Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-08-16 · Federal Communications Commission · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Proposed rule

24,024 words·~109 min read·/register/2007/08/16/07-4004

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 1 [MD Docket No. 07-81; FCC 07-140] Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2007 AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: In this document, we seek comment on proposed changes to the section 9 regulatory fee structure for Broadband Radio Service (BRS). DATES: Comments are due September 17, 2007, and reply comments are due October 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MD Docket No. 07-81, 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. • *E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov.* Include MD Docket No. 07-81 in the subject line of the message. • *Mail:* 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:* 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing Director at
(202)418-0444 or Rob Fream, Office of Managing Director at
(202)418-0408. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MD Docket No. 07-81, FCC 07-140, adopted on August 2, 2007 and released on August 6, 2007. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at *http://www.fcc.gov.* Pursuant to §§ 1.1206(b), 1.1202 and 1.1203 of the Commission's rules, CFR 1.1206(b), 1.1202, 1.1203, this is as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding. *Ex parte* presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, *ex parte* or otherwise, are generally prohibited. Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that a memorandum summarizing a presentation must contain a summary 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. 1 Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in § 1.1206(b). 1 *See* 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2). Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 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)procedures for filing paper copies. *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,* 63 FR 24121 (1998), 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (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 website 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 information 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 FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202)418-0530 (voice),
(202)418-0432 (TTY). Summary of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 1. In WT Docket No. 03-66 (the *BRS/EBS Proceeding* ), the Commission sought comment on proposed changes to the regulatory fee structure for BRS. 2 In 2006, the Commission adopted a new regulatory fee structure for BRS (the *2006 Decision* ). 3 Specifically, as noted in the *FY 2007 NPRM,* the Commission adopted a megahertz-based approach for BRS regulatory fees and, using a concept similar to the Commission's annual scale of regulatory fees for broadcast television stations, established in the *2006 Decision* three rate tiers based on the BTA ranking of each license. 4 2 *See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands,* WT Docket No. 03-66, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 14165, 14296, para. 357 (“ *BRS/EBS Report and Order and FNPRM* ”). 3 *See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands,* WT Docket No. 03-66, Order on Reconsideration and Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5606, 5756-59, paras. 367-376
(2006)(“ *2006 Decision* ”). 4 *See FY 2007 NPRM,* 22 FCC Rcd at 7978, para. 8 n.8, *citing The 2006 Decision.* The three tiers are based on three categories of Basic Trading Areas (“BTA”) population rankings: BTAs 1-60, BTAs 61-200, and BTAs 201-493. For BRS licensees that are licensed by geographic licensed service area (GSA), the BTA is the geographic center point of where its GSA is located. *See The 2006 Decision,* 21 FCC Rcd at 5759, para. 376. 2. In the *FY 2007 NPRM,* we sought comment on the implementation of the new BRS fee structure. Specifically, we invited commenters to suggest a simple method of calculating BRS regulatory fees that incorporates the complexity of using both elements of the *2006 Decision,* namely, the three rate tiers, to be based on the BTA ranking of each license, and the per megahertz fee. In particular, we invited comment on a formula or method for calculating regulatory fees that incorporates the *2006 Decision* in a manner “sensitive to rural operators in less densely populated areas.” 5 WCA, the only commenter addressing this issue, does not object to the Commission seeking comment on the methodology to use in feeing BRS. 6 5 *FY 2007 NPRM,* 22 FCC Rcd at 7978, para. 8. 6 WCA Comments at 1-2. 3. We clarify that our questions about BRS regulatory fees in the *FY 2007 NPRM* as well in this Further Notice are to implement the *2006 Decision,* and not to revisit the three-tier approach adopted in the *2006 Decision.* 4. Briefly, under the *2006 Decision,* BRS regulatory fees will use a MHz-based formula with three tiers of fees by markets. Instead of a flat fee amount per BRS license, BRS licensees will pay a fee in one of three fee categories based on Basic Trading Areas (“BTA”) ranked by population size. 7 The highest fee will be assessed to licenses in BTAs ranked 1-60, licenses in BTAs ranked 61-200 will have a lesser fee, and licenses for BTAs ranked 201-493 will pay the lowest fee. 8 Although the revised framework for assessing BRS regulatory fees was adopted in the *2006 Decision,* the implementation of this new formula will require us to specify how each of the three BTA tiers should be weighted (in terms of fee amounts) relative to the others. We propose to use a weighted average approach based on the *2006 Decision* to establish three tiers of regulatory fees using a 3:2:1 ratio, *i.e.* , 3x for Tier 1, 2x for Tier 2, and 1x for Tier 3, where x equals the base fee amount (Pro-rated FY Revenue Requirement for BRS divided by the weighted total number of BRS payment units). In adopting three fee tiers for BRS, the Commission considered that BTAs ranked 1-60 generally have a population of greater than one million, BTAs ranked 61-200 generally have population of 250,000 to one million, and BTAs ranked 201-493 have a population of less than 250,000. 9 The Commission also concluded that the current methodology for assessing regulatory fees for BRS is particularly onerous for rural operators. 10 We seek comment on our proposal and specifically invite commenters to address whether it accurately implements the tiered approach adopted in the *2006 Decision.* 7 *See The 2006 Decision,* 21 FCC Rcd at 5759, para. 376. 8 *Id.* 9 *Id.,* 21 FCC Rcd at 5759, n. 947. 10 *Id.,* 21 FCC Rcd at 5758, para. 374. 5. The second element of the *2006 Decision* involves setting a fee per megahertz of licensed BRS spectrum. However, throughout the nation, BTA-by-BTA, the BRS radio service and its licensees are in the midst of a multi-year transition to a new band plan that, among other things, is modifying the amount of spectrum designated and licensed for BRS. 11 Given the complexities associated with this “moving target,” we tentatively conclude that the public interest would be best served by implementing the fee per megahertz approach after the BRS transition concludes nationwide. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. 11 The transition plan creates a process for relocating Educational Broadband Service (“EBS”) licensees and BRS licensees from their current channel locations to their new spectrum blocks in the Lower Band Segment (“LBS”), Middle band Segment (“MBS”), or Upper Band Segment (“UBS”). The transition occurs by BTA and is undertaken by a proponent or multiple proponents. A proponent(s) must pay the cost of transitioning EBS licensees. The transition occurs in the following three phases: the Initiation Phase, the Transition Planning Phase, and the Transition Completion Phase. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 6. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 12 the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed on or before the dates indicated herein. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 13 In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the **Federal Register** . 14 12 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847
(1996)(“CWAAA”). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (“SBREFA”). 13 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 14 *Id.* I. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 7. On April 12, 2006, the Commission adopted a number of changes in the rules governing the 2500-2690 MHz band, for the Broadband Radio Service (“BRS”) and the Educational Broadband Service (“EBS”). 15 Among other things, the Commission adopted a megahertz (“MHz”)-based formula for BRS licensees with tiered regulatory fees based on market size. The FNPRM seeks comment on a new regulatory fee schedule for BRS, based on the tiered structure set forth in *The 2006 Decision.* 15 *See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands,* Order on Reconsideration and Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5606
(2006)(“The 2006 Decision”). II. Legal Basis 8. This action, including publication of proposed rules, is authorized under sections (4)(i) and (j), 9, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“the Act”). 16 16 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and (j), 159, and 303(r). III. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 9. 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. 17 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms, “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 18 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 19 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. 20 A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” 21 Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. 22 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.” 23 The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” 24 Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. 25 We estimate that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.” 26 Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small. Below, we discuss the total estimated numbers of small businesses that might be affected by our regulatory fee proceeding. 17 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). 18 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 19 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 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.” 5 U.S.C. 601(3). 20 15 U.S.C. 632. 21 5 U.S.C. 601(4). 22 Independent Sector, the New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference (2002). 23 5 U.S.C. 601(5). 24 5 U.S.C. 601(5). 25 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, Section 8, page 272, Table 415. 26 We assume that the villages, school districts, and special districts are small, and total 48,558. *See* U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, section 8, page 273, Table 417. For 2002, Census Bureau data indicate that the total number of county, municipal, and township governments nationwide was 38,967, of which 35,819 were small. *Id.* 10. BRS, previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (“MDS”) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (“MMDS”) systems, and “wireless cable,” transmit video programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the BRS and Educational Broadband Service (“EBS”) (previously referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (“ITFS”)). 27 In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. 28 The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (“BTAs”). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities. 29 After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's rules. Some of those 440 small business licensees may be affected by this regulatory fee proceeding. 27 *Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules with Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding,* MM Docket No. 94-131 and PP Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9593, para. 7 (1995). 28 47 CFR 21.961(b)(1). 29 47 U.S.C. 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of section 309(j) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(j). For these pre-auction licenses, the applicable standard is SBA's small business size standard. 11. In addition, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution, which includes all such companies generating $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. 30 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. 31 Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. 32 Consequently, we estimate that the majority of providers in this service category are small businesses that may be affected by the regulatory fee decisions we will reach in this proceeding. This SBA small business size standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently 2,032 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities. 33 Thus, we estimate that at least 1,932 licensees are small businesses. EBS is a non-profit non-broadcast service. We do not collect, nor are we aware of other collections of, annual revenue data for EBS licensees. 30 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517510. 31 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued Nov. 2005). 32 *Id.* An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more. 33 The term “small entity” within SBREFA applies to small organizations (nonprofits) and to small governmental jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and special districts with populations of less than 50,000). 5 U.S.C. 601(4)-(6). We do not collect annual revenue data on EBS licensees. IV. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements 12. With certain exceptions, the Commission's Schedule of Regulatory Fees applies to all Commission licensees and regulatees. Most licensees will be required to count the number of licenses or call signs authorized, complete and submit an FCC Form 159 Remittance Advice, and pay a regulatory fee based on the number of licenses or call signs. 34 Interstate telephone service providers must compute their annual regulatory fee based on their interstate and international end-user revenue using information they already supply to the Commission in compliance with the Form 499-A, Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, and they must complete and submit the FCC Form 159. Compliance with the fee schedule will require some licensees to tabulate the number of units ( *e.g.* , cellular telephones, pagers, cable TV subscribers) they have in service, and complete and submit an FCC Form 159. Licensees ordinarily will keep a list of the number of units they have in service as part of their normal business practices. No additional outside professional skills are required to complete the FCC Form 159, and it can be completed by the employees responsible for an entity's business records. 34 The following categories are exempt from the Commission's Schedule of Regulatory Fees: Amateur radio licensees (except applicants for vanity call signs) and operators in other non-licensed services ( *e.g.* , Personal Radio, part 15, ship and aircraft). Governments and non-profit (exempt under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code) entities are exempt from payment of regulatory fees and need not submit payment. Non-commercial educational broadcast licensees are exempt from regulatory fees as are licensees of auxiliary broadcast services such as low power auxiliary stations, television auxiliary service stations, remote pickup stations and aural broadcast auxiliary stations where such licenses are used in conjunction with commonly owned non-commercial educational stations. Emergency Alert System licenses for auxiliary service facilities are also exempt as are Educational Broadband Service
(EBS)(previously referred to as instructional television fixed service licensees). Regulatory fees are automatically waived for the licensee of any translator station that:
(1)Is not licensed to, in whole or in part, and does not have common ownership with, the licensee of a commercial broadcast station;
(2)does not derive income from advertising; and
