Unknown. Final rule
27,061 words·~123 min read·
/register/2007/10/12/07-5037A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2007-10-12.xml --- 72 197 Friday, October 12, 2007 Contents Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Prunes (fresh) grown in Washington and Oregon, 58003-58005 E7-20145 NOTICES Meetings: National Organic Standards Board, 58046-58047 07-5042 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Forest Service Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:
Sweet cherries from Australia; pest risk analysis, 58047-58048 E7-20166 Blind Blind or Severely Disabled, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are See Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Antimicrobial resistance; public health action plan, 58096 E7-20125 Centers Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 58096-58098 E7-20150 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:
Child Welfare Training, 58098 E7-20094 Commerce Commerce Department See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration See Patent and Trademark Office Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement list; additions and deletions, 58050-58052 E7-20147 E7-20148 Defense Defense Department See Navy Department Education Education Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E7-20096 58062-58065 E7-20097 E7-20099 E7-20100 E7-20101 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:
Special education and rehabilitative services— Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Multi-Year Individualized Education Program Demonstration Program, 58068-58071 E7-20157 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Paperwork Waiver Demonstration Program, 58066-58068 E7-20154 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Adjustment assistance; applications, determinations, etc.: CCC Associates, 58128 E7-20112 Diaz Intermediates Corp. et al., 58128-58129 E7-20110 KLA-Tencor, 58129 E7-20109 Metolius Mountain Products et al., 58129-58131 E7-20111 Energy Energy Department See Western Area Power Administration RULES Energy conservation:
Commercial and industrial equipment, energy efficiency program— Distribution transformers, 58190-58241 E7-19582 NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Yucca Mountain, Nye County, NV; spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste disposal geological repository; rail alignment for railroad construction, 58071-58074 E7-20135 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: California, 58013-58016 E7-20059 Florida, 58016-58020 E7-19644 PROPOSED RULES Air programs:
Ambient air quality standards, national— 8-hour ozone standard; level revised to provide increased protection for children and other at-risk populations; hearings; correction, 58030-58031 E7-20246 Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: California, 58031 E7-20058 NOTICES Air pollution control: State operating permits programs— Kentucky, 58078 E7-20173 Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, 58078-58080 E7-20146 Environmental statements; availability, etc.:
Agency comment availability, 58080-58081 E7-20149 Agency weekly receipts, 58081-58082 E7-20185 Meetings: Gulf of Mexico Program Policy Review Board, 58082 E7-20155 Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, 58082 E7-20153 Pesticide registration, cancellation, etc.: Aldicarb, 58082-58084 E7-20105 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: National enforcement and compliance assurance priorities (2008-2010 FYs), 58084-58085 E7-20164 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness directives:
Boeing, 58007-58008 E7-20037 Stemme GmbH & Co. KG, 58005-58007 E7-20123 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness directives: Plaggio Aero Industries S.p.A., 58028-58030 E7-20126 NOTICES Aeronautical land-use assurance; waivers: Clinton County Airport, Plattsburgh, NY, 58147 07-5036 Lafayette Regional Airport, LA, 58147 07-5035 FCC Federal Communications Commission RULES Common carrier services: Wireless telecommunications services— Bell Operating Companies separate affiliate and related requirements; sunset, 58021-58027 07-5037 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 58085-58087 E7-20178 E7-20180 E7-20200 07-5055 FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 58087-58088 E7-20187 Federal Election Federal Election Commission PROPOSED RULES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Electioneering Communications, 58028 E7-20107 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES National Flood Insurance Program: Communities eligible for sale, 58020-58021 E7-20129 NOTICES Disaster and emergency areas: Texas, E7-20127 58109 E7-20128 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: National Reponse Framework; comment extension, 58109-58110 E7-20177 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.:
San Bernardino County, CA, 58148-58149 07-5049 Highway planning and construction; licenses, permits, approvals, etc.: Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright Counties, MN, 58149 07-5044 Federal Housing Federal Housing Finance Board NOTICES Federal home loan bank system: Community support review; members selected, 58088-58095 07-5058 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings: Medical Review Board, 58149 E7-20106 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and threatened species:
Recovery plans— Spalding's catchfly, 58111-58112 E7-20159 Environmental statements; notice of intent: Incidental take permits— Agua Caliente Tribal Habitat, Riverside County, CA, 58112-58113 E7-19852 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Medical device use fee rates and payment procedures (FY 2008), 58099-58102 07-5051 Meetings: In Vitro Analysis of Cell/Scaffold Medical Products; Workshop, 58102 E7-20191 Prescription drug user fee rates (FY 2008), 58103-58106 07-5052 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:
Electrocardiograph electrodes; Class II special controls; correction, 58106 E7-20183 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Sierra National Forest, CA; sugar pine adaptive management program, 58048-58050 07-5033 Meetings: California Coast Provincial Advisory Committee, 58050 07-5040 Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Advisory Council, 58050 07-5043 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services See Children and Families Administration See Food and Drug Administration See Health Resources and Services Administration See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings:
American Health Information Community, 58095 07-5047 Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Secretary's Office and Public Health Service, 58095-58096 07-5046 Health Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 58106 E7-20171 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Federal Emergency Management Agency See National Communications System NOTICES Meetings: Homeland Security Information Network Advisory Committee, 58108-58109 E7-20174 Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:
Homeless assistance; excess and surplus Federal properties, 58156-58187 E7-19996 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau See National Park Service International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping: Ball bearings and parts from— Various countries, 58053-58055 E7-20151 Frozen warmwater shrimp from— China, 58055-58056 E7-20152 Furfuryl alcohol from— Thailand, 58056-58057 E7-20156 Antidumping and countervailing duties:
Pasta from— Turkey and Italy, 58052-58053 E7-20160 Justice Justice Department NOTICES Pollution control; consent judgments: 3M Co., 58122-58123 07-5034 Afton Chemical Corp. et al., 58123 07-5026 Asarco LLC, 58123-58124 07-5028 BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc., 58124 07-5031 BNSF Railway Co., 58124-58125 07-5048 City of Hastings, et al., 58125 07-5030 Evergreen Pulp, Inc., 58125 07-5024 Ferguson Harbour Service Inc. et al., 58126 07-5029 Great Lakes Carbon LLC, 58126-58127 07-5025 M.A.
Hanna Plastics Group, Inc., et al., 58127 07-5032 Richmond American Homes of Arizona, Inc., 58127-58128 07-5027 Textron Systems Corp., 58128 07-5023 Labor Labor Department See Employment and Training Administration Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Moxa Arch Area Infill Gas Development Project, WY, 58113-58114 E7-20114 Northeast National Petroleum Reserve, AK— Integrated activity plan; comment period extension, 58114 E7-20133 Toquop Energy Project, NV, 58115 E7-20162 Meetings:
Resource Advisory Councils— Alaska, 58115-58116 E7-20124 Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board, 58116-58117 E7-20108 Oil and gas leases: Colorado, E7-20141 58117 E7-20143 Resource management plans, etc.: Kane and Garfield Counties, UT, 58117-58121 E7-20115 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 58150 E7-20095 Coastwise trade laws; administrative waivers: LIQUID BLUE, 58150-58151 E7-20062 SEA MIST, 58151 E7-20093 TRILOGY, 58151-58152 E7-20092 National Communications National Communications System NOTICES Meetings:
National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, 58110-58111 E7-20130 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Fishery conservation and management: Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic fisheries— Shrimp, 58031-58045 07-5061 NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Cordell Bank National Marine Sancutary Advisory Council, 58057 07-5038 Environmental statements; notice of intent: Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic fisheries— Puerto Rico and U.S.
Virgin Islands queen conch, 58057-58058 E7-20176 Meetings: Inter-American Tropical Tun Commission; U.S. Section General Advisory Committee, 58058-58059 E7-20172 Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, 58059 07-5053 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Grand Bay (Mississippi) National Estuarine Research Reserve, Alabama Coastal Management Program and Virgin Island Coast Management Program; evaluations and, 58059-58060 E7-20158 National Park National Park Service PROPOSED RULES Golden Gate National Recreation Area Dog Management Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee; meeting, 58030 E7-20134 NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.:
Denali National Park and Preserve Aircraft Overflights Advisory Council, 58122 07-5045 Environmental statements; record of decision: Cape Cod Seashore, MA; hunting program, 58122 07-5050 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Meetings: Marine Corps University Board of Visitors, 58062 E7-20163 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 58060-58062 E7-20136 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals:
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 58132-58133 E7-20080 Joint Industry Plan: American Stock Exchange LLC et al., 58133-58135 E7-20116 E7-20117 Meetings: Improvements to Financial Reporting Advisory Committee, 58135-58136 E7-20131 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, 58136-58137 E7-20118 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 58137-58143 E7-20081 E7-20120 NYSE Arca, Inc., 58143-58146 E7-20119 E7-20121 E7-20122 State State Department NOTICES Culturally significant objects imported for exhibition:
Objects for Water: H2O=Life, 58146-58147 E7-20161 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Federal agency urine drug testing; certified laboratories meeting minimum standards; list, 58106-58108 E7-20203 Thrift Thrift Supervision Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 58152 E7-20182 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration See Maritime Administration Treasury Treasury Department See Thrift Supervision Office Veterans Veterans Affairs Department RULES Legal services, General Counsel, and miscellaneous claims:
Service organization representatives and agents; accreditation, 58009-58013 E7-20211 NOTICES Real Property; enhanced-use leases: North Chicago, IL; VA Medical Center, 58152-58153 E7-20102 Western Western Area Power Administration NOTICES Environmental statements; record of decision: San Luis Rio Colorado Project, AZ, 58074-58078 E7-20179 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Housing and Urban Development Department, 58156-58187 E7-19996 Part III Energy Department, 58190-58241 E7-19582 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 72 197 Friday, October 12, 2007 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 924 [Docket No. AMS-FV-07-0087; FV07-924-1 FIR] Fresh Prunes Grown in Designated Counties in Washington and in Umatilla County, OR;
Decreased Assessment Rate AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim final rule which decreased the assessment rate established for the Washington-Oregon Fresh Prune Marketing Committee (Committee) for the 2007-2008 and subsequent fiscal periods from $1.75 to $1.00 per ton of prunes handled. The Committee locally administers the marketing order, which regulates the handling of fresh prunes grown in designated counties in Washington and in Umatilla County, Oregon. Assessments upon fresh prune handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period begins April 1 and ends March 31. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 13, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Curry or Gary D. Olson, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third Avenue, suite 385, Portland, OR 97204; Telephone:
(503)326-2724; Fax:
(503)326-7440; or E-mail: *Robert.Curry@usda.gov* or *GaryD.Olson@usda.gov.* Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone:
(202)720-2491; Fax:
