economically feasible for AT&T to comply with the various local customer service requirements on a franchise by franchise basis. AT&T also asks us to affirm that LFAs may not, absent the franchise applicant's consent, impose any local service quality standards that go beyond the requirements of duly enacted laws and ordinances. Verizon indicates that some localities have conditioned the grant of a franchise upon the submission of Verizon's data services to local customer service regulation. 4. NATOA opposes AT&T's request for relief from local customer service standards, and argues that the Act and the Commission's rules explicitly provide for local customer service regulation. Specifically, NATOA asserts that Section 632(d)(2) of the Cable Act allows for the establishment and enforcement of local customer service laws that go beyond the federal standards. Other parties assert that customer service regulation is necessary to ensure that consumers have regulatory relief. 5. Section 632(d)(2) states that: 22. [n]othing in this Section shall be construed to preclude a franchising authority and a cable operator from agreeing to customer service requirements that exceed the standards established by the Commission * * * Nothing in this Title shall be construed to prevent the establishment and enforcement of any municipal law or regulation, or any State law, concerning customer service that imposes customer service requirements that exceed the standards set by the Commission under this section, or that addresses matters not addressed by the standards set by the Commission under this section. 23. Given this explicit statutory language, we tentatively conclude that we cannot preempt state or local customer service laws that exceed the Commission's standards, nor can we prevent LFAs and cable operators from agreeing to more stringent standards. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. I. Procedural Matters 6. *Ex Parte Rules.* This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. *Ex Parte* presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. *See generally* 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a). 7. *Comment Information.* Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before 30 days after this *Further NPRM of Proposed Rulemaking* is published in the **Federal Register** , and reply comments on or before 45 days of publication. 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 (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. 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.” 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 of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for 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 we continue 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 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. 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). 8. *Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis.* This Further NPRM of Proposed Rulemaking does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “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). 9. *Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.* As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the proposals addressed in this *Further NPRM of Proposed Rulemaking.* The IRFA is set forth in Appendix C. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for comments on the *Second Further NPRM* , and they should have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. 10. *Additional Information.* For additional information on this proceeding, please contact Holly Saurer, Media Bureau at

(202)418-2120, or Brendan Murray, Policy Division, Media Bureau at

(202)418-2120. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 11. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (the “RFA”), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) of the possible significant economic impact of the policies and rules proposed in the Further NPRM of Proposed Rulemaking (“Further NPRM”) on a substantial number of small entities. 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 Further NPRM provided in paragraph 145 of the item. The Commission will send a copy of the Further NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”). In addition, the Further NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the **Federal Register** . Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 12. The Further NPRM continues a process to implement Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, in order to further the interrelated goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment as discussed in the Report and Order (“Order”). Specifically, the Further NPRM solicits comment on whether the Commission should apply the rules and guidelines adopted in the Order to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements, and if so, whether the Commission has authority to do so. The Further NPRM also seeks comment on whether the Commission can preempt state or local customer service laws that exceed Commission standards. Legal Basis 13. The Further NPRM tentatively concludes that the Commission has authority to apply the findings in the Order to cable operators with existing franchise agreements. In that regard, the Further NPRM finds that neither Section 611(a) nor Section 622(a) distinguishes between incumbents and new entrants or franchises issued to incumbents and franchises issued to new entrants. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 14. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which:

(1)Is independently owned and operated;

(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and

(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”). 15. *Small Businesses.* Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data. 16. *Small Organizations.* Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 million small organizations. 17. The Commission has determined that the group of small entities possibly directly affected by the proposed rules herein, if adopted, consists of small governmental entities. A description of these entities is provided below. In addition the Commission voluntarily provides descriptions of a number of entities that may be merely indirectly affected by any rules that result from the Further NPRM. Small Governmental Jurisdictions 18. The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” As of 1997, there were approximately 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the United States. This number includes 39,044 county governments, municipalities, and townships, of which 37,546 (approximately 96.2 percent) have populations of fewer than 50,000, and of which 1,498 have populations of 50,000 or more. Thus, we estimate the number of small governmental jurisdictions overall to be 84,098 or fewer. Miscellaneous Entities 19. The entities described in this section are affected merely indirectly by our current action, and therefore are not formally a part of this RFA analysis. We have included them, however, to broaden the record in this proceeding and to alert them to our tentative conclusions. Cable Operators 20. The “Cable and Other Program Distribution” census category includes cable systems operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems, and subscription television services. The SBA has developed small business size standard for this census category, which includes all such companies generating $13.0 million or less in revenue annually. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were a total of 1,311 firms in this category, total, that had operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and an additional 52 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this service category are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 21. *Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard).* The Commission has developed its own small-business-size standard for cable system operators, for purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide. The most recent estimates indicate that there were 1,439 cable operators who qualified as small cable system operators at the end of 1995. Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are now fewer than 1,439 small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 22. *Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard).* The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” The Commission has determined that there are 67,700,000 subscribers in the United States. Therefore, an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data, the Commission estimates that the number of cable operators serving 677,000 subscribers or fewer, totals 1,450. The Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore is unable, at this time, to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the size standard contained in the Communications Act of 1934. 23. *Open Video Services.* Open Video Service (“OVS”) systems provide subscription services. As noted above, the SBA has created a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution. This standard provides that a small entity is one with $13.0 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified approximately 25 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and some of these are currently providing service. Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc.

(RCN)received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, DC, and other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity. Little financial information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission concludes that up to 24 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements 24. We anticipate that any rules that result from this action would have at most a de minimis impact on small governmental jurisdictions ( *e.g.* , one-time proceedings to amend existing procedures regarding the method of granting competitive franchises). Local franchising authorities (“LFAs”) today must review and decide upon competitive cable franchise applications, and will continue to perform that role upon the conclusion of this proceeding; any rules that might be adopted pursuant to this NPRM likely would require at most only modifications to that process. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered 25. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives 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 and reporting requirements under the rule for such 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 such small entities.” 26. As discussed in the Further NPRM, Sections 611(a) and 622(a) do not distinguish between new entrants and cable operators with existing franchises. As discussed in the Order, the Commission has the authority to implement the mandate of Section 621(a)(1) to ensure that LFAs do not unreasonably refuse to award competitive franchises to new entrants, and adopts rules designed to ensure that the local franchising process does not create unreasonable barriers to competitive entry for new entrants. Such rules consist of specific guidelines ( *e.g.* , maximum timeframes for considering a competitive franchise application) and general principles regarding franchise fees designed to provide LFAs with the guidance necessary to conform their behavior to the directive of Section 621(a)(1). As noted above, applying these rules regarding the franchising process to cable operators with existing franchises likely would have at most a de minimis impact on small governmental jurisdictions. Even if that were not the case, however, we believe that the interest of fairness to those cable operators would outweigh any impact on small entities. The alternative ( *i.e.* , continuing to allow LFAs to follow procedures that are unreasonable) would be unacceptable, as it would be inconsistent with the Communications Act. We seek comment on the impact that such rules might have on small entities, and on what effect alternative rules would have on those entities. We also invite comment on ways in which the Commission might implement the tentative conclusions while at the same time imposing lesser burdens on small entities. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 27. None. Report to Congress 28. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the **Federal Register** . II. Ordering Clauses 29. *It is ordered* that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 303r, 403 and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 303(r), 403, this *Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted* . Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-5118 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 4, 12, and 52 [FAR Case 2006-029; Docket No. 2007-0001; Sequence 5] RIN 9000-AK72 Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2006-029, Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA)—Reporting Requirement of Subcontractor Award Data AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR)to require that contractors report specific subcontract awards to a public database. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) (Pub. L. 109-282) requires the existence and operation of a searchable website that provides public access to information about Federal expenditures. The FFATA specifically requires that a pilot program be established to test the collection and accession of subcontract award data. As a result, subcontracts awarded and funded with Federal appropriated funds will be disclosed to the public in a single searchable website. DATES: Interested parties should submit written comments to the FAR Secretariat on or before May 21, 2007 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule. ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by FAR case 2006-029 by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Search for any document by first selecting the proper document types and selecting “Federal Acquisition Regulation” as the agency of choice. At the “Keyword” prompt, type in the FAR case number (for example, FAR Case 2006-001) and click on the “Submit” button. Please include any personal and/or business information inside the document. You may also search for any document by clicking on the “Advanced search/document search” tab at the top of the screen, selecting from the agency field “Federal Acquisition Regulation”, and typing the FAR case number in the keyword field. Select the “Submit” button. • Fax: 202-501-4067. • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC 20405. *Instructions* : Please submit comments only and cite FAR case 2006-029 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ernest Woodson, Procurement Analyst, at

(202)501-3775 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the FAR Secretariat at

(202)501-4755. Please cite FAR case 2006-029. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background The FFATA requires the existence and operation of a searchable website that provides public access to information about Federal expenditures. Section 2(d) of the FFATA requires that a pilot program be established to test the collection and accession of subcontract award data. In order to implement Section 2(d) of the FFATA, the Councils propose to add a new subpart to FAR Part 4, with an associated clause in FAR Part 52, which addresses reporting subcontract awards. The pilot program will begin no later than July 1, 2007 and will terminate no later than January 1, 2009. This rule applies to contracts with values equal to or greater than $500,000,000 awarded and performed in the United States, and requires the awardees to report all first tier subcontract awards exceeding $1,000,000 to the FFATA database at *www.federalspending.gov* . The Councils chose these thresholds to ensure that a sufficient number of subcontract award reports will be entered in the database to permit assessment of its effectiveness without imposing a significant burden on contractors during the pilot program. The Government does not guarantee the reliability of the data reported. The Government has no mechanism to verify the data submitted. Before completion of the pilot program, the Councils will initiate a separate rulemaking process to establish the requirements for the final subcontract reporting database pursuant to the statute. The Councils anticipate that the final reporting requirement will apply to contracts with values equal to or greater than the simplified acquisition threshold and will require the reporting of subcontracts with values greater than $25,000, regardless of the award or performance locations of the prime contract or subcontracts. This rule does not apply to classified contracts or commercial item contracts issued under FAR Part 12. FFATA did not explicitly apply its provisions to commercial items, and the statute will be added to the list of laws inapplicable to commercial contracts at 12.503(a), under 41 U.S.C. 430. The Councils specifically invite comments on the following—

(a)The pilot program—

(1)The burden imposed;

(2)Whether making this information publicly available will affect the contractor’s competitiveness; and

(3)Whether availability of this information on a public website raises industrial, national or other security concerns.

(b)Possible final reporting requirements—

(1)Whether the final reporting requirements (after the pilot program) should apply to contracts and subcontracts;

(i)Awarded or performed outside the United States;

(ii)With values greater than $25,000; and

(iii)Awards below the first tier.

(2)Whether the reporting period should be 30 days after award of a subcontract as expressed in the statute or a longer period; and

(3)Whether the unique subcontractor identifier should be the DUNS number, the Taxpayer Identification Number

(TIN)some other number, or a non-numerical unique identifier. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Councils do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* , because the contract dollar threshold chosen for application of the pilot program ($500,000,000) ensures that any small businesses receiving such large prime contract awards are estimated to be minuscule to none. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been performed. We invite comments from small businesses and other interested parties. The Councils will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected FAR Parts 4, 12, and 52 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* (FAR case 2006-029), in correspondence. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13) applies because the proposed rule contains information collection requirements. Accordingly, the FAR Secretariat will submit a request for approval of a new information collection requirement concerning OMB Control Number 9000-00XX, FFATA—Reporting Requirement of Subcontractor Award Data to the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* *Annual Reporting Burden* : Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The annual reporting burden is estimated as follows: *Respondents* : 143 *Responses per respondent* : 28 *Total annual responses* : 4,004 *Preparation hours per response* : 1 *Total response burden hours* : 4,004. D. Request for Comments Regarding Paperwork Burden Submit comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden, not later than May 21, 2007 to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405. Public comments are particularly invited on: whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Requester may obtain a copy of the justification from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VIR), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone

(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-00XX, FFATA—Reporting Requirement of Subcontractor Award Data, in all correspondence. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 4, 12, and 52 Government procurement. Dated: March 13, 2007. Al Matera Acting Director, Contract Policy Division. Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 4, 12, and 52 as set forth below: 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 4, 12, and 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c). PART 4—ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 2. Add Subpart 4.14 to read as follows: Subpart 4.14—Reporting Subcontract Awards 4.1400 Scope of subpart. This subpart implements Section 2(d) of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282) by establishing a pilot program for a single searchable website, available to the public at no charge, that includes information on Federal subcontracts. This pilot program will expire not later than January 1, 2009. 4.1401 Contract clause.

(a)Except as provided in paragraph

(b)of this section, insert the clause at 52.204-10, Reporting Subcontract Awards, in all solicitations and contracts with values of $500,000,000 or more when the contract will be awarded and performed in the United States.

(b)The clause is not required in—

(1)Solicitations and contracts for commercial items issued under FAR Part 12; or

(2)Classified solicitations and contracts. PART 12—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS 3. Amend section 12.503 by adding paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows: 12.503 Applicability of certain laws to Executive agency contracts for the acquisition of commercial services.

(a)* * *

(7)31 U.S.C. 6101 Note, P. L. 109-282 Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, requirement to report subcontract data. PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 4. Add section 52.204-10 to read as follows: 52.204-10 Reporting Subcontract Awards. As prescribed in 4.1401(a), insert the following clause: REPORTING SUBCONTRACT AWARDS

(a)*Definition* . *Subcontract* , as used in this clause, means any contract as defined in FAR Subpart 2.1 entered into by the Contractor to furnish supplies or services for performance of this contract. It includes, but is not limited to, purchase orders and changes and modifications to purchase orders, but does not include contracts that provide supplies or services benefiting two or more contracts.

(b)Section 2(d) of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. No. 109-282) requires establishment of a pilot program for a single searchable website, available to the public at no charge, that includes information on Federal subcontracts.

(c)Within thirty days after the end of March, June, September, and December of each year through 2008, the Contractor shall report the following information at *www.federalspending.gov* for each subcontract award with a value greater than $1,000,000 made during that quarter. The Contractor shall follow the instructions at *www.federalspending.gov* to report the data:

(1)Name of the subcontractor.

(2)Amount of the award.

(3)Date of award.

(4)The applicable North American Industry Classification System code.

(5)Funding agency or agencies.

(6)Award title descriptive of the purpose of the action.

(7)Contract number.

(8)Subcontractor location including address.

(9)Subcontract primary performance location including address.

(10)Unique identifier for the subcontractor. (End of clause) [FR Doc. 07-1318 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 19

Traces to 19 documents