(3)is dependent on subscriptions or contributions from members of the community served for support. Receive-only earth station permittees are exempt from payment of regulatory fees. A regulatee will be relieved of its fee payment requirement if its total fee due, including all categories of fees for which payment is due by the entity, amounts to less than $10. 13. Each licensee must submit the FCC Form 159 to the Commission's lockbox bank after computing the number of units subject to the fee. Licensees may also file electronically to minimize the burden of submitting multiple copies of the FCC Form 159. Applicants who pay small fees in advance and provide fee information as part of their application must use FCC Form 159. 14. BRS licensees currently are subject to the Commission's regulatory fees. This FNPRM seeks comment on how to revise the current regulatory fee schedule to comply with the tiered regulatory fee schedule required by the Commission in the *BRS/EBS Second Report and Order.* As a consequence of any new regulatory fee structures adopted in this proceeding, BRS licensees may have to provide additional information than they have provided in the past and the regulatory fee schedule for these licensees will be modified. 15. Licensees and regulatees are advised that failure to submit the required regulatory fee in a timely manner will subject the licensee or regulatee to a late payment penalty of 25 percent in addition to the required fee. 35 If payment is not received, new or pending applications may be dismissed, and existing authorizations may be subject to rescission. 36 Further, in accordance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (“DCIA”), Public Law 194-134, federal agencies may bar a person or entity from obtaining a federal loan or loan insurance guarantee if that person or entity fails to pay a delinquent debt owed to any federal agency. 37 Nonpayment of regulatory fees is a debt owed the United States pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3711 *et seq.* , and the DCIA. Appropriate enforcement measures as well as administrative and judicial remedies may be exercised by the Commission. Debts owed to the Commission may result in a person or entity being denied a federal loan or loan guarantee pending before another federal agency until such obligations are paid. 38 35 47 CFR 1.1164. 36 47 CFR 1.1164(c). 37 Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). 38 31 U.S.C. 7701(c)(2)(B). 16. The Commission's rules currently provide for relief in exceptional circumstances. Persons or entities may request a waiver, reduction or deferment of payment of the regulatory fee. 39 However, timely submission of the required regulatory fee must accompany requests for waivers or reductions. This will avoid any late payment penalty if the request is denied. The fee will be refunded if the request is granted. In exceptional and compelling instances (where payment of the regulatory fee along with the waiver or reduction request could result in reduction of service to a community or other financial hardship to the licensee), the Commission will defer payment in response to a request filed with the appropriate supporting documentation. 39 47 CFR 1.1166. V. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 17. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives:
(1)The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;
(2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3)the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and
(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 40 40 5 U.S.C. 603. 18. The Commission is obligated to collect regulatory fees each fiscal year to fund the Commission's operations. For example, the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY 2007, Public Law 109-383, requires the Commission to revise its Schedule of Regulatory Fees in order to recover the amount of regulatory fees that Congress, pursuant to section 9(a) of the Act, has required the Commission to collect for FY 2007. 41 With respect to BRS licensees, we are required to implement a tiered regulatory fee schedule based on market size and bandwidth. For this reason, we are seeking comment on an appropriate regulatory fee schedule for these licensees, to be implemented in the next fiscal year. Such a fee structure, when adopted, should result in a lower regulatory fee burden for smaller licensees, based on the licensees' market size and bandwidth. 41 47 U.S.C. 159(a). 19. We also note that the Commission's rules provide for relief in exceptional circumstances. Persons or entities may request a waiver, reduction or deferment of payment of the regulatory fee. 42 However, timely submission of the required regulatory fee must accompany requests for waivers or reductions. This will avoid any late payment penalty if the request is denied. The fee will be refunded if the request is granted. In exceptional and compelling instances (where payment of the regulatory fee along with the waiver or reduction request could result in reduction of service to a community or other financial hardship to the licensee), the Commission will defer payment in response to a request filed with the appropriate supporting documentation. 42 47 CFR 1.1166. VI. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 20. None. 21. Accordingly, *it is ordered* pursuant to sections 4(i) and (j), 9, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 159, and 303(r), this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted. 22. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, *shall send* a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-15606 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1, 15, 73, 74, and 76 [MB Docket No. 07-148; FCC 07-128] DTV Consumer Education Initiative AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document proposes to require broadcasters, multichannel video programming distributors, retailers, and manufacturers to take steps to publicize the DTV transition. These would include public service announcements by broadcasters, including notices in cable, satellite, and other MVPD bills, notices from consumer electronics manufacturers, employee training by retailers, and adjustments to the DTV.gov Partners program. Because of the importance of making the benefits of the Digital Television transition understandable and available to the public, the Commission seeks comment generally on the best means of creating a coordinated, national DTV consumer education campaign. DATES: Comments for this proceeding are due on or before September 17, 2007; reply comments are due on or before October 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 07-148, 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 detailed instructions for submitting comments and 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 *Eloise Gore, Eloise.Gore@fcc.gov,* or Lyle Elder, *Lyle.Elder@fcc.gov,* of the Media Bureau, Policy Division,
(202)418-2120. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM),* FCC 07-128, adopted on July 21, 2007, and released on July 30, 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). I. Introduction 1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek public comment on several proposals relating to consumer education about the digital television (“DTV”) transition. From the beginning of the transition of the nation's broadcast television service from analog to digital television service, the Commission has been committed to working with representatives from industry, public interest groups, and Congress to make the significant benefits of digital broadcasting available to the public. The digital transition will make valuable spectrum available for both public safety uses and expanded wireless competition and innovation. It will also provide consumers with better quality television picture and sound, and make new services available through multicasting. These innovations, however, are dependent upon widespread consumer understanding of the benefits and mechanics of the transition. The Congressional decision to establish a hard deadline of February 17, 2009, for the end of full-power analog broadcasting has made consumer awareness even more critical. 2. While the Commission has been engaged in various DTV outreach efforts, we seek comment on whether there are additional steps which we can and should take. Representatives John D. Dingell, Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Edward J. Markey, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, recently wrote to the Commission to express interest in the pace and scope of consumer education about the transition. As the Congressmen observed, “the Commission is particularly well suited to lead this effort given its existing expertise and resources.” Noting the particular dangers of insufficient outreach to certain communities, they proposed a number of specific actions that they believe the Commission should take. This notice requests comment on the Commission's authority to take these actions and invites discussion of their benefits and any other measures we could take to facilitate the transition. II. Discussion 3. The Letter suggests that, as a general matter, “the Commission could use its existing authority to compel industry to contribute time and resources to a coordinated, national consumer education campaign.” We agree that we should take whatever steps we can to promote a coordinated, national DTV consumer education campaign and seek comment on the best means of achieving that goal. In particular, we seek comment on the potential Commission initiatives raised by Representatives Dingell and Markey. For each potential initiative, we particularly seek comment on:
(1)The Commission's authority to implement the proposal;
(2)the likely effectiveness of the proposal ( *i.e.* , whether it would appreciably increase public awareness and understanding of the DTV transition);
(3)the best methods of implementation;
(4)the policy implications; and
(5)constitutional concerns, if any. A. Broadcaster Public Service Announcements and Other Consumer Education Requirements 4. The Letter suggests that the Commission consider using its regulatory authority to “require television broadcasters to air periodic public service announcements and a rolling scroll about the digital transition.” 5. We propose to require television broadcast licensees to conduct on-air consumer education efforts. Such on-air efforts, we believe, are the most effective and efficient way to reach over-the-air television viewers about the coming digital switch-over. What should these announcements include, and when and how often should they run? Should we impose similar requirements on all television broadcast licensees or should there be distinctions made among licensees? Should the Commission produce an announcement or group of announcements to be used by all broadcasters, or simply provide a list of points that must be conveyed in any compliant announcement? What text or images should the rolling scroll include? Would it be constant or intermittent? On what date would it begin to run, and during which hours would it be required? Would the on-air education requirements increase as the transition date approaches? How would we track the effectiveness of the outreach efforts? Should broadcasters be required to formally assess and report on consumer awareness and preparedness, particularly in certain communities? If so, which communities warrant special attention? Should there be some mechanism for making adjustments in our requirements to reflect these ongoing assessments? Should we adopt certification requirements to ensure that broadcasters are complying? Would forfeitures for noncompliance be appropriate in this area? If so, how would they be calculated? 6. We recognize that, even if the proposals discussed herein are successful at increasing consumer awareness of the February 17, 2009 deadline, many consumers will need additional assistance in preparing themselves for that date. For instance, consumers may have specific questions about the adequacy of their existing antenna or how to install a converter box when they get it home. We seek comment on what steps the Commission or industry can and should take to ensure that consumers have access to the information and assistance they need. This could include, for instance, the establishment or further development of a dedicated consumer help-line or other targeted assistance. B. Broadcaster Consumer Education Reporting 7. The Letter suggests that the Commission consider requiring “broadcast licensees and permittees to report, every 90 days, their consumer education efforts, including the time, frequency, and content of public service announcements aired by each station in a market, with civil penalties for noncompliance.” 8. What level of detail should reports to the Commission on consumer education efforts contain? What additional burdens would preparing, submitting, and retaining such reports place on licensees and permittees? Could these burdens be met by small broadcasters and NCE stations? Is there an alternative to requiring the filing of such reports with the Commission? For example, could broadcasters publicly summarize and describe their consumer outreach efforts via web pages, press releases, in their public file, or otherwise? How would this approach be monitored and enforced by the Commission? What benefits would these reports create for the government and public? How should any forfeitures for noncompliance be calculated? C. MVPD Customer Bill Notices 9. The Letter suggests that the Commission consider requiring, “as a license condition or through customer service or other consumer protection or public interest requirements, all multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) to insert periodic notices in customer bills that inform consumers about the digital television transition and their customers' future viewing options, with civil penalties for noncompliance.” 10. What should these notices include and how often should they be provided? Should the Commission provide a standard text, describing the transition, to be used by MVPDs, or simply a list of points that must be conveyed? How should these notices be conveyed to customers who rely on electronic billing or automatic billing? How should the phrase “future viewing options” be interpreted? How should any forfeitures for noncompliance be calculated? D. Consumer Electronics Manufacturer Notices 11. The Letter suggests that the Commission consider requiring “manufacturers to include information with television receivers and related devices about the transition, with civil penalties for noncompliance.” 12. This proposal would require manufacturers to include information describing the transition with any television set or related device that they import or distribute in the United States. What would it mean to “include” information? Must this information be in written form and physically packaged with each unit shipped? Could manufacturers make arrangements with retailers to provide information, either written or verbal, at the point of sale? As for the information itself, should the Commission provide a standard text to be used by all manufacturers, or simply a list of points that must be conveyed? What devices and classes of devices should be considered “related”? For example, should the requirement apply to VCRs, DVRs, DVD players, etc? Should this requirement apply to all new “television receivers and related devices,” that are imported or distributed in the United States after the effective date of these rules? E. Consumer Electronics Retailer Training and Education Reporting 13. The Letter suggests that the Commission consider working “with NTIA to require retailers who participate in the converter box coupon program to detail their employee training and consumer information plans and have Commission staff conduct spot inspections to ascertain whether such objectives are being met at stores.” 14. We anticipate that any requirements and enforcement efforts tied to the converter box coupon program will be developed in consultation with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. What would be an appropriate employee training and consumer information plan? Should NTIA and the FCC establish the elements of a legally sufficient plan? Would penalties for noncompliance be appropriate in this area? If so, would they most appropriately be based on failure to report a plan, failure to follow a reported plan, failure to establish a sufficient plan, or any of these? F. DTV.gov Partner Consumer Education Reporting 15. The Letter suggests that the Commission consider requiring “partners identified on the Commission's digital television Web site to report their specific consumer outreach efforts.” 16. At the moment, more than 50 partners are listed at *www.dtv.gov/partners.html.* What level of detail would be mandated in these reports? Would they be confidential reports to the Commission or publicly filed? Alternatively, could we provide partners with guidelines and allow them to publicly announce, via web pages, press releases, or otherwise, their consumer outreach efforts? How would this approach be monitored and enforced by the Commission? Would reporting simply become a requirement for “partner” status, such that failure to comply leads only to removal from the “Partners” page? If other penalties would be appropriate, what would they be and what would be the basis for our authority to impose them? G. Other Proposals 17. We note that the Letter contains several other potential consumer education mechanisms, including broadcaster public file requirements or other public announcements, notice requirements by telecommunications carriers that receive funds under the Low Income Federal universal service program, or reporting requirements by 700 MHz auction winners. We seek comment on these and other initiatives that the Commission can and should undertake to educate the public on the DTV transition. III. Procedural Matters A. Filing Requirements 18. *Ex Parte Rules.* This proceeding will be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding subject to the “permit-but-disclose” requirements under Section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, *see* 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally prohibited. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that a memorandum summarizing a presentation must contain a summary 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. Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b). 19. *Comments and Reply Comments.* 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 the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (“ECFS”) or by filing paper copies. *See* Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24121 (1998). 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). 20. Comments filed through ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to *http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html.* Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U.S. Postal mailing address, and the applicable docket number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov,* and should 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 reply. 21. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, Natek, Inc., 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 mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail, should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. 22. *Availability of Documents.* Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Persons with disabilities who need assistance in the FCC Reference Center may contact Bill Cline at