(202)720-8938; or E-mail: *Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 924 (7 CFR 924), regulating the handling of fresh prunes grown in designated counties in Washington and in Umatilla County, Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, Washington-Oregon prune handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable prunes beginning April 1, 2007, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2007-2008 and subsequent fiscal periods from $1.75 to $1.00 per ton of prunes handled. The order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers in designated counties in Washington and in Umatilla County, Oregon. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate was formulated and discussed at a public meeting, thus all directly affected persons had an opportunity to participate and provide input. For the 2004-2005 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate of $1.75 per ton of fresh prunes handled. This assessment rate continues in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA. The Committee met on May 29, 2007, and unanimously recommended 2007-2008 expenditures of $9,043 and a decreased assessment rate of $1.00 per ton. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $5,600, and the assessment rate of $1.00 is $0.75 lower than the rate that had been in effect since the 2004-2005 fiscal period. The Committee recommended the assessment rate change for the purpose of reducing its monetary reserve to a level commensurate with the maximum permitted by the order of approximately one fiscal period's operational expenses (7 CFR 924.42). The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2007-2008 fiscal period include $4,800 for the management fee, $1,000 for Committee travel expenses, $3,000 for the annual financial audit, and $100 for compliance. In comparison, budgeted expenses for the 2006-2007 season were $4,200, $800, $500, and $100, respectively. In addition, the Committee also budgeted an additional $343 this fiscal period to cover the cost of insurance, bonds, equipment maintenance, and other possible miscellaneous expenses. The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of Washington-Oregon prunes. Applying the $1.00 per ton assessment rate to the Committee's 4,400-ton crop estimate should provide $4,400 in assessment income. This assessment income in addition to approximately $4,643 from the Committee's reserve would be adequate to cover the recommended $9,043 budget for the 2007-2008 fiscal period. As of March 31, 2007, there was $8,815 in the Committee's reserve. The assessment rate established with this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information. Although the assessment rate is effective for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate the Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2007-2008 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. There are approximately 215 producers of fresh prunes in the regulated production area and approximately 10 handlers subject to regulation under the order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $6,500,000. Based on information compiled by both the Committee and the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the average annual revenue from the sale of fresh prunes was approximately $8,440 per producer in 2006. This estimate is based on 215 producers with a total utilized production of 5,200 tons selling for an average of $349 per ton. In addition, based on Committee records and 2006 f.o.b. prices ranging from $14.00 to $16.50 per 30-pound container as reported by AMS Market News Service, the entire Washington-Oregon fresh prune industry handled less than $6,500,000 worth of prunes last season. In view of the foregoing, the majority of Washington-Oregon fresh prune producers and handlers may be classified as small entities. This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2007-2008 and subsequent fiscal periods from $1.75 to $1.00 per ton. The Committee unanimously recommended 2007-2008 expenditures of $9,043 and the $1.00 per ton assessment rate at the May 29, 2007, meeting. The assessment rate of $1.00 is $0.75 lower than the rate that had been in effect since the 2004-2005 fiscal period. With an estimated 2007-2008 prune crop of 4,400 tons, income from the $1.00 assessment combined with funds from the Committee's monetary reserve should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. The Committee recommended the lower assessment rate to help decrease the monetary reserve. Funds in the reserve ($8,815 as of March 31, 2007) will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order of approximately one fiscal period's operational expenses (§ 924.42). The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2007-2008 fiscal period include $4,800 for the management fee, $1,000 for Committee travel expenses, $3,000 for the annual financial audit, and $100 for compliance. The Committee discussed alternatives to this rule, including alternative expenditure levels. Higher assessment rates were considered, but not recommended because of the potential of generating too much income and thus maintaining the reserve fund at an amount higher than program requirements allow. A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming crop year indicates that the producer price for the 2007-2008 season could average about $325 per ton. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2007-2008 fiscal period as a percentage of total producer revenue could approximate 0.31 percent. This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Washington-Oregon fresh prune industry and all interested persons were invited to attend and participate in the Committee's deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the May 29, 2007, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Washington-Oregon fresh prune handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. Furthermore, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. An interim final rule concerning this action was published in the **Federal Register** on July 13, 2007 (72 FR 38463). Copies of that rule were also made available to Committee members and other industry members by Committee staff and through the Internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 60-day comment period was provided for interested persons to respond to the interim final rule. The comment period ended on September 11, 2007, and no comments were received. A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.* Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 924 Plums, Prunes, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. PART 924—FRESH PRUNES GROWN IN DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN WASHINGTON AND IN UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 924 which was published at 72 FR 38463 on July 13, 2007, is adopted as a final rule without change. Dated: October 9, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-20145 Filed 10-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28958; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-070-AD; Amendment 39-15227; AD 2007-21-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Stemme GmbH & Co. KG Model S10-VT Gliders AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: As a result of a fault report from a Stemme S10-VT operator, an investigation of the differential fuel pressure sensor 11AB-K01 was performed. The fault report describes a fuel leak through the air pressure line into the airbox. The fuel escaped through the drainage tubes. As a result of this investigation, the possibility of a leak to the engine compartment cannot be excluded. This AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: This AD becomes effective November 1, 2007. On November 1, 2007, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD. We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Davison, Glider Program Manager, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4130; fax:
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2007-0191-E, dated July 13, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: As a result of a fault report from a Stemme S10-VT operator, an investigation of the differential fuel pressure sensor 11AB-K01 was performed. The fault report describes a fuel leak through the air pressure line into the airbox. The fuel escaped through the drainage tubes. As a result of this investigation, the possibility of a leak to the engine compartment cannot be excluded. Differential fuel pressure sensor type 11AB-KD was designed end of year 2003 after the end of production of the old differential fuel pressure sensor 11AB-K01. The old differential fuel pressure sensor 11AB-K01 was installed into the serial production until April 2004. The differential fuel pressure sensor 11AB-K01 has a life time limitation of 5 years. The new differential fuel pressure sensor 11AB-KD has no life time limitation. Stemme AG has issued Service Bulletin A31-10-081, describing the repetitive inspection and ultimate replacement of the old differential fuel pressure sensor 11AB-K01. Some 32 installation kits (11AB-KIT) containing the type 11AB-KD sensor were provided to different owners of Stemme S10-VT aircraft in the period between April 2003 and May 2007. The Stemme-Group has no information about the installation of these kits. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD. Relevant Service Information STEMME F & D has issued Service Bulletin A31-10-081, Am.-Index: 01.a, dated June 25, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might have also required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the AD. These requirements take precedence over those copied from the MCAI. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because a fuel leak through the drainage tubes was found following the investigation of the differential pressure sensor 11AB-K01. A Stemme S10 VT operator made a fault report describing a fuel leak through the air pressure line into the airbox, prompting the investigation. The fuel escaped through the drainage tubes. As a result of this investigation, the possibility of a leak in the engine compartment cannot be excluded. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28958; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-070-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-21-09 Stemme GmbH & Co. KG:** Amendment 39-15227; Docket No. FAA-2007-28958; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-070-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective November 1, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Stemme Model S10-VT gliders, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)Code 28: Fuel. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: As a result of a fault report from a Stemme S10-VT operator, an investigation of the differential fuel pressure sensor 11AB-K01 was performed. The fault report describes a fuel leak through the air pressure line into the airbox. The fuel escaped through the drainage tubes. As a result of this investigation, the possibility of a leak to the engine compartment cannot be excluded. Differential fuel pressure sensor type 11AB-KD was designed end of year 2003 after the end of production of the old differential fuel pressure sensor 11AB-K01. The old differential fuel pressure sensor 11AB-K01 was installed into the serial production until April 2004. The differential fuel pressure sensor 11AB-K01 has a lifetime limitation of 5 years. The new differential fuel pressure sensor 11AB-KD has no lifetime limitation. Stemme AG has issued Service Bulletin A31-10-081, describing the repetitive inspection and ultimate replacement of the old differential fuel pressure sensor 11AB-K01. Some 32 installation kits (11AB-KIT) containing the type 11AB-KD sensor were provided to different owners of Stemme S10-VT aircraft in the period between April 2003 and May 2007. The Stemme-Group has no information about the installation of these kits. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)*For all gliders with a type 11AB-K01 fuel pressure sensor installed:*
(i)Before further flight after November 1, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), insert Stemme S10-VT Flight Manual page 4-2, Amendment No.: 3-SB A31-10-081, date of issue September 9, 1997, as attached to STEMME F & D Service Bulletin A31-10-081, Am.-Index: 01.a, dated June 25, 2007, into the Limitations section of the applicable airplane flight manual (AFM), upgrading the third check item “Daily Inspection” according to chapter 4.3, subchapter 4.3.1 “Engine”: “* * * installed differential fuel pressure sensor must be checked with fuel cock “OPEN” and main fuel pumps ”ON”, for any signs of leakage in the area of case splitting.” The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may do this action. Make an entry in the aircraft records showing compliance with this portion of the AD following section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).
(ii)If fuel leakage is found during any of the daily checks as required by the AFM insert of paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD, before further flight, repair any damage and replace the type 11AB-K01 sensor with the new type 11AB-KD sensor.
(iii)Within 30 days after November 1, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), replace any remaining type 11AB-K01 differential fuel pressure sensors with the new version 11AB-KD sensors.
(iv)After installation of the 11AB-KD differential fuel pressure sensor, remove the additionally introduced page from the Limitations section of the AFM as required by paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD. The repetitive daily inspection is no longer required.
(2)*For all airplanes:* As of 30 days after November 1, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), do not install a type 11AB-K01 differential fuel pressure sensor on any of the affected gliders as a replacement part. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Greg Davison, Glider Program Manager, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4130; fax:
(816)329-4090. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)AD No.: 2007-0191-E, dated July 13, 2007, and STEMME F & D Service Bulletin A31-10-081, Am.-Index: 01.a, dated June 25, 2007, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use STEMME F & D Service Bulletin A31-10-081 Am.-Index: 01.a, dated June 25, 2007 (which includes Flight Manual Stemme S10-VT, page 4-2, Amendment No.: 3-SB A31-10-081, issued September 9, 1997), to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Stemme GmbH & Co. KG, Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25, D-13355 Berlin, Germany; Telephone: +49-3341-3111-70; Facsimile: +49-3341-3111-73.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 4, 2007. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-20123 Filed 10-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28378; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-089-AD; Amendment 39-15222; AD 2007-21-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Boeing Model 727 airplanes. This AD requires doing an initial detailed inspection for cracks in the aft pressure bulkhead web; repairing any discrepancy; and doing repetitive detailed inspections, and doing related investigative actions, if necessary. This AD results from reports of cracking in the aft pressure bulkhead web. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct a cracked pressure bulkhead web, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective November 16, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of November 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6577; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Boeing Model 727 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on June 25, 2007 (72 FR 34646). That NPRM proposed to require doing an initial detailed inspection for cracks in the aft pressure bulkhead web; repairing any discrepancy; and doing repetitive detailed inspections, and doing related investigative actions, if necessary. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comment received. The commenter, Boeing, supports the NPRM. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are about 842 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 459 airplanes of U.S. registry. The detailed inspection takes about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of this AD for U.S. operators is $36,720, or $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-21-04 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15222. Docket No. FAA-2007-28378; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-089-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective November 16, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-100C, 727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of cracking in the aft pressure bulkhead web. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct a cracked pressure bulkhead web, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspection(s) and Corrective Actions
(f)Do an initial detailed inspection for cracks in the aft pressure bulkhead web in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-53-0230, dated January 8, 2007; except as provided by note
(a)in Table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin. Do the inspection at the compliance time identified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin; except as provided by paragraph
(g)of this AD.
(1)If no crack is found, repeat the detailed inspection at the repeat interval identified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin, except as provided by note
(a)in Table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin.
(2)If any crack is found, before further flight, repair the crack and do the related investigative actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. If any crack, disbonding, or corrosion is found during related investigative actions, before further flight, repair the discrepancy using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD.
(g)Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-53-0230, dated January 8, 2007, specifies a compliance time after the date of the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-53-0230, dated January 8, 2007, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 21, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-20037 Filed 10-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 14 RIN 2900-AM29 Accreditation of Service Organization Representatives and Agents AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA)is amending its regulations governing the accreditation of representatives of claimants for veterans' benefits. As amended, the regulations require service organizations to recertify the qualifications of their accredited representatives every 5 years, and to notify VA when requesting cancellation of a representative's accreditation based upon misconduct or lack of competence, or if a representative resigns to avoid cancellation of accreditation for misconduct or lack of competence. They also clarify that VA's authority to cancel accreditation includes the authority to suspend accreditation. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that claimants for veterans' benefits have responsible, qualified representation in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims. DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective January 10, 2008. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for initial compliance dates. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael G. Daugherty, Staff Attorney, Office of the General Counsel (022G2), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420,
(202)273-6315. This is not a toll-free number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a document published in the **Federal Register** on December 23, 2005 (70 FR 76221), VA proposed to amend the regulations governing the accreditation of recognized veterans service organization representatives and claims agents. The public comment period ended on February 21, 2006. VA received comments from an individual veteran, two State veterans service organizations, and three national veterans service organizations. These comments are discussed below. After the notice of proposed rulemaking was published, Public Law 109-461 was enacted. Section 101 of Public Law 109-461, the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006, amends chapter 59 of title 38, United States Code, governing the recognition of individuals for the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims for benefits before VA. The amendments to chapter 59, among other things, require VA to:
(1)Regulate the qualifications and standards of conduct applicable to accredited agents and attorneys;
(2)annually collect information about accredited agents' and attorneys' standing to practice or appear before any court, bar, or Federal or State agency;
(3)add to the list of grounds for suspension or exclusion of agents or attorneys from further practice before VA; and
(4)subject veterans service organization representatives and individuals recognized for a particular claim to suspension and exclusion from further practice before VA on the same grounds as apply to agents and attorneys. Section 101 of Public Law 109-461 also amends the fee provisions in chapter 59. Prior to the amendments, section 5904(c)(1) proscribed the charging of fees by agents and attorneys for services provided before a first final Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision in a case. Under the amendments, accredited agents and attorneys may charge fees for representational services provided after the claimant files a notice of disagreement in a case, and may receive fees for representation directly from VA out of past-due benefits paid to claimants. These various amendments, viewed together, indicate to us that Congress intends VA to treat agents and attorneys in the same manner for purposes of accreditation, suspension or cancellation of accreditation, and payment of fees. To properly implement the provisions of Public Law 109-461, VA will withdraw the provisions of the notice of proposed rulemaking relating to the accreditation of claims agents and will revisit the issue in a later rulemaking. Based on the rationale described in this document and in the notice of proposed rulemaking, VA adopts the proposed rule as revised in this document. Section 14.629(a)—Periodic Recertification of Service Organization Representatives Five commenters expressed overall support for the concept of periodic recertification of service organization representatives. One of these commenters, a national veterans service organization, while supporting the proposed rule, expressed concern with its ability to recertify hundreds of accredited representatives in a timely manner after VA publishes a final rule. The commenter asked for a 6-month grace period following the effective date of the regulation to achieve initial compliance and asked for a 4-month grace period for each subsequent recertification of an accredited representative. VA acknowledges that many service organizations, by virtue of the size of their operations, will face administrative challenges in recertifying representatives accredited by VA more than 5 years before the effective date of this rule. To address this issue, the rule is being made effective 90 days after the date of publication in the **Federal Register** and VA is establishing a phased series of initial compliance dates based on the first letter of representatives' last names. The initial compliance date for service organization representatives accredited more than 5 years before the effective date of this rule is April 9, 2008 for representatives with last names beginning with letters A through F; July 8, 2008 for representatives with last names beginning with letters G through M; October 6, 2008 for representatives with last names beginning with letters N through S; and January 5, 2009 for representatives with last names beginning with letters T through Z. The delayed effective date and phased initial compliance dates will permit organizations to make conforming changes to their procedures and phase-in the recertification requirements over a 15-month period. We believe that these accommodations are sufficient to avoid undue burdens on recognized organizations. Thereafter, VA intends that organizations will recertify their accredited representatives before the expiration of each 5-year certification period. Accordingly, we will not make further changes based on these comments. One commenter, a national veterans service organization, requested clarification about proposed § 14.629(a). Specifically, the organization asked whether VA's amendment would require accredited service organization representatives “to take a written examination administered by VA every 5 years as a prerequisite for recertification” as proposed for agents in § 14.629(b)(2). The organization does not support such a requirement for its accredited representatives. Another commenter, a State veterans service organization, expressed similar concern that the rule would impose a new testing requirement for representatives. It is not VA's intention to impose a new testing requirement for recertification of accredited representatives of service organizations under this rule. Section 14.629(a) outlines the initial accreditation and periodic recertification requirements for accredited representatives of service organizations, and § 14.629(b) provides the requirements for claims agents. To recertify an accredited representative, an organization files a VA Form 21 (Application for Accreditation as Service Organization Representative) with the signature of the certifying official indicating the representative continues to meet the requirements of § 14.629(a)(1) through
(3)in that he or she is of good character and reputation, is qualified to represent veterans, meets organizational membership requirements or is a full-time employee of the organization, and is not an employee of the United States Government. The organization may determine for itself the best means to determine the continuing qualifications of its representatives. The service organization's filing of the VA Form 21 is the only requirement for recertification of accredited representatives under § 14.629(a). Section 14.629(b)—Agents One commenter, a State veterans service organization, objected to the testing requirements in VA's accreditation regulations. However, the successful completion of an examination exists as a requirement for the initial accreditation of claims agents and the initial accreditation of county veterans' service officers recommended by a recognized State organization, not for service organization representatives in general. For the reasons discussed above relating to the enactment of Public Law 109-461, VA will withdraw the proposed amendments requiring periodic recertification of claims agents and will revisit the issue in a later rulemaking. Section 14.633—Suspension of Accreditation One commenter, a national veterans service organization, suggested that VA “better define the circumstances under which accreditation can be suspended” and “describe the maximum length of a suspension and the mechanism for obtaining reinstatement.” We agree. Section 5904(b) permits VA to suspend or exclude agents and attorneys from practice before VA. VA has interpreted section 5902 and its predecessor, 38 U.S.C. 3402, as similarly authorizing the suspension or exclusion of accredited representatives of recognized service organizations. *See* 38 CFR 14.627(c)
(1965)(suspension or exclusion for cause); *see also* 38 CFR 14.633(c)
(1979)(suspension or exclusion based upon a finding of clear and convincing evidence of proscribed conduct). Moreover, in Public Law 109-461, Congress amended section 5902 to subject accredited representatives to suspension and exclusion from further practice before VA on the same grounds as apply to agents and attorneys as provided for in section 5904(b). VA agrees that there is a need for greater clarity in the procedures for reinstatement. Accordingly, we have revised the proposed amendments to the rule concerning suspension to provide that the General Counsel may suspend accreditation for a definite period or until the individual satisfies the conditions established by the General Counsel for reinstatement. The General Counsel will reinstate suspended accreditations at the end of the period of suspension or upon verification that the individual has satisfied the conditions for reinstatement. Concerning the circumstances under which a representative may be suspended, VA believes that further clarification is unnecessary. The plain language of section 5904(b) authorizes VA to suspend or exclude from further practice before VA agents or attorneys found incompetent or to have engaged in misconduct. Congress' recent amendment of section 5902 in Public Law 109-461 codifies VA's longstanding interpretation of section 5902 by providing VA with authority to suspend the accreditation of representatives or exclude them from further practice before VA on the same grounds as apply to agents and attorneys. VA's decision to suspend or cancel an individual's accreditation will be based on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, with suspension being appropriate in cases involving extenuating circumstances or less egregious conduct not warranting permanent cancellation of accreditation. Section 14.633—Duty To Inform VA of Misconduct or Incompetence Two commenters disagreed with the proposed requirement for an organization to inform VA of the reasons for requesting cancellation of a representative's accreditation under 38 CFR 14.633(a) when the request is due to the representative's misconduct or lack of competence or because the representative resigned to avoid cancellation of accreditation based upon misconduct or lack of competence. One commenter, a national service organization, expressed concern that the proposed requirement would create an adversarial relationship between the employer service organization and employee representative and that it would create “a potential ethical conflict in situations where the representative is also represented by the organization to which he or she is accredited.” According to this organization, “[p]roviding the VA with information that may potentially adversely impact the representative's entitlement to VA benefits is in direct conflict with the organization's obligation as the individual's representative.” We disagree. Under the law governing recognition, service organizations have a legal duty to assist VA in ensuring the competent representation of claimants before The Department. Section 5902(a) of title 38, United States Code, authorizes VA to recognize organizations for the limited purpose of ensuring competent representation of veterans in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims for VA benefits. *See* 38 CFR 14.626 (“The purpose of the regulation of representatives is to ensure that claimants for [VA] benefits have responsible, qualified representation in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims for veterans' benefits.”). VA implemented this authority in 38 CFR 14.628, which, among other things, requires that an organization applying for recognition demonstrate a substantial service commitment to veterans. An organization applying for VA recognition must demonstrate that it satisfies the legal requirements for recognition and then certify to VA that each of the organization's representatives who will assist veterans in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims before VA meets the legal requirements for accreditation in 38 CFR 14.629(a). Furthermore, recognized organizations are required to train and monitor their accredited representatives to ensure the proper handling of claims. 38 CFR 14.628(d)(1)(v). Thus, an organization's legal duty to establish systems to ensure the competent representation of claimants does not end with its recognition, but continues as long as the organization is recognized by VA. Under current § 14.633(c) and (d), cancellation of accreditation is mandatory if the General Counsel finds that a representative engaged in misconduct or that a representative's performance before the Department demonstrates a lack of the degree of competence necessary to adequately prepare, present, and prosecute claims. However, under current § 14.633(a), service organizations may request cancellation of a representative's accreditation without informing VA of the reason for the request. The amendments to § 14.633(a), which require organizations to report the reason for the request if it involves misconduct or incompetence, will assist VA in monitoring the qualifications of individuals who apply for accreditation or are cross-accredited through more than one recognized organization. The practice of cross-accreditation is defined in 38 CFR 14.627(i) as “accreditation based on the status of a representative as an accredited and functioning representative of another organization.” Although cross-accreditation enhances claimants' opportunities for representation, it may conceal a representative's misconduct or incompetence absent the amendments to § 14.633(a) in this rule. Consider the situation where a representative, accredited by several organizations, is discharged for an offense at one organization that, if proven, would clearly lead to cancellation of accreditation by VA. If the organization does not report the reason for the discharge to VA when requesting cancellation of the representative's accreditation, the individual's accreditations through other organizations remain valid and the representative may continue to provide representation through those organizations. As a result, an individual who engages in unlawful, unethical or unprofessional acts or is incompetent may continue to represent veterans. An additional rationale for the amendment requiring notification is the situation where a representative ends his or her affiliation with the organization in order to avoid cancellation of accreditation based on misconduct and then applies for accreditation through another organization that has no knowledge of the misconduct. In this case, without knowledge of the previous misconduct, VA would likely accredit the representative through the new organization based upon the new organization's unknowing certification. Certainly, if a representative engages in misconduct or provides incompetent representation at one organization, VA should not accredit the individual through another organization. This rule, which requires organizations to notify VA of the reason for requesting cancellation of a representative's accreditation if that reason involves misconduct or incompetence, closes these gaps and better ensures the competent representation of claimants. VA believes that these benefits greatly outweigh any potential effect on the employer/employee relationship between organizations and their representatives. Regarding the commenter's concern about a potential adverse impact on a veteran's benefit entitlements by virtue of the obligation to inform VA of misconduct or incompetence, the service organizations' duty to inform provides VA with the information necessary to investigate misconduct and incompetence and ensure competent representation of claimants. It is not clear how information about a representative's misconduct or incompetence could adversely affect his or her own entitlement to VA benefits, unless the information relates to a scheme of fraud in obtaining benefits. Although an organization's primary purpose is to serve veterans, clearly this obligation does not include concealing fraud against the United States. Recent changes in the law governing representation reinforce the obligation of service organizations to report a representative's misconduct or incompetence to VA. As discussed earlier, Public Law 109-461 amended 38 U.S.C. 5904(a) to require VA to regulate the qualifications and standards of conduct applicable to accredited agents and attorneys. Amended section 5902(b)(2) subjects veterans service organization representatives to suspension and exclusion from further practice before VA on the same grounds as apply to agents and attorneys. VA's statutory obligation to regulate the standards of conduct of accredited representatives as reflected in amendments to chapter 59 requires that organizations fulfill the reporting obligations described in § 14.633(a). In May 2007, we published in the **Federal Register** a notice of proposed rulemaking implementing Public Law 109-461, which, among other things, established standards of conduct for practice before VA applicable to all service organization representatives. 72 FR 25930. The commenter also expressed concern about the disclosure of disaccreditation information providing a basis for claimants to seek readjudication of numerous claims. However, VA decisions are final absent reopening based on new and material evidence or a finding of clear and unmistakable error
(CUE)in a prior regional office or Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision. *See* 38 U.S.C. 5108, 5109A, 7111. To establish CUE in a final VA decision, it must be shown that VA committed a specific error in adjudicating the claim and that the outcome would have been manifestly different but for the error. *Cook* v. *Principi,* 318 F.3d 1334, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Therefore, an allegation that a claimant was represented by a person later disaccredited for misconduct or incompetence, by itself, would generally not be sufficient to require readjudication of a claim based on conduct by the representative. The commenter suggested that “very few individuals would be brought to the attention of the VA” for misconduct or incompetence because it is likely those individuals would resign before any allegations of misconduct or incompetence were ever substantiated. The situation described by the organization is foreseeable under current § 14.633(a) and under the amendments made by this rule. While VA recognizes that individuals may resign before any incompetence or misconduct is substantiated as a means to avoid a formal inquiry, this does not mean that VA should forego any effort to improve the quality of representation in cases where an organization has determined that misconduct or incompetence is sufficient to request cancellation of VA accreditation. With the rule in effect, the organization will be required to inform VA that a request to cancel accreditation under § 14.633(a) is based upon misconduct, incompetence, or resignation to avoid cancellation of accreditation for misconduct or incompetence. Upon receipt of such information, when appropriate, VA will initiate the procedures under 38 CFR 14.633(e) to determine whether the representative should be barred from further representation of VA claimants. As a result, VA, in cooperation with service organizations, will seek to ensure the competent representation of claimants. Another commenter, a State organization, expressed disagreement with the proposed requirement to notify VA in cases of cancellation of accreditation for misconduct “unless [VA] assumes all potential civil liability for the accrediting organizations.” The organization expressed concern that it might incur civil liability as a result of a lawsuit brought by a representative after it provides accreditation cancellation information to VA. VA cannot guarantee immunity from civil suit, nor can it underwrite an organization's potential liability resulting from civil suit. While VA acknowledges the potential for civil liability in a defamation action under state law for disclosure of employment-related information, this is a risk incurred by all employers in providing information about former employees to current or potential employers. The sole purpose of the requirement that service organizations disclose the reason for requesting cancellation of a representative's accreditation is to ensure competent representation of claimants by cancelling accreditation and preventing further accreditation in appropriate cases. In the commenter's jurisdiction, section 47(b) of the California Civil Code provides an absolute privilege for a communication “in any other official proceeding authorized by law.” *See* CAL. CIV. CODE § 47(b). A “communication to an official administrative agency, which communication is designed to prompt action by that agency” is considered part of an official proceeding. *See King* v. *Borges* , 104 Cal. Rptr. 414, 417 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972). Thus, an organization's communication to VA concerning the reasons for requesting cancellation of a representative's accreditation, a communication required by law and designed to prompt action by VA concerning the representative's accreditation through other organizations, is absolutely privileged under California law. Most States have statutory or common law provisions that establish truth as a defense in defamation actions and protect certain communications as privileged. Communication of accreditation cancellation information to VA by a service organization, without malice, and within accepted limits, would generally be privileged and thus not likely to result in liability for defamation damages. Even in the absence of a privilege, the publication of a true statement by a service organization to VA would not lead to liability for defamation. *See* Restatement (Second) of Torts § 581A
(1977)(“One who publishes a defamatory statement of fact is not subject to liability for defamation if the statement is true.”). Because the nature of defamation liability and privileged communication varies from State to State, VA encourages organizations to seek counsel regarding applicable laws. As an additional protection from liability, organizations should consider making disclosure of accreditation cancellation information to VA a condition of employment by or affiliation with the organization and obtaining prior written authorization from the representative to disclose such information. Paperwork Reduction Act This document contains provisions constituting collections of information at 38 CFR 14.629(a), 14.629(b), and 14.633(a) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved these collections and has assigned OMB control number 2900-0018. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601-602). This rule will affect the 87 veterans service organizations recognized by VA to represent benefit claimants. However, the rule would not have a significant economic impact on these organizations because it would only impose certification requirements the costs of which would not be significant. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rule is exempt from the final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of section 604. Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Order classifies a rule as a significant regulatory action requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget if it meets any one of a number of specified conditions, including: having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, creating a serious inconsistency or interfering with an action of another agency, materially altering the budgetary impact of entitlements or the rights of entitlement recipients, or raising novel legal or policy issues. VA has examined the economic, legal, and policy implications of this final rule and has concluded that it is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 because it raises novel policy issues. Unfunded Mandates The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any year. This final rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers and Titles There are no Federal Domestic Assistance programs associated with this final rule. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 14 Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Courts, Foreign relations, Government employees, Lawyers, Legal services, Organizations and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Trusts and trustees, Veterans. Approved: July 2, 2007. Gordon H. Mansfield, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 14 as follows: PART 14—LEGAL SERVICES, GENERAL COUNSEL, AND MISCELLANEOUS CLAIMS 1. The authority citation for part 14 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 2671-2680; 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 512, 515, 5502, 5902-5905; 28 CFR part 14, appendix to part 14, unless otherwise noted. 2. Revise § 14.629(a) introductory text to read as follows: § 14.629 Requirements for accreditation of service organization representatives; agents; and attorneys.