(202)418-0267 (voice),
(202)418-7365 (TTY), or *bill.cline@fcc.gov.* These documents also will be available from the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System. Documents are available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and Adobe Acrobat. Copies of filings in this proceeding may be obtained from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; they can also be reached by telephone, at
(202)488-5300 or
(800)378-3160; by e-mail at *fcc@bcpiweb.com;* or via their Web site at *http://www.bcpiweb.com.* 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 and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202)418-0530 (voice),
(202)418-0432 (TTY). 23. *Additional Information.* For additional information on this proceeding, contact Eloise Gore, *Eloise.Gore@fcc.gov,* or Lyle Elder, *Lyle.Elder@fcc.gov,* of the Media Bureau, Policy Division,
(202)418-2120. B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 24. This document contains potential information collection requirements. The Commission will invite the general public to comment at a later date on any rules developed as a result of this proceeding that require the collection of information, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. The Commission will publish a separate notice seeking these comments from the public. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we will also seek specific comment on how the Commission might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA)the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA)of the possible economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”).* 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 *NPRM* provided in paragraph 18 of the Order. The Commission will send a copy of the *NPRM,* including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the *NPRM* and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the **Federal Register** . D. Need for, and Objectives of, the NPRM 2. Our goals in this proceeding are to further educate consumers about the digital television transition; to engage all sectors of the television industry in support of that transition; and, in so doing, to facilitate the nation's transition to digital broadcast television. Specifically, the *NPRM* considers whether the Commission should compel industry to participate in a coordinated, nationwide consumer outreach campaign, and seeks comment on other potential Commission initiatives. For each of these potential initiatives, we are concerned with the Commission's authority to implement them; the best method of implementation; their likely effectiveness; any policy implications; and any constitutional concerns. 3. Despite extensive consumer outreach efforts by the Commission and others, a large percentage of the public is not sufficiently informed about the DTV transition. This is a serious concern, because the many benefits of the transition could be severely limited by insufficient consumer awareness. Therefore, this *NPRM* proposes that the Commission spearhead a nationwide consumer education campaign, and solicits comment on six specific elements that might be part of such a campaign. These elements are based on specific potential Commission initiatives raised by Congressmen Dingell and Markey. The first potential initiative would require all MVPDs to include periodic notices about the transition in customer bills, and asks how these notices should be conveyed to customers who rely on electronic or automatic billing. The second would require all manufacturers of “television receivers or related devices” to include transition information with the devices, and asks about the scope of the term “related devices.” The third potential initiative would require that the Commission work with NTIA to require retailers who participate in the converter box coupon program to create employee training and consumer information plans and file them with the Commission, which would conduct spot checks to verify compliance. The fourth potential initiative would require the “Partners” listed on the Commission's DTV.gov page to report their consumer outreach efforts, and asks what level of detail would be required and whether these reports would be publicly available. The final two potential initiatives would require public service announcements (“PSAs”) about the transition and filings by broadcasters detailing their consumer education efforts. The *NPRM* asks about the content of the announcements, the frequency with which they would be shown, and whether there should be forfeitures for noncompliance. Finally, the *NPRM* seeks comment generally on other proposals for consumer education. E. Legal Basis 4. The authority for the action proposed in this rulemaking is contained in Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 309(j), 325, 336, 338, 614, and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 309(j), 325, 336, 338, 534, and 535. F. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the NPRM Will Apply 5. The IRFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules. The IRFA defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small business concern” under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. 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”). The rules we may adopt as a result of the comments filed in response to this *NPRM* would affect all MVPDs (including satellite carriers and cable operators), broadcast television stations, consumer electronics (“CE”) retailers, and CE manufacturers. A description of these small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, is provided below. 6. *Cable and Other Program Distribution.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for cable and other program distribution services (aka multichannel video programming distributors, “MVPDs”), which includes all such companies generating $13.5 million or less in revenue annually. This category includes, among others, cable operators, direct broadcast satellite services, fixed-satellite services, home satellite dish services, multipoint distribution services, multichannel multipoint distribution service, Instructional Television Fixed Service, local multipoint distribution service, satellite master antenna television systems, and open video systems. Those MVPDs relying primarily or exclusively on satellite transmission could also be considered to fall under the “Satellite Telecommunications” category, NAICS Code 517410. According to Census Bureau data, there are 1,311 total cable and other pay television service firms that operate throughout the year of which 1,180 have less than $10 million in revenue. The amount of $10 million was used to estimate the number of small business firms because the relevant Census categories stopped at $9,999,999 and began at $10,000,000. No category for $12.5 million existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is possible to calculate with the available information. 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. We address below each service individually to provide a more precise estimate of small entities. 7. *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 Commission developed this definition based on its determination that a small cable system operator is one with annual revenues of $100 million or less. 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. 8. *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, although the Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to § 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. Therefore the Commission 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. 9. *Satellite Carriers.* The term “satellite carrier” includes entities providing services as described in 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(6) using the facilities of a satellite or satellite service licensed under Part 25 of the Commission's rules to operate in Direct Broadcast Satellite
(DBS)or Fixed-Satellite Service
(FSS)frequencies. As a general practice, not mandated by any regulation, DBS licensees usually own and operate their own satellite facilities as well as package the programming they offer to their subscribers. In contrast, satellite carriers using FSS facilities often lease capacity from another entity that is licensed to operate the satellite used to provide service to subscribers. These entities package their own programming and may or may not be Commission licensees themselves. In addition, a third situation may include an entity using a non-U.S. licensed satellite to provide programming to subscribers in the United States pursuant to a blanket earth station license. 10. *Direct Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”) Service.* DBS service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” antenna at the subscriber's location. Because DBS provides subscription services, DBS falls within the SBA-recognized definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution. This definition provides that a small entity is one with $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. Currently, only four operators hold licenses to provide DBS service, which requires a great investment of capital for operation. All four currently offer subscription services. Two of these four DBS operators, DIRECTV and EchoStar Communications Corporation (“EchoStar”), report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small business. DirecTV is the largest DBS operator and the second largest MVPD, serving an estimated 13.04 million subscribers nationwide. EchoStar, which provides service under the brand name Dish Network, is the second largest DBS operator and the fourth largest MVPD, serving an estimated 10.12 million subscribers nationwide. A third operator, Rainbow DBS, which provides service under the brand name VOOM, reported an estimated 25,000 subscribers. It is a subsidiary of Cablevision's Rainbow Network, which also reports annual revenues in excess of $13.5 million, and thus does not qualify as a small business. The fourth DBS operator, Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. (“Dominion”), which provides service under the brand name Sky Angel, offers religious (Christian) programming and does not report its annual receipts or publicly disclose its subscribership numbers on an annualized basis The Commission does not know of any source which provides this information and, thus, we have no way of confirming whether Dominion qualifies as a small business. Because DBS service requires significant capital, we believe it is unlikely that a small entity as defined by the SBA would have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS licensee. Nevertheless, given the absence of specific data on this point, we acknowledge the possibility that there are entrants in this field that may not yet have generated $13.5 million in annual receipts, and therefore may be categorized as a small business, if independently owned and operated. 11. *Fixed-Satellite Service (“FSS”).* The FSS is a radiocommunication service between earth stations at a specified fixed point or between any fixed point within specified areas and one or more satellites. The FSS, which utilizes many earth stations that communicate with one or more space stations, may be used to provide subscription video service. Therefore, to the extent FSS frequencies are used to provide subscription services, FSS falls within the SBA-recognized definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution, which includes all such companies generating $13.5 million or less in revenue annually. Although a number of entities are licensed in the FSS, not all such licensees use FSS frequencies to provide subscription services. Two of the DBS licensees (EchoStar and DirecTV) have indicated interest in using FSS frequencies to broadcast signals to subscribers. It is possible that other entities could similarly use FSS frequencies, although we are not aware of any entities that might do so. 12. *Private Cable Operators
(PCOs)also known as Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems.* PCOs, also known as SMATV systems or private communication operators, are video distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without using any public right-of-way. PCOs acquire video programming and distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. The SBA definition of small entities for Cable and Other Program Distribution Services includes PCOs and, thus, small entities are defined as all such companies generating $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. Currently, there are approximately 135 members in the Independent Multi-Family Communications Council (IMCC), the trade association that represents PCOs. Individual PCOs often serve approximately 3,000-4,000 subscribers, but the larger operations serve as many as 15,000-55,000 subscribers. In total, PCOs currently serve approximately 1.1 million subscribers. Because these operators are not rate regulated, they are not required to file financial data with the Commission. Furthermore, we are not aware of any privately published financial information regarding these operators. Based on the estimated number of operators and the estimated number of units served by the largest ten PCOs, we believe that a substantial number of PCOs qualify as small entities. 13. *Home Satellite Dish (“HSD”) Service.* Because HSD provides subscription services, HSD falls within the SBA-recognized definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution, which includes all such companies generating $13.5 million or less in revenue annually. HSD or the large dish segment of the satellite industry is the original satellite-to-home service offered to consumers, and involves the home reception of signals transmitted by satellites operating generally in the C-band frequency. Unlike DBS, which uses small dishes, HSD antennas are between four and eight feet in diameter and can receive a wide range of unscrambled
(free)programming and scrambled programming purchased from program packagers that are licensed to facilitate subscribers' receipt of video programming. There are approximately 30 satellites operating in the C-band, which carry over 500 channels of programming combined; approximately 350 channels are available free of charge and 150 are scrambled and require a subscription. HSD is difficult to quantify in terms of annual revenue. HSD owners have access to program channels placed on C-band satellites by programmers for receipt and distribution by MVPDs. Commission data shows that, between June 2003 and June 2004, HSD subscribership fell from 502,191 subscribers to 335,766 subscribers, a decline of more than 33 percent, after falling more than 28 percent during the previous year. The Commission has no information regarding the annual revenue of the four C-Band distributors. 14. *Open Video Systems (“OVS”).* The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA-recognized definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution Services, which provides that a small entity is one with $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified 25 OVS operators with some now providing service. Broadband service providers
(BSPs)are currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises, even though OVS is one of four statutorily-recognized options for local exchange carriers
(LECs)to offer video programming services. As of June 2003, BSPs served approximately 1.4 million subscribers, representing 1.49 percent of all MVPD households. Among BSPs, however, those operating under the OVS framework are in the minority, with approximately eight percent operating with an OVS certification. Serving approximately 460,000 of these subscribers, Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (“RCN”) is currently the largest BSP and 11th largest MVPD. WideOpenWest is the second largest BSP and 15th largest MVPD, with cable systems serving about 288,000 subscribers as of September 2003. The third largest BSP is Knology, which currently serves approximately 174,957 subscribers as of June 2004. RCN received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, DC and other areas. The Commission does not have financial information regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. We thus believe that at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities. 15. *Television Broadcasting.* The SBA defines a television broadcasting station as a small business if such station has no more than $13 million in annual receipts. Business concerns included in this industry are those “primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.” This category description continues, “These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studios, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.” Separate census categories pertain to businesses primarily engaged in producing programming. According to Commission staff review of the BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access Television Analyzer Database
(BIA)on March 30, 2007, about 986 of an estimated 1,374 commercial television stations (or approximately 72 percent) have revenues of $13.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. Although we are using BIA's estimate for purposes of this revenue comparison, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1374. We note, however, that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. According to 13 CFR 121.103(a)(1), “[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both.” Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed NCE television stations to be 380. The Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities. 16. *Class A TV, LPTV, and TV translator stations.* The rules and policies could also apply to licensees of Class A TV stations, low power television
(LPTV)stations, and TV translator stations, as well as to potential licensees in these television services. The same SBA definition that applies to television broadcast licensees would apply to these stations. The SBA defines a television broadcast station as a small business if such station has no more than $13 million in annual receipts. 17. Currently, there are approximately 567 licensed Class A stations, 2,227 licensed LPTV stations, 4,518 licensed TV translators and 11 TV booster stations. Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all of these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. We note, however, that under the SBA's definition, revenue of affiliates that are not LPTV stations should be aggregated with the LPTV station revenues in determining whether a concern is small. Our estimate may thus overstate the number of small entities since the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from non-LPTV affiliated companies. We do not have data on revenues of TV translator or TV booster stations, but virtually all of these entities are also likely to have revenues of less than $13 million and thus may be categorized as small, except to the extent that revenues of affiliated non-translator or booster entities should be considered. 18. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply do not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and are therefore over-inclusive to that extent. Also as noted, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. We note that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and our estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent. 19. *Retailers.* The proposals in this NPRM would apply only to retailers that choose to participate in the converter box coupon program. The list of retailers who will be participating will not be finalized until March 2008, but they will likely include dedicated consumer electronics stores and Internet-based stores. 20. *Radio, Television, and Other Electronics Stores.* The Census Bureau defines this economic census category as follows: “This U.S. industry comprises:
(1)Establishments known as consumer electronics stores primarily engaged in retailing a general line of new consumer-type electronic products;
(2)establishments specializing in retailing a single line of consumer-type electronic products (except computers); or
(3)establishments primarily engaged in retailing these new electronic products in combination with repair services.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Radio, Television, and Other Electronics Stores, which is: All such firms having $8 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 10,380 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 10,080 firms had annual sales of under $5 million, and 177 firms had sales of $5 million or more but less than $10 million. An additional 123 firms had annual sales of $10 million or more. As a measure of small business prevalence, the data on annual sales are roughly equivalent to what one would expect from data on annual receipts. Thus, the majority of firms in this category can be considered small. 21. *Electronic Shopping.* According to the Census Bureau, this economic census category “comprises establishments engaged in retailing all types of merchandise using the Internet.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Electronic Shopping, which is: All such entities having $23 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 4,959 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 4,742 firms had annual sales of under $10 million, and an additional 133 had sales of $10 million to $24,999,999. Thus, the majority of firms in this category can be considered small. 22. *Electronics Equipment Manufacturers.* Rules adopted in this proceeding could apply to manufacturers of television receiving equipment and other types of consumer electronics equipment. The SBA has developed definitions of small entity for manufacturers of audio and video equipment as well as radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment. These categories both include all such companies employing 750 or fewer employees. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to manufacturers of electronic equipment used by consumers, as compared to industrial use by television licensees and related businesses. Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definitions applicable to manufacturers of audio and visual equipment and radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment, since these are the two closest NAICS Codes applicable to the consumer electronics equipment manufacturing industry. However, these NAICS categories are broad and specific figures are not available as to how many of these establishments manufacture consumer equipment. According to the SBA's regulations, an audio and visual equipment manufacturer must have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business concern. Census Bureau data indicates that there are 554 U.S. establishments that manufacture audio and visual equipment, and that 542 of these establishments have fewer than 500 employees and would be classified as small entities. The amount of 500 employees was used to estimate the number of small business firms because the relevant Census categories stopped at 499 employees and began at 500 employees. No category for 750 employees existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is possible to calculate with the available information. The remaining 12 establishments have 500 or more employees; however, we are unable to determine how many of those have fewer than 750 employees and therefore, also qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. Under the SBA's regulations, a radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment manufacturer must also have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business concern. Census Bureau data indicates that there are 1,215 U.S. establishments that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment, and that 1,150 of these establishments have fewer than 500 employees and would be classified as small entities. The remaining 65 establishments have 500 or more employees; however, we are unable to determine how many of those have fewer than 750 employees and therefore, also qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. We therefore conclude that there are no more than 542 small manufacturers of audio and visual electronics equipment and no more than 1,150 small manufacturers of radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment for consumer/household use. G. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 23. The *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* seeks comment on a range of potential changes to existing reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements. If adopted, these proposals would require: MVPDs to modify their customer billing notices; broadcasters to make public service announcements and report their efforts; CE retailers to prepare and report transition plans and subject themselves to audit; CE manufacturers to provide customer notices about the transition; and DTV.gov Partners to report their consumer education efforts. H. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 24. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (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. In this instance, we seek comment on the specific proposals outlined by Congressmen Dingell and Markey, but we are particularly interested in comments regarding alternatives that would reduce any burdens from these proposed rules. We urge small entities to provide data on the impact of the questions raised in the *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* and how we might tailor our rules to address and minimize the impact on these small businesses. We expect that whichever alternatives are chosen, the Commission will seek to minimize any adverse effects on small entities. I. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Commission's Proposals 25. None. IV. Ordering Clauses 26. *It is ordered* that, pursuant to authority contained in Sections 4(i), 303(r), 335, and 336, of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 54(i), 303(r), 335, and 336, this *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.* 27. *It is further ordered* that the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Federal Communications Commission. Jacqueline R. Coles, Associate Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-16149 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA 2007-27818] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Denial of petition for expedited rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for expedited rulemaking submitted by the Smart Vision group to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, “Occupant Crash Protection.” The petition requested that the agency add a test procedure for the Dynamic Automatic Suppression System
(DASS)option under the advanced air bag options in accordance with Part 552, Subpart B. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: David Sutula, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at
(202)366-3273. Fax:
(202)493-2739. For legal issues: Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel, at
(202)366-2992. Fax:
(202)366-3820. You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. The Petition On November 24, 2004, NHTSA received a petition for expedited rulemaking to establish a Dynamic Automatic Suppression System
(DASS)test procedure, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 552, Subpart B. The petitioners, a consortium of four companies called Smart Vision, included: TRW, International Electronics Engineering (IEE), Siemens VDO and Bosch. The petitioners requested that the agency expedite adoption of their proposed test procedure for passenger side DASSs under S28.4 of FMVSS No. 208, “Occupant crash protection.” The petition further requested that the agency, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 552.13(g), establish an effective date for the procedure nine months after the submission date of the petition. A. Initial Agency Response On December 20, 2004, 1 NHTSA responded in a letter to the petitioners that they had failed to provide certain information required for the agency to consider the petition submission to be complete. On February 15, 2005, TRW and IEE submitted the requested information, submitted a revised test procedure proposal for the agency to consider, and requested that their petitions be considered independently. TRW and IEE also informed the agency that Siemens VDO and Bosch elected not to submit the required information to complete their petitions, and were no longer participating in the Smart Vision group. 1 See Docket for this letter. B. Proposed Test Procedure 2 2 A copy of the proposed procedure can be found in the Docket for this notice. The test procedure proposed by the petitioners uses a topographical representation of a Hybrid III 3-year-old test dummy 3 attached to what the petitioners describe as a thruster device. In this notice we will refer to the representation of the Hybrid III dummy as the test manikin. The thruster consists of a base plate that is placed in the right front passenger seat of the test vehicle, leveled, and secured to minimize movement. A motor is used to propel the test manikin linearly along a guided path in the base plate. The test manikin is then moved toward the automatic suppression zone
(ASZ)along a horizontal, longitudinal path at a constant acceleration of 0.5 g until the DASS generates a signal indicating that the suppression zone has been breached. Three test sequences are initiated to determine a median suppression distance. Upon determination of the median suppression distance, the test manikin is moved horizontally rearward of the instrument panel
(IP)by the median suppression distance and the passenger air bag deployed. Compliance is determined by measuring injury criteria in accordance with FMVSS No. 208 S21.5. 3 See 49 CFR part 572 Subpart P. At the option of the manufacturer, the DASS may be certified for 6-year-old compliance only by using the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy in 49 CFR part 572 Subpart N in place of the Hybrid III 3-year-old test dummy. II. Background FMVSS No. 208 specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes (49 CFR 571.208). On May 12, 2000, 4 we published an interim final rule that amended FMVSS No. 208 to require advanced air bags (Advanced Air Bag Rule). Among other things, the rule addressed the risk of serious air bag-induced injuries, particularly for small women and young children, and amended FMVSS No. 208 to require that future air bags be designed to minimize such risk. The Advanced Air Bag Rule established a rigid barrier crash test with a 5th percentile adult female test dummy, as well as several low risk deployment and static suppression tests using a range of dummy sizes and a number of specified child restraint systems (CRSs). 4 See 65 FR 30680, May 12, 2000. The Advanced Air Bag Rule allows for passenger side compliance through any of three different options: Low Risk Deployment (LRD), which defines a reduced deployment strength for occupants in close proximity to the air bag; suppression when a child is present, or DASS, which senses the location of an occupant with respect to the air bag, interprets the occupant characteristics and movement, and determines whether or not to allow the air bag to deploy. Performance tests for determining compliance with the LRD and suppression (presence) options were specified in the Advanced Air Bag Rule. A performance test for determining compliance with the DASS option was not specified in the rule because at that time it was not known what technologies would be used to attempt to meet the DASS option. Accordingly, we established very general performance requirements for DASS and a special petition and expedited rulemaking process (49 CFR Part 552 Subpart B) for consideration of procedures for testing advanced air bag systems incorporating DASS. Among the components, this expedited rulemaking process:
(1)Provides a definition for DASSs,
(2)Requires the petitioner to submit specific information about the operation of the DASS and a proposed test method and supporting data and analyses to complete a rulemaking,
(3)Allows the agency to request additional information if the petition fails to provide any of the information, and
(4)Allows the agency to request additional supporting information and a DASS demonstration at any time during consideration of the petition. After evaluating the petition, the agency would publish either a notice proposing to adopt the test procedure (or adopt the test procedure with changes or additions), or publish a notice denying the petition. After considering those comments on a proposed procedure, we would then decide whether the procedure should become a final rule and be added to Standard No. 208. We noted in the Advanced Air Bag Rule that we intended to minimize the number of different test procedures that are adopted for DASS and to ensure ultimately that similar DASS are tested in the same way. III. Agency Request for Additional Information In June 2005, the agency responded in a letter to the petitioners informing them that their petitions had been determined to be complete, would be considered simultaneously to the extent possible, and requested additional information and supporting data. The agency believed that the requested information was necessary to fully evaluate the petitions and to be able to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for a DASS test procedure. The agency request for information addressed three main areas of concern: Dummy acceleration and kinematics, occupant recognition, and system latency. A. Information Request Topics *Dummy Acceleration and Kinematics:* The agency noted that the petition's choice of a constant horizontal acceleration in the vehicle longitudinal direction and the magnitude of the selected acceleration were based on the exploration of pre-impact braking as the only pre-crash vehicle maneuver. The agency asked about the likelihood that occupants may have more complex motion than that simulated by the proposed test procedure and how pre-crash maneuvering or long-duration, low-acceleration pre-crash events might influence the occupant's motion relative to the vehicle interior. The agency further believes that some crash events have a sufficiently long duration, allowing for significant occupant movement prior to the main deceleration event resulting in an air bag deployment decision. This was supported by event data recorder output collected from NHTSA's Special Crash Investigation 5 program on vehicles with Advanced Occupant Protection Systems. 5 Cases can be viewed on the agency's Web site at *www-nass.nhtsa.dot.gov/BIN/logon.exe/airmislogon.* Within the case type menu, select Advanced Occupant Protection Systems—AOPS. *Occupant Recognition:* Section S14(b)(1) of 49 CFR Part 552 requires the petitioner to provide a description of the logic used by DASS to discriminate between an occupant's torso or head entering the ASZ as compared to an occupant's hand or arm, and whether and how the DASS discriminates between an occupant entering the ASZ and an inanimate object such as a newspaper or ball. The petitioner submitted a description of the DASS logic. However the proposed performance test used a single topographical representation of the Hybrid III 3-year-old test dummy. The agency believes that this manikin could appear to the DASS to be an occupant, but many other real world occupants could have significantly different optical characteristics. The agency requested additional information regarding any testing that had been performed verifying the system logic, and inquired if the proposed procedure should include a metric that verifies the system's occupant discrimination logic. *System Latency:* Because there is a short delay, due to information processing and communication speed, there would be a difference between where the DASS “thinks” the occupant is located at any time and where the occupant is truly located. The agency requested additional information regarding DASS strategies for counteracting system latency errors and inquired if the proposed test procedure should include a metric with differing acceleration profiles to assess the impact of system latency on DASS performance. B. Petitioner Response On November 30, 2005, the petitioners responded to the agency request for additional information. The petitioners provided additional information where possible, proposed that the agency issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)to help identify recommended solutions to areas where the petitioners could not provide answers to the agency's request for information, and requested an implementation date for the proposed test procedure of September 1, 2006. *Dummy Acceleration and Kinematics:* The petitioners agreed that more complex occupant motion is possible during pre-crash maneuvering. However, the petitioners commented that the proposed test procedure was designed to capture the most common pre-crash movement in a repeatable manner and that it would not be possible to design a certification test procedure for “any” imaginable movement. The petitioners further commented that a test procedure with a pivoting movement would require development of a completely new tester and would not offer any further quality to the certification procedure. The petitioners commented that they had data demonstrating the viability of the proposed 0.5g acceleration profile in the proposed test procedure, but that they did not have supporting data for increasing the acceleration for the certification test or for increasing the duration of the test. *Occupant Recognition:* The petitioners commented that a separate test of the logic should not be part of the certification test procedure. Rather, the complete DASS should be tested and the logic verified through a pass or fail result of a test of the system. The petitioners acknowledged that occupant recognition logic had been individually tested through “due-care” testing, and offered to review that data with the agency separately and confidentially. *System Latency:* The petitioners commented that they were not aware of any well-founded data or measurements that would allow defining a worst case acceleration. Rather, it was suggested that certification testing would cover a significant portion of real-life situations. The petitioners further commented that a DASS, when incorporated into a vehicle, would provide for any expected system latency by extending the ASZ further into the occupant compartment. It was noted that a DASS could be tailored to provide several suppression zones depending on the air bag module and the occupant characteristics. IV. Ex Parte Meeting With Smart Vision On September 25, 2006, the agency met with the petitioners to discuss their November 30, 2005 response. The agency informed the petitioners that in its review of the petitioner response, there remained several areas of concern. Specifically, the agency expressed concern that the petitioners did not provide any data to indicate that a DASS would operate outside of the test dummy scenario, and it is unclear what occupant accelerations and kinematics should be considered in the test procedure. It was further explained that it was unclear what the deployment risk would be with an occupant in the ASZ due to system latency, that the proposed test procedure was not fully completed and would need to be refined through the NPRM process, and that the requested implementation date of September 2006 was not realistic considering the questions that remained. The agency also proposed a collaborative research program with the petitioners to develop data to support the proposed test procedure and allay the agency concerns. A key element of the proposed research was availability of a DASS-equipped vehicle on which to perform the required research. In separate correspondence subsequent to the September 25, 2006 meeting, the petitioners declined to participate in a cooperative research program citing a lack of availability of a DASS-equipped test vehicle and a shift in market demand away from advanced occupant detection systems, such as a DASS. V. Conclusion The DASS option is intended to provide manufacturers the flexibility of deploying an air bag when such a deployment would not be harmful and may be potentially beneficial, as opposed to suppressing the air bag or relying on a low risk deployment. However, central to this idea is the availability of a test procedure that accurately describes the “real world” conditions to delineate DASS performance, regardless of the basic technology used within the suppression system. While there may be great potential benefits through use of occupant protection systems such as a DASS, there must also be robust and repeatable test protocols to assess such systems. The agency believes that the Smart Vision proposed test procedure was simply not sufficient for the agency to expedite a rulemaking that would establish the benchmark for assessment of future DASSs. The agency continues to have interest in obtaining test data that would support development of a test procedure to assess DASSs. We welcome developers of DASS safety systems to approach the agency with proposals for collaborative research for such test procedure development. Specifically, the agency is interested in research that would address the areas of concern expressed above. In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's review of the petition. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30162; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Dated: August 10, 2007. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E7-16139 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Astragalus anserinus (Goose Creek milk-vetch) as Threatened or Endangered AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list *Astragalus anserinus* (Goose Creek milk-vetch) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing *A. anserinus* may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a status review of the species, and we will issue a 12-month finding to determine if listing the species is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting information and data regarding this species. DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on August 16, 2007. To be considered in the 12-month finding for this petition, data, information, and comments must be submitted to us by October 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: The complete supporting file for this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, ID 83709. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this species or this finding to the above address, or via electronic mail (e-mail) at *fw1srbocomment@fws.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Foss, Field Supervisor, Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ); by telephone at 208-378-5243; or by facsimile at 208-378-5262. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 800-877-8339. Please include “ *Astragalus anserinus* scientific information” in the subject line for faxes and e-mails. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Information Solicited When we make a finding that substantial information is presented to indicate that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information on *Astragalus anserinus* . We request any additional information, comments, and suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, agricultural, or any other interested parties concerning the status of *A. anserinus* . We are seeking information regarding the species' historical and current status and distribution, its biology and ecology, ongoing conservation measures for the species and its habitat, and threats to the species and its habitat. We will base our 12-month finding on a review of the best scientific and commercial information available, including all information received during the public comment period. If you wish to provide comments, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this finding to the Field Supervisor, Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ). Please note that comments merely stating support or opposition to the actions under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species shall be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” At the conclusion of the status review, we will issue the 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, 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. Background Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the **Federal Register** . Our standard for “substantial information” within the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. We base this finding on information provided by the petitioner that we determined to be reliable after reviewing sources referenced in the petition and information available in our files at the time of the petition review. We evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process for making this 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial information” threshold. On February 3, 2004, we received a petition dated January 30, 2004, from Red Willow Research, Inc., and 25 other concerned parties requesting that we emergency list *Astragalus anserinus* as threatened or endangered, and designate critical habitat concurrently with the listing. The other 25 concerned parties include the Prairie Falcon Audubon Society Chapter Board, Western Watersheds Project, Utah Environmental Congress, Sawtooth Group of the Sierra Club, and 21 private citizens; hereafter, we refer to them collectively as the petitioners. The petition clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite identification information as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). The petition contains information on the natural history of *A. anserinus,* its population status, and potential threats to the species. Potential threats discussed in the petition include destruction and modification of habitat, disease and predation, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and other natural and manmade factors such as exotic and noxious weed invasions and road construction and maintenance. In a February 19, 2004, letter to the petitioners, we responded that our initial review of the petition for *Astragalus anserinus* determined that an emergency listing was not warranted, and that due to court orders and judicially approved settlement agreements for other listing actions, we would not be able to further address the petition to list the species at that time. However, funding has since become available to address this petition. As such, this finding addresses the petition. Species Information *Astragalus anserinus* was first collected in 1982 by Duane Atwood from a location in Box Elder County, Utah. The species was subsequently described in 1984 by Atwood and Welsh (Baird and Tuhy 1991, p. 1). *A. anserinus* is a low-growing, matted, perennial forb in the pea or legume family (Fabaceae), with grey hairy leaves, pink-purple flowers, and brownish-red curved seed pods (Mancuso and Moseley 1991, p. 4). The petitioners state that at least eight other *Astragalus* species may be found sympatric (i.e., coincident or in overlapping ranges of geographic distribution) with *A. anserinus,* although five of the eight species are not mat-forming. This species is distinguished from the three other mat-forming *Astragalus* species primarily by its smaller leaflets and flowers, as well as the color and shape of the seed pods. Flowering typically occurs from late May to early June, and the species is assumed to be insect-pollinated, but the specific pollinator(s) is unknown (Baird and Tuhy 1991, p. 3). Mechanisms of seed dispersal are unknown (Baird and Tuhy 1991, p. 3). *Astragalus anserinus* is endemic to the Goose Creek drainage in Cassia County, Idaho; Elko County, Nevada; and Box Elder County, Utah. Most sites are in an area encompassing approximately 10 square miles