(a)*Service Organization Representatives.* A recognized organization shall file with the Office of the General Counsel VA Form 21 (Application for Accreditation as Service Organization Representative) for each person it desires accredited as a representative of that organization. The form must be signed by the prospective representative and the organization's certifying official. For each of its accredited representatives, a recognized organization's certifying official shall complete, sign and file with the Office of the General Counsel, not later than five years after initial accreditation through that organization or the most recent recertification by that organization, VA Form 21 to certify that the representative continues to meet the criteria for accreditation specified in paragraph (a)(1),
(2)and
(3)of this section. In recommending a person, the organization shall certify that the designee: 3. Section 14.633(a) is amended by: a. Revising paragraphs
(a)and (e)(2)(i). b. In paragraphs (b),
(c)introductory text, and
(d)adding “ suspended or “ before “canceled” each time it appears. c. In paragraph
(e)introductory text adding “suspension or” before “cancellation”. d. In paragraph (e)(1), removing “and maintain the record for 3 years”. e. In paragraph (e)(2)(ii), adding “further suspend or” before “cancel” and “suspension or” before “cancellation”. f. Redesignating paragraph
(g)as paragraph (h). g. Adding new paragraph (g). h. In redesignated paragraph (h), adding “suspension or” before “termination”, and by removing the last sentence of the paragraph. i. Adding a parenthetical at the end of the section. The revisions and addition read as follows: § 14.633 Termination of accreditation of agents, attorneys, and representatives.
(a)Accreditation may be suspended or canceled at the request of an agent, attorney, representative, or organization. When an organization requests suspension or cancellation of the accreditation of a representative due to misconduct or lack of competence on the part of the representative or because the representative resigned to avoid suspension or cancellation of accreditation for misconduct or lack of competence, the organization shall inform VA of the reason for the request for suspension or cancellation and the facts and circumstances surrounding any incident that led to the request.
(e)* * *
(2)* * *
(i)As to representatives, suspend accreditation immediately and notify the representative and the representative's organization of the interim suspension and of an intent to cancel or continue suspension of accreditation. The notice to the representative will also state the reasons for the interim suspension and impending cancellation or continuation of suspension, and inform the representative of a right to request a hearing on the matter or to submit additional evidence within 10 working days following receipt of such notice. Such time may be extended for a reasonable period upon a showing of sufficient cause.
(g)The General Counsel may suspend the accreditation of a representative, agent, or attorney, under paragraphs (b), (c), or
(d)of this section, for a definite period or until the conditions for reinstatement specified by the General Counsel are satisfied. The General Counsel shall reinstate an individual's accreditation at the end of the suspension period or upon verification that the individual has satisfied the conditions for reinstatement. (The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collections requirements in this section control number 2900-0018.) [FR Doc. E7-20211 Filed 10-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0657; FRL-8479-4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; San Francisco Bay Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action under the Clean Air Act to approve a revision to the San Francisco Bay Area portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision consists of transportation conformity criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation and enforceability of certain transportation-related control measures and mitigation measures. The intended effect is to update the transportation conformity criteria and procedures in the applicable SIP. DATES: This rule is effective on December 11, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 13, 2007. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0657, by one of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions. 2. *E-mail:* *vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail or deliver:* Ginger Vagenas (Air-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX,
(415)972-3964, *vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. Transportation Conformity II. Background for This Action A. Federal Requirements B. San Francisco Bay Area Conformity SIP III. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation IV. Public Comment and Final Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Transportation Conformity Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to ensure that federally supported highway, transit projects, and other activities are consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of the SIP. Conformity currently applies to areas that are designated nonattainment, and to areas that have been redesignated to attainment after 1990 (maintenance areas) with plans developed under section 175A of the Act, for the following transportation related criteria pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter (PM <sup>2.5</sup> and PM <sup>10</sup> ), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO <sup>2</sup> ). Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The transportation conformity regulation is found in 40 CFR part 93 and provisions related to conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR 51.390. II. Background for This Action A. Federal Requirements EPA promulgated the Federal transportation conformity criteria and procedures (the conformity rule) on November 24, 1993. See 58 FR 62188. Among other things, the rule required states to address all provisions of the conformity rule in their SIPs (“conformity SIPs”). Under 40 CFR 51.390, most sections of the conformity rule were required to be copied verbatim. States were also required to tailor all or portions of the following three sections of the conformity rule to meet their state's individual circumstances: 40 CFR 93.105, which addresses consultation procedures; 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), which addresses written commitments to control measures that are not included in a metropolitan planning organization's (MPO's) transportation plan and transportation improvement program that must be obtained prior to a conformity determination, and the requirement that such commitments, when they exist, must be fulfilled; and 40 CFR 93.125(c), which addresses written commitments to mitigation measures that must be obtained prior to a project-level conformity determination, and the requirement that project sponsors must comply with such commitments, when they exist. On August 10, 2005, the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users” (SAFETEA-LU) was signed into law. SAFETEA-LU revised section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act's transportation conformity provisions. One of the changes streamlines the requirements for conformity SIPs. Under SAFETEA-LU, states are required to address and tailor only three sections of the conformity rule in their conformity SIPs: 40 CFR 93.105, 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and, 40 CFR 93.125(c), described above. In general, states are no longer required to submit conformity SIP revisions that address the other sections of the conformity rule. These changes took effect on August 10, 2005, when SAFETEA-LU was signed into law. B. San Francisco Bay Area Conformity SIP For transportation planning purposes, the San Francisco Bay Area is defined as the nine California counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. All but the eastern half of Solano County and the northern half of Sonoma County lie within the San Francisco Bay Area 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The eastern half of Solano County is also designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS but is included in the Sacramento Metropolitan air quality planning area. 1 The northern half of Sonoma County is designated unclassifiable/attainment for ozone. A portion of the San Francisco Bay Area referred to as “urbanized areas” was redesignated from nonattainment to attainment for the CO NAAQS in 1998 and is subject to a maintenance plan. Areas within the San Francisco Bay Area but outside “urbanized areas” are designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the CO NAAQS. The San Francisco Bay Area is considered unclassifiable/attainment for the other NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.305 for California air quality planning areas and designations. 1 The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is the MPO for the Sacramento area. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC)and SACOG, in consultation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the California Air Resources Board, and the Governor's office, have developed and signed a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU)for undertaking conformity analysis in eastern Solano County. This MOU, approved and adopted by MTC in Resolution No. 2611 on September 22, 1993, was included as Appendix A to the San Francisco Bay Area interagency consultation procedures that we approved into the California SIP on October 21, 1997 (62 FR 54587). On December 16, 1996, the Governor's designee for SIP submittals, the California Air Resources Board (ARB), submitted “The San Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol—Conformity Procedures” (“conformity procedures”) and “The San Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol—Interagency Consultation Procedures” (“consultation procedures”), together referred to as the “San Francisco Bay Area conformity SIP” to EPA. EPA approved the San Francisco Bay Area conformity SIP on October 21, 1997. See 62 FR 54587. ARB submitted a revision to the San Francisco Bay Area conformity SIP on August 6, 1998. EPA did not act on that submittal. Subsequent to SAFETEA-LU being enacted, the co-lead agencies for air quality planning in the San Francisco Bay Area—Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)—revised the San Francisco Bay Area conformity SIP to reflect the SAFETEA-LU changes and to clarify interagency consultation procedures. Resolutions approving the revised transportation conformity criteria and procedures, referred to as the transportation conformity protocol, were adopted by the BAAQMD Board of Directors on July 19, 2006, by the ABAG Executive Board on July 20, 2006, and by the MTC Commission on July 26, 2006. MTC subsequently forwarded the transportation conformity protocol to ARB, and ARB adopted and submitted the protocol to EPA as a revision to the California SIP on December 20, 2006. The December 20, 2006 SIP revision submittal supersedes the August 6, 1998 submittal. III. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation The SIP revision submitted to EPA on December 20, 2006, consists of the San Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol—Conformity Procedures and Interagency Consultation Procedures. The submittal documents public notice and hearing for this SIP revision in compliance with CAA section 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also contains a request that we delete the analogous SIP-approved conformity procedures, which are no longer required under SAFETEA-LU, and replace them with the submitted language that addresses 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c). When the SIP-approved conformity procedures are rescinded, the Federal transportation conformity regulations will apply, except for those sections addressed by the current submittal. EPA approval of these changes is consistent with Federal law and regulations, and will obviate the need for SIP revisions that would have otherwise been triggered by changes to the underlying Federal regulations. The submittal also includes provisions that would replace the SIP-approved interagency consultation procedures with revised procedures. 2 The changes to the interagency consultation procedures include the addition of more detail regarding the consultation structure and procedures for regional transportation plan and transportation improvement program updates and amendments, clarification of agency roles and responsibilities for the conformity and SIP consultation processes, and additional detail regarding consultation on conformity analyses. 2 CARB's December 20, 2006 SIP revision submittal does not include the MOU concerning conformity analyses in eastern Solano County and thus does not entirely supersede the previously-approved interagency consultation procedures. With today's action, the previously-approved MOU will continue to be a part of the applicable California SIP. It is our understanding that a revision to the MOU will be submitted as a SIP revision. If approved, it will supersede the previously approved MOU. We have reviewed the submittal to assure consistency with the Clean Air Act as amended by SAFETEA-LU and EPA regulations (40 CFR part 93 and 40 CFR 51.390) governing state procedures for transportation conformity and interagency consultation and have concluded that the submittal is approvable. Details of our review are set forth in a technical support document (TSD), which has been included in the docket for this action. Specifically, in our TSD, we identify how the submitted procedures satisfy our requirements under 40 CFR 93.105 for interagency consultation with respect to the development of transportation plans and programs, SIPs, and conformity determinations, the resolution of conflicts, and the provision of adequate public consultation, and our requirements under 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c) for enforceability of control measures and mitigation measures. IV. Public Comment and Final Action Under section 110(k) of the Act, and for the reasons set forth above, EPA is taking action to approve the San Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol—Conformity Procedures and Interagency Consultation Procedures, as a revision to the California SIP. As a result of this action, the Bay Area's previously SIP-approved conformity protocol will be replaced by the procedures adopted by BAAQMD on July 19, 2006, by ABAG on July 20, 2006, and by MTC on July 26, 2006, and submitted by ARB to EPA on December 20, 2006. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this **Federal Register** , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submittal. If we receive adverse comments by November 13, 2007, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on December 11, 2007. This will incorporate these transportation conformity procedures into the federally enforceable SIP and thereby replace the previous version of the procedures approved on October 21, 1997 (62 FR 54587) in the San Francisco Bay Area portion of the California SIP except for the MOU covering eastern Solano County. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves state law implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: September 20, 2007. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, Region IX. Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(349) to read as follows: § 52.220 Identification of plan.