(mi)(26 square kilometers (km)). An additional disjunct site is known outside the Goose Creek drainage, approximately 22 mi (35 km) to the southwest in Nevada (USFWS 2006, p. 1). Rainfall in the Goose Creek area averages less than 12 inches (30 centimeters) annually. The plant is generally confined to dry, ashy (sometimes sandy), tuffaceous (volcanic ash and particulates) soils from the Salt Lake Formation (Mancuso and Moseley 1991, p. 12). Element Occurrences
(EOs)(areas where a species is, or was, present (NatureServe 2002)) of *A. anserinus* have been documented at elevations ranging between 4,900 to 5,480 feet (1,494 and 1,670 meters) (Mancuso and Moseley 1991, p. 10). *A. anserinus* is frequently associated with other species that show a preference for ashy sites (Baird and Tuhy 1991, pp. 2-3). Population Status The petition states that there were 19 known EOs of *Astragalus anserinus* as of 2003, including 7 in Idaho, 8 in Utah, and 4 in Nevada. The petition states that surveys conducted between the species' discovery in 1982 and 2003 did not document new range extensions, nor any widely separated EOs or individuals. The petition also states that the EOs in Idaho experienced a 94.8 percent decline in numbers between 1985 and 2001. This rate of decline was based on survey results from seven EOs in Idaho that were sporadically monitored between 1985 and 2001 by Mancuso (2001a). The petition extrapolates this rate of decline across the range of the species to estimate only 542 *A. anserinus* individuals remaining as of 2001. Further extrapolation by the petitioners suggests that there would likely be approximately 28 plants remaining in 2011, for the 19 EOs identified in the petition. The petition states that The Nature Conservancy ranked *Astragalus anserinus* as a G2 species, indicating it is “imperiled throughout its range because of rarity or because of other factors making it vulnerable to extinction,” and is considered critically imperiled in Idaho, Nevada, and Utah (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
(UDWR)1998, p. 32; Nevada Natural Heritage Program
(NNHP)2001, p. 1; Idaho Conservation Data Center (ID CDC) 2006, p. 2). Based on information in our files, *Astragalus anserinus* was known prior to 2004 from 20 EO records (7 in Idaho, 4 in Nevada, and 9 in Utah). Most known sites were on Federal land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)(USFWS 2006, Table 1). In 2004 and 2005, we led a multiagency census and survey effort for *A. anserinus* in cooperation with BLM, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the State natural resource agencies of Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. Surveys typically entailed scouting an area and estimating numbers of individuals. Census efforts, which involved counting every individual, documented 3 additional *A. anserinus* sites in Idaho and 1 in Utah, for a total of 20 known EOs and 4 new sites pending confirmation as EOs (USFWS 2006, Table 1). The census efforts in 2004 and 2005 resulted in detections of 5,052 plants in Idaho, 33,476 plants in Utah, and 4,930 plants in Nevada, totaling 43,458 plants rangewide. State-specific information on the population status of *A. anserinus* is described below. Idaho According to the petition, seven *Astragalus anserinus* EOs were identified in Idaho in 2003, occurring primarily on BLM lands, with partial EOs occurring on private land. The petition states that one of the EOs in Idaho declined between 1985 and 2001, from an estimated 2,635 plants to an estimated 136 plants. The petition indicates that some discrepancy exists regarding the actual EO numbers in Idaho due to the survey techniques that were employed. Estimates were not obtained by actual counts, but by surveying representative areas and projecting numbers of plants observed across what appeared to be potential habitat. As such, the estimates may not be reliable. Information in our records indicate that, prior to the 2004 and 2005 census efforts, there were seven EOs tracked by the Idaho Conservation Data Center, and numbers of *Astragalus anserinus* at most sites were estimates. The first EO was documented in 1985, but systematic or comprehensive surveys were not performed in Idaho until 1991 (Mancuso and Moseley 1991, p. iii). In 1991, *A. anserinus* counts were estimated at over 914 individuals in Idaho (Mancuso and Moseley 1991, pp. 2, 13-14). During the 2004 census and survey effort, the seven known Idaho EOs were revisited, and three new sites were located. In total, 5,052 *Astragalus anserinus* individual plants were counted during the census effort, 2,460 of which occurred on the original 7 Idaho EOs (USFWS 2006, Table 1). Census data indicate stable counts at four EOs, an increase in count numbers at one EO (from 2003 surveys), and an unknown change at two EOs (complete censuses were not possible at these sites because part of the EOs are on private land and access is restricted). Due to different census and survey methodologies between those used prior to 2004, and those used for the 2004 and 2005 efforts, we are unable to estimate trends for the species in Idaho (USFWS 2006, Table 1). Utah According to the petition, eight *Astragalus anserinus* EO locations were identified in Utah prior to 2003. These EOs were located partially on BLM lands and partially on State or private lands, and most were estimated to be less than 1 acre
(ac)(0.4 hectare (ha)) in size. The petition provides an estimate of 7,000 plants from a 1990 survey (Baird and Tuhy 1991), and indicates that a discrepancy exists regarding the actual numbers of individuals in Utah due to the survey techniques that were employed. Estimates were not obtained by actual counts, but by surveying representative areas and projecting numbers of plants observed across what appeared to be potential habitat. Thus, they may not be reliable. The petition also states that the 1991 population counts may have been significantly overestimated because more recent information has confirmed that *A. anserinus* is not present in all areas determined to be potential habitat during the 1991 surveys. Information in our records indicates that prior to the 2004 and 2005 census and survey efforts, there were nine known *Astragalus anserinus* EOs in Utah. Eight of these EOs were documented by the Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP), and the other was documented by the NNHP database, but was not included in the UNHP database (Mancuso and Moseley 1991, p. 2). In addition, at least one site that had not been submitted to the UNHP was known by the staff of BLM's Salt Lake City, Utah, Field Office. All 9 EOs in Utah were surveyed either in 1990 or 1991, documenting an estimated 7,617 individuals in Utah (Baird and Tuhy 1991, p. 2; NNHP 2001, p. 1). During the 2004 and 2005 census efforts, six previously known *Astragalus anserinus* EOs (although only partial counts were conducted at three of the six sites) and one new site were visited. We counted 33,476 individuals at these 7 sites (EOs). Two other EOs, previously documented in Utah with the greatest numbers of individuals, were not visited during the 2004 and 2005 census efforts, due to difficulty of access and time limitations of surveyors (USFWS 2006, Table 1). Census data indicate higher count numbers of *A. anserinus* than previous estimates at five previously known EOs. Due to different census and survey methodologies used prior to 2004, and in the 2004 and 2005 efforts, we are unable to estimate trends for the species in Utah (USFWS 2006, Table 1). Nevada According to the petition, one area with four loosely connected *Astragalus anserinus* EOs had been identified in Nevada by 2003. The petition states that approximately 800 plants were observed during surveys conducted in 1993, and that no further surveys were conducted between 1993 and the time that the petition was submitted in 2004. Reference information from NNHP (2001, p. 1) includes documentation of surveys in Nevada in 1991 and 1992, during which 4 EOs were located and numbers were estimated at 827 individuals. The 2004 and 2005 census efforts did not locate any new sites in Nevada. There are currently four EOs in Nevada, documented by the NNHP. During the 2004 and 2005 census efforts, all 4 EOs were visited, and 4,930 *Astragalus anserinus* individuals were counted. Although census data indicate increasing numbers at all EOs in Nevada, different census and survey methodologies used prior to 2004, and for the 2004 and 2005 efforts, prevent us from estimating trends for the species in Nevada (USFWS 2006, Table 1). Threats Analysis Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A)Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;
(B)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C)disease or predation;
(D)inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E)other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In making this finding, we evaluated whether threats to *Astragalus anserinus* presented in the petition and other information available in our files at the time of the petition review reasonably indicate that listing the species may be warranted. Our evaluation of these threats is presented below. A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range The petition states that *Astragalus anserinus* is endemic to the Goose Creek watershed in Idaho, Utah, and Nevada, and that based on survey information available in 2003, the plant occurred at a total of 19 sites in Cassia County, Idaho; Box Elder County, Utah; and Elko County, Nevada. The petition also states that, based on the decline in estimated plant numbers at one site in Idaho (a 94.8 percent decrease between 1985 and 2001), the species was in danger of extinction throughout its range. There is little information available regarding the EO size, viability, or distribution of *Astragalus anserinus* prior to 1989. Records prior to 2004 may not accurately reflect the species' historical distribution because they were limited in scope, although they were collected in a systematic, comprehensive manner with the goal of determining species distribution and abundance (Mancuso and Moseley 1991, p. 2). Our survey records from 2004 and 2005 indicate that *Astragalus anserinus* exists in 24 known EOs. Ten of the EOs are in Idaho, nine in Utah, and five in Nevada (USFWS 2006, Table 1). Most of these sites occur on BLM lands. The Service, BLM, USFS, Idaho Conservation Data Center, NNHP, and Utah Conservation Data Center
(UCDC)conducted survey and census activities for the species in 2004 and 2005, and four new sites were identified (three in Idaho and one in Utah). Censuses included counts of individual plants, unlike the previous population surveys cited in the petition. As a result, counts of individuals at known EOs were higher than previously documented for one EO in Idaho, five EOs in Utah, and three EOs in Nevada. No counts of individuals at any known EOs demonstrated a decline, and the number of EOs has not decreased since 2003. Overall, it appears that the petitioners' claim of a decline in the number of individuals in Idaho has not occurred, and population declines have also not occurred at most of the EOs in Utah or Nevada. Livestock Grazing and Water Developments The petition cites ground-disturbing water developments, such as pipelines and placement of water sources within EOs for the purposes of livestock management, as threats to *Astragalus anserinus.* The petition states that road and water pipeline construction occurred within extant *A. anserinus* EOs in Idaho in 2001 and 2002. The petition also states that additional livestock-related water construction projects were planned in known EOs in both Utah and Idaho in 2004, and that these activities would likely result in loss of individual plants, reduction or loss of seed bank, permanent alteration of habitat, and increased potential for additional noxious and exotic weed introductions. The petition does not provide specific information on the effects of the water pipeline that was constructed in Idaho during 2001 and 2002. A water tank on BLM lands fed by this pipeline is located at least 3,000 feet (1,000 meters) from *Astragalus anserinus* EOs and has been in place for 12 years (USFWS 2005b, p. 3). The pipeline to this tank (and an opening valve) is located above ground within an *A. anserinus* EO. Plans are being made to remove the water pipeline from the EO and bury it under the existing unimproved road at the site. An environmental assessment will be completed prior to implementation of this activity (USFWS 2005b, p.3), to identify and develop appropriate measures to avoid or minimize adverse effects of this activity, including potential effects to *A. anserinus* . Based on information contained in our files, the first water pipeline in Goose Creek (Goose Creek Pipeline Number 1) was constructed in 1987 (Hardy 2005, p. 3), and supplies two water tanks within *Astragalus anserinus* habitat in Utah. The 2004 census report indicates that vegetation was trampled and consumed more heavily closer to the water tanks, and that areas within approximately 150 feet (50 meters) of the tanks were completely denuded of vegetation due to livestock use. The denuded area around one water tank extended for 300 feet (100 meters). Thirteen plants were located at that location, but no data is available on whether the species was present in the area prior to construction (USFWS 2006, p. 2). This was a newly discovered *A. anserinus* site at an existing EO. We are unable to determine if plant numbers changed as a result of the water tank installation, because we do not have pre-construction data. Approximately 450 feet (140 meters) away from this same tank, another *A. anserinus* site (within the same EO) occurs and is occupied by more than 850 plants. This site is partially protected from livestock use due to its location on a steep bluff. A second water tank was constructed in 2005 on a large flat area. Based on limited survey efforts, we estimate the nearest *A. anserinus* plants to be approximately 1,600 feet (500 meters) from this tank (USFWS 2006, p. 3). The pipeline servicing this tank and another tank impacted the upper portion of this *A. anserinus* site. Areas disturbed by construction were seeded with nonnative forage species, and monitoring to detect the effects from this new water tank and pipeline is underway. Currently, there are four exclosure cages, and plant monitoring will occur inside and outside the cages (Hardy 2005, p. 6; USFWS 2005a, p. 3). In addition, BLM plans to construct a livestock exclosure around 1 acre (0.4 ha) of occupied habitat at this site, and undertake a census of *A. anserinus* within and adjacent to the exclosure (Hardy 2005, p. 6). Information in our records indicates that a pipeline was constructed in Utah through two *Astragalus anserinus* EOs in 2004. BLM staff conducted site clearances in 2000, 2002, and in conjunction with the Service in 2004, prior to pipeline construction. No *A. anserinus* plants were found during the initial 2000 survey, but plants were documented during the 2002 survey. However, no plants were lost during construction of the pipeline (USFWS 2005a, p. 3). The petition indicates that livestock cause impacts to *Astragalus anserinus* through trampling, increased levels of disturbance, and consumption of ash soils in attempts to alleviate mineral deficiencies resulting from their diet of low quality rangeland forage. The petition cites a report by Mancuso (2001b) on Idaho EOs to support portions of this claim. The report stated that concerns for *A. anserinus* are focused on the sharp decline in the number of plants over the past decade and possible habitat degradation problems related to recent wildfires and ongoing livestock use impacts. One report on Utah and Idaho occurrences of *Astragalus anserinus* (Mancuso and Moseley 1991, p. 22) identified indirect impacts from cattle grazing, such as trampling and trailing (moving cattle to, or between, allotments repeatedly on the same path), as primary existing threats to the species. However, neither this report nor the petition provides specific information on the magnitude or severity of livestock trampling and disturbance threats in Idaho, Nevada, or Utah. Multi-agency surveys conducted in 2004 and 2005 failed to detect any evidence of livestock impacts to *Astragalus anserinus* due to soil consumption (USFWS 2006, p. 1). Neither the petition nor the information available in our files indicate that livestock soil consumption presents a threat to the species. Public Land Management The petition indicates that changes in land management in Cassia County, Idaho, would pose a threat to *Astragalus anserinus* EOs in that county. The petition provides general information about management proposals submitted to the Idaho Federal Lands Task Force Working Group (Task Force) by the Twin Falls/Cassia Resource Enhancement Trust (Enhancement Trust). The Task Force proposed that public lands management be turned over to State and private groups. The petition states that the Enhancement Trust proposes significant alteration of habitat in Cassia County, Idaho, including habitats that currently support the species. It also states that the Enhancement Trust may recommend increasing the length of the grazing season on Federal lands, which would be detrimental to *A. anserinus* EOs. However, the petition does not provide a citation or reference material for the Task Force information. The alterations in land management identified in the petition have not occurred to date, and any change of management is speculative at this point. In addition, prior to occurring, Federal agencies must follow a specific process to relinquish ownership and management of public land, including compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and other laws. The coordination with the Service that would take place during that process would provide an opportunity for us to recommend conservation measures for *Astragalus anserinus* and other species of concern at that time. The petition does not provide evidence, nor is there any information in our files, that such a land transfer is imminent, or that the potential management change may be a significant threat to *A. anserinus* . Summary of Factor A The petition identifies potential factors, including livestock grazing and water development, and public land management, as threats to *Astragalus anserinus* habitat that are causing a decline in estimated plant numbers. We find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that livestock trampling or water development exist at levels that may threaten *A. anserinus* , that livestock soil consumption or public land management revisions may threaten the species, or that population declines exist in any of the EOs. B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes The petition indicates that any collection of *Astragalus anserinus* could pose additional and substantial risk to the species due to estimated low numbers of individuals (542 plants in all 3 States as of 2001). However, no collection efforts were documented, and we are unaware of any efforts in the planning stages. The petition states that past attempts to germinate seeds in the lab were not successful, and that this makes the species additionally vulnerable to any collection efforts. The petition cites a personal communication from Cheney
(2000)on failed germination attempts, but does not provide a full citation or supporting information. We are, therefore, unable to determine whether collection may be a risk factor for *A. anserinus* , based on information contained in the petition. Further, we are not aware of any information indicating that the overutilization of *A. anserinus* for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes may represent a significant threat to the species. Summary of Factor B The petition identifies collection as a threat to A *stragalus anserinus.* However, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that overutilization (collection) may threaten this species. C. Disease or Predation The petition states that disease and herbivory are potential threats to *Astragalus anserinus.* Information cited in the petition to support the claim that disease is a potential threat to the species is limited to an excerpt from Baird and Tuhy (1991): “It is possible that natural predation and disease have greater impacts on *A. anserinus* than those caused by livestock.” The petition provides general information about leguminous plants and possible herbivory of foliage and seeds, and indicates that natural herbivory of *Astragalus anserinus* exists. The petition states that regional fires have reduced the amount of habitat adjacent to *A. anserinus* EOs, increasing the likelihood of herbivory by invertebrates and wildlife. Herbivory by livestock is discussed as a potential threat to the species, with the magnitude of threat depending in part on whether water developments occur within EOs. Water developments are present within some EOs; however, no information presented in the petition, or available in our files, documents a relationship to herbivory by livestock. Livestock exclosure fencing is in place or planned for installation around *A. anserinus* occupied habitat in these EOs, reducing potential livestock impacts. The petition also states that herbivory by introduced gallinaceous species ( *e.g.* , quail, partridge, and turkey) is a potential threat, and discusses general distribution and diet information for these species. However, the petition provides no information on the magnitude or extent of potential impacts of herbivory on *Astralagus anserinus.* Information in our files indicates that fungal infection and insect or rabbit herbivory occur in some of the known *Astragalus anserinus* EOs (Glenne 2006). However, the documented fungus and herbivory conditions were not prevalent throughout an entire EO, nor throughout the range of *A. anserinus.* Accordingly, the magnitude of the threat from these factors appears to be low. We are not aware of any data indicating herbivory by livestock or introduced wildlife may be a factor threatening this species. Summary of Factor C The petition identifies disease and herbivory as threats to *Astragalus anserinus.* However, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that either of these factors may threaten this species. D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms The petition states that State and Federal agencies have failed to conduct regular monitoring for *Astragalus anserinus* throughout its range, and have failed to protect it from numerous direct and indirect impacts associated with livestock ( *i.e.* , water developments, trampling, and grazing) and invasive, non-native plants (see Factors A and E). The petition also states that mechanisms to regulate and control these various activities have failed to prevent harm to *A. anserinus* habitat. The petition also asserts that BLM has failed to enforce the Idaho Standards and Guidelines (State-specific policies under which lands are to be managed to maintain rangeland health and resources), and that the Nevada Standards and Guidelines are inadequate for the conservation of *Astragalus anserinus.* It further states that BLM in Utah has not adequately implemented the Utah Standards and Guidelines. The petition explains that BLM has indicated its intent to approve and construct water developments in Utah without conducting site-specific clearances, and refers to a project that would take place in a known occurrence of *A. anserinus.* Finally, the petition states that while the petitioners were under contract to the USFS, none of their recommended management or conservation actions for this species were ever implemented by the USFS or the Idaho Conservation Data Center. Information in our records confirms that regular monitoring of *Astragalus anserinus* or its known EOs has not historically been conducted. The Goose Creek drainage is in a remote area not easily accessed for monitoring; however, coordinated, multi-agency efforts were conducted in 2004, 2005, and 2006, and additional surveys and censuses are planned in the future (USFWS 2005a, pp. 1 and 2; 2005b, pp. 1 and 2; 2006, pp. 7-9). The petition's assertion that BLM is likely to approve and construct water developments without conducting site-specific clearances is not supported by the information in our files. Our records indicate that BLM conducted site-specific clearances in 2000 and 2002, prior to constructing the Goose Creek Pipeline number 2 in Utah (Hardy 2005, p. 5; USFWS 2005a, p. 3). Our records also indicate that, as a result of the clearance procedure and implementation of recommendations from the Service, there was no loss of *Astragalus anserinus* plants (Hardy 2005, p. 5; USFWS 2005a, p. 3). Finally, our records indicate that coordination among agencies on future development projects, weed control efforts, and other conservation efforts is underway (USFWS 2005b, p. 3; USFWS 2006, p. 6). Summary of Factor D The petition states that State and Federal agencies have failed to monitor and protect *Astragalus anserinus.* However, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that a lack of agency monitoring and protection efforts may threaten the species. E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued Existence The petition presents a number of other factors as having negative effects on the continued existence of *Astragalus anserinus,* including natural soil characteristics, failure of seeds to germinate, loss or lack of native pollinators, loss of genetic variability, fires and firefighting tactics, exotic and noxious weeds, road construction and maintenance, range improvements, off-road vehicle use, mining, and illegal trash dumping. Germination Failure and Natural Soil Characteristics The petition states that an attempt to germinate seeds collected from *Astragalus anserinus* was unsuccessful. The petition cites a personal communication from Cheney
(2000)for the information on germination and translocation of the species, but does not provide us with a full citation or supporting documentation. It further states that future seed collection, laboratory germination, and transplanting individuals back into suitable habitat in the Goose Creek watershed do not represent a viable option for the species' recovery and enhancement. Based on the failure to germinate seeds in a laboratory setting, petitioners conducted soil tests at occupied and potentially suitable but unoccupied sites. Soil test results indicated that all occupied sites contained low nutrient levels. The petition states that poor nutrient levels at occupied sites make it unlikely that *A. anserinus* EOs will expand within known habitats, or colonize or recolonize unoccupied habitat. The petition does not provide information on the techniques used during the attempted germination of *Astragalus anserinus,* and we are unable to assess whether appropriate dormancy breaking techniques were employed. Although the petition states that poor nutrient levels at occupied sites make it unlikely that occurrences of *A. anserinus* will expand, we are unaware of any studies relating *A. anserinus* colonization potential to soil nutrients. The species may be more tolerant of low nutrient soils, which could be a factor in its current distribution. Mancuso and Moseley (1991, p. 12) state that *A. anserinus* occurs in very low densities in many locations, and is commonly missing from similar-looking habitats near sites where it occurs. On balance, the data do not appear to indicate that low germination success or low nutrient levels in soils may be threats to this species. Native Pollinators The petition states that the potential loss or lack of native plant pollinators has been noted as a threat to the persistence of *Astragalus anserinus.* It indicates that pollinators are adversely impacted by livestock through habitat degradation, loss of food sources, and trampling of ground nests, and that *A. anserinus* reproduction is then reduced by lack of pollination. Mancuso and Mosely (1991, p. 24) cited a study by Sugden (1985, p. 309) on the trampling effects of sheep grazing on a rare milk-vetch in California with a life history similar to that of *A. anserinus.* This study was compared to discussion by Mancuso and Mosely on livestock effects to *A. anserinus.* However, the petition does not present documentation of loss or decline of native pollinators within *A. anserinus* habitat. Loss of Genetic Variability The petition states that loss of genetic variability was likely occurring because *Astragalus anserinus* plants are few in number and the remaining individuals are widely scattered. No supporting data or information on whether genetic variability of *A. anserinus* is being lost is provided in the petition or its supporting materials. In addition, interagency census efforts conducted in 2004 and 2005 resulted in detections of 43,458 *A. anserinus* plants rangewide (USFWS 2006, Table 1). Fires and Firefighting The petition cites Mancuso (2001b) as stating that fires have had an apparent impact on Idaho EOs of *Astragalus anserinus.* It states that fires can result in additional herbivory of native plants and accelerated weed invasions, and that wildfires in 2000 resulted in blading of fire lines and roads (for firefighting) through occupied *A. anserinus* habitat (Petition, p. 56). The petitioners also provide one example of blading at a potential *A. anserinus* site (Petition, p. 21). However, interagency surveys conducted in 2004 and 2005 did not document the blading of fire lines or roads through *A. anserinus* EOs (USFWS 2006, pp. 4-5 and Table 1). The petition does not provide information regarding the threat posed by fires and firefighting tactics to *A. anserinus* EOs in Utah and Nevada, and our files indicate that surveyors were unable to demonstrate a link between fires and increased herbivory in 2004 and 2005 (USFWS 2006, pp. 4-5, and Table 1). Nonnative and Noxious Plants The petition states that nonnative and noxious plants are currently impacting or threatening *Astragalus anserinus* EOs. It cites Mancuso and Moseley
(1991)as having observed *Euphorbia esula* (leafy spurge) in the region in 1991, but not in any *A. anserinus* EOs, and that *E. esula* was documented in four EOs and near two EOs in 2001 (Mancuso 2001a). Information in our files corroborates the petition's claim that nonnative and noxious plants may be impacting *Astragalus anserinus* EOs. Our records indicate that during the 2004 and 2005 surveys and census efforts, *Euphorbia esula* was detected at or near 7 of the 10 sites in Idaho and 2 of the 10 sites in Utah (USFWS 2006, p. 4), in spite of the fact that efforts to control *E. esula* within the Goose Creek drainage have been underway for several years. Control efforts for *E. esula* are increasing, but past efforts to control this species in the Goose Creek drainage have not halted its spread, and it has been found directly competing with *Astragalus anserinus* at three sites (USFWS 2006, p. 4). Based on the information provided in the petition and other information available in our files, we have determined that *Euphorbia esula* competition may present a threat to *A. anserinus,* because it often creates monocultures where little or no other native vegetation persists. *Euphorbia esula* displaces other vegetation by shading, reducing water and nutrients available to other plants, and produceing plant toxins that prevent the growth of other plants beneath it. In addition, because of its persistent nature and ability to regenerate from small pieces of root, *E. esula* is extremely difficult to eradicate. The petition also states that *Halogeton glomeratus* (halogeton) was present within one EO, and *Bromus tectorum* (cheatgrass) was present in four Idaho EOs in 2001, although these species were not documented at these locations in 2000. Information from our 2004 and 2005 surveys confirmed *H. glomeratus* near one *Astragalus anserinus* EO (USFWS 2006, p. 4). It is presently undetermined whether the presence of *B. tectorum* or *H. glomeratus* may present a threat to *A. anserinus.* Road Construction and Maintenance The petition identifies loss of habitat and loss of individual *Astragalus anserinus* plants resulting from road construction and maintenance as a concern, and cites the widening of the Coal Banks road through an extant Idaho occurrence in 2001 as an example. However, it does not provide specific information on the threat of road construction and maintenance in other portions of *A. anserinus* 's range. Information from our files, specifically Mancuso and Moseley (1991, p. 22), indicates that some habitat was likely destroyed during construction of a network of secondary roads that cross much of the Goose Creek Basin. During the 2004 and 2005 surveys, *Astragalus anserinus* was observed as generally occurring in loose soils, although a few plants were found in areas with compacted soils (USFWS 2006, p. 1). However, field observations suggest that *A. anserinus* is capable of withstanding, and is possibly adapted to, some level of natural disturbance, because plants were found in washes and on steep slopes where downward soil movement occurs (USFWS 2006, p. 1). *Astragalus anserinus* was found on unimproved roads and livestock trail margins, but not in tire tracks or livestock trails, presumably because compaction is too great (USFWS 2006, p. 1). Roads were observed in three *A. anserinus* EOs in Idaho, two EOs in Nevada, and one EO in Utah (USFWS 2006, Table 1). It is likely that road construction and maintenance have an adverse effect on *A. anserinus* through temporary loss of habitat or individuals, and that some habitat is lost through road development; however it is unclear whether such adverse effects may threaten the species. Range Management The petition identifies habitat loss from range management as a negative impact to *Astragalus anserinus.* Petitioners state that *Agropyron cristatum* (crested wheatgrass), which is seeded to establish forage for livestock and for erosion control, was growing within occupied *A. anserinus* habitat, resulting in habitat modifications that may preclude *A. anserinus* 's occupation. The petition also indicates that fencing and vegetation treatments, such as chaining or controlled burns, may contribute to adverse habitat modification. The petition does not provide specific information on the magnitude, extent, or severity of these threats. Our records indicate that range management in the Goose Creek area consists primarily of water development projects (see Pipeline and Water Development and Livestock under Factor A above) and *Agropyron cristatum* seedings. *A. cristatum* was documented at two *Astragalus anserinus* EOs in Idaho, one EO in Nevada, and three EOs and a new site in Utah, during the 2004 and 2005 census efforts (USFWS 2006, p. 5). *A. cristatum* seedings are extensive within *A. anserinus* habitat, especially in Utah. The two species are typically spatially separated, with *A. cristatum* growing on flatter areas and *A. anserinus* occurring on sloping areas (USFWS 2006, p. 5). Maps obtained from BLM's Salt Lake City Office indicate that *A. cristatum* was seeded directly on top of numerous *A. anserinus* EOs; however, this could not be confirmed during field observations. Since *A. cristatum* was seldom observed on steeper slopes where *A. anserinus* is established, the steep slopes may have been too difficult to plant and were avoided for this reason (USFWS 2006, p. 5). Off-road Vehicle
(ORV)Use, Mining, and Illegal Trash Dumping The petition discusses ORV use as a potential threat to *Astragalus anserinus,* and cites DeBolt
(1989)and Mancuso (2001b) as first describing ORV use as a threat to the species, because of rapidly increasing ORV use in Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. Neither a complete citation for the DeBolt reference nor supporting documentation is provided in the petition. The petition refers to illegal trash dumping as a potential threat to *A. anserinus,* and states that although dumping is limited in scope, the potential impact is important to consider. It also discusses mining that historically occurred in and near occupied habitat, and states that if mining efforts were to increase, they could present substantial threats to the species. The petition does not provide information on the number of *A. anserinus* occurrences impacted or the magnitude, extent, or severity of impacts from ORV use, trash dumping, or mining. Our records indicate that one ORV track was observed in the 2004 surveys near an *Astragalus anserinus* EO, but not within the EO itself (USFWS 2006, Table 1). One trash dump was observed on private land near an *A. anserinus* EO in Utah during the 2004 surveys (USFWS 2006, p. 5). While ORV use and illegal trash dumping occur in the range of the species and may impact some individuals, the magnitude and extent of these threats appear to be low at this time. We lack information on potential or actual threats that mining activities may present to *A. anserinus.* Summary of Factor E The petition identifies numerous potential factors, including seed germination failure and native soil characteristics, loss of native pollinators, loss of genetic variability, fires and firefighting tactics, nonnative and noxious plants, road construction and maintenance, range management, ORV use, mining, and illegal trash dumping, as threats to *Astragalus anserinus.* We find that the petition along with information available in our files presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that competition with *Euphorbia esula* may present a threat to *A. anserinus* from shading, reducing available water and nutrients, and producing plant toxins that prevent the growth of other plants beneath it. Because of its persistent nature and ability to regenerate from small pieces of root, *E. esula* is extremely difficult to eradicate. However, based on the available information, it is unclear whether the potential factors of seed germination failure and native soil characteristics, loss of native pollinators, loss of genetic variability, fires and firefighting tactics, road construction and maintenance, range management, ORV use, mining, and illegal trash dumping identified by the petition may threaten this species. We will consider information related to these factors during the status review. Finding We have reviewed the petition and literature cited in the petition, and evaluated the information determined to be reliable to make this finding. We also reviewed reliable information that was readily available in our files to evaluate the reliability of information in the petition. The petition presents information that degradation of habitat from invasive exotic species and noxious plant species may have contributed to habitat loss and population declines. The information in our files supports the petition's statements regarding this threat to *Astragalus anserinus.* Survey information available in our files corroborates that *Euphorbia esula* has been documented at several EOs, and may represent a threat to *A. anserinus,* based on *A. anserinus'* difficulty in competing with this nonnative, invasive species (USFWS 2006 p. 4). Therefore, based on our review, we find that the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing *A. anserinus* may be warranted. As such, we are initiating a status review to determine whether listing *A. anserinus* under the Act is warranted. We have also reviewed the available information to determine if the existing and foreseeable threats pose an emergency to *Astragalus anserinus.* We have determined that an emergency listing is not warranted at this time, based on the information provided in the petition and otherwise available in our files. This determination is based on the fact that none of the threats, aside from a catastrophic fire, are capable of eliminating a substantial portion of the species over the course of the next 2 or 3 years. Catastrophic and other natural wildfires are normally beyond management control and difficult to predict, but the open ash, sparsely vegetated habitat sites where *A. anserinus* occurs rarely burn. All known sites of the population are assumed extant, and a paucity of information makes it difficult to establish population trends. Based on the information contained in the petition and information provided through discussions with knowledgeable individuals, we do not believe that an emergency listing of this species is warranted because while the plant's current status range-wide is unclear or unknown, there are no known range-wide imminent threat(s). However, if at any time we determine that emergency listing of this species is warranted, we will seek to initiate an emergency listing. References Cited A complete list of all references cited is available, upon request, from the Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ). Author The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ). Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Dated: August 9, 2007. H. Dale Hall, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E7-16145 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Status of the Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Status review; reopening of public comment period. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our review of the Rio Grande cutthroat trout ( *Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis* ) to determine if candidate status is warranted. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), requires that we identify species of wildlife and plants that are endangered or threatened, based on the best available scientific and commercial information. Through the Federal rulemaking process, we add these species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11 or the List of Endangered or Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. As part of this program, we maintain a list of species that we regard as candidates for listing. A candidate is one for which we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened but for which preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher-priority listing actions. During or prior to April of 2008, we will make a determination concerning the results of the status review for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout and, shortly thereafter, we will publish this determination in the **Federal Register** . Comments previously submitted on the status of the Rio Grande cutthroat trout need not be resubmitted as they have been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in preparation of the final revised status review. DATES: We will accept comments and information from all interested parties for our use in the status review and in preparing a revised finding until September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials by any of the following methods: 1. You may mail or hand-deliver your written comments and information to Wally “J” Murphy, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113. 2. You may fax your comments to Wally “J” Murphy, Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, at
(505)346-2542. 3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to *R2FWE_AL@fws.gov.* 4. You may go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of the candidate status review, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, at the street address above (telephone:
(505)346-2525). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wally “J” Murphy, Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES ) (telephone:
(505)346-2525; facsimile:
(505)346-2542). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at
(800)877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background For background information on the events leading to our notice of intent to initiate a status review for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout, refer to our notice published in the **Federal Register** on May 22, 2007 (72 FR 28664). Request for Information On May 22, 2007, we published a notice of intent to initiate a candidate status review for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout (72 FR 28644). We accepted public comments for inclusion in the status review for 45 days, ending July 6, 2007. In response to requests from interested parties, we are reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days (see DATES ) to offer all interested parties an opportunity to submit data and information for inclusion in our status review for this species. Our determination of candidate status for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout must be based upon the best available scientific and commercial data, as required under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). We request that you submit any information on the Rio Grande cutthroat trout not previously submitted for our review. We are particularly interested in any relevant information gathered since June 2002 concerning the following:
(1)Current population status (e.g., population estimates, age-structure, trend) for any of the populations of the Rio Grande cutthroat trout, including methodology used for population estimation and confidence intervals if available;
(2)Rio Grande cutthroat trout's susceptibility to whirling disease, and distribution of Rio Grande cutthroat trout infected by whirling disease in New Mexico and Colorado;
(3)Distribution of *Tubifix tubifix* (tubificid worms), an intermediate host of the parasite known to cause whirling disease in trout, and the susceptibility of these worms to the parasite in the streams of New Mexico and Colorado;
(4)Genetic classification of any Rio Grande cutthroat trout population(s);
(5)Condition of occupied habitat;
(6)Restoration projects that have been completed, including translocation, new barrier construction or barrier repair, habitat improvement projects, or nonnative trout removal projects;
(7)Results of barrier surveys;
(8)Distribution of nonnative trout or their population size and structure in streams currently occupied by Rio Grande cutthroat trout;
(9)Status of any of the thirteen “core” populations identified in the 2002 status review (see 67 FR 39936);
(10)Current and future threats to Rio Grande cutthroat trout populations and remaining habitat areas;
(11)Other regulatory mechanisms that address those threats; and the success of those mechanisms to date; and
(12)Whether any portion of the range of the species is a significant portion of the range, and whether there are threats in that portion sufficient to meet the standards for listing under the Act. Our candidate status review will take into consideration all comments and any additional information received, including all previous comments and information submitted during the 2002 candidate status review. As such, information provided during the previous status review does not need to be resubmitted. If you are submitting e-mail comments, please include “Attn: Rio Grande cutthroat trout” in your e-mail subject header. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail, contact us directly by calling our New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office at
(505)346-2525. Please note that comments must be received by the date specified in the DATES section in order to be considered and that the e-mail address ( *R2FWE_AL@fws.gov* ) will be unavailable at the termination of the public comment period. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, 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. Author The primary author of this notice is the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Southwest Ecological Services Regional Office. Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: August 10, 2007. H. Dale Hall, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E7-16144 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 72 158 Thursday, August 16, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Glenn/Colusa County Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Glenn/Colusa County Resource Advisory Committee
(RAC)will meet in Willows, California. Agenda items covered include:
(1)Introductions,
(2)Approve Minutes,
(3)Public Comment,
(4)Finalize Voting on Projects,
(5)General Discussion,
(6)Next Agenda. DATES: The meeting will be held on August 27, 2007, from 1:30 p.m. and end at approximately 4:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Mendocino National Forest Supervisor's Office, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988. Individuals who wish to speak or propose agenda items send their names and proposals to Eduardo Olmedo, DFO, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobbin Gaddini, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, P.O. Box 164, Elk Creek, CA 95939.
(530)968-1815; e-mail *ggaddini@fs.fed.us.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee will file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions are provided and individuals who made written requests by August 24, 2007 have the opportunity to address the Committee at those sessions. Dated: August 8, 2007. Eduardo Olmedo, Designated Federal Official. [FR Doc. 07-4004 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 19
Traces to 19 documents
29 references not yet in our index
  • 47 CFR 1
  • 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2)
  • 47 CFR 1.415
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 110 Stat. 847
  • 47 CFR 21.961(b)(1)
  • Pub. L. 194-134
  • 47 CFR 1.1164
  • 47 CFR 1.1164(c)
  • Pub. L. 104-134
  • 47 CFR 1.1166
  • Pub. L. 109-383
  • 47 CFR 1.1206(b)
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • Pub. L. 107-198
  • 47 USC 54(i)
  • 49 CFR 571
  • 49 CFR 552
  • 49 CFR 552.13(g)
  • 49 CFR 572
  • 49 CFR 571.208
  • 49 CFR 1.50
  • 50 CFR 17
  • 50 CFR 424.14(b)
  • 50 CFR 424.14(a)
  • 50 CFR 424
  • 50 CFR 17.11
  • 50 CFR 17.12
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Proposed rule
U.S.C.§ 603
U.S.C.§ 154
U.S.C.§ 601
U.S.C.§ 632
U.S.C.§ 309
C.F.R.§ 121.201
U.S.C.§ 3711
Stat.Public Law 104–133
U.S.C.§ 7701
Cite47 CFR 1
Cite47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2)
Cite47 CFR 1.415
Cites 48 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.