(c)* * *
(349)San Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol—Conformity Procedures and Interagency Consultation Procedures was submitted on December 20, 2006, by the Governor's designee.
(i)Incorporation by reference.
(A)Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). ( *1* ) The San Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol—Conformity Procedures (July 26, 2006) and San Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol—Interagency Consultation Procedures (July 26, 2006), adopted by BAAQMD on July 19, 2006, by ABAG on July 20, 2006, and by MTC on July 26, 2006. [FR Doc. E7-20059 Filed 10-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0360-200737; FRL-8478-1] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida; Clean Air Interstate Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to the Florida State Implementation Plan
(SIP)submitted on March 16, 2007. This revision addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR)promulgated on May 12, 2005, and subsequently revised on April 28, 2006, and December 13, 2006. EPA has determined that the SIP revision fully implements the CAIR requirements for Florida. As a result of this action, EPA will also withdraw, through a separate rulemaking, the CAIR Federal Implementation Plans
(FIPs)concerning sulfur dioxide (SO <sup>2</sup> ), nitrogen oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ) annual, and NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season emissions for Florida. The CAIR FIPs for all States in the CAIR region were promulgated on April 28, 2006, and subsequently revised on December 13, 2006. CAIR requires States to reduce emissions of SO <sup>2</sup> and NO <sup>X</sup> that significantly contribute to, and interfere with maintenance of, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulates (PM <sup>2.5</sup> ) and/or ozone in any downwind state. CAIR establishes State budgets for SO <sup>2</sup> and NO <sup>X</sup> and requires States to submit SIP revisions that implement these budgets in States that EPA concluded did contribute to nonattainment in downwind states. States have the flexibility to choose which control measures to adopt to achieve the budgets, including participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs. In the SIP revision that EPA is approving today, Florida has met the CAIR requirements by electing to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs addressing SO <sup>2</sup> , NO <sup>X</sup> annual, and NOX ozone season emissions. DATES: This rule is effective on November 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0360. All documents in the docket are listed on the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy Harder, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404)562-9042. Ms. Harder can also be reached via electronic mail at *harder.stacy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Table of Contents I. What Action Is EPA Taking? II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? IV. Analysis of Florida's CAIR SIP Submittal A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs C. NO <sup>X</sup> Allowance Allocations D. Allocation of NO X Allowances From Compliance Supplement Pool E. Individual Opt-in Units V. Final Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Taking? EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to Florida's SIP submitted on March 16, 2007. In its SIP revision, Florida has met the CAIR requirements by requiring certain electric generating units
(EGUs)to participate in the EPA-administered State CAIR cap-and-trade programs addressing SO <sup>2</sup> , NO <sup>X</sup> annual, and NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season emissions. Florida's regulations adopt by reference most of the provisions of EPA's SO <sup>2</sup> , NO <sup>X</sup> annual, and NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season model trading rules, with certain changes discussed below. EPA has determined that the SIP as revised will meet the applicable requirements of CAIR. As a result of this action, the Administrator of EPA will also issue a final rule to withdraw the FIPs concerning SO <sup>2</sup> , NO <sup>X</sup> annual, and NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season emissions for Florida. The Administrator's action will delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.540 and 40 CFR 52.541, relating to the CAIR FIP obligations for Florida. The withdrawal of the CAIR FIPs for Florida is a conforming amendment that must be made once the SIP is approved because EPA's authority to issue the FIPs was premised on a deficiency in the SIP for Florida. Once a SIP is fully approved, EPA no longer has authority for the FIPs. Thus, EPA does not have the option of maintaining the FIPs following full SIP approval. Accordingly, EPA does not intend to offer an opportunity for a public hearing or an additional opportunity for written public comment on the withdrawal of the FIPs. EPA proposed to approve Florida's request to amend the SIP on August 2, 2007 (72 FR 42344). In that proposal, EPA also stated its intent to withdraw the FIP, as described above. The comment period closed on September 4, 2007. EPA received one comment from a consortium of regulated entities in support of our proposed approval. EPA is finalizing the approval as proposed based on the rationale stated in the proposal and in this final action. II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? CAIR was published by EPA on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). In this rule, EPA determined that 28 States and the District of Columbia contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS for PM <sup>2.5</sup> and/or 8-hour ozone in downwind States in the eastern part of the country. As a result, EPA required those upwind States to revise their SIPs to include control measures that reduce emissions of SO <sup>2</sup> , which is a precursor to PM <sup>2.5</sup> formation, and/or NO <sup>X</sup> , which is a precursor to both ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> formation. For jurisdictions that contribute significantly to downwind PM <sup>2.5</sup> nonattainment, CAIR sets annual State-wide emission reduction requirements (i.e., budgets) for SO <sup>2</sup> and annual State-wide emission reduction requirements for NO <sup>X</sup> . Similarly, for jurisdictions that contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment, CAIR sets State-wide emission reduction requirements for NO <sup>X</sup> for the ozone season (May 1 to September 30). Under CAIR, States may implement these reduction requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs or by adopting any other control measures. CAIR explains to subject States what must be included in SIPs to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA)with regard to interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> NAAQS. EPA made national findings, effective on May 25, 2005, that the States had failed to submit SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). The SIPs were due in July 2000, three years after the promulgation of the 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> NAAQS. III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? CAIR establishes State-wide emission budgets for SO <sup>2</sup> and NO <sup>X</sup> and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase of NO <sup>X</sup> reductions starts in 2009 and continues through 2014, while the first phase of SO <sup>2</sup> reductions starts in 2010 and continues through 2014. The second phase of reductions for both NO <sup>X</sup> and SO <sup>2</sup> starts in 2015 and continues thereafter. CAIR requires States to implement the budgets by either:
(1)Requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs; or
(2)adopting other control measures of the State's choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in compliance with the applicable State SO <sup>2</sup> and NO <sup>X</sup> budgets. The May 12, 2005, and April 28, 2006, CAIR rules provide model rules that States must adopt (with certain limited changes, if desired) if they want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. With two exceptions, only States that choose to meet the requirements of CAIR through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are allowed to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. One exception is for States that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model rules to allow non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered trading programs. The other exception is for States that include all non-EGUs from their NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading programs in their CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading programs. IV. Analysis of Florida's CAIR SIP Submittal A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations In this action, EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's SIP revision that adopts the budgets established for the State in CAIR, i.e., 99,445 (2009-2014) and 82,871 (2015-thereafter) tons for NO <sup>X</sup> annual emissions, 47,912 (2009-2014) and 39,926 (2015-thereafter) tons for NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season emissions, and 253,450 (2010-2014) and 177,415 (2015-thereafter) tons for SO <sup>2</sup> emissions. Florida's SIP revision sets these budgets as the total amounts of allowances available for allocation for each year under the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs. Florida has committed to revising the definitions of “permitting authority” and “State” in its CAIR rules in order to ensure that allowances issued by all States with approved rules providing for participation in the respective EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs are fungible and can be traded and used by all sources in all these States, as intended. EPA determined after review of other States' rules, but after Florida had adopted its CAIR rules, that there was an issue related to these definitions when they refer only to a specific State. In Florida's rules for CAIR, the EPA model trading rules were revised to limit all references to “permitting authority” to refer to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Similarly, references to “State” were limited to refer to Florida. These changes are acceptable in most, but not all, instances under the current model rules. In certain definitions in the model rules incorporated by Florida (i.e., “allocate” or “allocation,” “CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> allowance,” “CAIR SO <sup>2</sup> allowance,” and “CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> Ozone Season allowance”), it is important that the term “permitting authority” cover permitting authorities in all States that choose to participate in the respective EPA-administered trading programs and that the term “State” cover all such States. This is necessary to ensure that all allowances issued in each EPA-administered trading program are fungible and can be traded and used for compliance with the allowance-holding requirement in any State in the program. On May 24, 2007, EPA participated in a teleconference with Florida and outlined necessary definition revisions. EPA received a letter from Florida dated June 22, 2007, and a supplemental electronic mail submission on July 11, 2007, that provide a commitment to make these rule revisions in its CAIR rules in early 2008. Specifically, in the June 22, 2007, letter and supplemental submission on July 11, 2007, Florida commits to revising section 62-296.470(1) of Florida's rule to state that: The limitation of the “permitting authority” definition only to Florida does not apply when this term is used in the definitions of “ `allocate’ or ‘allocation’,” “CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> allowance,” “CAIR SO <sup>2</sup> allowance,” and “CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> Ozone Season allowance;” and the limitation of the “State” definition only to Florida does not apply when the term is used in the definitions of “CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> allowance,” “CAIR SO <sup>2</sup> allowance,” and “CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> Ozone Season allowance.” B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs The CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> annual and ozone season model trading rules both largely mirror the structure of the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call model trading rule in 40 CFR part 96, subparts A through I. While the provisions of the NO <sup>X</sup> annual and ozone season model rules are similar, there are some differences. For example, the NO <sup>X</sup> annual model rule (but not the NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season model rule) provides for a compliance supplement pool (CSP), which is discussed below and under which allowances may be awarded for early reductions of NO <sup>X</sup> annual emissions. As a further example, the NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season model rule reflects the fact that the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading program replaces the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading program after the 2008 ozone season and is coordinated with the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call program. The NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season model rule provides incentives for early emissions reductions by allowing banked, pre-2009 NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call allowances to be used for compliance in the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading program. In addition, States have the option of continuing to meet their NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call requirement by participating in the CAIR NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season trading program and including all their NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call trading sources in that program. The provisions of the CAIR SO 2 model rule are also similar to the provisions of the NO X annual and ozone season model rules. However, the SO 2 model rule is coordinated with the ongoing Acid Rain SO 2 cap-and-trade program under CAA title IV. The SO 2 model rule uses the title IV allowances for compliance, with each allowance allocated for 2010-2014 authorizing only 0.50 ton of emissions and each allowance allocated for 2015 and thereafter authorizing only 0.35 ton of emissions. Banked title IV allowances allocated for years before 2010 can be used at any time in the CAIR SO 2 cap-and-trade program, with each such allowance authorizing one ton of emissions. Title IV allowances are to be freely transferable among sources covered by the Acid Rain Program and sources covered by the CAIR SO 2 cap-and-trade program. EPA also used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the trading programs in the CAIR FIPs. The CAIR FIP trading rules are virtually identical to the CAIR model trading rules, with changes made to account for federal rather than state implementation. The CAIR model SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading rules and the respective CAIR FIP trading rules are designed to work together as integrated SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading programs. In the SIP revision, Florida has chosen to implement its CAIR budgets by requiring EGUs to participate in EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs for SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions. Florida has adopted a full SIP revision (with the commitment to adopt the revisions discussed above) that adopts, with certain allowed changes discussed below, the CAIR model cap-and-trade rules for SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions. C. NO X Allowance Allocations Under the NO X allowance allocation methodology in the CAIR model trading rules and in the CAIR FIPs, NO X annual and ozone season allowances are allocated to units that have operated for five years, based on heat input data from a three-year period that are adjusted for fuel type by using fuel factors of 1.0 for coal, 0.6 for oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. The CAIR model trading rules and the CAIR FIPs also provide a new unit set-aside from which units without five years of operation are allocated allowances based on the units' prior year emissions. States may establish in their SIP submissions a different NO X allowance allocation methodology that will be used to allocate allowances to sources in the States if certain requirements are met concerning the timing of submission of units' allocations to the Administrator for recordation and the total amount of allowances allocated for each control period. In adopting alternative NO X allowance allocation methodologies, States have flexibility with regard to:
(1)The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be distributed for free or auctioned;
(2)the frequency of allocations;
(3)the basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed, for example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal output; and
(4)the use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size. Florida has chosen to adopt the provisions of the CAIR NO X annual model trading rule concerning the allocation of allowances based on methodology that is similar, but not identical, to that in the CAIR model trading rule for existing and new units. Under Florida's rule and the CAIR model rule, existing units are allocated NO X allowances in proportion to their “fuel-adjusted control period heat input” during the baseline period. However, in addition to the fuel adjustment factors used to calculate adjusted heat input in the CAIR model rule, Florida has also developed a separate 150% fuel factor for existing biomass-fired units that use best available control technology (BACT). Further, in Florida's rule, as in the CAIR model rule, new units are allocated NO X allowances in proportion to their “converted control period heat input.” However, unlike the CAIR model rule, Florida's rule categorizes new units as those commencing operation on or after January 1, 2007, (rather than January 1, 2001), and establishes a new unit set set-aside of five percent for all control years (rather than five percent through 2014 and three percent thereafter). Moreover, under Florida's rule, allocations are scheduled to be made in 2006, 2009, and every three years thereafter, with three-year blocks of allocations being made generally four years in advance. Florida's rule also limits the number of years for which permanently retired units are allocated allowances after retirement. Florida has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR NO X ozone season model trading rule concerning allowance allocations with its own methodology. Florida has chosen to distribute NO X ozone season allowances based upon the same allowance allocation methodology described above for NO X annual allowances. EPA is taking final action to approve these variations from the model rule provisions because the changes are consistent with the flexibility that CAIR provides States with regard to allocation methodologies. D. Allocation of NO X Allowances From Compliance Supplement Pool CAIR establishes a compliance supplement pool to provide an incentive for early reductions in NO X annual emissions. The CSP consists of 200,000 CAIR NO X annual allowances of vintage 2009 for the entire CAIR region, and a State's share of the CSP is based upon the projected magnitude of the emission reductions required by CAIR in that State. States may distribute CSP allowances, one allowance for each ton of early reduction, to sources that make NO X reductions during 2007 or 2008 beyond what is required by any applicable State or federal emission limitation. States also may distribute CSP allowances based upon a demonstration of need for an extension of the 2009 deadline for implementing emission controls. The CAIR annual NO X model trading rule establishes specific methodologies for allocations of CSP allowances. States may choose an allowed, alternative CSP allocation methodology to be used to allocate CSP allowances to sources in the States. Florida has chosen to distribute CSP allowances using the allocation methodology provided in 40 CFR 96.143, and has adopted this section by reference. E. Individual Opt-In Units The opt-in provisions of the CAIR SIP model trading rules allow certain non-EGUs (i.e., boilers, combustion turbines, and other stationary fossil-fuel-fired devices) that do not meet the applicability criteria for a CAIR trading program to participate voluntarily in (i.e., opt into) the CAIR trading program. A non-EGU may opt into one or more of the CAIR trading programs. In order to qualify to opt into a CAIR trading program, a unit must vent all emissions through a stack and be able to meet monitoring, recordkeeping, and recording requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The owners and operators seeking to opt a unit into a CAIR trading program must apply for a CAIR opt-in permit. If the unit is issued a CAIR opt-in permit, the unit becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated allowances, and must meet the same allowance-holding and emissions monitoring and reporting requirements as other units subject to the CAIR trading program. The opt-in provisions provide for two methodologies for allocating allowances for opt-in units, one methodology that applies to opt-in units in general and a second methodology that allocates allowances only to opt-in units that the owners and operators intend to repower before January 1, 2015. States have several options concerning the opt-in provisions. States may adopt the CAIR opt-in provisions entirely or may adopt them but exclude one of the methodologies for allocating allowances. States may also decline to adopt the opt-in provisions at all. Florida has chosen not to allow non-EGUs meeting certain requirements to opt into the CAIR trading programs. V. Final Action EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's full CAIR SIP revision submitted on March 16, 2007. Under this SIP revision, Florida is choosing to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs for SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season emissions. EPA has determined that the SIP revision meets the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(o) and (aa), with regard to NO X annual and NO X ozone season emissions, and 40 CFR 51.124(o), with regard to SO 2 emissions. EPA has determined that the SIP as revised will meet the requirements of CAIR. The Administrator of EPA will also issue, without providing an opportunity for a public hearing or an additional opportunity for written public comment, a final rule to withdraw the CAIR FIPs concerning SO 2 , NO <sup>X</sup> annual, and NO <sup>X</sup> ozone season emissions for Florida. The Administrator's action will delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.540 and 40 CFR 52.541. EPA will take final action to withdraw the CAIR FIPs for Florida in a separate rulemaking. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves State law as meeting federal requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this action approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a State rule implementing a federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: September 26, 2007. J.I. Palmer, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region 4. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart (K)—Florida 2. Section 52.520(c) is amended in the table by revising the entry for Section 62-210.200 in Chapter 62-210 and by adding in numerical order a new entry in Chapter 62-296 to read as follows: § 52.520 Identification of plan.
(c)* * * EPA-Approved Florida Regulations State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation Chapter 62-210 Stationary Requirements—General Sources * * * * * * * Section 62-210.200 Definitions 04/01/2007 10/12/07 [Insert citation of publication]. * * * * * * * Chapter 62-296 Stationary Sources—Emission Standards Section 62-296.470 Implementation of Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule 04/01/2007 10/12/07 [Insert citation of publication]. * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-19644 Filed 10-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket No. FEMA-7995] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the **Federal Register** on a subsequent date. EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables. ADDRESSES: If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Stearrett, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2953. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However, some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the **Federal Register** . In addition, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified. Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place. *Regulatory Classification.* This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. *Paperwork Reduction Act.* This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64 Flood insurance, Floodplains. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows: PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376. § 64.6 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: — State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective map date Date certain Federal assistance no longer available in SFHAs Region IV: North Carolina: Hamlet, City of, Richmond County 370200 April 4, 1975, Emerg; July 2, 1987, Reg; October 16, 2007, Susp October 16, 2007 October 16, 2007. Richmond County, Unincorporated Areas 370348 September 6, 1985, Emerg; September 6, 1989, Reg; October 16, 2007, Susp ......*do Do. Rockingham, City of, Richmond County 370201 February 5, 1974, Emerg; September 6, 1989, Reg; October 16, 2007, Susp ......do Do. *do =Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension. Dated: October 3, 2007. David I. Maurstad, Assistant Administrator, Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E7-20129 Filed 10-11-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 53 and 64 [WC Docket No. 02-112; CC Docket No. 00-175; FCC 07-159] Sunset of the BOC Separate Affiliate and Related Requirements and 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review Separate Affiliate Requirements AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In this Order, the Commission establishes a new framework to govern the provision of in-region, long distance services by the Bell Operating Companies
(BOCs)and their independent incumbent local exchange carrier (incumbent LEC) affiliates. The new framework permits the BOCs to provide in-region, interstate, long distance services either directly or through affiliates that are neither section 272 separate affiliates nor Commission rule 64.1903 separate affiliates, subject to nondominant carrier regulation, as long as they comply with certain targeted safeguards and other continuing statutory and regulatory obligations. DATES: The Report and Order is effective November 13, 2007, subject to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)approval for new or modified information collection requirements contained in the Report and Order. The FCC will publish a document in the **Federal Register** announcing the effective date for those sections. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Kirkel, Wireline Competition Bureau,
(202)418-1580. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Jerry R. Cowden at
(202)418-0447, or via the Internet at *PRA@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order (Order) in WC Docket Nos. 02-112 and 06-120, and CC Docket No. 00-175, FCC 07-159, adopted August 30, 2007, and released August 31, 2007. The text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone
(800)378-3160 or
(202)863-2893, facsimile
(202)863-2898, or via e-mail at *http://www.bcpiweb.com.* It is also available on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.fcc.gov.* Synopsis of the Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order 1. In May 2002, the Commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding (the *Section 272 Sunset* proceeding (67 FR 42211, June 21, 2002)) to determine what regulatory framework should apply to BOC provision of in-region, interLATA telecommunications services after the section 272 safeguards (other than those in section 272(e)) had sunset pursuant to section 272(f)(1). The Commission invited comment on whether it should extend those safeguards beyond the three-year period Congress established for each state. The Commission also invited comment on what, if any, alternative safeguards it might apply to the BOCs' provision of in-region, interLATA, telecommunications services. 2. In May 2003, the Commission issued a *Further Notice* (68 FR 32007, May 29, 2003) seeking comment on whether the BOCs should be classified as dominant if they provided in-region, interstate and international, long distance services in a way that did not comply with the section 272 separate affiliate requirements. This *Further Notice* also invited further comment on the issues raised in the *Independent Incumbent LEC* proceeding (66 FR 50139, Oct. 2, 2001), concerning whether independent incumbent LECs should be classified as dominant in their provision of in-region, interstate and international, interexchange telecommunications services if the Commission eliminated or modified the separate affiliate requirements in § 64.1903 of the Commission's rules. 3. In this Order, the Commission establishes a new framework to govern the provision of in-region, long distance services by the BOCs and their independent incumbent LEC affiliates. This framework replaces unnecessarily burdensome regulation with less intrusive measures that protect important customer interests while allowing the BOCs and their independent incumbent LEC affiliates to respond to marketplace demands efficiently and effectively. The Commission finds that this new framework will increase the BOCs' and the BOC affiliates' ability to develop and deploy innovative long distance services that meet their customers' needs. 4. The new framework, which applies to AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon, is consistent with the Commission's decision in the *Qwest Section 272 Sunset Forbearance Order* , 22 FCC Rcd 5207 (2007). As discussed in that Order, the Commission's current rules force a BOC to choose between two different regulatory regimes in providing in-region, long distance services, both of which impose significant burdens and costs: the BOC can provide these services on a nondominant carrier basis through a section 272 separate affiliate; alternatively, it can provide these services directly or through an affiliate that is not a section 272 separate affiliate subject to dominant carrier regulation, including rate regulation and tariff-filing requirements. AT&T's and Verizon's independent incumbent LEC affiliates must provide in-region, domestic, interexchange telecommunications services and in-region, international telecommunications services only through Commission rule 64.1903 separate affiliates. The Commission concludes that a new regulatory framework is more appropriate. The new framework allows AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon to provide in-region, interstate, long distance services either directly or through affiliates that are neither section 272 separate affiliates nor Commission rule 64.1903 separate affiliates, subject to nondominant carrier regulation, as long as they comply with certain targeted safeguards as well as with other continuing statutory and regulatory obligations. 5. In the Order, the Commission considers whether each BOC, if it provides in-region, interstate and international, long distance services through an affiliate that is not compliant with section 272, could exercise market power with respect to such services by either:
(1)Unilaterally raising the retail price of its in-region, interstate, long distance services (i.e., exercising “classical” market power); or
(2)using its control over bottleneck local facilities to raise its rivals' costs (i.e., exercising “exclusionary” market power). The Commission concludes that the BOCs lack market power with respect to interstate, long distance services and in-region, international telecommunications services. The Commission further concludes, however, that the BOCs have failed to demonstrate that they lack exclusionary market power with regard to these services by reason of their control over ubiquitous telephone exchange service and exchange access networks. The Commission therefore assumes, for the purposes of this proceeding, that each of the BOCs individually continues to possess exclusionary market power within its respective region by reason of its control over these bottleneck access facilities. 6. In the Order, the Commission finds that application of dominant carrier regulation to AT&T's, Verizon's, and Qwest's in-region, interstate, long distance services is unwarranted. First, as the market analysis indicates, AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon do not possess classical market power in the provision of in-region, interstate, long distance services, which is the type of market power that dominant carrier regulation is designed to address. Second, as the Commission recognized in the *LEC Classification Order* (66 FR 35974, July 3, 1997), dominant carrier regulation is not designed to guard against potential abuse of exclusionary market power. Instead, the Commission finds that existing safeguards, combined with the additional safeguards adopted in the Order, adequately address the ability of AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon to raise their long distance rivals' costs through their control of bottleneck access facilities. 7. While the Commission recognizes that dominant carrier regulation of AT&T's, Qwest's, and Verizon's in-region, long distance services could provide some increased level of protection against the exercise of exclusionary market power beyond that provided by these alternative safeguards, such regulation would impose significant costs. These costs include the administrative costs imposed on both the carriers and the Commission that are associated with price regulation, tariff-filing requirements, and reporting requirements. Application of dominant carrier regulation to these services also would restrict AT&T's, Qwest's, and Verizon's ability to respond to competitors' pricing and product initiatives, and would give competitors advance notice of AT&T's, Qwest's, and Verizon's own pricing plans and new products. By impeding the BOCs' ability to compete, these requirements could dampen competition. Given the relative inefficiency of dominant carrier regulation in constraining the exercise of exclusionary market power and the significant costs associated with such regulation, the Commission finds that alternative safeguards adopted in this Order are more cost-effective than, and preferable to, imposing dominant carrier regulation. 8. Thus, the Commission finds the BOCs to be nondominant in the provision of in-region, interstate, long distance services that they provide either directly or through affiliates that are not section 272 separate affiliates as long as they comply with certain targeted safeguards adopted in the Order as well as continuing statutory and regulatory obligations. The Commission also finds the BOCs' independent incumbent LEC affiliates to be nondominant in the provision of in-region, long distance services either directly or through affiliates that are not Commission rule 64.1903 separate affiliates. 9. The Commission further finds no practical distinctions between the BOCs' incentives and ability to use any in-region market power in their provision of international services on the one hand, and interstate long distance services on the other. Accordingly, to the extent the BOCs and their independent incumbent LEC affiliates are deemed nondominant in the provision of any in-region, international telecommunications service provided through a section 272 or Commission rule 64.1903 separate affiliate, the Commission finds them to be nondominant in the provision of that service in the event they choose to provide it directly or through an affiliate that is not a section 272 or Commission rule 64.1903 separate affiliate, subject to their compliance with the targeted safeguards set forth in the Order. 10. In view of the Commission's nondominance determinations in the Order, the Commission finds that, subject to the conditions set forth in the Order, AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest are no longer subject to the requirements in section 203 of the Act (47 U.S.C. 203) and certain of the Commission's price cap, rate of return, and tariffing rules with respect to in-region, interstate and international, long distance services. Specifically:
(1)AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest are not required to, and are in fact barred from, filing tariffs for in-region, interstate and international, long distance services pursuant to section 203 of the Act and § 61.31 through 61.38, and 61.43 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 61.31 through 61.38; 47 CFR 61.43);
(2)AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest are not required to establish an “interexchange basket” pursuant to § 61.42(d)(4) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 61.42(d)(4)), to the extent that § 61.42(d)(4) would require the establishment of an interexchange basket for the services covered by this Order when those services are provided directly or through an affiliate that is neither a section 272 nor a Commission rule 64.1903 separate affiliate; and
(3)AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest need not comply with § 61.28 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 61.28) for the provision of in-region, international telecommunications services to the extent that, and only to the extent that, the BOCs or their affiliates that are neither section 272 nor Commission rule 64.1903 separate affiliates would be treated as dominant carriers under § 61.28 for no other reason than their provision of in-region, international telecommunications services. To the extent that the BOCs or their affiliates that are neither section 272 nor Commission rule 64.1903 separate affiliates otherwise would be treated as dominant carriers under § 61.28, this Order has no effect on that treatment. 11. The Commission also finds that, subject to the conditions set forth in the Order, AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon are not subject to certain of the Commission's discontinuance and streamlined transfer of control rules in connection with their in-region, interstate and international, long distance services. Specifically, AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon are not subject to §§ 63.03, 63.19, 63.21, 63.23, and 63.60 through 63.90 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 63.03, 63.19, 63.21, 63.23, 63.60 through 63.90) for their provision of in-region, interstate and international, long distance services to the extent that, and only to the extent that, the BOCs or their affiliates would be treated as dominant carriers under these rules for no reason other than their provision of those services directly or through an affiliate that is neither a section 272 nor a Commission rule 64.1903 separate affiliate. To the extent that the BOCs or their affiliates otherwise would be treated as dominant carriers under these rules, that treatment shall continue. 12. The Commission further finds that, subject to the conditions set forth in the Order, AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon are not subject to § 43.51 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 43.51) with respect to their provision of in-region, interstate or international, long distance services directly or through an affiliate that is neither a section 272 nor a Commission rule 64.1903 separate affiliate. Specifically, the BOCs and their affiliates are not subject to § 43.51 of the Commission's rules with respect to their provision of in-region, interstate or international, long distance services directly or through an affiliate that is neither a section 272 nor a Commission rule 64.1903 separate affiliate to the extent that, and only to the extent that, the BOCs or their affiliates would be treated as dominant carriers under § 43.51 for no other reason than their provision of in-region, interstate or international, long distance services directly or through an affiliate that is neither a section 272 nor a Commission rule 64.1903 separate affiliate. To the extent that the BOCs or their affiliates otherwise would be treated as dominant carriers under § 43.51, that treatment shall continue. 13. Because the Commission finds that the section 272 safeguards impose significant costs and that other less costly safeguards adequately address the concerns raised by the BOCs' possession of exclusionary market power, the Commission declines to impose on the BOCs the section 272 safeguards that have sunset. The Commission finds that the section 272 safeguards impose a variety of costs, including administrative costs on both the BOCs and the Commission. For example, providing interstate, interLATA telecommunications services through a section 272 separate affiliate requires the BOCs, inter alia, to operate these services independently of their telephone exchange service and exchange access operations, and to maintain duplicate sets of officers, directors, and employees. These restrictions not only impose additional costs, but also prevent the BOCs from taking advantage of the economies of scope and scale associated with integrated operation that their competitors are able to realize. Moreover, structural separation between a BOC's local telephone and long distance operations is at odds with a market environment where the distinction between those local and long distance services has been blurred by the way those services are marketed and delivered to consumers. As a general matter, these restrictions and their associated costs make the BOCs less effective competitors in the market. These restrictions also may prevent the BOCs and their affiliates from quickly responding to technological and marketplace developments. 14. The Commission also finds good cause to waive § 64.1903 of the Commission's rules for the BOCs' independent incumbent LEC affiliates, SNET, including Woodbury, and former GTE. The Commission finds that the concerns regarding the costs of the section 272 safeguards effectively apply to both the BOCs and their independent incumbent LEC affiliates. Therefore, the Commission finds that AT&T and Verizon can more effectively implement the new regulatory framework adopted in the Order if their independent incumbent LEC affiliates are subject to the same targeted safeguards as the rest of the company as a whole. 15. AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest remain subject to a number of legal obligations that are an important component of the regulatory framework that the Commission finds appropriate for the BOCs and their independent incumbent LEC affiliates. In particular, these carriers are still subject to: dominant carrier regulation of their interstate exchange access services, including price cap regulation of most exchange access services; the Commission's accounting and cost allocation rules and related reporting requirements; equal access obligations under longstanding Commission precedent and section 251(g) of the Act ( *see* 47 U.S.C. 251(g)); section 251 obligations ( *see* 47 U.S.C. 251); section 271 obligations ( *see* 47 U.S.C. 271), including the obligation to continue to comply with the market-opening requirements that the BOCs had to meet in order to receive authority to provide in-region, interLATA services; and the continuing general obligation to provide service on just, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory rates, terms, and conditions pursuant to sections 201 and 202 of the Act ( *see* 47 U.S.C. 201, 202). In addition, the nondiscrimination requirement in section 272(e)(1) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 272(e)(1)) and the imputation requirement in section 272(e)(3) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 272(e)(3)) continue to apply. The Commission also requires the continued treatment of the costs of, and revenues from, the direct provision of in-region, long distance services as nonregulated for accounting purposes. The Commission finds that this requirement will provide an important protection against improper cost shifting by the BOCs and their independent incumbent LEC affiliates; address concerns of continued compliance with section 254(k) of the Act; and lessen the chance that costs associated with such services are inadvertently assigned to a local exchange or exchange access category. 16. In addition, in this Order the Commission adopts targeted safeguards that will apply to the BOCs to the extent they choose to provide in-region, interstate or international, long distance services either directly or through an affiliate that is not a section 272 separate affiliate. As a further condition of this Order, the BOCs' independent incumbent LEC affiliates also must comply with these safeguards to the extent they provide in-region, interstate, interexchange telecommunications services either directly or through an affiliate that does not comply with the requirements of either section 272 or § 64.1903 of the Commission's rules. The targeted safeguards include:
(1)Special access performance metrics to prevent non-price discrimination in the provision of special access services;
(2)imputation requirements to help monitor BOC provisioning of these services for possible price discrimination;
(3)the offering of calling plans to protect residential customers who make few interstate, long distance calls; and
(4)providing subscribers monthly usage information to enable them to make cost-effective decisions concerning alternative long distance plans. 17. *Special Access Performance Metrics.* As part of the Commission's implementation of the section 272 structural safeguards, the BOCs have implemented special access performance metrics designed to help ensure that they refrain from non-price discrimination in their provision of special access services. Once a BOC chooses to provide in-region, interLATA telecommunications services either directly or through an affiliate that is not a section 272 separate affiliate, those metrics would cease to be available. AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest also are required to implement special access metrics in accordance with their voluntary commitments in connection with the *SBC/AT&T Order* , 20 FCC Rcd 18290 (2005), the *Verizon/MCI Order* , 20 FCC Rcd 18433 (2005), the *AT&T/BellSouth Order* , 22 FCC Rcd 5662 (2007), and the *Qwest Section 272 Sunset Forbearance Order* . This latter group of special access metrics addresses order taking, provisioning, and maintenance and repair of the BOCs' DS0, DS1, DS3, and OCn services. 18. The Commission finds that the metrics the Commission approved in the *SBC/AT&T Order* , the *Verizon/MCI Order* , the *AT&T/BellSouth Order* , and the *Qwest Section 272 Sunset Forbearance Order* are necessary to monitor whether the BOCs and their independent incumbent LEC affiliates are engaging in non-price discrimination in the provision of special access services to unaffiliated entities in light of the regulatory relief the Commission grants those carriers in this Order. The information that AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon record and report to the Commission under these metrics will provide the Commission and other interested parties with reasonable tools to monitor each BOC's performance in providing these special access services to itself and its competitors. This obligation shall apply beginning the first full quarter following provision of any in-region, interLATA telecommunications service through the BOC or through an affiliate that is not a section 272 separate affiliate. In addition, each of AT&T's and Verizon's independent incumbent LEC affiliates shall implement these metrics for the first full quarter following provision of any in-region, interstate, interexchange telecommunications service through the BOC or through an affiliate that is not a section 272 separate affiliate. The BOCs and their independent incumbent LEC affiliates must continue to abide by special access performance metrics until there is an affirmative Commission determination that such metrics no longer are necessary. 19. Each BOC and each of AT&T's and Verizon's independent incumbent LEC affiliates shall implement these metrics to the extent the BOC or independent incumbent LEC provides one or more of the covered special access services to itself, to any affiliate, or to third parties. The BOCs and their independent incumbent LEC affiliates shall provide the Commission with their performance measurement results on a quarterly basis. 20. *Imputation.* The Commission also provides guidance, pursuant to its authority under sections 201, 202(a), 220(a), and 272(e)(3) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 201, 202(a), 220(a), 272(e)(3)), to AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon regarding the treatment of charges for any access services that their incumbent LEC affiliates provide their in-region, long distance operations. In providing this guidance, the Commission addresses three situations:
(1)The BOCs' imputation in the event they provide in-region, long distance services on an integrated basis;
(2)the obligations of AT&T's and Verizon's independent incumbent LEC affiliates in the event they provide in-region, long distance services on an integrated basis; and
(3)AT&T's, Qwest's, and Verizon's obligations in the event they provide in-region, long distance services through an affiliate that is neither a section 272 nor a rule 64.1903 separate affiliate. 21. In order to ensure the BOCs' continued compliance with their imputation obligations under section 272(e)(3), the Commission directs each BOC to continue to impute to itself its highest tariffed rate for access, including access provided over joint-use facilities. The Commission also requires AT&T's and Verizon's independent incumbent LEC affiliates, as a condition of the waiver granted to them in the Order, to comply with the same requirement with regard to their provision of access to any in-region, long distance services that they provide directly. In addition, the Commission requires the BOCs and their independent incumbent LEC affiliates to charge any non-section 272 affiliate through which they provide in-region, long distance services the same amount for access that they would have charged a section 272 separate affiliate under section 272(e)(3). Although the statute does not address these latter two situations directly, applying protections paralleling those in section 272(e)(3) to these situations will assure that the degree of protection against improper cost shifting does not vary with AT&T's, Qwest's, and Verizon's choice of corporate structure for the provision of in-region, long distance services. 22. Section 69.727(a)(iii) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 69.727(a)(iii)) requires that a price cap LEC cannot provide contract tariff services to either a section 272 separate affiliate or a Commission rule 64.1903 affiliate until after it “certifies to the Commission that it provides service pursuant to that contract tariff to an unaffiliated customer.” To ensure that equivalent protection is in place in the event the BOCs provide in-region, long distance services directly, the Commission requires that each AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest incumbent LEC provide such a certification to the Commission prior to providing contract tariff services to itself or to any affiliate that is neither a section 272 nor a Commission rule 64.1903 separate affiliate for use in the provision of any in-region, long distance services. 23. The Commission requires that AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon revise the cost allocation manuals they filed pursuant to § 64.903 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 64.903) to include their imputation methodologies, which will be subject to public comment. The Commission also requires AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon to revise their cost allocation manuals to include a description of how their provision of access services will comply with the affiliate transaction rules, to the extent they will offer in-region, interstate, long distance service through an affiliate that is not a section 272 separate affiliate or a Commission rule 64.1903 affiliate. Consistent with the Commission's findings in the *Accounting Safeguards Order* (61 FR 41208, Aug. 7, 1996), the Commission requires that the BOCs and their independent incumbent LEC affiliates continue to treat in-region, long distance services as nonregulated for accounting purposes. These carriers also must continue to apply the Commission's affiliate transaction rules to any transactions they have with affiliates that provide long distance services. The Commission also directs AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon to modify their cost allocation manuals as necessary to ensure that their imputation and access charge methodologies remain consistent with section 272(e)(3) and this Order as each of these carriers changes the degree to which it integrates its local telephone and long distance operations. 24. Finally, under the Commission's rules, amounts imputed to each BOC's, or BOC independent incumbent LEC affiliate's, in-region, long distance operations pursuant to section 272(e)(3) and the Order must be debited to account 32.5280 (47 CFR 32.5280), which includes nonregulated operating revenue. To facilitate transparency of each carrier's imputation of in-region, long distance costs, the Commission requires AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon, as a condition of the Order, to include the imputation charges it debits to account 32.5280 in its ARMIS filings, accompanied by an explanatory footnote for each line item identifying the amount imputed. This requirement should pose at most a minimal additional burden to the carriers because they already record imputation charges in a subsidiary record account for revenues derived from regulated services treated as nonregulated for federal accounting purposes, and already must file ARMIS reports. 25. *Low Volume Usage Plans.* Although it finds that the BOCs generally lack classical market power in the provision of in-region, interstate, long distance services, the Commission remains concerned that BOC residential customers who make relatively few interstate long distance calls and who do not also subscribe to wireless or broadband Internet access service may have fewer competitive choices among in-region, interstate long distance providers and may not be able to avoid the impact of a price increase by engaging in usage substitution. To address this concern, AT&T and Verizon each have committed for three years to offer a rate plan tailored to these customers' needs. Specifically, AT&T and Verizon each commit to offer a rate plan under which residential consumers with a local access line may obtain 1+ long distance telecommunications services at a rate of 12 cents per minute with no monthly minimum or monthly recurring charge. In connection with the *Qwest Section 272 Sunset Forbearance Order,* Qwest committed to freeze for two years the per-minute prices for two calling plans that it currently offers which are tailored to these customers' needs, and to not increase the monthly fee that applies to one of these plans by more than one dollar as a condition of the Commission's forbearance. The Commission requires that AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon adhere to these commitments as a condition of the relief granted in this Order, and finds that this condition will help protect against the exercise of any classical market power that Verizon, AT&T, or Qwest may have in relation to customers that make relatively few interstate long distance calls. 26. *Monthly Usage Information.* The Commission is also concerned that interstate long distance consumers need adequate information regarding their monthly usage in order to make informed choices among alternative long distance calling plans. To address this concern, AT&T has committed to provide, for three years, each residential customer who subscribes to a calling plan that establishes a single rate for unlimited wireline local exchange and long distance telecommunications service with the total number of long distance telecommunications service minutes used by that customer each month. Similarly, Verizon has committed, for three years, to offer monthly long distance usage information to customers who subscribe to wireline interstate, interexchange telecommunications service plans that establish a single rate for unlimited wireline local exchange, intraLATA toll, and 1+ long distance telecommunications service. As a condition of the regulatory relief granted in this Order, the Commission requires AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest to provide such usage information without an additional charge. 27. The Commission finds that the new regulatory framework adopted in this Order is preferable to the regulatory requirements previously in place for the BOCs and their independent incumbent LEC affiliates. In particular, the Commission finds that the new framework imposes significantly fewer costs than the prior regulations. Because the new framework does not involve retail price regulation or tariff filing with respect to in-region interLATA telecommunications services, it imposes fewer costs than would dominant carrier regulation. The new framework also does not impose the costs and inefficiencies associated with the full section 272 safeguards, including the costs and inefficiencies from maintaining structural separation between local telephone and long distance operations, operating these services independently, and maintaining duplicate sets of officers, directors, and employees. In addition, the new framework does not impose the same constraints on the ability of the BOCs and their independent incumbent LEC affiliates to respond to technological and marketplace developments as do the section 272 and Commission rule 64.1903 safeguards. Further, the Commission finds that the improved ability of AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest to develop and deploy innovative interLATA services that meet their customers' needs is a significant benefit associated with the new framework adopted in this Order. Given its expertise and experience with the regulation historically imposed on the BOCs and their independent incumbent LEC affiliates; the evidence of significant competition and evolution in the marketplace for interstate long distance services within the AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest incumbent LEC territories; and its conclusions regarding the adequacy of other safeguards, the Commission finds it appropriate to remove hindrances to the BOCs' and their independent incumbent LEC affiliates' becoming more effective competitors in a manner that is administrable and adequately protects customers and competition. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 28. This document contains new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this Order as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due December 11, 2007. In addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” 29. In this document, the Commission has assessed the effects of the new or modified information collection requirements adopted in this Order, and finds that they do not affect businesses with few than 25 employees. In addition to filing comments with the Office of the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to Jerry R. Cowden, Federal Communications Commission, 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to *PRA@fcc.gov* . Congressional Review Act 30. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 31. In this Order, the Commission establishes a new framework to govern the provision of in-region, long distance services by AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon. This new framework replaces burdensome regulation with less intrusive measures that protect important customer interests while allowing AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon to respond to marketplace demands efficiently and effectively. The issues addressed by the Commission in this Order directly affect only the BOCs and their affiliates, which do not qualify as small entities under the RFA. In particular, none of the BOCs is a small entity because each BOC is an affiliate of a Regional Holding Company (RHC), and all of the BOCs or their RHCs have more than 1,500 employees. Insofar as this Order applies to other BOC or RHC affiliates, those affiliates are controlled by the BOCs or by the RHC. Accordingly, they are not “independently owned and operated” entities for purposes of the RFA. 32. Therefore, the Commission finds that the requirements adopted in this Order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the Order including a copy of this final certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. *See* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, a summary of the Order will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Ordering Clauses 33. Accordingly, *it is ordered* that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 201 through 204, 214, 220(a), 251, 252, 271, 272, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 201 through 204, 214, 220(a), 251, 252, 271, 272, and 303(r), the Report and Order *is adopted.* 34. *It is further ordered,* pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 201 through 204, 214, 220(a), 251, 252, 271, 272, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 201 through 204, 214, 220(a), 251, 252, 271, 272, and 303(r), the Petition for Extension of section 272 Obligations of Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. in the States of Arkansas and Missouri that Legacy AT&T Corp. filed September 24, 2004 in WC Docket No. 02-112; the Petition for Extension of section 272 Obligations of Verizon in the State of Massachusetts that Legacy AT&T Corp. filed February 29, 2004 in WC Docket No. 02-112; the Petition for Extension of section 272 Obligations of Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. in the States of Kansas and Oklahoma that Legacy AT&T Corp. filed December 8, 2003 in WC Docket No. 02-112; and the Petition for Extension of section 272 Obligations of Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. in the State of Texas in WC Docket No. 02-112 that Legacy AT&T Corp. filed April 10, 2003 in WC Docket No. 02-112 *are denied.* 35. *It is further ordered,* pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 201 through 204, 214, 220(a), 251, 252, 271, 272, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-154(j), 201-204, 214, 220(a), 251, 252, 271, 272, and 303(r), that § 64.1903 of the Commission's rules *is waived* as applied to Southern New England Telephone Company and the General Telephone Operating Companies, subject to the conditions set forth in this Report and Order. 36. *It is further ordered,* pursuant to § 1.103(a) and 1.427(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.103(a), 1.427(b), that this Report and Order *shall be effective* 30 days after publication of notice of the Report and Order in the **Federal Register** , subject to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)approval for new or modified information collection requirements. 37. *It is further ordered,* pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 10, 201 through 204, 214, 220(a), 251, 252, 271, 272, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201 through 204, 214, 220(a), 251, 252, 271, 272, and 303(r) that AT&T's Petition for Forbearance, filed June 2, 2006, *is granted* in part, to the extent set forth herein. 38. *It is further ordered,* pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201 through 204, 251(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) through 154(j), 201-204, 251(g), and 303(r), and § 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.3, that the Equal Access Scripting Requirement *is waived* as applied to Southern New England Telephone Company and the General Telephone Operating Companies as described in the Memorandum Opinion and Order, effective on August 31, 2007. 39. *It is further ordered,* pursuant to section 10 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 160, and § 1.103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.103(a), that the Memorandum Opinion and Order *shall be effective* on August 31, 2007. Pursuant to § 1.4 and 1.13 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.4, 1.13, the time for appeal from that Memorandum Opinion and Order shall run from its release date. 40. *It is further ordered* that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, *shall send* a copy of this Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 53 and 64 Accounting, Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telephone, Telecommunications. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. 07-5037 Filed 10-11-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 45
Traces to 45 documents
register
CFR
- What size standards has SBA identified by North American Industry Classification System codes?§ 121.201
- Persons authorized to approve aircraft, airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, or component parts for return to service after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration.§ 43.7
- Content, form, and disposition of maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration records (except inspections performed in accordance with part 91, part 125, § 135.411(a)(1), and § 135.419 of this chapter).§ 43.9
- May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?§ 39.19
- Definitions.§ 14.627
- Termination of accreditation or authority to provide representation under § 14.630.§ 14.633
- Purpose.§ 14.626
- Recognition of organizations.§ 14.628
- Requirements for accreditation of service organization representatives; agents; and attorneys.§ 14.629
- Implementation plan revision.§ 51.390
- Public hearings.§ 51.102
- Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?§ 52.540
- Findings and requirements for submission of State implementation plan revisions relating to emissions of oxides of nitrogen pursuant to the Clean Air Interstate Rule.§ 51.123
- Findings and requirements for submission of State implementation plan revisions relating to emissions of sulfur dioxide pursuant to the Clean Air Interstate Rule.§ 51.124
U.S. Code
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Purposes§ 3501
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Recognition of agents and attorneys generally§ 5904
- Supplemental claims§ 5108
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Statements to accompany significant regulatory actions§ 1532
- Departmental regulations§ 301
- Rules and regulations§ 501
- Definitions§ 601
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
- State and local land use controls§ 4022
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 4001
- Nonparticipation in flood insurance program§ 4106
- Rule making§ 553
- Schedules of charges§ 203
- Interconnection§ 251
- Bell operating company entry into interLATA services§ 271
- Service and charges§ 201
- Separate affiliate; safeguards§ 272
- Federal agency responsibilities§ 3506
- Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission created§ 151
- Competition in provision of telecommunications service§ 160
41 references not yet in our index
- 7 CFR 924
- 7 USC 601-674
- 7 CFR 924.42
- 14 CFR 39
- 1 CFR 51
- 38 CFR 14
- Pub. L. 109-461
- 38 USC 3402
- 318 F.3d 1334
- 44 USC 3501-3521
- 5 USC 601-602
- 28 USC 2671-2680
- 28 CFR 14
- 40 CFR 52
- 40 CFR 93
- 40 CFR 93.105
- 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii)
- 40 CFR 93.125(c)
- 40 CFR 81.305
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 40 CFR 52.541
- 40 CFR 96
- 40 CFR 96.143
- 40 CFR 75
- 44 CFR 64
- 44 CFR 59
- 44 CFR 10
- 47 CFR 61.31
- 47 CFR 61.43
- 47 CFR 61.42(d)(4)
- 47 CFR 61.28
- 47 CFR 63.03
- 47 CFR 43.51
- 47 CFR 69.727(a)(iii)
- 47 CFR 64.903
- 47 CFR 32.5280
- Pub. L. 104-13
- Pub. L. 107-198
- 47 CFR 1.103(a)
- 47 CFR 1.3
+ 1 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
F. App'x318 F.3d 1334
Cite7 CFR 924
Cite7 USC 601-674
Cites 86 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources