Rules and Regulations. Final rule

60,875 words·~277 min read·/register/2008/03/04/08-918·

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 697 [Docket No. 070717344-8150-01; I.D. 041907A] RIN 0648-AV44 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; Weakfish Fishery AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to decrease the incidental catch allowance for weakfish caught in the Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ)from 300 lb (135 kg) to no more than 150 lb (67 kg) per day or trip, whichever is longer in duration. The intent of this final rule is to modify regulations for the Atlantic coast stock of weakfish to be consistent with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (Commission) Interstate Fishery Management Plan (ISFMP) for weakfish, as set forth in the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act). DATES: Effective April 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents are available from Chris Moore, Chief, Partnerships and Communications Division (SF8), Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Suite 13317, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Hooker, 301-713-2334. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Commission approved Addendum II to Amendment 4 of the Weakfish ISFMP in February 2007. Included in the management measures for this addendum was a reduction of the bycatch limit of weakfish in commercial fisheries from 300 lb (135 kg) to 150 lb (67 kg). These measures were developed in response to recent stock assessment data that suggested low weakfish biomass. While the reduced bycatch provision would not itself resolve the biomass issue, the Commission thought it a measure that might potentially slow the decline and have some positive effect. A more detailed discussion of the stock assessment and Commission action is set forth in the proposed rule for this action that was published in the **Federal Register** on June 14, 2007 (72 FR 32830). NMFS analyzed the Commission's bycatch recommendation and similarly concluded that although the measure would not itself remedy the low weakfish biomass, the recommendation appeared reasonable, prudent and positive. The measure would also support the Commission's Weakfish ISFMP and, importantly, would further the consistency between State and Federal weakfish regulations. Comments and Responses NMFS received no public comments on the proposed rule for this action. Classification This final rule is published under the authority of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act). Paragraphs

(A)and

(B)of section 804(b)

(1)of the Atlantic Coastal Act, 16 U.S.C. 5103(a)-(b), authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to implement regulations in the EEZ in the absence of a Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) fishery management plan. Such regulations must be compatible with the effective implementation of a Commission's ISFMP, and consistent with the national standards set forth in section 301 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that this action is compatible with the effective implementation of the Commission's ISFMP for weakfish and consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 697 Fisheries, Fishing. Dated: February 28, 2008. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 697, is amended as follows: PART 697—ATLANTIC COASTAL FISHERIES COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 697 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 5101 *et seq.* 2. In § 697.7, paragraph

(4)is revised to read as follows: § 697.7 Prohibitions.

(a)* * *

(4)Possess more than 150 lb (67 kg) of weakfish during any one day or trip, whichever is longer, in the EEZ when using a mesh size less than 3 1/4-inch (8.3 cm) square stretch mesh(as measured between the centers of opposite knots when stretched taut) or 3 3/4-inch (9.5 cm) diamond stretch mesh for finfish trawls and 2 7/8-inch (7.3 cm) stretch mesh for gillnets. [FR Doc. E8-4122 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 43 Tuesday, March 4, 2008 Proposed Rules POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 111 Address Facing Standards for Presort Bundles on Pallets AGENCY: Postal Service. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Effective September 14, 2008, the Postal Service is proposing to require mailers to place presort bundles on pallets with the addresses facing up. DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written comments to the Manager, Mailing Standards, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 3436, Washington, DC 20260-3436. You may inspect and photocopy all written comments at USPS Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 11th Floor N, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Do not submit comments via fax or e-mail. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Gunther at 202-268-7208. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Postal Service is in the process of implementing technological changes through the deployment of the Flats Sequencing System

(FSS)to automate delivery sequencing for flat-size mail. FSS can sort flat-size mailpieces into delivery sequence, increasing the efficiency of letter carriers by reducing time in sorting mail, and allowing delivery to begin earlier in the day. As we approach deployment of FSS, we are closely examining other technologies that will enhance our efforts to make the most of this investment and achieve the lowest combined costs for handling flat-size mail. Placement of presort bundles on pallets with the address side up is needed for efficient processing in today's processing environment and, eventually, for the automated preparation and induction for FSS in the future. USPS® standards in *Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service,* Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®) 705.8.5.7 and 705.8.5.9 require mailers preparing presort bundles to ensure that the delivery address information on the top mailpiece in each bundle is visible and readable by the naked eye. Standards in 705.8.5.8 require that bundles counter-stacked on pallets must have all addresses facing up. Logically, these standards should include the requirement for all presort bundles placed on pallets to be arranged with the addresses facing up. Placing bundles on pallets with the addresses facing up aids in validation of the contents and greatly enhances manual distribution of the bundles. Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act [5 U.S.C. of 553(b), (c)] regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), we invite public comment on the following proposed revisions to the DMM, incorporated by reference in the *Code of Federal Regulations* . See 39 CFR 111.1. List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service. Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 111—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633 and 5001. 2. Revise the following sections of *Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service,* Domestic Mail Manual

(DMM)as follows: 700 Special Standards 705 Advanced Preparation and Special Postage Payment Systems 8.0 Preparing Pallets 8.5 General Preparation 8.5.6 Mail on Pallets *[Revise 8.5.6 to clarify that presort bundles on pallets must be face up by adding new item i as follows:]* i. All presort bundles on pallets must be placed with the addresses facing up. We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes if the proposal is adopted. Neva R. Watson, Attorney, Legislative. [FR Doc. E8-4078 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-1180; FRL-8535-8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the state of Iowa to demonstrate that the state meets the requirements of Section 110(a)(1) and

(2)of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA and is commonly referred to as an infrastructure SIP. In 1997, EPA promulgated the 8-hour ozone primary and secondary NAAQS. A revision to Iowa's SIP detailing how the state plans to ensure that the revised ozone standard is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Iowa was submitted on June 15, 2007. The submittal addressed all the elements of the October 2, 2007, guidance issued by the Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards with respect to infrastructure SIPs. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by April 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-1180 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: hamilton.heather@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail:* Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to: Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at

(913)551-7039, or by e-mail at *hamilton.heather@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no relevant adverse comments on this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: February 15, 2008. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. E8-4046 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1096; FRL-8536-9] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois; Voluntary Nitrogen Oxides Controls AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: On May 1, 2001, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) submitted a request for EPA approval of regulations governing Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ) emission allowances granted for the implementation of voluntary control of NO X emissions from sources not otherwise covered under other Illinois NO X emission control regulations. Illinois requested incorporation of these voluntary NO X emission control and NO X emission allowance regulations into the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP). We are proposing to disapprove these regulations as an amendment of the Illinois SIP. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 3, 2008. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1096, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov* . • *Fax:*

(312)886-5824. • *Mail:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. • *Hand Delivery:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office's official hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1096. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI, or otherwise protected, through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption, and should be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hardcopy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hardcopy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. It is recommended that you telephone Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist, at

(312)886-6057, before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)886-6057, *doty.edward@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA (or U.S. EPA). This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. What Action Are We Proposing for Illinois' Voluntary NO X Emissions Reduction Rule and Requested SIP Revision? II. Background III. Summary of the State's Submittal A. What are the components and requirements of the subject rule? B. What is Illinois' basis for supporting approval of the subject rule as a SIP revision? C. How does the subject rule interface with or relate to other Illinois NO X rules? IV. EPA Technical Review of the Subject Rule and SIP Revision Request A. Is the Subpart X rule specifically required by any EPA regulations or policies or requirements of the Clean Air Act? B. What EPA policies and requirements are applicable to the subject rule? C. Is the subject rule allowed under EPA policy and requirements? D. What are the differences in the monitoring requirements of Subpart X and those of the NO X SIP call? E. Are there any source categories not covered by 40 CFR part 75 that are covered by Subpart X? F. What technical problems and issues of concern have we found for the subject rule? G. What are our proposed actions regarding the approvability of the subject rule? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Are We Proposing for Illinois' Voluntary NO X Emissions Reduction Rule and Requested SIP Revision? Based on technical deficiencies and other technical concerns noted below for the Subpart X rule (35 Illinois Administrative Code (IAC), part 217, subpart X), we are proposing to disapprove the Subpart X rule as a revision to the Illinois SIP. II. Background On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA published a finding of significant contribution of ozone and ozone precursor transport for 22 States and the District of Columbia, and established state-specific NO X emission budgets for these States (the final EPA rule is referred to as the NO X SIP call). The October 27, 1998, final rule also established part 75 Continuous Emission Monitoring

(CEM)requirements and part 96 NO X emission trading program provisions under Volume 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)Illinois is included in the list of States covered by the NO X SIP call, and as such, has been assigned a NO X emissions budget for 2007 and subsequent years. Illinois, as required, has submitted a NO X SIP with NO X emission control regulations for Electrical Generating Units (EGUs), major non-EGU (industrial) boilers and turbines, and major cement kilns 1 to achieve the NO X emission reduction needed to achieve the State's NO X emission budget. The State also established regulations to implement a NO X emissions cap-and-trade program and to provide for NO X emissions credit trading in a National NO X emissions trading program (the NO X Budget Trading Program). 1 EPA approved Illinois' EGU NO X rule on November 8, 2001 (66 FR 56454) and Illinois' NO X rules for major non-EGU boilers and turbines and major cement kilns on November 8, 2001 (66 FR 56449). As part of its efforts to comply with the NO X SIP call, Illinois has established procedures for NO X emission allowance trading, and has established a set-aside of a portion of the State's total NO X emission allowances for new sources. To allow for additional NO X emissions growth and to provide additional emission allowances for existing sources and new sources, the State has established a rule to provide for NO X emissions control and NO X emission allowance generation through the voluntary implementation of emission controls on various NO X sources. The rule covering the NO X emissions control and the generation of NO X emission credits for sources voluntarily seeking these NO X emission credits is referred to by the State as the “Subpart X Voluntary NO X Emissions Reduction Program,” (35 IAC part 217, subpart X), the subject rule of this proposed action and referred to here simply as the Subpart X rule. This rule was submitted to the EPA on May 1, 2001, for approval into the Illinois SIP. III. Summary of the State's Submittal The Subpart X rule covers the State's voluntary NO X emission control and emissions credit program for sources not covered in the State's other NO X emission control rules. Generally, sources that elect to be covered under the Subpart X rule are smaller NO X sources with relatively low NO X emissions during the ozone control period (May through September). A. What are the components and requirements of the subject rule? The Subpart X rule is divided into the following sections, whose requirements and provisions are summarized here. Section 217.800 Purpose The purpose of the Subpart X rule is to provide a method (procedure) and source requirements by which “additional” NO X emission allowances may be generated for use (through the NO X Budget Trading Program) by emission units subject to the requirements of 35 IAC part 217, subpart U (NO X Control and Trading Program For Specified NO X Generating Units) and subpart W (NO X Trading Program For Electrical Generating Units). Note that Subpart X sources would not be opt-in sources covered under Subpart U or Subpart W, which must meet different requirements. Sources subject to the Subpart X rule would generate additional NO X emission allowances through NO X emission reductions not otherwise required in Illinois' NO X control rules. See additional discussions of this issue below. Section 217.805 Emission Unit Eligibility This section allows any owner or operator of a stationary NO X source (with the exceptions/exclusions noted below) to submit a proposal for voluntarily reducing NO X emissions during the ozone control period. The emission units seeking the NO X emission reduction credits must meet the following criteria:

(1)They must discharge their NO X emissions through a stack(s);

(2)They must be fossil fuel-fired;

(3)They must not be subject to the requirements of 35 IAC part 217, subparts T, U, V, or W;

(4)They must not be retired units pursuant to 40 CFR 96.5;

(5)Their owners/operators must not have elected to make the units “opt-in units” pursuant to 35 IAC part 217, subpart W; and,

(6)they may not be stationary internal combustion engines that emit more than 1 ton of NO X per day during the ozone control period. Section 217.810 Participation Requirements Any owner or operator of a NO X emissions unit meeting the source requirements of 35 IAC section 217.805 that seeks voluntary NO X emission reduction allowances under this rule must:

(1)Submit a NO X emission reduction proposal that meets the requirements of section 217.835;

(2)Request a NO X emissions cap for all NO X emission units at the source facility that are not subject to the requirements of 217 IAC part 217, subpart U or subpart W and that are that are of the same or similar source type as the units for which voluntary emission reduction allowances are sought. The owner or operator, however, may submit a demonstration that any emission unit(s) should not be included in the NO X emission cap;

(3)Obtain a source permit, or an amendment to an existing source permit, for the emission source (collection of applicable emission units to be included in the emissions cap), with Federally enforceable conditions, containing the commitments in the NO X emissions reduction proposal and implementing the emissions cap by the later of May 1, 2003, or the date on which the reduction in NO X emissions will commence. If the emission reduction allowance will be generated by ceasing operation of a unit, the owner or operator must withdraw the applicable source permit for the unit or must request a revision to the source permit to reflect the shutdown of the unit by the later of May 1, 2003, or the date specified in the NO X emission reduction proposal;

(4)Submit an emission baseline determination for each emissions unit subject to the NO X emissions cap in compliance with the requirements of 35 IAC section 217.820; and,

(5)Meet the following monitoring requirements:

(a)Each emission reduction unit must comply with the monitoring requirements in 35 IAC section 217.850;

(b)The emission measurements recorded and reported (to the State) will be used to determine compliance of the emission reduction unit with the emission limitation specified in the source's emission reduction proposal, with the source's emission reduction proposal, and with the Federally enforceable permit conditions for the unit; and,

(c)The emission measurements recorded and reported will be used to determine compliance by the source with the emissions cap set forth in the NO X emission reduction proposal and with the Federally enforceable permit conditions for the source facility. The owner or operator of the emission reduction source facility must submit an annual certification to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) that demonstrates that the source facility has complied with the NO X emissions cap and that the source facility has complied with the requirements of 35 IAC section 217.850. Section 217.815 NO X Emission Reductions and the Subpart X NO X Trading Budget NO X emission reductions credited under the Subpart X rule must be quantifiable, verifiable, and Federally enforceable, and must meet one or more of the following criteria:

(1)NO X emissions from the emission reduction unit for any ozone control period beginning in 2003 or after the implementation of the voluntary NO X emission control, whichever comes later, are lower than the unit's NO X emissions baseline. The amount of NO X emissions reduction must be determined in compliance with 35 IAC section 217.820, and the amount of creditable NO X emission reduction must be determined to be in compliance with 35 IAC section 217.825;

(2)The emission reduction unit is permanently shut down after January 1, 1995, and the owner or operator requests a revision to the source operating permit to reflect the unit shutdown; or,

(3)During any ozone control period beginning in 2003, the emission reduction unit's control period (ozone control period) NO X emission rate or hours of operation is reduced pursuant to Federally enforceable conditions in a source permit for such unit, resulting in an actual NO X emission reduction relative to the unit's NO X emissions baseline. In the Federal NO X Budget Trading Program, the EPA must adjust the State's trading portion of the State's NO X emissions budget, as established in the NO X SIP call, and create allowances for the creditable portion or the NO X emissions reduction. NO X emission allowances generated by Subpart X will be allocated to the recipient emission source facilities in accordance with Subpart X. The Illinois EPA will submit an allocation to the EPA, and this allocation may be used for the purposes of demonstrating compliance with the requirements of 35 IAC part 217, subparts U and W. In other words, a source can trade allocated emission allowances to sources needing such emission allowances to meet the requirements of the State's NO X SIP and EPA's NO X SIP call and emissions trading program. If EPA adjusts or fails to adjust the NO X emissions trading budget for any applicable emission reduction unit, the Subpart X Section 217.820 Baseline Emission Determination An emission unit's NO X emissions baseline will be determined by using one of the following procedures:

(1)By multiplying the unit's actual NO X emissions during the 1995 calendar year by 5/12ths; or,

(2)If the NO X emissions from the unit were not characterized in the annual emissions report for 1995, by determining the base-case amount included for such unit in EPA's NO X SIP call emissions inventory, as specified in the “Technical Support Document for Illinois Statewide NO X Budget” (63 FR 17349). If the NO X baseline emissions for the 1995 ozone control period cannot be determined by either of the above methods, the emissions baseline will be determined based on the average emissions rate multiplied by the average number of hours of operation from two of the three ozone control periods, as selected by the emission reduction source owner/operator, prior to the year the emission reduction proposal is effective. The NO X emission rate and hours of operation shall be determined based on the source unit's reported NO X emission rate and hours of operation in the most recent annual emissions reports for the source unit. Section 217.825 Calculation of Creditable NO X Emission Reductions The gross amount of ozone control period actual NO X emission reductions will be determined pursuant to Section 217.820 (discussed above). Eighty percent of the actual NO X emissions reduction achieved will be “creditable.” Twenty percent of the actual NO X emission reduction will be retired (non-creditable) for the benefit of air quality. Section 217.830 Limitations on NO X Emission Reductions Each NO X emission allowance issued is a limited authorization to emit one

(1)ton of NO X in accordance with the Federal NO X Trading Program as set forth in 35 IAC part 217, subpart U. Either the EPA or the State has the authority to terminate or limit the issuance of such an emission allowance. Such an emission allowance does not constitute a property right for the source facility. Section 217.835 NO X Emission Reduction Proposal The NO X emission reduction proposal, to be filed by the owner or operator of the emission reduction unit must include the following in the emission reduction proposal:

(1)Information identifying each NO X emissions unit at the source facility and the baseline NO X emissions for each unit subject to the NO X emissions cap;

(2)Information identifying each emission reduction unit for which the emission reductions have been or will be achieved;

(3)An explanation of the methods used to achieve the NO X emission reductions;

(4)Documentation of the NO X emission reductions, including supporting calculations and input data;

(5)Identification of the emission units subject to the NO X emissions cap, and, if all like-kind or same-type emission units are not to be included in the emissions cap, an explanation of how the owner/operator will ensure that production shifting will not occur to interfere with the emission reductions at the capped units;

(6)The ozone control period NO X emission cap to be achieved by the source facility, including the baseline NO X emissions for each emission reduction unit and the NO X emission reduction for each emission reduction unit;

(7)The name and address of the owner or operator of each NO X emission unit to which the NO X emission allowances will be allocated, the subpart of 35 IAC part 217 to which each NO X emission unit is subject, and the account number (NO X trading account number) of the account representative for each such unit; and,

(8)Certification that the emission reductions specified in the proposal have been or will be achieved. The owner or operator of an emission reduction unit must notify the Illinois EPA in writing within 30 days of any event or circumstance that makes the NO X emission reduction proposal incorrect or incomplete. The owner or operator of a source facility with an approved emission reduction proposal may request to withdraw the emission reduction proposal and to cease the creation of NO X emission reduction allowances, and must comply with the following:

(1)Submit to the Illinois EPA a written request to withdraw from participation and to withdraw or revise the applicable source permit effective as of a specified date between (and not including) September 30 and May 1 (outside of the ozone control period). This submission requesting to withdraw must be made no later than 90 days prior to the requested effective date of the withdrawal;

(2)Submit to the Illinois EPA an annual compliance certification report for the control period immediately before the withdrawal is to be effective;

(3)The emission reduction source that withdraws from the requirements of Subpart X must comply with all requirements under its approved emission reduction proposal and Federally enforceable source permit for all years during which the emission reduction source is in the program, even if such requirements arise or must be complied with after the withdrawal takes effect;

(4)The effective date of the withdrawal will be specified by the State and will be prior to May 1 or after September 30 (the source withdrawal will not be made effective during an ozone control period);

(5)If the State denies the request to withdraw, the owner or operator of the affected source may submit another request to withdraw in accordance with subsections

(a)and

(b)of 35 IAC section 217.835; and,

(6)Upon successful withdrawal from the program (from the voluntary emission reduction program and from the NO X trading program), the source facility shall no longer be subject to the requirements of Subpart X. Section 217.840 Agency Action The Illinois EPA will notify the owner/operator of an affected source facility in writing of its decision with respect to the NO X reduction proposal within 90 days after receipt of the proposal. The NO X emissions reduction proposal will not be effective until:

(1)After the owner/operator of the emission reduction unit has obtained a source permit with Federally enforceable conditions addressing the requirements of Subpart X; or,

(2)If the NO X emission reductions are being obtained by the shutdown of a unit, the owner/operator has either obtained a source permit with Federally enforceable conditions addressing the requirements of Subpart X or withdrawn the applicable source permit and the Illinois EPA has provided the EPA with a copy of the proposal and notice of Illinois EPA's proposed approval of the emission reduction proposal (and EPA has not disapproved such proposal) and has provided an opportunity for public comment on the permit withdrawal and on the State's proposed approval of the emission reduction proposal. Emission allowances generated pursuant to the Subpart X rule will be issued to the recipient emission unit identified in the proposal for each ozone/emission control period in which the NO X emission reductions are verified and the requirements of Subpart X continue to be met. The emission allowances shall be issued by May 1 after the ozone control period in which the NO X emission reduction has occurred, and may be used (traded or sold) in any future emission control period. Note that the emission allowances are not granted and used until after the emission reductions have actually occurred. Section 217.845 Emissions Determination Methods The owner or operator of an emission reduction unit must demonstrate that the source facility has obtained the planned NO X emission reductions, and has not exceeded its NO X emission cap. If the NO X emission reduction is due to NO X emission reductions resulting from the use of emission reduction technology, the NO X emission rates for each emission reduction unit must be determined through the use of Continuous Emission Monitors

(CEMs)in accordance with 35 IAC section 217.850 or through the use of any test methods or procedures provided in 40 CFR part 60 and approved by the Illinois EPA, or any method approved by the Illinois EPA when included as Federally enforceable conditions in a source permit issued or revised pursuant to Subpart X. If a test based on 40 CFR part 60 is to be used, an initial test must be conducted 90 days prior to the date the specified emission reductions will be obtained, or within 45 days of Illinois EPA's request for such test for NO X emission reductions already obtained. The owner or operator of the emission reduction unit must notify the Illinois EPA in writing of any test performed to comply with the requirements of Subpart X, and must make this notification at least 30 days prior to such test. If the NO X emission reduction is due to a reduction in operating hours or to a reduction of the NO X emission rate during the ozone control period, the owner/operator of the emissions unit must submit an initial compliance demonstration plan to the Illinois EPA 120 days prior to the date that the emission reduction will commence in compliance with the approved emission reduction proposal. Such a demonstration shall be based on the actual NO X emission rate measured in accordance with 35 IAC section 217.850. By November 1 following each ozone control period in which NO X emission reductions are generated, the owner/operator of the emission reduction source must submit to the Illinois EPA a compliance certification, including supporting data, and must monitor and report the NO X emissions during each ozone control period from all NO X emission units subject to the NO X emission cap. At least 120 days prior to the date that the emission reduction source will commence NO X emission reductions in compliance with its emission reduction proposal, the owner/operator of the source must submit to the Illinois EPA a performance evaluation of each CEM using the performance specifications given in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. Section 217.850 Emissions Monitoring The owner/operator of an emission reduction source must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CEMs during each NO X control period, or an alternative approved by the Illinois EPA and included in a Federally enforceable permit, for measuring NO X emissions. The CEMs must be operated and data recorded during all periods of operation of the emission units. The owner/operator must also collect and record CEM quality assurance data during calibration checks and zero and span adjustments. The procedures under 40 CFR part 60.13 (incorporated by reference into Subpart X) must be followed in the installation, evaluation, and operation of each CEM. If NO X emission rates, in pounds/hour, are not obtainable during CEM breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, or zero and span adjustments, NO X emission data must be obtained using the data substitution procedures contained in 40 CFR part 75, subpart D. If NO X emission rates, in pounds per million British thermal unit

(Btu)of heat input, are not obtainable during CEM breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, or zero and span adjustments, NO X emissions data must be obtained by using the rolling hourly average of the NO X emissions recorded for the previous 30 day period of operation if the data capture of such period is 95 percent or greater and the period of missing data is equal to or less than 24 consecutive hours. If the data capture for the previous 30 day period is less than 95 percent or the period of missing data is greater than 24 hours, the NO X emission data must be obtained using the highest hourly NO X emission average recorded during the previous 30 days of operation. The CEM data must be subject to the quality assurance procedures and requirements of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F. Section 217.855 Reporting By November 1 of each year beginning in the first year NO X emission reductions are generated, an owner/operator of an emission reduction unit must, as a seasonal component of the source facility's annual emission report, report to the Illinois EPA the total ozone control period NO X emissions for each NO X emission unit subject to the NO X emissions cap. Within 30 days after receipt of performance test data from initial performance tests for emission units and CEMs, the owner/operator of a subject emission source must report the test data to the Illinois EPA. Section 217.860 Recordkeeping For each NO X emission unit subject to a NO X emissions cap, the owner/operator must keep the following records:

(1)Daily, monthly, and control period operating hours;

(2)Type and quantity of each fuel used daily during the ozone control period;

(3)Ozone control period capacity of fuels fired;

(4)Monitoring records; and,

(5)The performance test data from the initial performance test for emission reduction unit and the performance evaluation for each CEM. The owner/operator of an emission reduction source must maintain records of the following information for each operating day and for each NO X emissions unit subject to a NO X emissions cap:

(1)Date;

(2)Average hourly NO X mass emissions rate in pounds per hour;

(3)Control period total NO X mass emissions to date;

(4)Identification of periods when emission data have been excluded from the calculation of NO X mass emissions, the reasons for excluding the data, and corrective actions taken;

(5)Identification of the time when the NO X emissions concentrations exceeded the full spans of the CEMs;

(6)Descriptions of any modifications of the CEMs that could affect the ability of the CEMs to comply with performance specifications; and,

(7)Results of daily CEM drift tests and quarterly accuracy assessment as required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart F. The owner/operator of any NO X emission reduction source subject to the CEM requirements of Subpart X must submit a compliance certification by November 1 following each ozone control period in which NO X emission reductions are generated. Data records are to be maintained for a period of 5 years after their creation. Section 217.865 Enforcement If a NO X emission reduction source experiences excess NO X emissions during an ozone control period, the owner/operator of the source must purchase NO X emission allowances through the NO X trading program to compensate for the excess NO X emissions. The following NO X allowance purchase levels are required:

(1)For one control period of excess NO X emissions, the owner/operator must purchase NO X emission allowances to cover two

(2)times the NO X emission excess;

(2)For two control periods of excess NO X emissions, the owner/operator must purchase NO X emission allowance to cover three

(3)times the total NO X emission excess for the two control periods; and,

(3)For three control periods of excess NO X emissions, the owner/operator must purchase NO X emission allowances to cover four

(4)times the total NO X emission excess for the three control periods. The purchased NO X emission allowances must be surrendered to the Illinois EPA by December 31 following the ozone control period in which the emission reduction source has excess NO X emissions. After three consecutive ozone control periods of excess NO X emissions, the source may not generate NO X emission reduction credits to qualify for NO X emission reduction allowances. All surrendered NO X emission allowances are retired for the benefit of air quality. B. What is Illinois' basis for supporting approval of the subject rule as a SIP revision? On October 26, 2001, EPA met with the Illinois EPA to discuss a number of pending issues. Included in this discussion was a discussion concerning the basis for supporting the approval of the Subpart X rule as a SIP revision. The following presents points raised by the Illinois EPA to support the approval of the Subpart X rule. General Points The Illinois EPA notes that the Subpart X rule is an innovative regulatory effort to obtain additional NO X emission reductions from sources that would otherwise not be controlled. This will provide for more reductions in regional NO X emissions than would otherwise be obtained solely through compliance with Illinois' other NO X emission control rules under the NO X SIP call. The Illinois EPA expects Subpart X to provide NO X emission reductions within the State of Illinois even though sources complying with Subpart X will be able to trade away the granted NO X emission allowances. This is due to the retirement of 20 percent of the Subpart X NO X emission reductions as a benefit for improved air quality. 2 2 Review of an Illinois Pollution Control Board

(IPCB)hearing record also shows that the State also views the retirement of 20 percent of the generated NO X emission allowances as giving the EPA a further reason for accepting 40 CFR part 60 monitoring requirements for Subpart X sources in lieu of 40 CFR part 75 monitoring requirements, as required under the NO X SIP call. The Illinois EPA believes that Subpart X meets EPA's Economic Incentive Program

(EIP)guidance (“Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,” EPA-452/R-01-001, January 2001), and, therefore, is approvable based on this policy. The EIP guidance provides for the use of EIPs to comply with the NO X SIP call. The Illinois EPA notes that Subpart X has the potential to reduce costs of compliance for sources involved in the NO X trading program. Under the NO X trading program, some sources will be forced to purchase NO X emission allowances. Providing for additional tradable NO X emission allowances through Subpart X may provide lower cost NO X emission allowances than may be available from EGUs and major non-EGU sources participating in the NO X trading program. NO X Emission Reductions The Illinois EPA points out that Subpart X will benefit the environment by retiring 20 percent of the NO X emission reductions resulting from this rule. Sources complying with Subpart X will only be able to obtain tradable NO X emission allowances for 80 percent of the NO X emission reductions they have achieved. The NO X emission reductions must be quantifiable, verifiable, and Federally enforceable. This distinguishes Subpart X from the type of emission reduction program expected under EPA's stationary source voluntary measures policy. The Illinois EPA notes that the requirement for an emissions cap on “similar” units at a NO X emission reduction source is also a very important feature of the Subpart X rule. Since reduction of operating hours or shutdown of an emissions unit are an acceptable procedure for obtaining NO X emission reductions, the emissions cap prevents a source from shifting operations or production between source units, producing artificial emission reduction credits. The Illinois EPA also notes that the Subpart X emission reductions are Federally enforceable since all source-specific emission reduction plans must be incorporated into Federally Enforceable State Operating Permits (FESOPs). Adequate emission recordkeeping and reporting requirements are provided to allow such enforcement. Compliance and Enforcement Mechanisms The State asserts that non-compliance deterrence mechanisms are built into the Subpart X rule. These mechanisms include:

(1)Sources subject to Subpart X must verify emission reductions at the end of each ozone control season;

(2)The EPA must recognize the NO X emission reductions as real before it creates NO X emission allowances for the complying source's use in the NO X trading program;

(3)NO X emission allowances granted by the EPA cannot be used until the ozone control period following their generation (the source cannot trade or use projected future NO X emission allowances);

(4)Failure to comply leads to increasingly stringent penalties (each succeeding ozone control period of noncompliance leads to more stringent emission reduction penalties), including the surrendering of NO X emission allowances; and,

(5)The State also has its standard mechanisms available to enforce the NO X emission reductions for sources complying with Subpart X. Subpart X Meets Requirements of EPA's EIP Guidance The Illinois EPA notes that there are three fundamental principles to all EIPs: Integrity; equity; and, environmental benefit. The Illinois EPA believes that the Subpart X rule complies with these principles, and, therefore, would qualify as an EIP. From the standpoint of integrity, the Illinois EPA notes that emission reductions resulting from an EIP emissions control program must be: Surplus; quantifiable; enforceable; and, permanent. The Illinois EPA believes that the Subpart X rule would produce NO X emission reductions meeting these requirements. The resulting NO X emission reductions are surplus because they are not otherwise relied on for attainment purposes in the SIP, and are not required by other SIP-related emission control requirements, consent decrees, or Federal rules or requirements. The NO X emission reductions that would result from the Subpart X rule are enforceable because: They are independently verifiable; program violations are defined through the identification of excess emissions and FESOP violations; those sources and owner/operators liable for violations can be identified; both the State and EPA maintain the ability to apply penalties and secure appropriate corrective actions where applicable; citizens have access to all emissions-related information obtained from the sources; citizens can file suits against the sources; and, the NO X emission reductions are enforceable in accordance with other EPA guidance on practicable enforceability. The emission reductions are quantifiable because they can be reliably measured and determined. Subpart X requires source monitoring and recordkeeping of NO X emissions and NO X emission reductions. The Illinois EPA believes that the NO X emission reductions can be considered to be permanent if the State is able to ensure that no emission increases (compared to emissions if there was no EIP) occur over the time period defined in the SIP. The State believes that Subpart X sources are similar to opt-in units under the NO X Budget Trading Program, but with even more stringent requirements due to the emissions cap requirement of the Subpart X rule. Emission allowances are earned annually due to retrospective emission reductions (therefore, they are equivalent to permanent emission reductions). The NO X emission allowances to be traded by Subpart X sources are not based on “future” NO X emission reductions. Generated emission allowances are verified annually, and cannot be granted if the emission reductions have not already occurred. Withdrawal of a source from the program and its emission reductions are controlled by the State, who must approve such a withdrawal. A withdrawing source cannot generate new NO X emission allowances subsequent to withdrawal from the Subpart X program. Subpart X should most appropriately be viewed as a one-year emission reduction program that is subject to annual renewal. The State views the Subpart X rule as a compliance flexibility EIP. Thus, emission reductions are permanent if the State is able to ensure that no emission increases occur over the time period that Subpart X exists within the SIP. The State views Subpart X as providing equity. All segments of the population are protected from localized public health problems since the Subpart X rule applies throughout the State. No segment of the population receives a disproportionate share of the program's benefits and non-benefits. Sources will volunteer to provide the NO X emission reductions, and may potentially benefit economically from the sale of the NO X emission allowances, or, at minimum, defray emission control costs. The Subpart X rule will provide environmental benefits. The application of the rule will provide additional NO X emission reductions not already required by existing NO X control rules. Retiring 20 percent of the NO X emission reductions will provide additional environmental benefits. Application of the rule should reduce regional NO X emissions within Illinois and ozone transport to downwind States. C. How does the subject rule interface with or relate to other Illinois NO X rules? Under Illinois' existing NO X control rules, EGUs and other covered sources may choose to reduce NO X emissions below State-required levels (below levels needed to meet the State's NO X emission budget) to produce tradable NO X emission allowances sold through EPA's NO X Budget Trading Program. Other EGUs may find it necessary to purchase NO X emission allowances through the trading program to meet Illinois' emission budget and facility-specific NO X emission limits. The sale and purchase of NO X emission allowances through the trading program allows a large number of sources to more economically meet NO X emission limits and allows the NO X SIP call (and CAIR) States to meet required NO X emission limits. As noted above, the Subpart X sources producing NO X emission allowances would be able to trade/sell the emission allowances to sources subject to Illinois' Subpart U and Subpart W NO X rules. The Subpart U and Subpart W sources would be able to use the purchased NO X emission allowances to meet the State's required NO X emission limits. To make sure that generated NO X emission allowances are truly surplus and not double counted, Subpart X sources may not be subject to the NO X emission control requirements of Illinois' Subparts T (Cement Kilns), U (NO X Control and Trading Program for Specified NO X Generating Units), V (Electric Power Generation), or W (NO X Trading Program for Electrical Generating Units) of 35 IAC part 217 (Nitrogen Oxides Emissions). Other than these source restrictions, Subpart X does not further limit the types of NO X sources that could be included under Subpart X (as long as the NO X emission reductions can be quantified, enforced, and can be demonstrated to exist throughout the ozone control periods). Subpart X requirements are clearly meant to provide supplemental NO X emission reductions aimed at compliance with EPA's NO X SIP call, and, thus, are directed at the control of inter-state transported ozone. Subpart X emission controls may also provide additional reductions of transported ozone and NO X within the State of Illinois, reducing peak ozone concentrations in Illinois' ozone nonattainment areas. This is particularly true if Subpart X sources trade generated NO X emission allowances to sources downwind of the ozone nonattainment areas (St. Louis/Metro-East St. Louis and Chicago) or located outside of the State of Illinois. Although the State intends to support the trading of NO X emission allowances generated under Subpart X to sources controlled under Subparts U and W of 35 IAC part 217, the State has placed no restrictions on the trading of Subpart X-generated NO X emission allowances to sources only within the State of Illinois. Subpart X sources are free to trade emission allowances to sources outside of Illinois. Such trades would benefit Illinois ozone nonattainment areas by effectively removing NO X emissions from the State of Illinois. IV. EPA Technical Review of the Subject Rule and SIP Revision Request A. Is the Subpart X rule specifically required by any EPA regulations or policies or requirements of the Clean Air Act? The subject rule is not needed to meet the requirements of an ozone attainment plan or to meet other specific NO X emission control requirements of the CAA or EPA regulations. B. What EPA policies and requirements are applicable to the subject rule? Review of the EPA NO X policies and the language and intent of the Subpart X rule and its supporting documentation shows that three separate EPA policies may be relevant to some extent in the review of the Subpart X rule. First, since the primary purpose of the Subpart X rule is to provide sources with tradable NO X emission allowances for participation in EPA's NO X Budget Trading Program, those portions of EPA's NO X SIP call policy dealing with NO X emission allowances and NO X allowance trading, as well as NO X SIP call source monitoring requirements, must be considered ( **Federal Register** , “40 CFR parts 51, 72, 75, and 96 Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone; Rule,” 63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998). This policy has the most significant impact on our view of the approvability of the Subpart X rule. Second, since the Subpart X rule involves the voluntary control of stationary sources and the incorporation of that rule into the Illinois SIP, one must consider EPA's policy regarding the incorporation of voluntary stationary source emission reduction programs into SIPs (Memorandum, from John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Incorporating Voluntary Stationary Source Emission Reduction Programs Into State Implementation Plans—FINAL POLICY,” January 19, 2001). It is concluded, however, that this policy is generally not applicable in this situation. The voluntary measures policy was designed with the assumption that the emission reduction credits would be applied to achieve compliance with SIP attainment, maintenance, and Rate-Of-Progress

(ROP)requirements (particularly those for ozone SIPs), and that the voluntary measures program would provide emission reductions that are quantifiable, surplus, permanent, and enforceable (by the State). This policy, however, does not address the NO X emission reduction requirements of EPA's NO X SIP call. Therefore, this policy is of minimal relevance to the intended use of the Subpart X rule, and, therefore, to the Subpart X rule itself. Finally, as noted above, the Illinois EPA views Subpart X as a rule that provides for an EIP. Therefore, we need to consider EPA's policy addressing EIPs. Due to the real intent of Subpart X (to produce tradable NO X emission allowances for sale in EPA's NO X trading program), this policy is not as relevant as the NO X SIP call policy. Although the EIP policy clearly indicates that the EIPs may be used to comply with EPA's NO X SIP call policy, the EIP policy also clearly notes that the use of an EIP does not override the requirements of the NO X SIP call itself. Any requested NO X SIP revision failing to meet the requirements of the NO X SIP call would also fail to comply with the requirements of the EIP policy. In this case, the more critical policy/requirements of concern are those of the NO X SIP call itself rather than other aspects of the EIP policy. For this reason, the EIP policy is not given further consideration here. C. Is the subject rule allowed under EPA policy and requirements? As noted above, the NO X SIP call is the most relevant policy considered here. The NO X SIP call does not specifically address SIP revisions that provide for voluntary NO X emission controls in the manner covered in Illinois' Subpart X rule. Nonetheless, the NO X SIP call does encourage States to use whatever NO X emission reductions they deem necessary to achieve their NO X state NO X emission budgets in a cost-effective and reasonable manner. In addition, the NO X SIP call does not rule out the possibility of achieving the NO X emission reductions through the use of voluntary controls as long as such resulting emission reductions are quantifiable, monitorable, and achieve valid NO X emission reductions during the NO X control period. It is concluded that the NO X SIP call does not directly forbid the generation of NO X emission allowances using voluntary emission controls and, therefore, may allow such emission control measures. The monitoring aspects of Subpart X, as more thoroughly discussed below, are the main issue of interest and concern in this case. The NO X SIP call is very specific about the types of emissions monitoring and reporting that are required to meet the NO X SIP call and emissions trading requirements. Subpart X, as discussed below, contains monitoring requirements which differ from those discussed in 40 CFR part 75. D. What are the differences in the monitoring requirements of Subpart X and those of the NO X SIP call? As noted above, Subpart X requires major NO X emission sources to install and operate CEMs. Subpart X, however, would also allow sources to use alternative monitoring techniques approved by the State and included in Federally enforceable source permits. Subpart X requires the use of CEMs to follow requirements in 40 CFR part 60, and does not require the use and reporting of CEM data to comply with 40 CFR part 75. The failure of Subpart X to require strict adherence to the requirements of 40 CFR part 75 for CEM data is a significant shortfall in the rule. With regard to non-CEM monitoring techniques, 40 CFR part 75 does permit the use of an optional non-CEM approach to determine hourly sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and NO X emissions based on default or fuel- and unit-specific emission rates (per unit of heat input) and hourly fuel usage (heat input) rates for low-mass emission units. This approach is not allowed for coal-fired (solid fuel-fired) units. For NO X , the “low mass emissions unit” cannot emit NO X at a level exceeding 50 tons annually and 25 tons during the ozone control period to qualify for the use of the non-CEM monitoring procedures. All coal-fired units, regardless of the NO X emission rates, must use CEMs meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 75 to qualify for inclusion in the NO X Budget Trading Program. Subpart X places no emissions size limit on the sources seeking to use monitoring methods other than the use of CEMs. In addition, Subpart X would not restrict the use of alternative monitoring techniques to natural gas-fired or fuel oil-fired units as would 40 CFR part 75. Based on these observations, Subpart X could lead to monitoring techniques that are incompatible with the requirements of 40 CFR part 75 and may produce results which may not meet the expressed “level playing field” goal of the NO X SIP call and NO X Budget Trading program. With regard to the requirements for CEMs (assuming a source cannot find or chooses not to pursue an “acceptable” alternative), it is noted that the CEM requirements in 40 CFR part 60 are not as prescriptive as the CEM requirements in 40 CFR part 75. The 40 CFR part 60 CEM monitoring requirements are not directed at the needs of the NO X Budget Trading Program. Based on the restrictive wording of the NO X SIP call and 40 CFR part 96 regarding the need for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 75, EPA believes that the monitoring requirements of Subpart X are not sufficient to assure the adequacy of the Subpart X NO X emission allowances meeting the requirements of the NO X allowance trading program as specified in 40 CFR part 96. The Illinois EPA has indicated that, given the relatively small source size of sources likely to pursue Subpart X NO X emission reductions and tradable NO X emission allowances, it is not cost-effective for these sources to be required to comply with the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Information contained in an Illinois Pollution Control Board hearing record for Subpart X indicates that the State expects most Subpart X sources to have NO X emission levels at or below 25 tons per ozone season (April through October). Given the low NO X emissions expected, it is unclear why the State has not adopted the small-source procedures of 40 CFR part 75. It is recognized that some Subpart X sources would be coal-burning sources, and, thus, excluded from the use of the small-source provisions of 40 CFR part 75. Illinois has not provided cost-effectiveness estimates for these sources to demonstrate that the 40 CFR part 75 CEM requirements are significantly less cost-effective than the CEM requirements of 40 CFR part 60. Illinois has also not demonstrated that 40 CFR part 60 monitoring requirements would provide NO X emission estimates comparable to those of 40 CFR part 75. E. Are there any source categories not covered by 40 CFR part 75 that are covered by Subpart X? The requirements of 40 CFR part 75, and particularly those dealing with low mass emission sources, are primarily directed at sources that operate and generate tradable NO X emission allowances through emission reductions on a ongoing basis. The requirements of 40 CFR part 75 cannot be applied to the crediting of source closures as NO X emission allowances in the NO X trading program. Review of the Subpart X rule and documentation of the NO X emission allowances it would generate shows that Subpart X would produce such NO X emission allowances. A source category not addressed by 40 CFR part 75, but which may be addressed through Subpart X is NO X emission reductions resulting from NO X emission controls at small solid fuel-fired combustion units. The “small source” provisions of 40 CFR part 75 cannot be applied for such sources. It is not clear at this time what the total NO X emission reduction potential is for such sources. F. What technical problems and issues of concern have we found for the subject rule? 1. General Comments and Concerns We have several major areas of concern regarding the Subpart X rule and its intended use. First, the rule does not guarantee that NO X emission allowances would only be awarded for emission reductions that are real and that are additional NO X emission reductions beyond those that would have occurred anyway, i.e., even in the absence of Subpart X. By providing credit for source shutdowns or reduced utilization of units claiming credit under Subpart X (Subpart X units) and for NO X emission reductions made as long ago as 1996, the Subpart X rule would lead to NO X emission allowances for NO X emission reductions occurring before the Subpart X rule was adopted by the State. In addition, despite an emissions cap on all similar source units at a source facility, this rule could still allow NO X emission allowances for shifting of utilization/production from Subpart X units to unregulated units within the same source facility or to units in another source facility and so could lead to crediting of source changes with no real NO X emission reductions. Second, we are concerned that the Subpart X rule would not require the same level of monitoring required of sources participating in the NO X Budget Trading Program. This raises questions concerning the equity of Subpart X-generated NO X emission allowances versus those generated by sources following the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Although the State has argued that the 20 percent set-aside of NO X emission reductions from Subpart X units to benefit the environment should offset this concern, we propose that the State has not provided a basis for concluding that the 20 percent set-aside actually addresses this deficiency. Finally, even though the State has argued that Subpart X constitutes an EIP and EIPs may be used to provide NO X SIP call emission credits, we again note that the EIP guidance also states that NO X SIP call requirements supersede EIP requirements. This means that rules meeting EIP requirements may not be adequate to meet NO X SIP call/NO X allowance trading requirements. We believe that this is the situation with the Subpart X rule. 2. Comments on Specific Subpart X Rule Provisions Section 217.810 This section provides for a source emission cap to prevent shifting of utilization from the Subpart X units to other units of the same type at the source facility. This emissions cap does not address shifting of utilization from the Subpart X unit(s) to other units at other source facilities or at the same facility. There is no basis for assuming that this type of shifting cannot occur, e.g., for small electric generating units not covered in the State's current NO X rules for electric generating units. In addition, the Subpart X rule provides for requests for exceptions from the requirement to include other units at the source facility in the emissions cap, but provides no standard for resolving such requests. (Section 217.835(a)(5) suggests what showing should be made, but does not make this the standard for approval.) Moreover, in light of the importance of not crediting utilization shifting, exceptions to inclusion in the source emissions cap allowed in this section is not acceptable because this section of the Subpart X rule does not require such exceptions to be approved by both the State and the EPA. The rule does not specify how the emissions cap is to be calculated. This needs to be specified explicitly or must be subject to State and EPA approval if done on a case-by-case basis. We believe that the rule errs in not requiring the use of the same methodology for setting the baseline for the Subpart X unit and for setting the emissions cap for all non-NO X SIP call units (all NO X emission units not covered by the State's NO X emission control rules in the State's NO X SIP) at the source facility. This section also provides for the crediting of NO X emission reductions resulting from source shutdowns. As noted in comments below regarding section 217.815 of the rule, we have serious concerns about granting such NO X emission allowances. Section 217.815 The rule allows for NO X emission reduction credits where a unit: uses an emission reduction technology; permanently shuts down; or reduces the NO X emission rate or operating hours where this is reflected in the unit's source permit. We have the following concerns about such NO X emission reduction credits: a. We believe that this section is unacceptable because it would result in the granting of emission credits for source shutdowns. The source shutdown credit would allow a source owner to shut down a unit and shift its utilization to another unit at a different source facility. The source emissions cap provision of the Subpart X rule does not address this potential. In addition, this section also would allow the source owner to shut down a unit that is at or near the end of its useful life and to get an emission reduction credit for every year after the shutdown of the unit. In this situation, it is likely that the source shutdown would have occurred even without the existence of the Subpart X rule. This is particularly problematic since the Subpart X baseline for NO X emission reduction credits resulting from source shutdowns is 1995. This means that units shut down prior to the State adoption of the Subpart X rule would be given NO X reduction credits. This is unacceptable; b. Credit for lowering the NO X emission rate is generally acceptable, provided that the total NO X emissions from a source facility actually decrease. This section is unacceptable, however, because it would result in the granting of NO X emission allowances even though a source owner/operator may simply shift utilization from the Subpart X unit to a unit at another facility. The source emission cap of Subpart X does not address this potential; c. The rule states that the NO X emission reductions must be quantifiable, verifiable, and Federally enforceable. It is unclear whether these requirements are in addition to other requirements in the rule, which, as discussed below, do not ensure that the NO X emission reductions are properly quantifiable and verifiable. In addition, the Subpart X rule does not specify what showing must be made by the source owner or operator to satisfy these requirements; and, d. The Subpart X rule states that credited NO X emission reductions (other than those due to unit shutdowns) may start in 2003. This is in conflict with the NO X Budget Trading Program and NO X SIP call requirements, which would not credit NO X emission reductions occurring prior to 2004. NO X emission credits should not be credited for NO X emission reductions occurring prior to the start of the NO X Budget Trading Program. Section 217.820 To establish the emissions baseline from which NO X emission reductions are determined, the rule allows the source owner/operator to use the unit's 1995 NO X emissions multiplied by 5/12 or its 1995 ozone season emissions as reflected in EPA's NO X SIP call emissions inventory. We consider this baseline period to be too far into the past. The rule fails to require the source owner/operator to use the most current unit emissions (those determined just prior to the implementation of the Subpart X NO X emission reduction) for the baseline emissions. We are concerned about this issue for the following reasons: a. Using a 1995 baseline allows the source owner/operator to get credit for NO X emission reductions that occurred several years in the past prior to the implementation of the State's NO X control rules and prior to the adoption of Subpart X. Allowing credit for NO X emission reductions that have already occurred and allowing these credits to be traded to sources that need such credits to meet NO X SIP call-based emission limits would jeopardize Illinois' ability to meet the NO X SIP call emission reduction requirements; b. Some NO X emission reductions from 1995 for EGUs and non-EGUs are already reflected in the State's NO X emission budget established in the NO X SIP call. For example, the State emissions budget for EGUs used 1995 heat input adjusted for growth, with growth reflecting new units and increases and decreases in heat input for existing units occurring through 2004, the implementation year for the NO X SIP call. Giving credit for NO X emission reductions since 1995 through Subpart X could double count emission reductions that are reflected in the State's NO X emission budget; and, c. It may be reasonable to allow some averaging of recent years' ozone season emissions data since the most recent year may not be representative of normal unit operation. The Subpart X rule fails to specify a short period for such averaging, and errs in leaving the averaging period to the discretion of the source owner/operator. Section 217.835 We believe that this section is deficient in that it does not require the source owner/operator to define how the source's emission cap is determined. The source owner/operator simply has to declare the emissions cap and which source units are covered by the emissions cap. Subsection (a)(7) of this rule section allows the source owner/operator to specify which source units are to be granted NO X emission allowances. The purpose of this subsection is unclear. NO X emission allowances should only be allocated to the Subpart X unit, with the source owner/operator then given the ability to transfer the NO X emission allowances to units subject to the NO X Budget Trading Program. This subsection could be incorrectly interpreted as allowing the source owner/operator to assign the NO X emission allowances to non-Subpart X sources (those not achieving new NO X emission reductions). Section 217.840 We disagree with the granting of emission reduction credits for source shutdowns as allowed in this section of the Subpart X rule. We particularly disagree with the granting of NO X emission allowances for source shutdowns occurring prior to the adoption of Subpart X and prior to the approval of the Subpart X rule as a SIP revision. Section 217.845 As noted in our comments on sections 217.815 and 217.840 above, there should be no NO X emission allowances granted for a source shutdown or reduced utilization. This section is unacceptable because it allows the State to approve such emission allowances. This section allows the use of emission monitoring under 40 CFR part 60. As discussed elsewhere in this proposed rule, this requirement is unacceptable for the granting of NO X emission allowances to be used in EPA's NO X Budget Trading Program. NO X emission reductions supporting such NO X emission allowances must be confirmed through source monitoring meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Section 217.850 40 CFR Part 60 Versus 40 CFR Part 75 Monitoring This section would require compliance with 40 CFR part 60 for monitoring of source emissions from a Subpart X unit. Because the Subpart X units are generating NO X emission allowances that will be traded to and used by other units that are subject to the NO X Budget Trading Program, the Subpart X units should meet the same monitoring requirements as other units subject to the NO X Budget Trading Program. Therefore, the Subpart X unit does not meet the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 75. If source caps are used for other units at a facility subject to Subpart X, the units subject to the emissions cap must also be monitored using the 40 CFR part 75 requirements to ensure the integrity of the source emissions cap. This section of the Subpart X rule errs in not requiring such source monitoring. The 40 CFR part 60 monitoring requirements are significantly less stringent than the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Therefore, emission reductions generated by sources using 40 CFR part 60 monitoring techniques are assumed to be less accurate than those generated by sources using 40 CFR part 75 monitoring requirements. There is no showing that artificially reducing the emission reduction credits by 20 percent is sufficient to account for the possible inaccuracy of emission reductions determined using 40 CFR part 60 techniques. Alternative Monitoring The Subpart X rule allows for alternative source monitoring with the approval of the State. However, the rule provides no standards for approval of the alternative monitoring techniques, e.g., that the alternative monitoring is consistent with the purposes of the required monitoring and that any adverse effect of approving the alternative monitoring is nonexistent or negligible. In addition, exceptions from the specified monitoring requirements must be explicitly subject to the approval of the EPA as well as the State, which is not the case for the adopted rule. Substitute Data The Subpart X rule provides for the use of 40 CFR part 75 substitute data when the 40 CFR part 60 continuous emission monitors are out of service or not properly functioning. However, because of record keeping and reporting differences between 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 75, using 40 CFR part 75 substitute data procedures with 40 CFR part 60 monitoring and data recording is not feasible. 40 CFR part 60, unlike 40 CFR part 75, does not generally require mass emissions for every hour of operation. The data substitute procedures in 40 CFR part 75 rely heavily on the hourly data contained in the 40 CFR part 75 data report. Data cannot be substituted for missing 40 CFR part 60 data without the hourly data record that would have been generated under 40 CFR part 75, and checking the appropriate use of the substitute data procedures is impossible without such hourly data records. Section 217.855 The Subpart X rule provides for reporting of only ozone season total emissions through an annual emissions report for source units subject to a Subpart X emissions cap. This differs from the emissions reporting requirements for sources subject to the NO X Budget Trading Program, which are required to be covered by hourly emission reporting for the ozone season. Sources subject to the NO X Budget Trading Program are required to make quarterly emission reports in order to provide quality assurance of the emissions data on an on-going basis and so that monitoring problems or reporting errors are found early enough during the ozone season to be corrected before the end of the ozone season. Subpart X only requires annual reports of emissions data, and, therefore, fails to meet the reporting requirements for sources subject to the NO X Budget Trading Program. Section 217.860 This section fails to meet the detailed recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The detailed recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR part 75 are designed to facilitate quality assurance of emissions data. The recordkeeping requirements of this section of the Subpart X rule will not provide for the emissions quality assurance required of other sources subject to the NO X Budget Trading Program. Therefore, we find this section of the Subpart X rule to be deficient for NO X allowance trading purposes. Section 217.865 The rule does not define “excess emissions.” Elsewhere in Illinois' NO X budget trading rules, in Subpart B, section 211.2080, “excess emissions” is defined as any tonnage of NO X emitted by a NO X budget unit during a control period that exceeds the NO X emission allowances available for compliance deduction for the source unit and for a control period. However, a Subpart X unit does not have a requirement to hold emission allowances equal to its NO X emissions. It is not clear whether “excess emissions” in section 217.865 means emissions in excess of the source emissions cap or in excess of the Subpart X unit's permitted emission rate. This ambiguity makes this section of the Subpart X rule unacceptable. G. What are our proposed actions regarding the approvability of the subject rule? Based on the rule shortfalls and issues of concern discussed above, we propose that the Subpart X rule does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR parts 75 and 96, and cannot be approved as a revision to the Illinois SIP. We have identified the following general problems exist with the Subpart X rule:

(1)The rule unacceptably would grant NO X emission allowances for source closures;

(2)the rule does not prevent shifting of production and NO X emissions from one facility to another;

(3)the rule establishes an emission baseline (from which emission reduction/NO X emission allowances are earned through subsequent NO X emission reductions), 1995, that is too far in the past and prior to the State's adoption of the Subpart X rule and prior to the baseline used for other sources involved in the NO X Budget Trading Program;

(4)the rule unacceptably would allow the use of 40 CFR part 60 emissions monitoring requirements rather than 40 CFR part 75 monitoring requirements required of other sources involved in the NO X Budget Trading Program; and,

(5)the rule contains other minor deficiencies as noted above. Together, these problems lead us to propose that the Subpart X rule be disapproved as a revision to the Illinois SIP. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant regulatory action,” 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). National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA do not apply. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: February 15, 2008. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E8-4154 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 41 CFR Part 301-10 [FTR Amendment 2008-01; Docket 2008-0002, Sequence 1] RIN 3090-AI43 Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); FTR Case 2007-307; Fly America Act; United States and European Union “Open Skies” Air Transport Agreement (U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement) AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide Policy (MTT), General Services Administration (GSA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The GSA is proposing to amend the Federal Travel Regulation

(FTR)provisions pertaining to the use of United States Flag air carriers under the provisions of the “Fly America Act.” This proposed rule would incorporate language based on the United States and European Union “Open Skies” Air Transport Agreement (U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement). DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by FTR case 2007-307 by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Search for any document by first selecting the proper document types and selecting “General Services Administration—All” as the agency of choice. At the “Keyword” prompt, type in the FTR case number (for example, FTR Case 2007-307) and click on the “Submit” button. You may also search for any document by clicking on the “Advanced search/document search” tab at the top of the screen, selecting from the agency field “General Services Administration—All”, and typing the FTR case number in the keyword field. Select the “Submit” button. • *Fax:* 202-501-4067. • *Mail:* General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), Attn: Diedra Wingate, 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405. *Instructions:* Please submit comments only and cite FTR case 2007-307 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For clarification of content, contact Ms. Umeki Thorne, Office of Travel, Transportation and Asset Management (MT), General Services Administration at

(202)208-7636 or e-mail at *umeki.thorne@gsa.gov* . For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405,

(202)501-4755. Please cite FTR case 2007-307. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 30, 2007, the United States European Union “Open Skies” Air Transport Agreement (U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement) was signed, providing Community airlines (airlines of the European Community and its Member States) the right to transport passengers and cargo on scheduled and charter flights for U.S. Government procured transportation other than transportation obtained or funded by the Department of Defense, subject to certain conditions. Specifically, Community airlines have the right to transport passengers and cargo on scheduled and charter flights funded by the U.S. Government, including transportation provided to or for a foreign country or international or other organization without reimbursement, when the transportation is between a point in the United States and any point in a Member State or between any two points outside the United States except when:

(1)Transportation is between points for which there is a city-pair contract fare in effect for air passenger transportation services, or

(2)Transportation is obtained or funded by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military department. The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), section 301-10.135(b) (41 CFR 301-10.135(b)) includes an exception to the use of U.S. flag air carrier service when the transportation is provided under a bilateral or multilateral air transportation agreement to which the U.S. Government and the government of a foreign country are parties, and which the Department of Transportation has determined meets the requirements of the Fly America Act. As the U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement is such an air transportation agreement, this proposed rule would incorporate text into 41 CFR 301-10.135(b) to reflect the content of the U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement which allows Government-funded travel on Community airlines subject to certain conditions. The U.S.-EU Open Skies Air Transport Agreement, including the provision relating to U.S. Government procured transportation, has a provisional application date of March 30, 2008. No regulatory action is required to implement the provision addressing U.S. Government Procured Transportation since the Agreement meets the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 40118(b), and the FTR includes a provision referencing that statutory provision at 41 CFR 301-10.135(b). GSA is issuing this proposed rule to ensure notice advising of the U.S. Government procured transportation provisions in the U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement and the upcoming effective date, and GSA is requesting comments on the proposed rule for use in developing the final rule to be included in the FTR with the objective of making the final rule easy to apply and a readily available source of information relating to the provisions on U.S. Government procured transportation included in the Agreement. A listing of the Member States as found in the U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement may be accessed via the Department of State's Web site at *http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/rls/othr/2007/84475.htm* . B. Executive Order 12866 This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed rule is not required to be published in the **Federal Register** for notice and comment therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* , does not apply. D. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the FTR do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This proposed rule is also exempt from congressional review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates to agency management and personnel. List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 301-10 Government employees, Travel and transportation expenses. Dated: December 7, 2007. Kevin Messner, Acting Associate Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that 41 CFR Chapter 301 be amended to read as follows: PART 301-10—TRANSPORTATION ALLOWABLE 1. The authority citation for 41 CFR part 301-10 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 49 U.S.C. 40118. 2. Amend § 301-10.135, by revising paragraph

(b)to read as follows: § 301-10.135 When must I travel using U.S. Flag air carrier service?

(b)The transportation is provided under a bilateral or multilateral air transportation agreement to which the United States Government and the government of a foreign country are parties, and which the Department of Transportation has determined meets the requirements of the Fly America Act.

(1)*United States-European Union Open Skies Agreement:* Under this Agreement, community airlines have the right to transport passengers on scheduled and charter flights funded by the U.S. Government, including transportation provided to or for a foreign country or international or other organization without reimbursement, when the transportation is between a point in the United States and any point in a Member State or between any two points outside the United States except when:

(i)Transportation is between points for which there is a city-pair contract fare in effect for air passenger transportation services, or

(ii)Transportation is obtained or funded by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military department;

(2)A listing of the Member States as found in the U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement may be accessed via the Department of State's Web site at *http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/rls/othr/2007/84475.htm* ; or [FR Doc. E8-3970 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-14-P NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES 45 CFR Part 1160 RIN 3134-AA01 Technical Amendments To Reflect the New Authorization for a Domestic Indemnity Program AGENCY: Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities proposes to amend its regulations to reflect Congress' authorization of a Domestic Indemnity Program under Section 426 of The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Public Law 110-161 (December 26, 2007). The proposed rule includes examples of exhibitions eligible for indemnification which are intended to provide further guidance to applicants considering applying for indemnification of exhibitions with domestic or foreign-owned objects. DATES: Comments are invited and must be received by no later than April 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN number “3134-AA01,” using any of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *E-mail:* *gencounsel@neh.gov* . Include “RIN 3134-AA01, Domestic Indemnity” in the subject line of the message. *Fax:*

(202)606-8600. *Mail:* Heather C. Gottry, Counsel to the Federal Council on Arts and the Humanities, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 529, Washington, DC 20506. *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Heather C. Gottry, Counsel to the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 529, Washington, DC 20506 *Instructions:* All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. The Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather C. Gottry, Counsel to the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 529, Washington, DC 20506. ( *Phone:*

(202)606-8322, facsimile

(202)606-8600, or e-mail to *gencounsel@neh.gov* ). Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained by contacting the Endowment's TDD terminal on

(202)606-8282. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on Domestic Indemnity Program Technical Amendments In 1975, the United States Congress enacted the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act, 20 U.S.C. Sections 971-977, as amended, which established the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Program administered by the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities (Federal Council). The Federal Council is comprised of the heads of nineteen agencies and was created by Congress, among other things, to coordinate the policies and operations of the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities, and the Institute of Museum Services, including the joint support of activities (20 U.S.C. 971). Under the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Program, the United States Government guarantees to pay claims for loss or damage, subject to certain limitations, arising from exhibitions of foreign and domestic-owned objects determined by the Federal Council to be of educational, cultural, historical or scientific value. The Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Program is administered by the Museum Program at the National Endowment for the Arts, on behalf of the Federal Council, per “Indemnities Under the Arts and Artifacts Act” regulations (hereinafter “the Regulations”), which are set forth at 45 CFR part 1160. Since 1975, the Regulations have been promulgated and amended by the Federal Council pursuant to the express and implied rulemaking authorities granted by Congress to make and amend rules needed for the effective administration of the Indemnity Program. Among other things, Congress expressly granted the Federal Council authorities to establish the terms and conditions of indemnity agreements; to set application procedures; and to establish claims' adjustment procedures. (20 U.S.C. 971(a)(2), 973(a), 975(a). In 1995, the Federal Council amended the Regulations to permit the indemnification of domestic-owned objects on exhibition in the United States when they are part of international exhibitions, so long as the foreign loans were integral to the exhibition as a whole. On December 26, 2007, through Section 426 of The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Public Law 110-161, the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act was amended in part to expand coverage of the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity program to up to $5,000,000,000 at any one time for domestic exhibitions. (20 U.S.C. 974(b)). The Federal Council proposes to make technical amendments to the Regulations to reflect this authorization of a Domestic Indemnity Program. These technical amendments will fulfill the Federal Council's responsibility to its applicants by ensuring that all regulations are up-to-date and consistent with Congress' authorization of a Domestic Indemnity Program under Section 426 of The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Public Law 110-161 (December 26, 2007). II. Public Comment Procedures The technical amendments proposed in this rulemaking reflect Congress' authorization of a Domestic Indemnity Program under Section 426 of The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Public Law 110-161 (December 26, 2007). The public is invited to make comments on any of the proposed changes. Comments should be submitted as set forth in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Comments, including names, street addresses, and other contact information of respondents, will be available upon request for public review at National Endowment for the Humanities, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 529, Washington, DC 20506, during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, please is advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All written comments received by the date indicated in the DATES section of this document and all other relevant information in the record will be carefully assessed and fully considered prior to publication of the final rule. Written comments on the proposed rule should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed technical amendments, and should explain the reason for any recommended change. Where possible, comments should reference the specific section or paragraph of the proposal that the comment addresses. The Federal Council may not necessarily consider or include in the Administrative Record comments that the Federal Council receives after the close of the comment period (see DATES ), unless they are postmarked or electronically dated before the deadline, or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (See ADDRESSES ). III. Matters of Regulatory Procedure Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866) Under Executive Order 12866, the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

(2)create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3)materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4)raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. The Proposed rule makes technical amendments to reflect Congress' authorization of a Domestic Indemnity Program under Section 426 of The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Public Law 110-161 (December 26, 2007)). As such, it does not impose a compliance burden on the economy generally or on any person or entity. Accordingly, this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” from an economic standpoint, and it does not otherwise create any inconsistencies or budgetary impacts to any other agency or Federal Program. Regulatory Flexibility Act Because this proposed rule would make certain technical amendments, the Federal Council has determined in Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) review that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule is exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, since it makes only minor technical amendments to reflect Congress' authorization of a Domestic Indemnity Program under Section 426 of The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Public Law 110-161 (December 26, 2007). An OMB form 83-1 is not required. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 25, subchapter II), this proposed rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments and will not result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more as adjusted for inflation in any one year. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This proposed rule: a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Takings (E.O. 12630) In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. No rights, property or compensation has been, or will be, taken. A takings implication assessment is not required. Federalism (E.O. 13132) In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this proposed rule does not have federalism implications that warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Federal Council has determined that this proposed rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175) In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the Federal Council has evaluated this proposed rule and determined that it has no potential negative effects on federally recognized Indian tribes. National Environmental Policy Act This proposed rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1160 Administrative practice and procedure, Art, Indemnity payments, Museums, Nonprofit organizations. Dated: February 27, 2008. Heather C. Gottry, Counsel to the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities. For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority of Section 426 of The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Public Law 110-161 (December 26, 2007), the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities proposes to amend 45 CFR part 1160 as follows: PART 1160—INDEMNITIES UNDER THE ARTS AND ARTIFACTS INDEMNITY ACT 1. The authority citation for 45 CFR part 1160 continues to read as follows: Authority: 20 U.S.C. 971-977. 2. Revise Section 1160.4 to read as follows: § 1160.4 Eligibility for international exhibitions. An indemnity agreement for an international exhibition made under these regulations shall cover:

(a)Eligible items from outside the United States while on exhibition in the United States;

(b)Eligible items from the United States while on exhibition outside this country, preferably when they are part of an exchange of exhibitions; and

(c)Eligible items from the United States while on exhibition in the United States, in connection with other eligible items from outside the United States which are integral to the exhibition as a whole. (d)(1) *Example* . An American art museum is organizing a retrospective exhibition which will include more than 150 works of art by Impressionist painter Auguste Renoir. Museums in Paris and London have agreed to lend 125 works of art, covering every aspect of his career, many of which have not been seen together since the artist's death in 1919. The organizer is planning to include 25 masterpieces by Renoir from American public and private collections. The show will open in Chicago and travel to San Francisco and Washington.

(2)*Discussion.* This example is a common application for coverage of both foreign and domestic-owned objects in an international exhibition. The foreign-owned objects are eligible for indemnity coverage under paragraph

(a)of this section, and the domestic-owned objects may be eligible for indemnity coverage under paragraph

(c)of this section if the foreign-owned objects are integral to the purposes of the exhibition as a whole. In reviewing this application, the Federal Council would evaluate the exhibition as a whole and determine whether the loans of 125 foreign-owned objects are integral to the educational, cultural, historical or scientific significance of the exhibition on Renoir. It would also be necessary for the U.S. Department of State to determine whether or not the exhibition was in the national interest. §§ 1160.6 through 1160.12 [Redesignated as §§ 1160.7 through 1160.13] 3. Sections 1160.76 through 1160.12 are redesignated as §§ 1160.7 through 1160.13. § 1160.5 [Redesignated as § 1160.6] 4. Section 1160.5 is redesignated as § 1160.6 and a new § 1160.5 is added to read as follows: § 1160.5 Eligibility for domestic exhibitions. An indemnity agreement for a domestic exhibition made under these regulations shall cover eligible items from the United States while on Exhibition in the United States. (a)(1) *Example 1.* An American museum is undergoing renovation and will be closed to the public for one year. During that time, masterpieces from the collection will go on tour to three other museums in the United States. Many of these works have never been lent for travel, and this will be a unique and the last opportunity for museum visitors in other parts of the country to see them exhibited together. Once the new building opens, they will be permanently installed and dispersed throughout the museum's galleries.

(2)*Discussion.*

(i)This is a straightforward example of a domestic exhibition which would be eligible for consideration for indemnity coverage. Under the previous regulations, eligibility was limited to:

(A)Exhibitions in the United States of entirely foreign-owned objects;

(B)Exhibitions outside of the United States of domestic-owned objects; or

(C)Exhibitions in the United States of both foreign and domestic-owned objects, with the foreign-owned objects having integral importance to the exhibition.

(ii)In this example, the Federal Council will consider the educational, cultural, historical, or scientific significance of the proposed domestic exhibition of the domestic-owned objects. It would not be necessary for the U.S. Department of State to determine whether or not the exhibition was in the national interest. (b)(1) *Example 2.* An American museum is organizing an exhibition of works by 20th century American artists, which will travel to one other U.S. museum. There are more than 100 objects in the exhibition. The majority of the paintings, drawings and sculpture, valued at more than $500,000,000, are from galleries, museums and private collections in the United States. The organizing curator has selected ten works of art, mostly drawings and preparatory sketches relating to paintings in the exhibition, valued at less than $5,000,000, which will be borrowed from foreign lenders.

(2)*Discussion.*

(i)This example raises the question of whether this applicant should submit an application for indemnity coverage for a domestic exhibition or an international exhibition. If the applicant submitted an application for an international exhibition requesting coverage for only the foreign-owned objects eligible under Section 1160.4(a), the Federal Council would evaluate whether the ten foreign-owned objects further the exhibition's educational, cultural, historical, or scientific purposes. It would also be necessary for the U.S. Department of State to determine whether or not the exhibition was in the national interest. In this case, the applicant would have to insure the loans of the domestic-owned objects by other means.

(ii)In the case of an application for an international exhibition requesting coverage for both domestic-owned and foreign-owned objects eligible under Section 1160.4(a) and (c), the Federal Council would evaluate the exhibition as a whole to determine if the ten foreign-owned objects are integral to achieving the exhibition's educational, cultural, historical, or scientific purposes. It would also be necessary for the U.S. Department of State to determine whether or not the exhibition was in the national interest.

(iii)If the applicant submitted an application for a domestic exhibition, however, only the loans of domestic-owned objects, the highest valued part of the exhibition, would be eligible for coverage. The Federal Council would consider if the U.S. loans were of educational, cultural or historic interest. It would not be necessary for the U.S. Department of State to determine whether or not the exhibition was in the national interest. In this case, the applicant would have to insure the loans of the foreign-owned objects by other means. § 1160.6 [Amended] 5. Amend paragraph (j)(2) of newly redesignated § 1160.6 by removing “Director of the United States Information Agency that the exhibition” and adding in its place “Secretary of State or his designee that the international exhibition with eligible items under § 1160.4”. § 1160.7 [Amended] 6. Amend newly redesignated § 1160.7 by removing “the application will be submitted to the Director of the United States Information Agency” and adding in its place “applications for international exhibitions with eligible items under § 1160.4 will be submitted to the Secretary of State or his designee”. [FR Doc. E8-4065 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7036-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 32, 36 and 54 [WC Docket No. 05-337; CC Docket No. 96-45; FCC 08-4] High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on the Commission's rules governing the amount of high-cost universal service support provided to competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs), and tentatively concludes that it should eliminate the existing “identical support” rule—also known as the “equal support” rule—which provides competitive ETCs with the same per-line high-cost universal service support amounts that incumbent local exchange carriers receive. DATES: Comments are due on or before April 3, 2008 and reply comments are due on or before May 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 05-337 and CC Docket No. 96-45, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov,* and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. Include the docket number in the subject line of the message. • *Mail:* Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20544. • *People with Disabilities:* Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by *e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov* or *phone:* 202-418-0530 or *TTY:* 202-418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted Burmeister or Katie King, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, 202-418-7400 or TTY: 202-418-0484. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM)in WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45, FCC 08-4, adopted January 9, 2008, and released January 29, 2008. The complete 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. The 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.* Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Introduction 1. In this NPRM, we seek comment on the Commission's rules governing the amount of high-cost universal service support provided to competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs). As discussed below, we tentatively conclude that we should eliminate the Commission's current “identical support” rule—also known as the “equal support rule”—which provides competitive ETCs with the same per-line high-cost universal service support amounts that incumbent local exchange carriers

(LECs)receive. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on our tentative conclusion to provide support to a competitive ETC based on its own costs of providing the supported services. We then seek comment on methodologies for determining a competitive ETC's relevant costs for universal service support purposes, and other matters related to how the support should be calculated, including the appropriate reporting obligations, and whether we should cap such support at the level of the incumbent LECs. Background 2. Section 254(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the Act) directs the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) and the Commission to base policies for the preservation and advancement of universal service on several general principles, including the principle that there should be specific, predictable, and sufficient federal and state universal service support mechanisms. Public Law 104-104. The Commission adopted the additional principle that federal support mechanisms should be competitively neutral. Consistent with this principle and with the Joint Board's recommendation, the Commission determined in 1997 that federal universal service support should be made available, or “portable,” to all ETCs that provide supported services, regardless of the technology used. *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* 62 FR 32862, June 17, 1997 ( *First Report and Order* ). Section 254(e) of the Act requires that a carrier that receives support “shall use that support only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is intended.” Furthermore, pursuant to section 214(e) of the Act, an ETC must provide service and advertise its service throughout the entire service area. In order to receive universal service support, competitors must obtain ETC status from the relevant state commission, or the Commission in cases where the state commission lacks jurisdiction. 3. Under the Commission's existing rules, a competitive ETC that serves a customer in an incumbent LEC's service area receives the same per-line amount of high-cost universal service support that the incumbent LEC would receive for serving that same customer. The Commission's universal service rules do not distinguish between primary and secondary lines; therefore, multiple connections to a single end-user in high-cost areas may receive universal service support for each connection. 4. High-cost support for competitive ETCs has grown rapidly over the last several years, placing extraordinary pressure on the federal universal service fund. In 2006, the universal service fund provided approximately $4.1 billion per year in high-cost support. In contrast, in 2001, high-cost universal service support totaled approximately $2.6 billion. In recent years, this growth has been due to increased support provided to competitive ETCs, which receive high-cost support based on the per-line support that the incumbent LECs receive, rather than on the competitive ETCs' own costs. While support to incumbent LECs has been flat, or has even declined since 2003, competitive ETC support, in the six years from 2001 through 2006, has grown from under $17 million to $980 million—an annual growth rate of over 100 percent. Competitive ETCs received $557 million in high-cost support in the first six months of 2007. Annualizing this amount projects that they will receive approximately $1.11 billion in 2007. Discussion Basis of Support for Competitive ETCs 5. To ensure the sufficiency of the universal service mechanism, we believe that the Commission must fundamentally reform how we distribute support under the existing high-cost mechanism. We therefore tentatively conclude that we should eliminate the Commission's current identical support rule for competitive ETCs, which bears no relationship to the amount of money such competitive ETCs have invested in rural and other high-cost areas of the country. We further tentatively conclude that a competitive ETC should receive high-cost support based on its own costs, which better reflect real investment in rural and other high-cost areas of the country, and which creates greater incentives for investment in such areas. 6. In its 1996 *Recommended Decision,* the Joint Board recommended *inter alia* that the Commission should “establish ‘competitive neutrality’ as an additional principle upon which it shall base policies for the preservation and advancement of universal service.” *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* 12 FCC Rcd 87 (1996). The Joint Board did not define what it meant by “competitive neutrality,” however. The Joint Board further recommended that the support payments to incumbent LECs be made “portable” to competitive ETCs. Specifically, it recommended that “[a] CLEC should be allowed to receive support payments to the extent that it is able to capture subscribers formerly served by carriers eligible for frozen support payments or to add new customers in the incumbent LEC's study area.” The Joint Board also recommended that high-cost support be limited to “a single connection to a subscriber's principal residence.” 7. In May 1997, the Commission adopted the majority of the Joint Board's recommendations. *First Report and Order,* 62 FR 32862, June 17, 1997. First, it adopted “competitive neutrality” as a principle for universal service support. The Commission provided the following very general definition of competitive neutrality: “competitive neutrality means that universal service support mechanisms and rules neither unfairly advantage or disadvantage one provider over another, and neither unfairly favor or disfavor one technology over another.” The Commission did not explain what it meant to “unfairly advantage or disadvantage one provider over another,” however. In addition, the Commission acknowledged that, “given the complexities and diversity of the telecommunications marketplace it would be extremely difficult to achieve strict competitive neutrality.” 8. The Commission also adopted the Joint Board's recommendation that it make incumbent carriers' support payments “portable to other eligible telecommunications carriers.” In justifying this portability requirement, both the Joint Board and Commission made clear that they envisioned that competitive ETCs would compete directly against incumbent LECs and try to take existing customers from them. Thus, for example, the Commission explained: A competitive carrier that has been designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier shall receive universal service support to the extent that it captures subscribers' lines formerly served by an incumbent LEC or new customer lines in that incumbent LEC's study area. At the same time, the incumbent LEC will continue to receive support for the customer lines it continues to serve. 9. The predictions of the Joint Board and the Commission have proven inaccurate, however. First, they did not foresee that competitive ETCs might offer supported services that were not viewed by consumers as substitutes for the incumbent LEC's supported service. Second, wireless carriers, rather than wireline competitive LECs, have received a majority of competitive ETC designations, serve a majority of competitive ETC lines, and have received a majority of competitive ETC support. These wireless competitive ETCs do not capture lines from the incumbent LEC to become a customer's sole service provider, except in a small portion of households. Thus, rather than providing a complete substitute for traditional wireline service, these wireless competitive ETCs largely provide mobile wireless telephony service in addition to a customer's existing wireline service. 10. This has created a number of serious problems for the high-cost fund, and calls into question the rationale for the identical support rule. First, instead of competitive ETCs competing against the incumbent LECs for a relatively fixed number of subscriber lines, the certification of wireless competitive ETCs has led to significant increases in the total number of supported lines. Because the majority of households do not view wireline and wireless services to be direct substitutes, many households subscribe to both services and receive support for multiple lines, which has led to a rapid increase in the size of the fund. In addition, the identical support rule fails to create efficient investment incentives for competitive ETCs. Because a competitive ETC's per-line support is based solely on the per-line support received by the incumbent LEC, rather than its own network investments in an area, the competitive ETC has little incentive to invest in, or expand, its own facilities in areas with low population densities, thereby contravening the Act's universal service goal of improving the access to telecommunications services in rural, insular and high-cost areas. Instead, competitive ETCs have a greater incentive to expand the number of subscribers, particularly those located in the lower-cost parts of high-cost areas, rather than to expand the geographic scope of their networks. 11. For these and other reasons, numerous parties and the Joint Board have recommended that the Commission consider abandoning the identical support rule and replacing it with a requirement that competitive ETCs receive support based on their own costs. Since 2004, several parties have recommended that the Commission make such a change. More recently, on May 1, 2007, the Joint Board issued a recommended decision that “recommend[ed] the Commission consider abandoning the identical support rule” and also issued a public notice that sought comment on comprehensive high-cost reform, including “whether the Commission should replace the current identical support rule with a requirement that competitive ETCs demonstrate their own costs in order to receive support.” *Federal State Joint Board on Universal Service,* 22 FCC Rcd 8998 (2007); *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Seeks Comment on Long Term, Comprehensive High-Cost Universal Service Reform,* 22 FCC Rcd 9023 (2007). The Joint Board also sought comment on other possible avenues of comprehensive high-cost reform. 12. Given the near-unanimous support of Joint Board members for the Commission moving to eliminate the identical support rule, and for the reasons set forth above, we tentatively conclude that the goal of universal service will be better served if we eliminate the identical support rule and instead provide support based on the competitive ETCs' own costs. We tentatively conclude that such a change in policy is further justified by the failure of the identical support rule to reward investment in communications infrastructure in rural and other high-cost areas. Additionally, we tentatively conclude that we should require competitive ETCs that seek high-cost support to file cost data demonstrating their costs of providing service in high-cost service areas. We seek comment on whether this proposal is consistent with the goal of competitive neutrality, given that the majority of competitive ETCs generally do not sell services that consumers view as direct substitutes for wireline services. To the extent that commenters argue that elimination of the identical support rule would be inconsistent with the goal of competitive neutrality, we seek comment on whether such a minimal departure is compensated by the potential stabilization of the high-cost fund and improved investment incentives that would result from the rule change. We seek comment on the above analysis and on these proposals. Determination of Costs for Competitive ETCs 13. We tentatively conclude that competitive ETCs should file cost data showing their own per-line costs of providing service in a supported service area in order to receive high-cost universal service support. Specifically, we propose that each competitive ETC should file cost data with the Commission or the relevant state commission—whichever approved, or subsequently approves, its ETC application—on an annual basis and line-count data on a quarterly basis. We further propose that competitive ETCs have the option of updating their cost data on a quarterly basis, as do rural incumbents today. Only if the cost data is approved by the relevant state commission or the Commission may the competitive ETC then file the cost data submission with the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. Additionally, we invite parties to submit detailed cost data proposals or, in the case of competitive ETCs, actual cost data that would enable us to compare their costs for supported services in high-cost areas to those of incumbent LECs for those same areas. We note that Advocates for Regulatory Action submitted a proposal to replace the identical support rule with wireless carrier actual costs (the WiCAC Proposal), and we seek comment on that proposal. Methods for Examining Competitive ETC Costs 14. Consistent with our tentative conclusions above, a competitive ETC would be required to report sufficient cost information to allow the Commission or the state commissions to evaluate competitive ETC's costs for purposes of determining high-cost support. We seek comment on the manner in which competitive ETCs should be required to report their costs. 15. *Disaggregation.* Incumbent LECs are required to separate their network costs into components pursuant to part 32 of the Commission's rules. Rural incumbent LECs receive high-cost loop support

(HCLS)on a per-line basis based on costs assigned to the common line network component, and non-rural incumbent LECs receive high-cost model support

(HCMS)on a per-line basis for the common line, local switching, and local transport network components. Although traditionally we have not regulated the manner in which non-dominant carriers record their costs and revenues, we seek comment here on whether we should require competitive ETCs seeking high-cost support to separate costs into network components in a similar manner, so that their costs can be compared to the incumbent LECs' cost benchmarks for purposes of determining whether competitive ETCs qualify for high-cost support. We further seek comment on whether the Commission should develop a system of accounts for competitive ETCs, including wireless carriers, that mirror the part 32 rules applicable to incumbent LECs. For example, the WiCAC Proposal would utilize 23 specific part 32 accounts to calculate wireless competitive ETC costs. We seek comment on the WiCAC Proposal's use of part 32 accounts specifically to determine wireless competitive ETC costs. We also seek comment generally on other possible methods of identifying the network components and associated costs in a wireless network that are equivalent to a wireline carrier's local loop, switching, and transport components. We also seek comment on whether, if we require disaggregation of costs into network components, competitive ETCs should be able to recover costs for different network components for non-rural service areas than for rural service areas. Finally, we seek comment on whether the Commission should consider any limitations on the total per-line support available to ETCs in a designated area. 16. *Geographic Disaggregation.* We further seek comment on whether, because competitive ETCs will, in general, operate in multiple study areas of incumbent carriers, it will be necessary to disaggregate each competitive ETC's cost by relevant competitive ETC service area, and by the relevant incumbent LEC study area, wire center, or disaggregation zone. We seek comment on whether the default methodology for such geographic disaggregation should be to allocate costs (total or by individual network component) in proportion to the active telephone numbers employed or the number of customers served in each study area. As an alternative, if a competitive ETC can demonstrate that it has maintained separate cost accounts by individual study area, then these accounts can be used to report cost for each study area individually. We seek comment on these issues. We also seek comment on how to best ensure that a competitive ETC does not inflate the costs being allocated to high-cost areas as compared to lower cost areas for which the competitive ETC may not be seeking support. For example, should we require that a competitive ETC identify total costs for all study areas or wire centers as well as the specific costs which the competitive ETC is associating with the study or services areas or wire centers for which it is seeking support? 17. *Wireless-Specific Costs.* We tentatively conclude that wireless spectrum costs should be included in high-cost support cost submissions only to the extent that the competitive ETC actually paid for the spectrum, either through an auction or by purchasing it on the open market. We also tentatively conclude that a carrier should not be able to assign a market value or opportunity costs to spectrum. Thus, a wireless provider that obtained spectrum at auction would be able to include the price it paid for the spectrum at auction, but if a carrier obtained its spectrum through a lottery, it would not be able to recover any costs for the spectrum from the high-cost universal service mechanisms. Further, we tentatively conclude that wireless handsets should not be treated as an allowed expense, both because they are more akin to traditional customer-owned telephones in a wireline network than to the network interface device, and because the handsets are purchased by subscribers rather than leased to customers by carriers. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. Cost Reporting Requirements 18. To aid the Commission and state commissions in their review of competitive ETC cost submissions, we propose a general set of rules to govern the cost data submitted by competitive ETCs. We tentatively conclude that the competitive ETCs should use Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

(GAAP)and, with the exceptions discussed below, the accounting methodologies should be the same as those used to provide information about the company's performance to external parties, such as investors and creditors. The cost of capital should be assumed to be 11.25 percent, which is the average cost of capital used in the Commission's forward-looking model and in other regulatory proceedings. Depreciation expense should be computed in a manner consistent with GAAP, and, in addition, the same depreciation schedules used by the competitive ETC in any other financial reports must be used for purposes of determining total network cost for universal service support purposes. Operating and maintenance expense should be based on actual expenses incurred. The allocation for corporate overhead should be comparable to the limitations imposed on rural and non-rural carriers. Specifically, for rural carriers the amount of corporate operations expenses included in determining high-cost loop support is the lesser of actual expenses or the amount calculated under the formulas in § 36.622(a)(4) of the Commission's rules. 47 CFR 36.622(a)(4). For non-rural carriers, the input value for common support services expenses is $7.32 per line, per month. Consistent with the approach under the HCMS rules, corporate operations expenses for competitive ETCs serving non-rural study areas would be the lesser of actual expenses or $7.32 per line, per month. Further, any costs not kept in separate books of account should be identified and allocated to the appropriate study area based on active telephone numbers employed or the number of customers served. All elements of the cost report will be subject to audit. We seek comment on these observations, proposals, and tentative conclusions. 19. It may be necessary to adopt additional requirements concerning the manner in which competitive ETCs are allowed to report their costs. For example, although spectrum acquired through an auction or purchased on the open market may be a legitimate business expense, it is not clear that we should allow carriers to earn a return of 11.25 percent on these investments in perpetuity if spectrum costs are not depreciated. In addition to those issues identified above, other issues may arise due to fundamental differences between wireline and wireless network design. We seek comment on these issues. We also seek comment on whether we should adopt any additional requirements on the competitive ETC cost submissions. Calculation of Support 20. As noted above, we seek comment on whether a competitive ETC should receive high-cost universal service support based on its own costs by applying the same benchmarks that are applied to the incumbent LEC's costs to determine its support. For example, in the case of a competitive ETC providing service in a non-rural study area, a cost per line would be developed, which would be compared to the benchmark threshold for support calculated by the High-Cost Proxy Model. For competitive ETCs providing service to rural study areas, a cost per line would be developed for each competitive ETC for each incumbent study area that it serves. Support could be determined by comparing the competitive ETC's cost per loop incurred to provide the supported services to the national average cost per loop developed by the National Exchange Carrier Association

(NECA)pursuant to § 36.613 of the Commission's rules, as adjusted to accommodate the cap on incumbent high-cost loop support. 47 CFR 36.613. We seek comment on this methodology and other possible methodologies for providing support to competitive ETCs serving rural areas. Similarly, we seek comment on a methodology for developing support based on wireless costs for competitive ETCs serving non-rural areas. We also seek comment on whether we should develop a method of estimating wireless competitive ETCs' forward-looking economic costs analogous to the High-Cost Proxy Model the Commission currently uses to calculate HCMS. 21. HCLS and HCMS both are calculated in terms of per-line support. Because a competitive ETC may have few or no lines when it first receives its ETC designation, performing a calculation of per-line support at the initial time of market entry likely would result in a considerable upward bias in the resulting support amount. We therefore seek comment on whether a competitive ETC should be required to project its subscribership for some future point in time when performing its cost submissions. To the extent that we require such subscribership projections, we seek comment on how far into the future a competitive ETC should be required to project (e.g., 3 years, 5 years). We also seek comment on whether, and when, it would be appropriate to switch from projected future subscribership to actual subscribership. Further, for wireless ETCs, we seek comment on whether subscribership should be based on the number of handsets or on some other statistic, such as individual billing accounts. 22. We also seek comment on whether the Commission should examine wireless competitive ETC costs independently from wireline LEC costs for purposes of determining high-cost support. Wireless networks may be very different from wireline networks, potentially resulting in very different costs. We seek comment on methods for reviewing and determining wireless high-cost support on a separate basis from the existing wireline mechanisms, and whether adopting such a separate wireless high-cost support mechanism comports with the goal of competitive neutrality. 23. We tentatively conclude that competitive ETCs should no longer receive Interstate Access Support

(IAS)and Interstate Common Line Support (ICLS). IAS and ICLS were created by the Commission in order to maintain the Commission's cap on subscriber line charge

(SLC)rates that incumbent LECs may charge end users, while eliminating the implicit support found in common line access charges, imposed by incumbent LECs on interexchange carriers, that previously preserved the lower SLC rates. Some parties previously have argued that, because competitive ETCs' rates generally are not regulated and they are not subject to SLC caps, they are able to recover their revenues from end users and have no need to recover additional interstate revenues from access charges or from universal service, and therefore should not be eligible for support under IAS or ICLS. We tentatively conclude that permitting competitive ETCs to receive IAS or ICLS is inconsistent with how competitive ETCs recover their costs or set rates. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. 24. Similarly, we seek comment on whether competitive ETCs should no longer receive Local Switching Support (LSS). The Commission created LSS in the *First Report and Order* by removing the existing Dial Equipment Minutes weighting subsidy from the access rate structure and, instead, providing carriers explicit support from the universal service fund. LSS therefore includes a number of assumptions regarding switching costs, such as the economies of scope and scale, that are not likely to be accurate for competitive ETCs. We seek comment on whether LSS should no longer be available to competitive ETCs. Accordingly, if competitive ETCs no longer receive IAS, ICLS, and LSS, competitive ETCs would be permitted to receive high-cost support only for their local loop-equivalent costs, to the extent such costs can be shown to be high-cost. We seek comment on whether to limit competitive ETC support in this manner. Ceiling on Competitive ETC Per-Line Support 25. We seek comment on whether we should establish a ceiling on the per-line high-cost support that a competitive ETC may receive. An incumbent LEC's HCMS is limited by the forward-looking estimated costs produced by the model, even if the incumbent LEC's actual costs are higher. For competitive ETCs providing service in non-rural study areas, we seek comment on setting the ceiling at the per-line HCMS that the incumbent LEC receives in a particular wire center. For competitive ETCs providing service in rural areas, we seek comment on setting the ceiling at the amount that the incumbent LEC receives from HCLS or, in the alternative, at the sum of the per-line HCLS and LSS that the incumbent receives. Adopting a ceiling for competitive ETCs at the level of incumbent LEC support could avoid rewarding competitive ETCs for being inefficient and reduce incentives for competitive ETCs to inflate their costs. We seek comment on this analysis, as well as on whether there are any other approaches for adopting a ceiling for competitive ETC funding. Other Issues 26. We also seek comment regarding the sufficiency of the Commission's existing use certifications with respect to competitive ETCs. Section 254(e) of the Act requires that “[a] carrier that receives [universal service support] shall use that support only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is intended.” Currently, the Commission requires each state to file an annual certification stating that all federal high-cost universal service support provided to LECs or competitive ETCs within the state will be used only for the purposes for which the support is intended. The Commission also requires that each LEC or competitive ETC receiving IAS or ICLS must file a certification that the high-cost support received pursuant to those mechanisms will be used for the intended purpose. Some parties contend, however, that wireless competitive ETCs are not using their universal service support to promote universal service goals. We seek comment on whether these certifications, as well as the Commission's rules requiring competitive ETCs to submit five-year build out plans (beginning October 1, 2006), provide sufficient protection against misuse of universal service support by competitive ETCs. We request that parties arguing that stronger protections are necessary identify with specificity any recommended additional protections. Procedural Matters 27. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before April 3, 2008 and reply comments are due on or before May 5, 2008. Comments may be filed using:

(1)The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),

(2)the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or

(3)by filing paper copies. *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,* 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. • *Electronic Filers:* Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* or the *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. • For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov* , and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • *Paper Filers:* Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. • Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. *People with Disabilities:* To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). Ex Parte Requirements 28. These matters shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's *ex parte* rules. 47 CFR 1.1200-1.1216. Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2). Other requirements pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 29. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), *see* 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA, which is set forth below. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed on or before April 3, 2008. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). 5 U.S.C. 603(a). Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 30. Over the last few years, the size of the universal service fund has grown rapidly, threatening the sustainability of the fund. This growth has been driven largely by the increase in high-cost universal service support for competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs). The increase in high-cost support to competitive ETCs is, in turn, a product of the growing number of competitive ETC lines (due to both new designations of competitive ETCs and growth in subscribership to wireless services), the availability of support for multiple lines per household, and the identical support rule, which provides that each competitive ETC receives the same per-line support amount that the incumbent local exchange carrier

(LEC)receives. In the NPRM, the Commission tentatively concludes that the identical support rule should be eliminated because it bears no relationship to the amount of money competitive ETCs have invested in rural and other high-cost areas of the country. The Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusion to provide support based on a competitive ETC's own costs as a means of constraining the growth of the universal service fund and providing appropriate investment incentives for competitive ETCs. Legal Basis 31. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the NPRM is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 201 through 205, 214, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and §§ 1.1, 1.411 through 1.419, and 1.1200 through 1.1216 of the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i) through (j), 201 through 205, 214, 254, 403; 47 CFR 1.1, 1.411 through 1.419, 1.1200 through 1.1216. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules Will Apply 32. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3). The RFA generally defines the term “small entity,” 5 U.S.C. 601(6), as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” 5 U.S.C. 601(3), “small organization,” 5 U.S.C. 601(4), and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 5 U.S.C. 601(3). In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). Under the Small Business Act, a “small business concern” is one that:

(1)Is independently owned and operated;

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

(3)meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 15 U.S.C. 632. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data. A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” 5 U.S.C. 601(4). Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. 33. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the number of commercial wireless entities, is the data that the Commission publishes in its *Trends in Telephone Service* report. The SBA has developed small business size standards for wireline and wireless small businesses within the three commercial census categories of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, Paging, and Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications. 13 CFR 121.201. Under these categories, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Below, using the above size standards and others, we discuss the total estimated numbers of small businesses that might be affected by our actions. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers 34. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers

(LECs)in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, *inter alia* , meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” 15 U.S.C. 632. The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. 35. *Incumbent LECs.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to incumbent LECs. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 13 CFR 121.201. According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,019 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 288 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our action. 36. *Competitive LECs, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers.”* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 13 CFR 121.201. According to Commission data, 859 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive LEC or CAP services. Of these 859 carriers, an estimated 741 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 118 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 16 carriers have reported that they are “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 44 carriers have reported that they are “Other Local Service Providers.” Of the 44, an estimated 43 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most competitive LECs, CAPs, “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers” are small entities that may be affected by our action. Wireless Carriers and Service Providers 37. *Wireless Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic census categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” 13 CFR 121.201. Under both categories, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the census category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small. 38. *Wireless Telephony.* Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services (PCS), and specialized mobile radio

(SMR)telephony carriers. As noted earlier, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” services. 13 CFR 121.201. Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 432 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony. We have estimated that 221 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard. Satellite Service Providers 39. The first category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 371 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 307 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 26 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action. 40. The second category of Other Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in

(1)providing specialized telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or

(2)providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or receiving telecommunications from satellite systems.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 332 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 259 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 41. This NPRM seeks comment on whether to calculate support for competitive ETCs based on their own costs. If the Commission ultimately adopts such a method for determining high-cost support for competitive ETCs, it will likely require competitive ETCs to begin recording and reporting their cost data in order to receive high-cost support. Specifically, the NPRM seeks comment on how such costs should be identified and reported, and proposes that the costs must be reported to the Commission or the relevant state authority for approval before submission to the universal service administrator for use in calculating and disbursing support. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 42. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others):

(1)The establishment of differing compliance and reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;

(2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;

(3)the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and

(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for small entities. *See* 5 U.S.C. 603(c). 43. This NPRM seeks comment generally on how competitive ETCs should identify and report their costs and how to calculate their high-cost universal service support. Furthermore, the NPRM specifically seeks comment on whether less stringent cost accounting requirements should apply to smaller competitive ETCs. The NPRM seeks comment on whether the methods for determining competitive ETC costs discussed therein would significantly economically affect smaller competitive ETCs. If so, the NPRM seeks comment on alternative methods for smaller competitive ETCs to submit information that would allow the Commission and the state commissions adequately to assess these companies' costs for purposes of determining high-cost support. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the NPRM, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding. Moreover, the NPRM seeks comment on whether to eliminate or retain the existing identical support rule, but tentatively concludes that the existing rule threatens the sufficiency of the universal service fund. The NPRM seeks comment on whether replacing the existing rule with a support mechanism that provides support to competitive ETCs based on their own costs may have a significant economic impact on some competitive ETCs, and, if so, seeks comment on alternative methods for smaller competitive ETCs to report their costs to the Commission and the state commissions. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 44. None. Ordering Clauses 45. Accordingly, *It is ordered* that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 214, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 201-205, 214, 254, 403 and §§ 1.1, 1.411-1.419, and 1.1200-1.1216 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.411-1.419, 1.1200-1.1216, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted. 46. *It is further ordered* that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-4148 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 32, 36, 54 and 63 [WC Docket No. 05-337; CC Docket No. 96-45; FCC 08-22] High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on the *Recommended Decision* of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, released on November 20, 2007, regarding comprehensive reform of high-cost universal service. We also incorporate by reference the *Identical Support NPRM* and the *Reverse Auctions NPRM* into this NPRM. In addition, we will incorporate the records developed in response to those two items into this proceeding. DATES: Comments are due on or before April 3, 2008 and reply comments are due on or before May 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 05-337 and CC Docket No. 96-45, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov,* and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. Include the docket number in the subject line of the message. • *Mail:* Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. • *People with Disabilities:* Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted Burmeister or Katie King, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, 202-418-7400 or TTY: 202-418-0484. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45, FCC 08-22, adopted January 16, 2008, and released January 29, 2008. The complete 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. The 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.* Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Introduction 1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we seek comment on ways to reform the high-cost universal service program. Specifically, we seek comment on the recommendation of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) regarding comprehensive reform of high-cost universal service support. *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* Recommended Decision, 22 FCC Rcd 20477

(2007)( *Recommended Decision* ). We also incorporate into this NPRM the following two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking:

(1)The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released by the Commission on January 29, 2008, which seeks comment on the Commission's rules governing the amount of high-cost universal service support provided to eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs), including elimination of the “identical support rule;” and

(2)the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released by the Commission on January 29, 2008, which seeks comment on whether and how to implement reverse auctions (a form of competitive bidding) as the disbursement mechanism for determining the amount of high-cost universal service support for ETCs serving rural, insular, and high-cost areas. *High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 08-4 (rel. Jan. 29, 2008) ( *Identical Support Rule NPRM* ); *High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 08-5 (rel. Jan. 29, 2008) ( *Reverse Auctions NPRM* ). We also will incorporate the records developed in response to those NPRMs into this proceeding. We note, however, that such incorporation of these two NPRMs does not change or otherwise affect, and we expressly preserve, the positions of the Commission members with regard to those particular NPRMs and the Joint Board's recommendation. Background 2. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), Congress sought to preserve and advance universal service while, at the same time, opening all telecommunications markets to competition. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law 104-104 (1996). Section 254(b) of the Act, which was added by the 1996 Act, directs the Joint Board and the Commission to base policies for the preservation and advancement of universal service on several general principles, plus other principles that the Commission may establish. 47 U.S.C. 254(b). Among other things, there should be specific, predictable, and sufficient federal and state universal service support mechanisms; quality services should be available at just, reasonable, and affordable rates; and consumers in all regions of the nation should have access to telecommunications services that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas at reasonably comparable rates. 47 U.S.C. 254(b)(1), (3), (5). Section 254(e) of the Act provides that only ETCs designated under section 214(e) shall be eligible to receive federal universal service support, and that any such support should be explicit and sufficient to achieve the purposes of that section. 47 U.S.C. 214(e), 254(e). 3. In 2002, the Commission asked the Joint Board to review certain of the Commission's rules related to the high-cost universal service support mechanisms. *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* 67 FR 70703, November 26, 2002. Among other things, the Commission asked the Joint Board to review the Commission's rules relating to high-cost universal service support in study areas in which a competitive ETC provides service. In response, the Joint Board made a number of recommendations concerning the designation of ETCs in high-cost areas, but declined to recommend that the Commission modify the basis of support (i.e., the methodology used to calculate support) in study areas with multiple ETCs. *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* Recommended Decision, 19 FCC Rcd 4257 (2004). Instead, the Joint Board recommended that it and the Commission continue to consider possible modifications to the basis of support for competitive ETCs as part of an overall review of the high-cost support mechanisms for rural and non-rural carriers. 4. In 2004, the Commission asked the Joint Board to review the Commission's rules relating to the high-cost universal service support mechanisms for rural carriers and to determine the appropriate rural mechanism to succeed the plan adopted in the *Rural Task Force Order. Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* Order, 69 FR 48232, August 9, 2004 ( *Rural Referral Order* ); *Rural Task Force Order,* 66 FR 30080, June 5, 2001. In August 2004, the Joint Board sought comment on issues the Commission referred to it related to the high-cost universal service support mechanisms for rural carriers. *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Seeks Comment on Certain of the Commission's Rules Relating to High-Cost Universal Service Support,* Public Notice, 69 FR 53917, September 3, 2004. The Joint Board also specifically sought comment on the methodology for calculating support for ETCs in competitive study areas. Since that time, the Joint Board has sought comment on a variety of specific proposals for addressing the issues of universal service support for rural carriers and the basis of support for competitive ETCs, including proposals developed by members and staff of the Joint Board, as well as the use of reverse auctions (competitive bidding) to determine high-cost universal service funding to ETCs. *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Seeks Comment on Proposals to Modify the Commission's Rules Relating to High-Cost Universal Service Support,* 20 FCC Rcd 14267 (2005); *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Seeks Comment on the Merits of Using Auctions to Determine High-Cost Universal Service Support,* 71 FR 50420, August 25, 2006. 5. On May 1, 2007, the Joint Board recommended that the Commission adopt an interim cap on high-cost universal service support provided to competitive ETCs to stem the dramatic growth in high-cost support. *High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* Recommended Decision, 22 FCC Rcd 8998 (2007). Specifically, the Joint Board recommended that the Commission cap the amount of support that competitive ETCs may receive for each state based on the average level of competitive ETC support distributed in that state in 2006. The Joint Board further recommended that the interim cap apply until one year from the date that the Joint Board makes its recommendation regarding comprehensive and fundamental high-cost universal service reform. The Joint Board also recommended that the Commission consider abandoning or modifying the so-called “identical support” rule in any reform it ultimately adopts. On May 14, 2007, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, seeking comment on the Joint Board's recommendation regarding the interim cap on competitive ETC support. *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 9705 (2007). 6. In a companion Public Notice, released May 1, 2007, the Joint Board sought comment on various proposals to reform the high-cost universal service support mechanisms. *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Seeks Comment on Long Term, Comprehensive High-Cost Universal Service Reform,* Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 9023 (2007). Specifically the Joint Board sought comment on the following issues and proposals:

(1)The use of reverse auctions to determine high-cost universal service support;

(2)the use of GIS technology and network cost modeling to better calculate and target support at more granular levels;

(3)disaggregation of support;

(4)the methodology for calculating support for competitive ETCs; and

(5)whether universal service funding should be used to promote broadband deployment. 7. Finally, the Commission recently adopted two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, which seek comment on specific high-cost universal service comprehensive reform proposals. First, on January 9, 2008, the Commission adopted the *Identical Support NPRM,* which seeks comment on the Commission's rules governing the amount of high-cost universal service support provided to ETCs and tentatively concludes that the Commission should eliminate the “identical support” rule. *Identical Support Rule NPRM,* FCC 08-4. Second, on January 9, 2008, the Commission adopted the *Reverse Auctions NPRM,* which tentatively concludes that reverse auctions should be used as the disbursement mechanism to determine the amount of high-cost universal service for ETCs serving rural, insular, and high-cost areas and seeks comment on how to implement reverse auctions for this purpose. *Reverse Auctions NPRM,* FCC 08-5. Discussion 8. On November 20, 2007, the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service issued its *Recommended Decision* regarding comprehensive reform of high-cost universal service. *Recommended Decision,* 22 FCC Rcd 20477 (2007). In this NPRM, we seek comment on the Joint Board's recommendations contained in the *Recommended Decision.* 9. We also incorporate by reference the *Identical Support NPRM* and the *Reverse Auctions NPRM* into this NPRM. In addition, we will incorporate the records developed in response to those two items into this proceeding. We thus request that parties who file comments in response to either or both of those items include those comments as part of their filings in response to this NPRM. We note, however, that such incorporation of these two NPRMs does not change or otherwise affect, and we expressly preserve, the positions of the Commission members with regard to those particular NPRMs and the Joint Board's recommendation. Procedural Matters 10. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before April 3, 2008 and reply comments are due on or before May 5, 2008. Comments may be filed using:

(1)the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),

(2)the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or

(3)by filing paper copies. *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,* 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. • *Electronic Filers:* Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. • For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov,* and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • *Paper Filers:* Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. • Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. *People with Disabilities:* To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). Ex Parte Requirements 11. These matters shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's *ex parte* rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 through 1.1216. Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2). Other requirements pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 12. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA, which is set forth below. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed on or before April 3, 2008. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). 5 U.S.C. 603(a). Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 13. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), Congress sought to preserve and advance universal service while, at the same time, opening all telecommunications markets to competition. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law 104-104 (1996). Section 254(b) of the Act directs the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) and the Commission to base policies for the preservation and advancement of universal service on several general principles, plus other principles that the Commission may establish. Section 254(e) provides that only eligible telecommunications carriers

(ETCs)designated under section 214(e) shall be eligible to receive federal universal service support, and any such support should be explicit and sufficient to achieve the purposes of that section. 14. In this NPRM, we seek comment on ways to reform the high-cost universal service program. Specifically, we seek comment on the recommendation of the Joint Board regarding comprehensive reform of high-cost universal service support. *Recommended Decision,* 22 FCC Rcd 20477 (2007). We also incorporate into this NPRM the following two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking:

(1)The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released by the Commission on January 29, 2008. which seeks comment on the Commission's rules governing the amount of high-cost universal service support provided to eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs), including elimination of the “identical support rule;” and

(1)Is independently owned and operated;

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

(3)meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 15 U.S.C. 632. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data. A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” 5 U.S.C. 601(4). Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. 17. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the number of commercial wireless entities, is the data that the Commission publishes in its *Trends in Telephone Service* report. The SBA has developed small business size standards for wireline and wireless small businesses within the three commercial census categories of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, Paging, and Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications. 13 CFR 121.201. Under these categories, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Below, using the above size standards and others, we discuss the total estimated numbers of small businesses that might be affected by our actions. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers 18. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers

(LECs)in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, *inter alia,* meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” 15 U.S.C. 632. The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. 19. *Incumbent LECs.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to incumbent LECs. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 13 CFR 121.201. According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,019 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 288 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our action. 20. *Competitive LECs, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers.”* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 13 CFR 121.201. According to Commission data, 859 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive LEC or CAP services. Of these 859 carriers, an estimated 741 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 118 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 16 carriers have reported that they are “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 44 carriers have reported that they are “Other Local Service Providers.” Of the 44, an estimated 43 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most competitive LECs, CAPs, “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers” are small entities that may be affected by our action. Wireless Carriers and Service Providers 21. *Wireless Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic census categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” 13 CFR 121.201. Under both categories, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the census category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small. 22. *Wireless Telephony.* Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services (PCS), and specialized mobile radio

(SMR)telephony carriers. As noted earlier, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” services. 13 CFR 121.201. Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 432 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony. We have estimated that 221 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard. Satellite Service Providers 23. *Satellite Telecommunications and Other Telecommunications.* There is no small business size standard developed specifically for providers of international service. The appropriate size standards under SBA rules are for the two broad census categories of “Satellite Telecommunications” and “Other Telecommunications.” Under both categories, such a business is small if it has $13.5 million or less in average annual receipts. 13 CFR 121.201. 24. The first category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 371 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 307 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 26 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action. 25. The second category of Other Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in

(1)providing specialized telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or

(2)providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or receiving telecommunications from satellite systems.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 332 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 259 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 26. This NPRM seeks comment on ways to reform the high-cost universal service program. Specifically, the NPRM seeks comment on the recommendation of the Joint Board regarding comprehensive reform of high-cost universal service support. The Joint Board recommended the creation of three distinct high-cost funds; a broadband fund, a mobility fund, and a provider of last resort fund. If the Commission ultimately adopts the Joint Board's recommendations, new or additional reporting requirements may be required for carriers to receive support under a three-fund approach. Additionally, the NPRM incorporates by reference two NPRMs addressing the adoption of a reverse auctions approach for distributing high-cost support, and the elimination of the identical support rule for competitive eligible telecommunications carriers. Projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements are discussed in the IRFAs of those NPRMs. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 27. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others):

(1)The establishment of differing compliance and reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;

(2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;

(3)the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and

(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(c). 28. This NPRM seeks comment on ways to reform the high-cost universal service program, including recommendations issued by the Joint Board. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the NPRM, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding. To the degree that the other NPRMs that the NPRM includes by reference offer alternatives that may minimize the significant economic impact on small entities, those alternatives will be considered as well. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 29. None. Ordering Clauses 30. Accordingly, *it is ordered* that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 201 through 205, 214, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i) through (j), 201 through 205, 214, 254, 403 and §§ 1.1, 1.411 through 1.419, and 1.1200 through 1.1216 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.411 through 1.419, 1.1200 through 1.1216, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Is Adopted. 31. *It is further ordered* that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-4143 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 54 and 63 [WC Docket No. 05-337; CC Docket No. 96-45; FCC 08-5] High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on the merits of using reverse auctions (a form of competitive bidding) to determine the amount of high-cost universal service support provided to eligible telecommunications carriers serving rural, insular, and high-cost areas. DATES: Comments are due on or before April 3, 2008 and reply comments are due on or before May 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 05-337 and CC Docket No. 96-45, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Federal Communications Commission's Web site:* *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *ecfs@fcc.gov* , and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. Include the docket number in the subject line of the message. • *Mail:* Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20544. • *People with Disabilities:* Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by *e-mail:* *FCC504@fcc.gov* or *phone:* 202-418-0530 or *TTY:* 202-418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katie King, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, 202-418-7400 or TTY: 202-418-0484. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM)in WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45, FCC 08-5, adopted January 9, 2008, and released January 29, 2008. The complete 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. The 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* . *Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis:* This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Introduction 1. In this NPRM, we seek comment on the merits of using reverse auctions (a form of competitive bidding) to determine the amount of high-cost universal service support provided to eligible telecommunications carriers

(ETCs)serving rural, insular, and high-cost areas. As discussed below, in a reverse auction, support generally would be determined by the lowest bid to serve the auctioned area. We tentatively conclude that reverse auctions offer several potential advantages over current high-cost support distribution mechanisms, and that the Commission should develop an auction mechanism to determine high-cost universal service support. We seek comment in this NPRM on a number of specific issues regarding auctions and auction design that must be resolved in order for the Commission to implement an auction mechanism. Background 2. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), Congress sought to preserve and advance universal service while, at the same time, opening all telecommunications markets to competition. Public Law 104-104. Section 254(b) of the Act, which was added by the 1996 Act, directs the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) and the Commission to base policies for the preservation and advancement of universal service on several general principles, plus other principles that the Commission may establish. Among other things, there should be specific, predictable, and sufficient federal and state universal service support mechanisms; quality services should be available at just, reasonable, and affordable rates; and consumers in all regions of the nation should have access to telecommunications services that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas at reasonably comparable rates. 47 U.S.C. 254(b)(1), (3), (5). Section 254(e) of the Act provides that only ETCs designated under section 214(e) shall be eligible to receive federal universal service support, and that any such support should be explicit and sufficient to achieve the purposes of that section. 3. In the *Universal Service First Report and Order* , the Commission recognized certain advantages of using competitive bidding to determine high-cost universal service support. 62 FR 32862, June 17, 1997. First, “a compelling reason to use competitive bidding is its potential as a market-based approach to determining universal service support, if any, for any given area.” Second, “by encouraging more efficient carriers to submit bids reflecting their lower costs, another advantage of a properly structured competitive bidding system would be its ability to reduce the amount of support needed for universal service.” The record at the time, however, was insufficient to support adoption of a competitive bidding mechanism. Moreover, the Commission found it unlikely that competitive bidding mechanisms would be useful at that time because of the expectation that there would be no competition in a significant number of rural, insular, or high-cost areas in the near future. Nonetheless, the Commission found that competitive bidding warranted further consideration. 4. More recently, there has been renewed interest in using competitive bidding to determine high-cost universal service support. The Joint Board currently is reviewing the Commission's rules relating to high-cost universal service support in service areas in which competitive ETCs receive support and high-cost universal service support for rural carriers. *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service* , 67 FR 70703, November 26, 2002 ( *ETC/Portability Referral Order* ); *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service* , 69 FR 48232, August 9, 2004 ( *Rural Referral Order* ). In August 2006, the Joint Board sought comment on the merits of using auctions to determine high-cost universal service support. *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Seeks Comment on the Merits of Using Auctions to Determine High-Cost Universal Service Support* , 71 FR 50420, August 25, 2006. The Joint Board also sought comment on auctions in the ETC/Portability proceeding. *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Seeks Comment on Certain of the Commission's Rules Relating to High-Cost Universal Service Support and the ETC Designation Process* , 68 FR 10429, March 5, 2003. In February 2007, the Joint Board held an *en banc* hearing to discuss high-cost universal service support in rural areas, including the use of reverse auctions to determine support. *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service to Hold En Banc Hearing on High-Cost Universal Service Support in Areas Served by Rural Carriers* , 22 FCC Rcd 2545 (2007). In his opening remarks, Chairman Kevin Martin explained that “reverse auctions could provide a technologically and competitively neutral means of controlling fund growth and ensuring a move to most efficient technology over time.” In a public notice, released May 1, 2007, the Joint Board sought comment on various proposals for long term, comprehensive reform of the high-cost universal service support mechanisms, including the use of reverse auctions. *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Seeks Comment on Long Term Comprehensive High-Cost Universal Service Reform* , 22 FCC Rcd 9023 (2007). The Joint Board also recommended that, as an interim measure, the Commission adopt a cap on competitive ETC support. *Recommended Decision* , 22 FCC Rcd 8998 (2007). The specific auction proposals filed during the course of this proceeding are briefly described below. 5. *CTIA Proposal* . In response to the *2006 Joint Board Public Notice* , CTIA—The Wireless Association®

(CTIA)proposed a “winner-gets-more” reverse auction structure in which wireline and wireless ETCs would compete in the same auction. Under this proposal, the winning bidder would receive the level of support it bid, and other auction participants would receive some lesser level of support. CTIA suggests two possible methods of calculating support for a non-winning bidder:

(1)A percentage reduction in payment based on the difference between its bid and the winning bid; and

(2)a percentage reduction in payment based on the difference between its bid and the winning bid, but also weighted by the share of customers of the winning bidder. CTIA supports the use of small areas, such as counties, as the geographic areas on which providers would bid. 6. *Verizon Proposal.* On February 9, 2007, Verizon proposed implementing competitive bidding on a limited basis, with the possibility of extending the use of auctions more widely after the Commission assesses the results. Under Verizon's proposal, the Commission would introduce auctions in areas in which multiple wireless competitive ETCs currently receive support to select a single winning wireless provider to receive federal high-cost support in that area. Once these auctions were completed, a separate set of auctions would be held in areas where there is at least one wireline competitive ETC. Both the incumbent local exchange carrier

(LEC)and any wireline competitive ETCs would participate, and the auction would select a single wireline provider to receive high-cost support in that area. After reviewing its experience with the separate wireless and wireline auctions, the Commission could then consider holding a general auction in any area where there is a competitive ETC. Both wireline and wireless ETCs would participate, and the general auction would select a single ETC to receive the support determined by its bid. The Commission also could consider using the results of the auctions to adjust support of ETCs receiving support not yet determined by an auction. 7. Verizon also proposes an auction design that uses wire centers, at least initially, as the geographic areas for which “combinatorial” auctions would be held. This type of auction allows bidders flexibility to submit bids for individual wire centers, or bids for packages of wire centers. Bids would be for a flat amount of subsidy for a given area, or package of areas. The reserve amount would be based on current high-cost support amounts and would ensure that the support determined by the auction is no greater than the amount of support provided prior to the auction. 8. *Alltel Proposal.* On February 16, 2007, Alltel proposed a reverse auction pilot program that would target additional funds to promote broadband deployment in unserved or underserved rural areas. In unserved or underserved zip code areas, any ETC could submit a bid for the minimum amount of universal service per line that it would need to make available broadband service, as well as the basic services currently supported by the high-cost program, to a minimum percentage of households in the zip code area within a specified period of time. In areas where an ETC can satisfy this standard without additional support beyond that already available under the existing high-cost program, Alltel claims that the winning bid might be zero. Each participating ETC would receive per-line funding only to the extent it provides broadband, as well as currently supported services to a customer line. The participant offering the lowest bid would receive the full bid amount for each broadband line it provides during the duration of the service term (e.g., five years). All other ETCs that commit to meeting the same broadband build-out requirements would also receive support, but at a slightly lower per-line rate than the winning bidder. 9. Alltel recommends that the bidding process be conducted in a manner similar to that used for spectrum auctions: A multiple round, combinatorial auction, in which participants can bid for any number of zip code areas. The reserve price in each zip code area would be set based on the current level of high-cost support disbursed to ETCs in the area, increased by a certain percentage for the presumably higher cost of broadband deployment. Alltel suggests, for example, establishing a maximum bid amount so that the total per-line support would not increase by more than 50 percent or 100 percent in any area where high-cost funds are already being disbursed to one or more ETCs. Discussion 10. We seek comment generally on the advantages of using a reverse auction mechanism to determine the amount of high-cost universal service support distributed to ETCs. Technology and the marketplace have changed considerably since the Commission in 1997 found that competitive bidding mechanisms were unlikely to be useful in rural, insular, and high-cost areas because of the absence of competition in these markets. Since that time, many carriers, particularly wireless carriers, have become ETCs and receive support for serving high-cost areas. As a result of the policies and framework the Commission adopted at that time, the Commission's rules now result in subsidizing multiple competitors to serve areas in which costs may be prohibitively expensive for even one carrier to serve without a subsidy. The increase in the number of ETCs receiving high-cost support over the past several years is placing significant and increasing pressure on the stability of the universal service fund. *Universal Service Contribution Methodology,* 71 FR 38781, July 10, 2006. 11. In a reverse auction, support generally would be determined by the lowest bid to serve the auctioned area. Auctions have potential merit in that they allow direct market signals to be used as a supplement to, and possible replacement of, cost estimates made from either historical cost accounting data or forward-looking cost models, as is done under the current high-cost support programs. In an auction, bids would reflect each bidding ETC's cost estimates for serving the relevant geographic area. If a sufficient number of bidders compete in the auction, the winning bid might be close to the minimum level of subsidy required to achieve the desired universal service goals. In contrast, a support mechanism based on either a carrier's embedded costs or on a forward-looking cost model provides no incentives for ETCs to provide supported services at the minimum possible cost. In addition, an auction could provide a fair and efficient means of eliminating the subsidization of multiple ETCs in a given region. We tentatively conclude that reverse auctions offer several potential advantages over current high-cost support distribution mechanisms, and that the Commission should develop an auction mechanism to determine high-cost universal service support. There are a number of detailed issues regarding auctions and auction design that must be resolved in order for the Commission to implement an auction mechanism, however. We seek comment below on these specific issues. Eligibility Requirements 12. We seek comment on eligibility requirements for bidders participating in reverse auctions. Section 254(e) states, in relevant part: “only an eligible telecommunications carrier designated under section 214(e) shall be eligible to receive specific Federal universal service support.” Therefore, we tentatively conclude that a bidder must hold an ETC designation covering the relevant geographic area prior to participating in an auction to determine high-cost support for that geographic area. Single Winner Versus Multiple Winners 13. We seek comment on whether universal service support auctions should award high-cost support to a single winner or to multiple winners. Should only the carrier submitting the lowest bid be allowed to receive the subsidy? Should all ETCs participating in the auction receive support, and if so, should it be the same level of support, or different amounts of support as suggested in the CTIA and Alltel proposals? We ask commenters that favor multiple-winner auctions in which different amounts of support go to different bidders to explain how the different levels of support would be determined. Alternatively, should there be a fixed number of winners greater than one? If there are a fixed number of winners receiving support, should the winning bidders receive the same amount of support (i.e., the same amount as the lowest bidder), or should the lowest bidder receive more? 14. We seek comment on the advantages and disadvantages of a single-winner auction versus a multiple-winner auction format. As mentioned above, if only one bidder receives support, an auction could provide a fair and efficient means of eliminating the subsidization of multiple ETCs in a given region, thereby ceasing the uneconomic practice of subsidizing multiple competitors to serve areas in which costs are prohibitively expensive for even one carrier. We expect that using single-winner auctions would result in less overall support than multiple-winner auctions. For example, if support were to be distributed as a fixed subsidy per geographic area, then an auction with two winners would result in twice the support of a single-winner auction. As the number of winners increases, the size of the total subsidy would increase proportionately. We tentatively conclude that this would violate the universal service principle of sufficiency and would be an unacceptable auction format. We therefore tentatively conclude that universal service support auctions should award high-cost support to a single winner. 15. If support is determined on the basis of the number of subscribers served, we similarly would expect total support under a multiple-winner auction to be higher than support under a single-winner auction for several reasons. First, many subscribers may choose to purchase service from multiple ETCs, with the result that such subscribers could indirectly be subsidized multiple times in a multiple-winner auction. Second, a multiple-winner auction would also increase the expected size of the subsidy under most common auction formats. For example, if the size of the subsidy is determined by the lowest bid of a non-winning bidder, the per-carrier subsidy would be expected to rise as the number of winners increased. Third, when the number of winners is large relative to the number of expected bidders, tacit collusion may be facilitated, which would result in less competitive bidding for the required subsidy. Finally, as the number of carriers receiving a subsidy increases, the market share of each subsidized carrier would correspondingly decline. Since it is well established that costs to individual carriers increase as their customer density decreases, we would expect that the underlying costs on which carriers base their bids to increase as the number of winning bidders increased and the individual bidder's expected number of subscribers decreased. 16. Parties have argued that there are benefits to multiple-winner auctions. For example, CTIA argues that single-winner auctions run the risk of eliminating the consumer benefits of a competitive market by discouraging competitive entry during the period the auction winner has the exclusive right to receive support. How would a winner-gets-more auction, as proposed by CTIA, affect the overall level of support? How would the fact that all bidders receive support in a winner-gets-more auction affect the bidder strategies? To what extent should the Commission's universal service policies be directed at promoting competition in rural, high-cost markets? Does the Act require that rural consumers have affordable access to both wireline and wireless services? Would a single-winner auction deny rural consumers affordable access to both wireline and wireless services? 17. Some parties have suggested that the Commission consider having separate auctions for wireless and wireline ETCs, at least initially. For example, Verizon proposes that the Commission initiate the use of auctions in areas in which multiple wireless competitive ETCs receive support. Once these auctions have been completed, the Commission would hold a separate set of auctions in areas where there is an incumbent LEC and at least one wireline competitive ETC. We seek comment on separate wireless and wireline auctions and any other issues relating to single-versus multiple-winner auctions. Method of Distributing the Subsidy 18. We seek comment on the manner in which a subsidy should be computed and distributed. Specifically, subsidies could potentially be offered as a fixed payment for each geographic area, on the basis of the number of subscribers or households served, or on some combination of these methods. As noted above, a per-area subsidy with multiple winners would result in very large subsidies, and we have tentatively concluded above that this format would not be acceptable. In the case of a single-winner auction, there are advantages to each of the above possible distribution methods. A per-subscriber subsidy provides a financial incentive to serve new customers who might be otherwise unprofitable. A per-area subsidy provides certainty about the total subsidy level. This knowledge may be important to a carrier's decision about whether to make fixed investment to serve an area, and to therefore participate in the auction. The form of the subsidy may also affect the allocation of customers among multiple providers in a multiple-winner auction. If carriers do not all receive the same per-line subsidy, then a given customer may not be served by the lowest cost provider, but instead by a carrier with a higher subsidy. In addressing these issues, commenters should also address the relationship of the subsidy distribution methodology to the statute's universal service principles, including, in particular, the principles that the fund be specific, predictable, and sufficient and that consumers in rural, insular, and high-cost areas have access to services at rates that are comparable to the rates for comparable services in urban areas. Geographic Areas 19. We seek comment on the appropriate geographic areas for reverse auctions. In most areas of the country, telecommunications services are provided by a wireline incumbent LEC and possibly by one or more competitive ETCs, most of which are wireless carriers. Basing the geographic area on any particular carrier's service area would likely give that carrier an advantage in bidding because competing carriers are unlikely to have the same service footprint. 20. Currently, support is generally based on the wireline incumbent LEC's study area. We seek comment on whether we should use the wireline incumbent LEC's study area as the geographic area on which to base reverse auctions. We note that, in some cases, the wireline incumbent LEC's study area consists of multiple disjointed geographic areas within a state. We seek comment on whether an incumbent LEC's study area that consists of multiple non-contiguous geographic areas should be broken up at least into its contiguous parts for purposes of the auction, or be required to be auctioned as a single study area. An alternative to the wireline incumbent's study area would be to use the wire centers of the wireline incumbent LEC. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach? A third alternative is to use a geographic area that is independent of any carrier's service area, such as zip code, census tract, census block group, county, or metropolitan or rural statistical area (MSA, RSA). One potential advantage of such an approach is that it might better ensure that the auction is competitively and technologically neutral. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using independent geographic units that do not necessarily correspond to any wireline or wireless service area? CTIA contends that larger geographic units, such as MSAs/RSAs, would lead to problems of lack of coverage for many potential bidders. In addition, under CTIA's analysis, geographic areas which correspond to an incumbent LEC's study area (or contiguous portions thereof) might discourage participation in the auction by competitive carriers. Verizon argues that the areas should be small enough to allow the auctions to target support where it is most needed, but not so small as to create unnecessary complexity. Both CTIA and Verizon support using relatively small geographic areas, such as counties or wire centers, respectively. Although defining the relevant region as the incumbent LEC's entire study area might make it difficult for any individual competitive ETC to bid successfully, would the same hold true for incumbent LEC wire centers? Verizon claims that incumbent LEC switches generally have been located in population clusters, and that competitive ETCs similarly have tended to locate their facilities in population clusters even though they may have different network topologies than incumbent LECs. If geographic areas smaller than an incumbent LEC's entire study area are chosen, should the geographic areas nevertheless be defined so that each area is contained within the incumbent's study area, and that the total area of units up for auction completely covers the incumbent LEC's study area? We seek comment on how the size of the geographic area affects the ability of small entities to participate in auctions. 21. The size of the geographic area chosen for auction will also have an effect on the amount of high-cost support. Specifically, a larger geographic area may include subsets of customers that are profitable (either because they live in low-cost areas or because they are likely to purchase related but unsubsidized services such as video or high speed data service). When these areas are included as part of a larger geographic area, the need for an overall subsidy is reduced on a per-customer basis. When smaller units are individually auctioned, there may be fewer profitable customers to offset losses for higher-cost customers, so a higher total subsidy may be required. We seek comment on the trade-offs that may exist between the advantages of small geographic areas in terms of economic efficiency and competitive entry and the potential costs in terms of higher support levels. We tentatively conclude that the wireline incumbent LEC's study area is the appropriate geographic area on which to base reverse auctions, and that further disaggregation is appropriate only if the total support is not increased for the resulting areas, but is capped at the award amount for the original study area. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion, as well as on how one might disaggregate a study area yet ensure the overall support amount does not increase as a result of such disaggregation. 22. We also seek comment on how we would implement different geographic areas for reverse auctions conducted in areas served by rural telephone companies. Section 214(e)(5) of the Act states: “In the case of an area served by a rural telephone company, ‘service area’ means such company's ‘study area’ unless and until the Commission and the States, after taking into account recommendations of a Federal-State Joint Board instituted under section 410(c), establish a different definition of service area for such company.” If we decide to conduct an auction in a geographic area that is different than a rural telephone company's study area, does the Act require us to coordinate with the relevant state commission prior to conducting the auction? If so, we seek comment on issues relating to coordination with state commissions concerning the appropriate geographic areas for reverse auctions in areas served by rural telephone companies. Universal Service Obligations 23. We seek comment on the extent to which we should define the universal service obligations of the winners of the auctions. Historically, only incumbent LECs received universal service support and had the obligation to serve customers subject to rates and terms specified by state regulatory authorities: so-called “carrier of last resort” obligations. Under the framework adopted by Congress in the 1996 Act, although only ETCs are eligible to receive federal universal service support, there may be multiple ETCs in a given area. 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(2), 254(e). In addition, although competitive ETCs do not necessarily have carrier of last resort obligations under state law, they are required to provide the supported services throughout the service area for which the designation is received and to advertise the availability of such services and their rates using media of general distribution. 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(1). Moreover, section 214(e)(3) explicitly authorizes the states, with respect to intrastate services, and the Commission, with respect to interstate services, to order an ETC to provide service to an unserved area. 24. We seek comment on how to ensure the universal availability of services under a reverse auction mechanism. Specifically, how should the carrier of last resort obligations be defined, and on whom should they be imposed? One possibility would be for an incumbent LEC to retain both the carrier of last resort obligation and the full right to subsidy over its entire study or service area unless lower bids were submitted by rival bidders in each of the geographic units up for auction within its overall service area. If lower bids were submitted by rival bidders in all of the geographic units up for auction, then the winning bidder would inherit the carrier of last resort obligations. Related to this, the incumbent LEC could be the only provider to receive a subsidy if rival bidders do not submit bids below the reserve price in each of the geographic units up for auction within its overall service area. Alternatively, both the carrier of last resort obligation and associated subsides could be awarded to the winning bidder in each geographic unit. The definition of the universal service obligation may be inextricably linked to the manner in which reserve prices for a geographic area are determined and to the specific auction format as discussed below. We ask parties to comment specifically on the ways in which these issues are related. 25. We seek comment on several additional issues related to the continued availability of supported services. Should the winner of an auction be allowed to transfer to another ETC at any time the universal service obligations and the related support for any portion of a geographic area acquired through an auction? Currently the Commission has rules adopted pursuant to section 214 of the Act that address transfer of control and discontinuances. 47 U.S.C. 214; 47 CFR 63.03, 63.04, 63.71. Are these rules adequate or do they need to be modified where a carrier has both universal service obligations and subsidies? Should an existing incumbent LEC be allowed to unilaterally renounce its carrier of last resort obligations by refusing to bid in a subsequent auction? Should states or the Commission establish penalties to be imposed on an ETC that fails to fulfill its universal service obligations in a geographic area that it acquired at auction? If a carrier that has won an auction subsequently declares bankruptcy, what effect will the declaration of bankruptcy have on its universal service obligations and the subsidy that it receives? Do we need to adopt new rules to address this issue? 26. In the *ETC Designation Order,* the Commission adopted additional requirements for ETC designation proceedings in which the Commission acts pursuant to section 214(e)(6) of the Act. *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* 70 FR 29960, May 25, 2005 ( *ETC Designation Order* ). Section 214(e)(6) of the Act directs the Commission to designate carriers when those carriers are not subject to the jurisdiction of a state commission. 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(6). Specifically, the Commission requires that an ETC applicant demonstrate:

(1)A commitment and ability to provide services, including providing service to all customers within its proposed service area;

(2)how it will remain functional in emergency situations;

(3)that it will satisfy consumer protection and service quality standards;

(4)that it offers local usage comparable to that offered by the incumbent LEC; and

(5)an understanding that it may be required to provide equal access if all other ETCs in the designated service area relinquish their designations pursuant to section 214(e)(4) of the Act. We seek comment on whether these same requirements and/or any additional requirements should apply to all ETCs winning universal service auctions. Should these requirements apply only to auction winners, or should some or all of the requirements apply to all ETCs participating in universal service auctions? As noted, these requirements currently apply to ETCs designated by the Commission. Should they apply to state-designated ETCs as well? 27. In the *ETC Designation Order* , the Commission also encouraged states to adopt the Commission's requirements for ETC designation, but declined to mandate that state commissions do so. We seek comment on the extent to which states have done so. Section 214(e)(2) of the Act gives states the primary responsibility to designate ETCs and prescribes that all state designation decisions must be consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Because the *ETC Designation Order* guidelines are not binding upon the states, the Commission rejected arguments suggesting that such guidelines would restrict the lawful rights of states to make ETC designations. The Commission also found that federal guidelines are consistent with the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that section 214(e) of the Act does not prohibit the states from imposing their own eligibility requirements in addition to those described in section 214(e)(1). *Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel* v. *FCC* , 183 F. 3d 393 (5th Cir. 1999). We seek comment on whether the Commission should condition an auction winner's receipt of federal high-cost support on compliance with additional requirements to ensure that the auction winner has obligations analogous to carrier of last resort obligations. We discuss the Commission's specific ETC requirements and related issues in more detail below. 28. *Commitment and Ability to Provide the Supported Services* . The Commission requires that ETCs must provide service to all customers who make a reasonable request for service. Specifically, when a request comes from a potential customer located within the applicant's licensed service area but outside its existing network coverage, the ETC applicant should provide service within a reasonable period of time if service can be provided at reasonable cost by:

(1)Modifying or replacing the requesting customer's equipment;

(2)deploying a roof-mounted antenna or other equipment;

(3)adjusting the nearest cell tower;

(4)adjusting network or customer facilities;

(5)reselling services from another carrier's facilities to provide service; or

(6)employing, leasing, or constructing an additional cell site, cell extender, repeater, or other similar equipment. The Commission encouraged states to follow the Joint Board's proposal that any build-out commitments adopted by states be harmonized with any existing policies regarding line extensions and carrier of last resort obligations. We seek comment on what build-out commitments should apply to ETCs participating in and/or winning universal service auctions. 29. The Commission also requires that a competitive ETC applicant submit a five-year plan describing with specificity its proposed improvements or upgrades to its network on a wire center-by-wire center basis throughout its designated service area. The five-year plan must demonstrate in detail how high-cost support will be used for service improvements that would not occur absent receipt of such support. This showing must include:

(1)How signal quality, coverage, or capacity will improve due to the receipt of high-cost support throughout the area for which the ETC seeks designation;

(2)the projected start date and completion date for each improvement and the estimated amount of investment for each project that is funded by high-cost support;

(3)the specific geographic areas where the improvements will be made; and

(4)the estimated population that will be served as a result of the improvements. We seek comment on whether we should require all ETCs participating in and/or winning universal service auctions to submit similarly detailed five-year plans. If the auction winner's obligation to serve the area is longer or shorter than five years, we tentatively conclude that it would be appropriate to adjust the time period for the plan to coincide with the time period of the obligation. If commenters believe that the requirement to submit five-year build-out plans, or the specific contents of the build-out plans, should be modified, they should explain how. 30. *Local Usage* . The Commission currently requires an ETC applicant to demonstrate that it offers a local usage plan comparable to the one offered by the incumbent LEC in the service areas for which the applicant seeks designation, but the Commission declined to adopt a specific local usage threshold in the *ETC Designation Order* . Should we adopt a specific local usage threshold for winners of auctions? Currently, we do not regulate the retail rates of ETCs as a condition of their receiving high-cost support. States generally regulate wireline residential rates for incumbent LECs, but are precluded from regulating wireless rates by section 332(c)(3) of the Act. Wireline rates typically are set on a flat rate basis, whereas rates for wireless service generally are set on the basis of “buckets of minutes.” What kind of restrictions on retail pricing, if any, should the Commission place on auction participants in order to ensure rough comparability of pricing plans? For example, if a carrier whose rates are not regulated wins an auction, should it be required to freeze its retail rates, or agree to increase them subject to a price cap plan already in place within the state? Should the Commission establish a maximum rate for the local usage plan offered by auction bidders or winners? 31. *Equal Access* . Although the Commission does not impose a general equal access requirement on ETC applicants, we require ETC applicants to acknowledge that we may require them to provide equal access to long distance carriers in their designated service area in the event that no other ETC is providing equal access within the service area. The Commission found that, if such circumstances arise, the Commission should consider whether to impose an equal access or similar requirement on a case-by-case basis. We seek comment on whether we should require all ETCs participating in universal service auctions to acknowledge that they may be required to provide equal access in the event that they win the auction. 32. *Ability to Remain Functional in Emergency Situations* . The Commission also requires an ETC applicant to demonstrate its ability to remain functional in emergency situations by demonstrating that it has a reasonable amount of back-up power to ensure functionality without an external power source, is able to re-route traffic around damaged facilities, and is capable of managing traffic spikes resulting from emergency situations. In addition, ETCs designated by the Commission must certify on an annual basis that they are able to function in emergency situations. We seek comment on whether we should require all ETCs participating in and/or winning universal service auctions to demonstrate their ability to remain functional in emergencies. 33. *Consumer Protection* . The Commission requires a carrier seeking ETC designation to demonstrate its commitment to meeting consumer protection and service quality standards in its application to the Commission. A commitment to comply with CTIA's Consumer Code for Wireless Service currently satisfies this requirement for a wireless ETC applicant seeking designation before the Commission. We seek comment on whether we should require all wireless ETCs participating in and/or winning universal service auctions to comply with CTIA's Consumer Code for Wireless Service. Are there other consumer protection and service quality standards that should apply to auction participants and/or winners? We seek comment on what type of consumer protection and service quality standards should apply to wireline auction participants and/or winners, including incumbent LECs. 34. *Adequate Financial Resources* . In the *ETC Designation Order* , the Commission declined to adopt the Joint Board's recommendation that an ETC applicant demonstrate that it has the financial resources and ability to provide quality services throughout the designated service area. The Commission found that compliance with the requirements adopted in that order would require an ETC applicant to show that it has significant financial resources. After obtaining a license, whether by auction or other means, wireless carriers must further comply with the Commission's rules by meeting build-out or substantial service requirements for the particular service. We seek comment on whether we should adopt additional requirements for ETCs participating in universal service auctions to demonstrate that they have the financial resources and ability to provide quality services throughout the geographic area to be auctioned. 35. *Additional Obligations/Provision of Broadband Internet Access Services* . In addition to the ETC requirements adopted in the *ETC Designation Order* , we seek comment on whether we should adopt additional obligations in the context of reverse auctions. We ask parties to comment on the specific additional universal service obligations they believe to be appropriate, and how they should be defined. We tentatively conclude that the Commission should require an auction winner to offer broadband Internet access services with information transfer rates greater than or equal to 768 kbps in at least one direction throughout the entire geographic area for which it wins the auction. In addition, we tentatively conclude that the Commission should require an auction winner to offer broadband Internet access services with information transfer rates greater than or equal to 1.5 mbps in at least one direction throughout the entire geographic area halfway through the term of the obligations. We reach these tentative conclusions because “[t]he Commission has consistently recognized the critical importance of broadband services to the nation's present and future prosperity and is committed to adopting policies to promote the development of broadband services, including broadband Internet access services.” *Development of Nationwide Broadband Data To Evaluate Reasonable And Timely Deployment of Advanced Services To All Americans, Improvement of Wireless Broadband Subscribership Data, And Development of Data on Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol Subscribership* , 72 FR 27519, May 16, 2007. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. Further, we tentatively conclude that an auction winner's broadband Internet access services should be offered at a reasonable price. We seek comment on how we should ensure that broadband Internet access services are being offered at reasonable prices. Reserve Prices 36. Because there may be few bidders in certain geographic areas, it is important to establish a reserve “price”—i.e. a maximum subsidy level that participants in the auction would be allowed to place as a bid. We seek comment on how we should set the reserve prices for the areas to be auctioned. We expect that the reserve prices will play a critical role in the auctions. A reserve price that is set too low is likely to discourage bidders from participating in the auction, while one that is set too high raises the possibility that too much support will be allocated. 37. At least initially, reserve prices could be based on the current levels of high-cost support. We seek comment on how reserve prices based on current support should be determined if the geographic area to be auctioned differs from the area for which support is currently calculated. For example, if the geographic areas for the auctions are wire centers, for non-rural study areas it would be fairly straightforward to set wire center reserve prices based on the forward-looking costs estimated by the Commission's cost model. 38. Because the non-rural mechanism targets support to wire centers based on relative cost, the highest cost wire centers would have the highest per-line reserve price. For rural study areas with multiple wire centers, however, embedded costs for incumbent LECs are typically available only at the study area level. If a reserve price were based on the average cost per line in the study area, or if a fixed reserve subsidy for a study area were allocated on a per-line basis, the reserve price would not accurately reflect the costs of the individual wire centers or other geographic units within the study area. As noted above, this would discourage participation in the auction by competitive ETCs in the higher cost areas. In addition, encouraging competitive ETCs to bid for the lower cost areas could potentially provide insufficient support for an incumbent LEC with the obligation to serve the remaining higher cost areas. One alternative would be to determine a reserve price at the wire center level by allocating the study area embedded cost on the basis of relative forward-looking costs as determined at the wire center level by the Commission's cost model. Another alternative would be to set reserve prices for rural study areas on the basis of a formula in which either forward-looking, model-generated cost or embedded cost data are used to estimate costs on the basis of observable factors such as customer density. For example, if a forward-looking approach is used to set a reserve price for non-rural geographic areas, one could use the data generated by the forward-looking cost model to regress model costs by wire center on wire center customer density. The result would be a simple analytic formula that could be used in place of the model to set reserve prices for geographic units in rural study areas. We seek comment on these and other alternatives. 39. We tentatively conclude that, if the reserve price is based on the current levels of high-cost support and the area to be auctioned is smaller than the incumbent LEC's study area, the reserve price should be based on disaggregated support amounts. We also tentatively conclude that, if reserve prices are based on disaggregated support amounts, reserve prices in the aggregate should be capped at the current study area support amount. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. 40. After the initial auction, the winning bids in the most recent prior auctions could be used to establish a reserve price in the next auction. If the geographic areas subject to auction are smaller than an incumbent LEC's service area, then the reserve price could be determined for each geographic unit for both rural and non-rural study areas as described above, but using the previous auction's winning bid rather than the incumbent LEC's forward-looking or embedded cost. Use of prior auction data would result in reserve prices that are responsive to changing technologies, and would lessen the need to rely on forward-looking cost models after the initial auction. On the other hand, use of prior auction results might introduce new strategic considerations into any given auction, since participants would be aware that their bid might affect future reserve prices. We seek comment on these issues. Auction Design 41. The Commission has conducted public auctions for electromagnetic spectrum rights since 1994. In a spectrum auction, a winning bidder obtains a license to use spectrum in a well defined geographic area. The value of winning a particular area, however, can be closely related to the value of winning in adjacent areas. Individual bidders may have unique business models, so that the value of winning a particular area will generally differ among the bidders. At the same time, there can be a common value component if competing bidders have similar business models, even though each bidder has unique information about demands, costs or other relevant aspects of the business model. In its spectrum auctions, the Commission has used an auction design known as the simultaneous multiple round

(SMR)auction to address these issues. The SMR auction is a form of ascending price auction in which bidders are allowed to place bids for any number of single licenses in a series of discrete, successive rounds, with the length of each round announced in advance by the Commission. After each round closes, round results are processed and made public. At that time, bidders learn about the bids placed by other bidders, obtaining information about the value of the licenses to all bidders. This increases the likelihood that the licenses will be assigned to the bidders who value them the most. In an SMR auction, there is no preset number of rounds. Bidding continues until a round occurs in which no new bids are submitted. 42. Recently, variations on the SMR design have been proposed in which bidders are allowed to bid on packages of licenses. With package or “combinatorial” bidding, bidders may place bids on groups of licenses as well as on individual licenses. This approach allows bidders to better express the value of any synergies (benefits from combining complementary items) that may exist among licenses and to avoid the risk of winning only part of a desired set. Package bidding can be important to bidders who anticipate significant economies of scale and scope in deploying new infrastructure, or who expect customer demand to depend on total network coverage. 43. The auction design for a reverse auction to determine high-cost universal service support should make use of the Commission's experience with spectrum auctions as much as possible. As a general matter, we invite parties to comment on the similarities and differences between auctions for spectrum and reverse auctions for subsidies for high-cost support. 44. Whether or not the SMR design is considered as a basis for a reverse auction for high-cost support, there are a number of specific issues that must be resolved. To what extent should package bidding be allowed? Unrestricted combinatorial bidding would allow bidders to place a bid for any package of geographic areas in the auction. If small geographic areas are chosen as units for auction, package bidding may be essential for bidders to make appropriate bids based on their perceived cost and demand complementarities among geographic regions. On the other hand, an unrestricted combinatorial bidding procedure with a large number of distinct geographic areas could prove to be confusing to bidders and potentially computationally intractable. Should individual auctions with combinatorial bidding be held at a regional or state specific level instead of on a national basis? A broader scope for the auction would allow bidders to better capture interrelationships between geographic areas. However, a larger scope would also significantly increase the complexity of the auction, whether or not package bidding is allowed. 45. If a multiple round auction is considered, another important issue is the information that is revealed to bidders between rounds. A multiple round auction can lead to efficient outcomes in auctions with a common value component, since the highest bid at any round is necessarily revealed to all bidders. However, if additional information, such as the identity of the current winning bidder for each item is also revealed, strategic behavior may be facilitated. We seek comment on the potential dangers of anti-competitive strategic behavior in an auction for high-cost support, and the potential effects on economic efficiency. 46. If parties do not believe that an SMR auction design should be used for high-cost support, they should propose and discuss in detail the specific auction design that they believe to be superior. For example, would a single round “sealed bid” format be acceptable? If so, should the winning bidder receive a subsidy based on its own bid for the necessary subsidy or on the bid of the next higher bidder? Under the latter alternative, known as a “second price auction,” it is well known that bidders have an incentive to place a bid based on the minimum subsidy they would be willing to accept (since the subsidy they receive does not depend on their actual bid). How are these auction designs affected if the number of bidders is small? Parties are also invited to comment on the specific auction designs used in other countries in which reverse auctions have been used for universal service support. Frequency of Auctions 47. We seek comment on the appropriate length of time between auctions. Currently, each applicant seeking ETC designation by the Commission must submit a five-year plan describing with specificity its proposed improvements or upgrades to its network on a wire center-by-wire center basis throughout its designated service area. Would five years be an appropriate length of time between auctions, or should auctions be more or less frequent? 48. Auctions for universal service support are closely related to franchise bidding schemes for natural monopoly, which have been extensively studied in economics literature. Bidders in any particular auction require some degree of certainty about future revenues, including subsidies, in order to make informed investment decisions. Williamson discusses some of the less obvious advantages of long-term contracting, which, in the reverse auction context, would call for relatively infrequent auctions. On the other hand, new technologies may periodically evolve that would allow lower cost provision of telecommunications services in high-cost areas. In addition, more frequent auctions can allow for more informed bidding decisions, since each bidder would be more able to predict levels of demand and potential competition in the immediate future than in the longer term. 49. To the extent that support levels provided to a winning bidder become an essential source of revenue for the winning bidder, the question of asset transfers must be considered in cases in which a new winning bidder replaces a previously supported carrier. For example, it might be efficient for a cellular carrier that wins an auction to acquire towers and fiber links from a previously supported carrier serving the same region. If asset transfers are determined only through bilateral bargaining between the relevant parties, incumbent LECs might have a significant advantage due to their sunk costs. As a result, there may be fewer bidders in subsequent auctions than would otherwise be desirable. Should there be any oversight or other restrictions on the transfer of assets when a new winning bidder replaces the previous auction winner? We ask parties to comment on this analysis and its importance in assessing the long-term viability of reverse auctions for universal service support. Broadband Reverse Auction Pilot Program 50. Finally, in light of the complexities in establishing a reverse auction, we seek comment on whether we should employ a pilot program to test the use of reverse auctions as a method for distributing high-cost support. Specifically, we seek comment on whether we should adopt a pilot program to replace the current high-cost support received in a particular area. We tentatively conclude that, in any pilot program, the reserve price should be based on the current level of support in the particular area. We also tentatively conclude that the States are best situated to implement any pilot program. We seek comment on how such a pilot program should be implemented. 51. We also seek comment on whether a pilot program should be used to disburse high-cost support targeted to broadband Internet access services. We note that Alltel has filed a broadband auction proposal, and we seek comment on that proposal. Similarly, AT&T has proposed its own broadband pilot program. We seek comment on AT&T's broadband pilot program, and whether it would be possible to use a reverse auction approach under that proposal. Procedural Matters 52. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before April 3, 2008, and reply comments are due on or before May 5, 2008. Comments may be filed using:

(1)The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),

(2)the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or

(3)by filing paper copies. *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,* 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. • *Electronic Filers:* Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. • For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov,* and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • *Paper Filers:* Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. • Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). Ex Parte Requirements 53. These matters shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's *ex parte* rules. 47 CFR 1.1200-1.1216. Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2). Other requirements pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 54. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA, which is set forth below. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed on or before April 3, 2008. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). 5 U.S.C. 603(a). Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 55. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), Congress sought to preserve and advance universal service while, at the same time, opening all telecommunications markets to competition. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law 104-104 (1996). Section 254(b) of the Act directs the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) and the Commission to base policies for the preservation and advancement of universal service on several general principles, plus other principles that the Commission may establish. Section 254(e) provides that only eligible telecommunications carriers

(ETCs)designated under section 214(e) shall be eligible to receive federal universal service support, and any such support should be explicit and sufficient to achieve the purposes of that section. 56. In the *Universal Service First Report and Order,* the Commission recognized certain advantages of using competitive bidding to determine high-cost universal service support, specifically, “its potential as a market-based approach to determining universal service support, if any, for any given area,” and “its ability to reduce the amount of support needed for universal service.” 62 FR 32682, June 17, 1997. The record at the time, however, was insufficient to support adoption of a competitive bidding mechanism. Moreover, the Commission found it unlikely that competitive bidding mechanisms would be useful at that time because of the expectation that there would be no competition in a significant number of rural, insular, or high-cost areas in the near future. Nonetheless, the Commission found that competitive bidding warranted further consideration. 57. More recently, there has been renewed interest in using competitive bidding to determine high-cost universal service support. In August 2006, the Joint Board sought comment on the merits of using auctions to determine high-cost universal service support. *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Seeks Comment on the Merits of Using Auctions to Determine High-Cost Universal Service Support,* 71 FR 50420, August 25, 2006. The Joint Board also sought comment on auctions in the ETC/Portability proceeding. *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Seeks Comment on Certain of the Commission's Rules Relating to High-Cost Universal Service Support and the ETC Designation Process,* 68 FR 10429, March 5, 2003. In February 2007, the Joint Board held an *en banc* hearing to discuss high-cost universal service support in rural areas, including the use of reverse auctions to determine support. *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service to Hold En Banc Hearing on High-Cost Universal Service Support in Areas Served by Rural Carriers,* 22 FCC Rcd 2545 (2007). The Joint Board received three specific auction proposals in response to the *2006 Joint Board Public Notice* and the *en banc* hearing. In a public notice, released May 1, 2007, the Joint Board sought comment on these proposals and invited commenters to file additional auction proposals. *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Seeks Comment on Long Term Comprehensive High-Cost Universal Service Reform,* 22 FCC Rcd 9023 (2007). The Joint Board also recommended that, as an interim measure, the Commission adopt a cap on competitive ETC support. *Recommended Decision,* 22 FCC Rcd 8998 (2007). 58. In this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on the merits of using reverse auctions (a form of competitive bidding) to determine the amount of high-cost universal service support provided to ETCs serving rural, insular, and high-cost areas. In a reverse auction, support generally would be determined by the lowest bid to serve the auctioned area. The Commission tentatively concludes that reverse auctions offer several potential advantages over current high-cost support distribution mechanisms, and that the Commission should develop an auction mechanism to determine high-cost universal service support. The objective of the NPRM is to seek comment on this tentative conclusion and on a number of specific issues regarding auctions and auction design that must be resolved in order for the Commission to implement an auction mechanism. Legal Basis 59. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the NPRM is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 201 through 205, 214, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i) through (j), 201 through 205, 214, 254, 403 and §§ 1.1, 1.411 through 1.419, and 1.1200 through 1.1216, of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.411 through 1.419, 1.1200 through 1.1216. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules Will Apply 60. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3). The RFA generally defines the term “small entity,” 5 U.S.C. 601(6), as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” 5 U.S.C. 601(3), “small organization,” 5 U.S.C. 601(4), and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 5 U.S.C. 601(3). In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). Under the Small Business Act, a “small business concern” is one that:

(1)Is independently owned and operated;

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

(3)meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 15 U.S.C. 632. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data. A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” 5 U.S.C. 601(4). Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. 61. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the number of commercial wireless entities, is the data that the Commission publishes in its *Trends in Telephone Service* report. The SBA has developed small business size standards for wireline and wireless small businesses within the three commercial census categories of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, Paging, and Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications. 13 CFR 121.201. Under these categories, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Below, using the above size standards and others, we discuss the total estimated numbers of small businesses that might be affected by our actions. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers 62. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers

(LECs)in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, *inter alia,* meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” 15 U.S.C. 632. The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. 63. *Incumbent LECs.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to incumbent LECs. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 13 CFR 121.201. According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,019 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 288 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our action. 64. *Competitive LECs, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers.”* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 13 CFR 121.201. According to Commission data, 859 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive LEC or CAP services. Of these 859 carriers, an estimated 741 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 118 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 16 carriers have reported that they are “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 44 carriers have reported that they are “Other Local Service Providers.” Of the 44, an estimated 43 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most competitive LECs, CAPs, “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers” are small entities that may be affected by our action. Wireless Carriers and Service Providers 65. *Wireless Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic census categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” 13 CFR 121.201. Under both categories, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the census category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small. 66. *Wireless Telephony.* Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services (PCS), and specialized mobile radio

(SMR)telephony carriers. As noted earlier, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” services. 13 CFR 121.201. Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 432 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony. We have estimated that 221 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard. Satellite Service Providers 67. The first category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 371 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 307 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 26 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action. 68. The second category of Other Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in

(1)providing specialized telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or

(1)Progress reports on the ETC's five-year service quality improvement plan, including maps detailing progress towards meeting its plan targets; an explanation of how much universal service support was received and how the support was used to improve signal quality, coverage, or capacity; and an explanation regarding any network improvement targets that have not been fulfilled. The information should be submitted at the wire center level;

(2)Detailed information on any outage lasting at least 30 minutes, for any service area in which an ETC is designated for any facilities it owns, operates, leases, or otherwise utilizes that potentially affect at least ten percent of the end users served in a designated service area, or that potentially affect a 911 special facility (as defined in subsection

(e)of section 4.5 of the *Outage Reporting Order* ). An outage is defined as a significant degradation in the ability of an end user to establish and maintain a channel of communications as a result of failure or degradation in the performance of a communications provider's network. Specifically, the ETC's annual report must include:

(1)The date and time of onset of the outage;

(2)a brief description of the outage and its resolution;

(3)the particular services affected;

(4)the geographic areas affected by the outage;

(5)steps taken to prevent a similar situation in the future; and

(6)the number of customers affected;

(3)The number of requests for service from potential customers within its service areas that were unfulfilled for the past year. The ETC must also detail how it attempted to provide service to those potential customers;

(4)The number of complaints per 1,000 handsets or lines;

(5)Certification that the ETC is complying with applicable service quality standards and consumer protection rules, e.g., the CTIA Consumer Code for Wireless Service;

(6)Certification that the ETC is able to function in emergency situations;

(7)Certification that the ETC is offering a local usage plan comparable to that offered by the incumbent LEC in the relevant service areas; and

(8)Certification that the carrier acknowledges that the Commission may require it to provide equal access to long distance carriers in the event that no other eligible telecommunications carrier is providing equal access within the service area. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether the Commission's ETC designation requirements should apply to all ETCs participating in and/or winning universal service auctions. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 70. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others):

(1)The establishment of differing compliance and reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;

(2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;

(3)the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and

(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(c). 71. This IRFA seeks comment on how reverse auctions could be implemented in a manner that reduces the potential burden and cost of participation by small entities in the auctions. We also seek comment on the potential impact the use of reverse auctions to distribute high-cost universal service support would have on small entities. In the NPRM, the Commission offers several alternatives that might minimize significant economic impact on ETCs, some of which might be small entities. For example, the Commission discusses proposals to use relatively small geographic areas as the areas to be auctioned, and specifically seeks comment on how the size of the geographic area affects the ability of small entities to participate in auctions. The Commission also seeks comment on various methods of setting reserve prices based on current levels of high-cost support, and tentatively concludes that the reserve price should be set at disaggregated support amounts if the area to be auctioned is smaller than the incumbent LEC's study area. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 72. None. Ordering Clauses 73. Accordingly, *It is ordered* that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 214, 254, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 201-205, 214, 254, 403 and §§ 1.1, 1.411-1.419, and 1.1200-1.1216, of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.411-1.419, 1.1200-1.1216, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted. 74. *It is further ordered* that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-4146 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 48 CFR Parts 1537 and 1552 [Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2007-1115; FRL-8536-8] RIN 2030-AA96 Acquisition Regulation: Guidance on Technical Direction AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)is proposing to amend the EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) to revise the prescription for and the content of a clause that addresses issuing technical direction in contracts. This revision incorporates and supersedes several class deviations to the EPAAR and updates terminology and procedures related to issuing technical direction. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2007-1115, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *docket.oei@epa.gov* . • *Fax:*

(202)566-0224. • *Mail:* OEI Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of three

(3)copies • *Hand Delivery:* EPA Docket Center-Attention OEI Docket, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2007-1115. EPA's policy is that all timely comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is

(202)566-1752. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valen D. Wade, Policy, Training, and Oversight Division, Office of Acquisition Management (3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-2284; fax number: 202-565-2474; e-mail address: *wade.valen@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? Entities potentially affected by this proposed action include firms that are performing or will perform under contract to the EPA. This includes firms in all industry groups. B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI.* Do not submit this information to EPA through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background Under certain contracts the contracting officer authorizes a designated individual, e.g., the contracting officer technical representative or COTR, to issue technical direction to the contractor. The technical direction clause in the contract defines what constitutes technical direction, which officials are authorized to issue technical direction, and procedures for issuing technical direction. Since the EPAAR technical direction guidance was originally issued, several class deviations to the clause have been approved. (A class deviation is a change to the EPAAR necessary to meet specific contract requirements.) This proposed revision would incorporate and supersede the class deviations and make additional revisions to the technical direction guidance as specified below. III. Proposed Rule This proposed rule would amend the EPAAR to revise the prescription for using the Technical Direction clause and the wording of the clause itself. The current prescription states the clause is used in cost reimbursement type solicitations and contracts. The revised prescription would allow contracting officers to use the clause, or a clause substantially the same, in solicitations and contracts where the contracting officer will delegate authority to issue technical direction to the contracting officer technical representative. The EPAAR clause entitled “Technical Direction” is revised in several ways. First, two new terms are added and defined: “contracting officer technical representative” and “task order.” The reason for adding these terms is to standardize titles and terminology used at EPA with terms used in the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR)and other Federal procurement policy. For example, the current clause refers to the “project officer” as the individual who may be authorized to issue technical direction. Other terms, such as task order project officer, work assignment manger, and delivery order project officer are also used at EPA. The revised clause will standardize these terms under the title “contracting officer technical representative.” Instead of merely stating technical direction is direction which assists the contractor in accomplishing the statement of work, the revised clause provides more detail in describing technical direction as authorized instruction to the contractor which approves approaches, solutions, designs, or refinements; fills in details; completes the general description of work; or shifts emphasis among work areas or tasks. The technical direction clause specifically states the contracting officer technical representative cannot request a change outside the scope of the contract, i.e., a cardinal change. The clause also protects against constructive changes by requiring the contractor to contact the contracting officer if direction given by the contracting officer technical representative:

(1)Institutes additional work outside the scope of the contract or work request;

(2)Constitutes a change as defined in the “Changes” clause;

(3)Causes an increase or decrease in the estimated cost of the contract or task order;

(4)Alters the period of performance of the contract or task order; or

(5)Changes any of the other terms or conditions of the contract or task order. The contractor is reminded that following any direction given by any person other than the contracting officer or the contracting officer technical representative shall be at the contractor's risk. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* No information is collected under this action. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes: the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute; unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impact of today's proposed rule on small entities, “small entity” is defined as:

(1)A small business that meets the definition of a small business found in the Small Business Act and codified at 13 CFR 121.201;

(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and

(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, because the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This action revises a current EPAAR clause and does not impose requirements involving capital investment, implementing procedures, or record keeping. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for: notifying potentially affected small governments; enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates; and, informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 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. Today's proposed rule on technical direction provides guidance on the interaction between contracting officials and contractors only. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments) Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Today's proposed rule on technical direction provides guidance on the interaction between contracting officials and contractors only. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:

(1)Is determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and

(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because it does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities; unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order

(EO)12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This proposed rulemaking does not involve human health or environmental affects. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1537 and 1552 Government procurement. Dated: February 21, 2008. Denise Benjamin Sirmons, Director, Office of Acquisition Management. Therefore, 48 CFR Chapter 15 is proposed to be amended as set forth below: PART 1537—SERVICE CONTRACTING 1. The authority citation for part 1537 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c). 2. Amend § 1537.110 by revising paragraph

(b)to read as follows: 1537.110 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

(b)The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as the clause in 1552.237-71, Technical Direction, in solicitations and contracts where the contracting officer intends to delegate authority to issue technical direction to the contracting officer technical representative(s). PART 1552—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 3. The authority citation for part 1552 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b. 4. Revise § 1552.237-71 to read as follows: 1552.237-71 Technical Direction. As prescribed in 1537.110, insert a clause substantially the same as the following: Technical Direction (XXX 2008)

(a)*Definitions.* *Contracting officer technical representative (COTR),* means an individual appointed by the contracting officer in accordance with Agency procedures to perform specific technical and administrative functions. *Task order,* as used in this clause, means work assignment, delivery order, or any other document issued by the contracting officer to order work under a service contract.

(b)The contracting officer technical representative(s) may provide technical direction on contract or work request performance. Technical direction includes:

(1)Instruction to the contractor that approves approaches, solutions, designs, or refinements; fills in details; completes the general description of work; shifts emphasis among work areas or tasks; and

(2)Evaluation and acceptance of reports or other deliverables.

(c)Technical direction must be within the scope of work of the contract and any task order thereunder. The contracting officer technical representative(s) does not have the authority to issue technical direction which:

(1)Requires additional work outside the scope of the contract or task order;

(2)Constitutes a change as defined in the “Changes” clause;

(3)Causes an increase or decrease in the estimated cost of the contract or task order;

(4)Alters the period of performance of the contract or task order; or

(5)Changes any of the other terms or conditions of the contract or task order.

(d)Technical direction will be issued in writing or confirmed in writing within five

(5)days after oral issuance. The contracting officer will be copied on any technical direction issued by the contracting officer technical representative.

(e)If, in the contractor's opinion, any instruction or direction by the contracting officer technical representative(s) falls within any of the categories defined in paragraph

(c)of this clause, the contractor shall not proceed but shall notify the contracting officer in writing within 3 days after receiving it and shall request that the contracting officer take appropriate action as described in this paragraph. Upon receiving this notification, the contracting officer shall:

(1)Advise the contractor in writing as soon as practicable, but no later than 30 days after receipt of the contractor's notification, that the technical direction is within the scope of the contract effort and does not constitute a change under the “Changes” clause of the contract;

(2)Advise the contractor within a reasonable time that the government will issue a written modification to the contract; or

(3)Advise the contractor that the technical direction is outside the scope of the contract and is thereby rescinded.

(f)A failure of the contractor and contracting officer to agree as to whether the technical direction is within the scope of the contract, or a failure to agree upon the contract action to be taken with respect thereto, shall be subject to the provisions of the clause entitled “Disputes” in this contract.

(g)Any action(s) taken by the contractor, in response to any direction given by any person acting on behalf of the government or any government official other than the contracting officer or the contracting officer technical representative, shall be at the contractor's risk.(End of clause) [FR Doc. E8-4153 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No.071128763-7773-01] RIN 0648-AW33 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Monkfish Fishery AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS is proposing to implement new management measures for the monkfish fishery recommended in Framework Adjustment 5 (Framework 5) to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which has been submitted jointly by the New England (NEFMC) and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils). This action would implement revised biological reference points in the FMP to be consistent with the recommendations resulting from the most recent stock assessment for this fishery (Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group (DPWG, July 2007)), and implement revised management measures to ensure that the monkfish management program succeeds in keeping landings within the target total allowable catch

(TAC)levels. DATES: Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. eastern standard time, on March 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN number 0648-AW33, by any of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal *http://www.regulations.gov* . • Fax:

(978)281-9135, Attn: Allison McHale. • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Monkfish Framework 5.” Instructions: All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted via Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. Copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA), including the Regulatory Impact Review

(RIR)and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), prepared for Framework 5 are available upon request from Paul Howard, Executive Director, NEFMC, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA, 01950. The document is also available online at *www.nefmc.org* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allison McHale, Fishery Policy Analyst, e-mail *Allison.McHale@noaa.gov* , phone

(978)281-9103, fax

(978)281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The monkfish fishery is jointly managed by the Councils, with the NEFMC having the administrative lead. The fishery extends from Maine to North Carolina, and is divided into two management units: The Northern Fishery Management Area

(NFMA)and the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA). In July 2007, the DPWG completed and accepted a new monkfish assessment. The results of this assessment indicate that neither stock is overfished, overfishing is no longer occurring, and both stocks are rebuilt based on a new modeling approach and newly recommended biological reference points. In addition to the fact that this assessment was the first to use a new analytical model, the July 2007 assessment report emphasizes the high degree of uncertainty in the analyses due to the dependence on assumptions about natural mortality, growth rates, and other model inputs. The report concluded that the data-poor nature of this species and the significant uncertainty in assessing the stocks should be considered when developing management measures. Framework 5 is needed to implement the revised biological reference points recommended by the DPWG and would make other modifications to the regulations to ensure that the management program succeeds in keeping landings within the target TACs implemented in Framework Adjustment 4 (72 FR 53942; September 21, 2007). The management measures contained in Framework 5 are described in detail in the following paragraphs. Proposed Framework 5 Management Measures 1. Revision to Biological Reference Points This action would revise the biological reference points contained in the FMP to be consistent with those recommended in the July 2007 assessment report. In that report, the DPWG recommended that B target for both management areas be set equivalent to the average of the total biomass from 1980 through 2006. This would establish a B target of 92,200 mt for the NFMA and 122,500 mt for the SFMA. In addition, the DPWG recommended that B threshold for both management areas be set equivalent to the lowest value of total biomass from 1980 through 2006. This would establish a B threshold of 65,200 mt for the NFMA and 96,400 mt for the SFMA. The most recent estimate of biomass for each management area (B 2006 ) is 118,700 mt for the NFMA and 135,500 mt for the SFMA. Therefore, under the revised biological reference points contained in Framework 5, both monkfish stocks would officially no longer be considered overfished (B 2006 above B threshold ), and would be rebuilt (B 2006 above B target ). 2. Reduction in Carryover Days-at-Sea

(DAS)This action would reduce the number of unused monkfish DAS that a limited access monkfish vessel is allowed to carry over from one fishing year into the next from 10 to 4 DAS. Under this management measure, the carryover DAS allowance would represent 13 percent of the total annual DAS allocated to monkfish vessels (31 DAS) and 17 percent of the DAS allowed in the SFMA (23 DAS). Carryover DAS are intended to enhance safety at sea by allowing a vessel, at the end of a fishing year, to avoid the predicament of using or losing DAS in the event of bad weather or mechanical problems. However, the use of carryover DAS contributed to a substantial overage (60 percent) in the target TAC for the SFMA during FY 2006, when vessels in this area were only allocated 12 DAS for the fishing year. During that fishing year, carryover DAS represented over an 80-percent increase above a limited access monkfish vessel's base allocation of monkfish DAS. Therefore, the Councils are recommending that carryover DAS be reduced to reflect an amount that is more commensurate to a vessel's base DAS allocation to help ensure that the target TACs are not exceeded. 3. Revision to DAS Accounting Provision for Gillnet Vessels This action would change the manner in which DAS are counted for monkfish gillnet vessels. The FMP currently states that monkfish gillnet vessels are charged actual time fished on trips less than 3 hours or greater than 15 hours in duration, but are charged a minimum of 15 hours for trips from 3 to 15 hours in duration. The intent of this regulation was to adjust gillnet effort to be more equivalent to trawl effort, but allow vessels that run into bad weather or experience mechanical difficulties at the beginning of a trip to return to port and only be charged actual time at sea (i.e., trips less than 3 hours in duration). However, as monkfish DAS have been reduced in recent years, some vessels have begun to exploit this 3-hour window and use it to catch and land monkfish. As a result, an allocation of 23 monkfish DAS, for example, would normally allow a vessel to take approximately 36 15-hour trips. If that vessel exploited the 3-hour provision, the number of potential trips could increase to as many as 184. It appears that only a few vessels are currently exploiting this provision, but there is potential for increased usage, which then increases the probability that the target TACs will be exceeded. As a result, the Councils are recommending that the 3-hour provision be eliminated, requiring all monkfish gillnet trips of less than 15 hours in duration to be charged 15 hours. This action would also add a sentence to the section of the regulations concerning the monkfish gillnet accounting rules, found at § 648.92 (b)(8)(v), to clarify that a monkfish gillnet vessel fishing under a joint monkfish and NE multispecies DAS, that is declared as a trip gillnet vessel under the NE Multispecies FMP, must remove its gillnet gear from the water prior to calling out of the DAS program. The language contained in this section was recently clarified in a letter from the Regional Administrator to limited access monkfish permit holders, dated August 13, 2007. 4. Revision to the Incidental Catch Limit in the SFMA This action would revise the monkfish incidental catch limit applicable to large-mesh vessels fishing in the Southern New England Regulated Mesh Area (SNE RMA), as defined under the Northeast

(NE)multispecies regulations, east of 72°30′ W long., but not under a monkfish, NE multispecies, or scallop DAS, or vessels fishing under a Skate Bait Letter of Authorization

(LOA)in the SNE RMA east of 74°00′ W long., to be 5 percent (tail weight) of the total weight of fish on board, not to exceed 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight per day, up to 150 lb (68 kg) tail weight per trip. The Councils are recommending this change to the incidental catch limit in response to reports that vessels fishing for skate as bait in the SNE RMA, using mesh larger than the multispecies minimum mesh size (i.e., large mesh), are targeting monkfish using the existing incidental catch limit; which is 5 percent (tail weight) of the total weight of fish on board with no limit on the amount of monkfish that the vessel can land. This behavior could undermine the FMP's ability to prevent overfishing. The landings cap recommended by the Councils in this action is equivalent to the incidental catch limit applicable to vessels not fishing under a DAS in the SNE RMA with small-mesh, hook gear, or dredge gear. 5. Revision to Monkfish LOA Requirement This action would eliminate the requirement to obtain a Monkfish LOA to fish under the less restrictive management measures of the NFMA for vessels using a vessel monitoring system (VMS). Monkfish vessels using the interactive voice response

(IVR)call-in system would still be required to obtain a Monkfish LOA. The Councils are considering this action because requiring an LOA was determined to be burdensome and unnecessary, given that VMS screens were recently revised to enable limited access monkfish vessels to declare the management area in which they are fishing when declaring a monkfish DAS. In addition, the VMS system enables NMFS to monitor where these vessels are fishing. Conversely, although vessels using the IVR call-in system can now declare the management area in which they are fishing through this system, NMFS cannot monitor where these vessels are fishing in the same manner as VMS vessels. Therefore, the Councils are recommending that the Monkfish LOA requirement be retained for vessels using the IVR call-in system. Technical Corrections to Monkfish FMP Regulations Two corrections to the regulations implementing the Monkfish FMP are included in this proposed rule. The first correction would remove a duplicate paragraph concerning the impact of leasing NE multispecies DAS on a vessel's monkfish DAS allocation (§ 648.92(b)(2)(iii)). This paragraph should have been removed in the final rule implementing Framework 4. The second set of corrections would correct the cross-references to the regulations implementing the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP concerning accrual of DAS and the Good Samaritan credit found at § 648.92(b)(3) and (4). It appears that the final rule implementing Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP (69 FR 35215; June 23, 2004) revised § 648.53, thereby inadvertently impacting these cross-references in the monkfish regulations. Classification NMFS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP and has preliminarily determined it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. An IRFA was prepared for Framework 5, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA consists of the discussion in the preamble and this section, and the analysis of impacts in Framework 5. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble and in the SUMMARY of this proposed rule. A copy of this analysis is available from the NEFMC (see ADDRESSES ). A summary of the analysis follows: The primary reason for this action is to adopt the revisions to the biological reference points as recommended by the DPWG. However, additional measures were included to address comments from the Regional Administrator and the public that were raised during the development and implementation of Framework 4. As a result, three additional measures aimed at reducing the potential for monkfish landings to exceed the TACs were added to Framework 5. In addition, a measure to eliminate the need for a Monkfish LOA to fish for monkfish in the NFMA for vessels with VMS was included to reduce the administrative burden on vessel operators. The regulations implementing the FMP, found at 50 CFR part 648, subpart F, authorize the Council to adjust management measures as needed to achieve FMP goals. The objective of this action is to achieve the goals of the FMP by using the best scientific information available by adopting new biological reference points, to reduce the probability of monkfish landings exceeding the target TACs by reducing unanticipated opportunities for additional landings, and to reduce the administrative burden on vessels. Thus, the proposed action is consistent with the goals of the FMP and its implementing regulations. All of the entities (fishing vessels) affected by this action are considered small entities under the Small Business Administration size standards for small fishing businesses ($4.0 million in gross sales). Therefore, there are no differential impacts between large and small vessels. As of November 30, 2007, there were 765 limited access monkfish permit holders and 2,142 vessels holding an open access Category E permit. In FY 2006, there were 616 limited access permits holders that participated in the monkfish fishery based on vessel trip report

(VTR)records. During the same period, 574 Category E permit holders reported landing monkish. Based on VTR information from FY 2006 (the most recent FY for which complete information is available) this action would affect up to 194 limited access monkfish vessels that would like to carry over more than 4 monkfish DAS; 101 limited access monkfish gillnet vessels landing monkfish on trips less than 3 hours in duration; 21 vessels using large mesh (and not on a DAS) or under a Skate Bait LOA in the SNE RMA and landing monkfish above the proposed 50 lb (23 kg) per day, up to 150 lb (68 kg) per trip incidental catch limit; and 105 vessels with a VMS that fish in the NFMA. This action does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules. Economic Impacts of Proposed Framework 5 Measures 1. Revision to Biomass Reference Points This measure would modify the existing biomass reference points (B threshold , B target ) for monkfish, consistent with the results of the most recent stock assessment. The proposed revision to the biological reference points does not immediately affect any vessels because it does not change any management measures or otherwise modify vessel level aspects of the management program. 2. Reduction in Carryover DAS This measure would reduce the number of unused monkfish DAS that a limited access monkfish vessel is allowed to carry over from one fishing year into the next from 10 to 4 DAS. Reducing the number of unused DAS that can be carried forward into the next fishing year to 4 DAS would reduce the economic opportunities for those vessels that would like to carry forward more DAS. In FY 2006, 186 vessels used an average of between 8.4 and 9.3 DAS, depending on management area fished, in addition to their allocated DAS used, while 8 vessels did not have carryover DAS available. An additional 46 vessels used only carryover DAS, suggesting they were not constrained by available DAS. Thus, based on FY 2006 data, approximately 194 vessels may have economic opportunities reduced by the proposed reduction in carryover DAS. A caveat with this information is that carryover DAS are used prior to allocated DAS, making it difficult to fully assess the impact of carryover DAS. When permit holders are unconstrained by their base allocation of monkfish DAS, there is no economic value associated with carryover DAS. In FY 2006, 240 permit holders used monkfish DAS, of which 5 permit holders fished only in the SFMA and used more than 23 DAS (base allocation plus carryover), the amount allowed for use in the SFMA during FY 2007. For permit holders that fished only in the NFMA, or both in the NFMA and SFMA, during FY 2006, 15 had total DAS usage above the 31 monkfish DAS allocated to these vessels during FY 2007. In general, this analysis suggests that 20 vessels would fully utilize their current DAS allocation, and so could have value for carryover DAS. However, the results for the NFMA should be viewed with caution since recent revisions to the monkfish regulations may require higher monkfish DAS usage in the NFMA. As a result, more permit holders may be constrained by the FY 2007 DAS allocation, and so have an economic value for carryover DAS. While a permit holder may associate economic value with carryover DAS, this information does not provide guidance on how many carryover DAS a permit holder would value, or the value they would place on a carryover DAS. Additionally, other measures in Framework 5 (e.g. elimination of 3-hour DAS use) would require higher DAS use for some permit holders, particularly in the SFMA. Combined, the information suggests that while negative economic impacts would be anticipated for Alternative 2 (4 carryover DAS) and Alternative 1 (6 carryover DAS) relative to Alternative 3 (no action), the number of affected permit holders would be small. 3. Revision to DAS Accounting Provision for Gillnet Vessels The proposed action would require that all monkfish gillnet vessels be charged a minimum of 15 hours for each trip, even on trips less than 3 hours in duration. In FY 2006, 101 gillnet vessels had DAS charges of 3 hours (0.13 DAS) or less on 447 trips. The estimated total revenue generated by these trips was $891,229. A portion of this revenue would be lost as a result of this action since vessels may not have sufficient monkfish DAS available to convert all 3-hour trips to 15-hour trips (i.e., DAS allocation is constraining). It was estimated that fewer than five vessels would fall into this category. However, it is difficult to estimate the portion of total revenue lost, since it is not known how vessels would modify their fishing behavior to adjust for the elimination of the 3-hour provision. In general, the level of economic impact will depend on future DAS allocations and the degree to which these allocations are constraining on limited access monkfish vessels. 4. Revision to the Incidental Catch Limit in the SFMA This measure would revise the monkfish incidental catch limit applicable to large-mesh vessels fishing in the SNE RMA, but not under a monkfish, NE multispecies, or scallop DAS, or vessels fishing under a Skate Bait Letter of Authorization

(LOA)in the SNE RMA east of 74°00′ W long., to be 5 percent (tail weight) of the total weight of fish on board, not to exceed 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight per day, up to 150 lb (68 kg) tail weight per trip. The proposed action would affect vessels fishing with large mesh in the SNE RMA east of 72°30′W long., and vessels fishing under a Skate Bait LOA anywhere in the SNE RMA. Approximately 12 vessels met these criteria in FY 2006. Only trips that exceed the proposed incidental landings limit of 50 lb (23 kg) of monkfish (tail weight) per day absent, or 150 lb (68 kg) of monkfish (tail weight) per trip, would see a reduction in trip revenues, and thus net revenues. Based on FY 2006 VTR information, three trips taken by three vessels would be affected with average lost revenues of $588 per vessel. 5. Revision to Monkfish LOA Requirement This measure would eliminate the requirement to obtain a Monkfish LOA to fish under the less restrictive management measures of the NFMA for vessels using VMS. This action would reduce the administrative burden for those vessels that have VMS and fish in the NFMA at some time during the fishing year, including vessels with a monkfish incidental catch permit (i.e. Category E). According to VTR data, in FY 2006, 322 vessels fished only in the NFMA, with 263 of those vessels using VMS or a combination of VMS and IVR to report DAS for some species. Similarly, 282 vessels fished in both the NFMA and SFMA, 262 of which reported DAS with either only VMS or a combination of VMS and IVR. This suggests that at least 525 vessels, or 87 percent of those fishing in the NFMA, would have the capacity to utilize VMS to offset the need for a Monkfish LOA to fish in the NFMA. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: February 27, 2008 Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 648.92, paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(8)(v) are revised to read as follows: § 648.92 Effort-control program for monkfish limited access vessels.

(a)* * *

(1)*End of year carryover* . With the exception of a vessel that held a Confirmation of Permit History, as described in § 648.4(a)(1)(i)(J), for the entire fishing year preceding the carryover year, a limited access monkfish vessel that has unused monkfish DAS on the last day of April of any year may carry over a maximum of 4 unused monkfish DAS into the next fishing year. A vessel whose DAS have been sanctioned through enforcement proceedings shall be credited with unused DAS based on its DAS allocation minus any DAS that have been sanctioned.

(b)* * *

(3)*Accrual of DAS* . Same as § 648.53(f).

(4)*Good Samaritan credit* . Same as § 648.53(g).

(8)* * *

(v)*Method of counting DAS* . A vessel fishing with gillnet gear under a monkfish DAS will accrue 15 hours monkfish DAS for all trips less than or equal to 15 hours in duration. Such vessels will accrue monkfish DAS based on actual time at sea for trips greater than 15 hours in duration. A vessel fishing with gillnet gear under only a monkfish DAS is not required to remove gillnet gear from the water upon returning to the dock and calling out of the DAS program, provided the vessel complies with the requirements and conditions of paragraphs (b)(8)(i) through

(v)of this section. A vessel fishing with gillnet gear under a joint monkfish and NE multispecies DAS, as required under § 648.92(b)(2)(i), that is declared as a trip gillnet vessel under the NE Multispecies FMP, must remove its gillnet gear from the water prior to calling out of the DAS program, as specified at § 648.82(j)(2). 3. In § 648.94, paragraphs (c)(3) and

(f)are revised to read as follows: § 648.94 Monkfish possession and landing restrictions.

(c)* * *

(3)*Vessels fishing with large mesh and not fishing under a DAS—*

(i)A vessel issued a valid monkfish incidental catch limit (Category E) permit or a limited access monkfish permit (Category A, B, C, D, F, G, or H) fishing in the GOM or GB RMAs with mesh no smaller than specified at § 648.80(a)(3)(i) and (a)(4)(i), respectively, while not on a monkfish, NE multispecies, or scallop DAS, may possess, retain, and land monkfish (whole or tails) only up to 5 percent (where the weight of all monkfish is converted to tail weight) of the total weight of fish on board. For the purpose of converting whole weight to tail weight, the amount of whole weight possessed or landed is divided by 3.32.

(ii)A vessel issued a valid monkfish incidental catch (Category E) permit or a limited access monkfish permit (Category A, B, C, D, F, G, or H) fishing in the SNE RMA east of the MA Exemption Area boundary with mesh no smaller than specified at § 648.80(b)(2)(i), while not on a monkfish, NE multispecies, or scallop DAS, may possess, retain, and land monkfish (whole or tails) only up to 5 percent (where the weight of all monkfish is converted to tail weight) of the total weight of fish on board, not to exceed 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight of monkfish per day or partial day, up to a maximum of 150 lb (68 kg) tail weight or 498 lb (226 kg) whole weight per trip. For the purpose of converting whole weight to tail weight, the amount of whole weight possessed or landed is divided by 3.32.

(iii)A vessel issued a valid monkfish incidental catch (Category E) permit or a limited access monkfish permit (Category A, B, C, D, F, G, or H) fishing in the SNE RMA under a Skate Bait Letter of Authorization, as authorized under § 648.322(b), while not on a monkfish, NE multispecies, or scallop DAS, may possess, retain, and land monkfish (whole or tails) only up to 5 percent (where the weight of all monkfish is converted to tail weight) of the total weight of fish on board, not to exceed 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight of monkfish per day or partial day, up to a maximum of 150 lb (68 kg) tail weight or 498 lb (226 kg) whole weight per trip. For the purpose of converting whole weight to tail weight, the amount of whole weight possessed or landed is divided by 3.32.

(iv)A vessel issued a valid monkfish incidental catch (Category E) permit or a limited access monkfish permit (Category A, B, C, D, F, G, or H) fishing in the SNE or MA RMAs west of the MA Exemption Area boundary with mesh no smaller than specified at § 648.104(a)(1) while not on a monkfish, NE multispecies, or scallop DAS, may possess, retain, and land monkfish (whole or tails) only up to 5 percent (where the weight of all monkfish is converted to tail weight) of the total weight of fish on board, but not to exceed 450 lb (204 kg) tail weight or 1,494 lb (678 kg) whole weight of monkfish, unless that vessel is fishing under a Skate Bait Letter of Authorization in the SNE RMA. Such a vessel is subject to the incidental catch limit specified under paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section. For the purpose of converting whole weight to tail weight, the amount of whole weight possessed or landed is divided by 3.32.

(f)*Area declaration requirement for a vessel fishing exclusively in the NFMA* . A vessel intending to fish for, or fishing for, possessing or landing monkfish under a multispecies, scallop, or monkfish DAS under the less restrictive management measures of the NFMA, must fish exclusively in the NFMA for the entire trip. In addition, a vessel fishing under a monkfish DAS must declare its intent to fish in the NFMA through the vessel's VMS unit. A vessel that does not possess a VMS unit, such as a vessel that declares DAS through the call-in system, must declare its intent to fish in the NFMA by obtaining a letter of authorization from the Regional Administrator, for a period of not less than 7 days. A vessel that has not declared into the NFMA under this paragraph

(f)shall be presumed to have fished in the SFMA and shall be subject to the more restrictive requirements of that area. A vessel that has declared into the NFMA may transit the SFMA, providing that it complies with the transiting and gear storage provision described in paragraph

(e)of this section, and provided that it does not fish for or catch monkfish, or any other fish, in the SFMA. [FR Doc. E8-4124 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 43 Tuesday, March 4, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Notice of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board Meeting AGENCY: Research, Education, and Economics, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App 2, the United States Department of Agriculture announces a meeting of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board. DATES: The National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board will meet March 18-20, 2008 at the Double Tree Hotel, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20024. ADDRESSES: The public may file written comments before or up to two weeks after the meeting with the contact person identified in this notice. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: E-mail: *JADunn@csrees.usda.gov* ; Fax:

(202)720-6199; Mail/Hand-Delivery or Courier: The National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board; Research, Education, and Economics Advisory Board Office, Room 344-A, Jamie L. Whitten Building, United States Department of Agriculture, STOP 2255, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2255. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph A. Dunn, Executive Director, National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board; telephone:

(202)720-3684. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Tuesday, March 18, 2008, from 1 p.m.-5 p.m. the full Advisory Board meeting will commence beginning with introductory remarks provided by the Chair of the Advisory Board and the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics (REE), USDA. On Tuesday, March 18, 2008, 1:15 p.m., The Honorable Secretary of Agriculture, Ed Schafer will visit and provide welcome remarks to the Board on the Board's role in advising the Department on subjects relevant to REE. An evening session will be held beginning at 6:30 p.m., and adjourning at 9 p.m. with Dr. Gale Buchanan, Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics

(REE)who will present remarks on how the Board can advise USDA on enhancing its research, extension, education, and economics programs. On Wednesday, March 19, 2008, a focus session continuing discussions on Educating the Future Work Force for Agriculture Natural Resources and Related Areas from the previous day will begin at 8 a.m. and end at 5:30 p.m. followed by an evening session beginning at 6:30 p.m. and ending at 8:30 p.m. with a guest speaker providing additional remarks on

(1)What can we do to attract more students into the agriculture, natural resources, and related areas; and

(2)What changes are needed by universities, USDA, (and others) to ensure we are training students for industry's needs now and in the future. On Thursday, March 20, 2008, the meeting will reconvene at 8 a.m. to recap highlights from the meeting and to discuss Board business. You will hear remarks from within and outside USDA pertaining to the agency perspective on the individual topics. An opportunity for public comment will be offered after the meeting wrap-up. The Advisory Board Meeting will adjourn by 12

(noon)on March 20, 2008. Written comments by attendees or other interested stakeholders will be welcomed for the public record before and up to two weeks following the Board meeting (by close of business Thursday, April 3, 2008). All statements will become a part of the official record of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board and will be kept on file for public review in the Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board Office. Done at Washington, DC, this 26 day of February 2008. Gale Buchanan, Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics. [FR Doc. E8-4099 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-22-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2008-0018] Notice of Request for Approval of an Information Collection; Nomination Request Form; Animal Disease Training AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request approval of an information collection activity associated with training related to animal diseases. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2008-0018* to submit or view comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send two copies of your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0018, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0018. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on training related to animal diseases, contact Ms. Leslie Bolton, Program Specialist, Professional Development Staff, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 27, Riverdale, MD 20737;

(301)734-3624. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS* Information Collection Coordinator, at

(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Nomination Request Form; Animal Disease Training. *OMB Number:* 0579-xxxx. *Type of Request:* Approval of a new information collection. *Abstract:* Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 *et seq.* ), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture is authorized, among other things, to prohibit or restrict the importation and interstate movement of animals and animal products to prevent the introduction into and dissemination within the United States of animal diseases and pests and for eradicating such diseases when feasible. In connection with this mission, the Veterinary Services

(VS)program of APHIS provides vital training to State, industry, and academic personnel to prepare them to respond to an animal disease event, including disease eradication activities and sample collection. Individuals who wish to attend animal disease-related training must submit a Nomination Request Form (VS-1-5) to VS to help the program coordinate courses and select participants. VS develops rosters with course participants' names and their contact information to notify them of future training courses and to encourage contact among participants throughout their careers. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)to approve our use of this information collection activity for 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.275985663 hours per response. *Respondents:* State, industry, and academic personnel. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 552. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 1.010869565. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 558. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 712 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of February 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-4145 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2008-0021] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Infectious Salmon Anemia; Payment of Indemnity AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for the payment of indemnity due to infectious salmon anemia. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2008-0021* to submit or view comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send two copies of your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0021, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0021. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on regulations for the payment of indemnity due to infectious salmon anemia, contact Dr. Stephen Ellis, Assistant Area Veterinarian in Charge, Infectious Salmon Anemia Program, Aquaculture, Swine, Equine and Poultry Programs, VS, APHIS, 16 Deep Cove Road, Eastport, ME 04631;

(207)853-2581. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS* Information Collection Coordinator, at

(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Infectious Salmon Anemia; Payment of Indemnity. *OMB Number:* 0579-0192. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 *et seq.* ), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture is authorized to prevent the interstate spread of serious diseases and pests of livestock within the United States and to eradicate such diseases and pests from the United States when feasible. In connection with this mission, APHIS established regulations in 9 CFR part 53 to pay indemnity to salmon producers in Maine whose fish are destroyed because of infectious salmon anemia (ISA). ISA is a foreign animal disease of Atlantic salmon, caused by an orthomyxovirus. The disease affects both wild and farmed Atlantic salmon. ISA poses a substantial threat to the economic viability and sustainability of salmon aquaculture in the United States. In order to take part in the indemnity program, producers must enroll in the cooperative ISA control program administered by APHIS and the State of Maine. Program participants must inform the ISA Program Veterinarian in writing of the name of their accredited veterinarian; develop biosecurity protocols and a site-specific ISA action plan; submit fish inventory and mortality information; assist APHIS or State officials with on-site disease surveillance, testing, and biosecurity audits; and complete an appraisal and indemnity claim form. Payment is subject to the availability of funding. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(NASS)to seek approval to revise and extend a currently approved information collection, the Agricultural Resources Management Survey and Chemical Use Surveys. The following two scheduling changes will be requested. First, chemical use surveys are only requested for fall 2010 to include fruit and postharvest. Thus, no vegetable chemical use survey will be requested. Second, in 2008 only, in lieu of the fall ARMS Phase II Survey, additional questions will be requested for the ARMS Phase III Cost and Returns Report. These questions will focus on a) bio-energy crop adoption and production expenses, and b) impact of tobacco program changes on tobacco marketing. Thus, in 2009, NASS will not publish the 2008 Field Crops Chemical Use report which would have resulted from a 2008 ARMS Phase II Survey. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by May 5, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0235, by any of the following methods: • *E-mail:* *ombofficer@nass.usda.gov* . Include docket number above in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:*

(202)720-6396. • *Mail:* Mail any paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions to: NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 A, Mail Stop 2024, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Hand deliver to: NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 A South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph T. Reilly, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

(202)720-4333. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Agricultural Resources Management Survey and Chemical Use Surveys. *OMB Control Number:* 0535-0218. *Expiration Date of Approval:* September 30, 2008. *Type of Request:* Intent to revise and extend a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* The Agricultural Resource Management Survey

(ARMS)is the primary source of information for the U.S. Department of Agriculture on a broad range of issues related to agricultural resource use and costs and farm sector financial conditions. ARMS is the only source of information available for objective evaluation of many critical issues related to agriculture and the rural economy, such as: whole farm finance data including data sufficient to construct estimates of income for farms by; type of operation, loan commodities, income for operator households, credit, structure, and organization; marketing information, and other economic data on input usage, production practices, and crop substitution possibilities. Data from ARMS are used to produce estimates of net farm income by type of commercial producer as required in 7 U.S.C. 7998 and estimates of enterprise production costs as required in 7 U.S.C. 1441(a). Data from ARMS are also used as weights in the development of the Prices Paid Index, a component of the Parity Index referred to in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. These indexes are used to calculate the annual federal grazing fee rates as described in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 and Executive Order 12,548 and as promulgated in regulations found at 36 CFR 222.51. In addition, ARMS is used to produce estimates of sector-wide production expenditures and other components of income that are used in constructing the estimates of income and value-added which are transmitted to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, by the USDA Economic Research Service

(ERS)for use in constructing economy-wide estimates of Gross Domestic Product. This transmittal of data, prepared using the ARMS, is undertaken to satisfy a 1956 agreement between the Office of Management and Budget and the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce that a single set of estimates be published on farm income. The following two scheduling changes will be requested. First, chemical use surveys are only requested for fall 2010 to include fruit and postharvest. Thus, no vegetable chemical use survey will be requested. Second, in 2008 only, in lieu of the fall ARMS Phase II Survey, additional questions will be requested for the ARMS Phase III Cost and Returns Report. *Chemical Use Surveys:* Congress has mandated that NASS and ERS build nationally coordinated databases on agricultural chemical use and related farm practices; these databases are the primary vehicles used to produce specified environmental and economic estimates. The surveys will help provide the knowledge and technical means for producers and researchers to address on-farm environmental concerns in a manner that maintains agricultural productivity. The following two scheduling changes will be requested. First, chemical use surveys are only requested for fall 2010 to include fruit and postharvest. Thus, no vegetable chemical use survey will be requested. Second, in 2008 only, in lieu of the fall ARMS Phase II Survey, additional questions will be requested for the ARMS Phase III Cost and Returns Report. Authority: These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13 codified at 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ) and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995). *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average approximately 36 minutes per survey. *Respondents:* Farmers, ranchers, farm managers, farm contractors, and farm households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* Approximately 61,000 respondents will be sampled each year. Over half of these respondents will be contacted more than one time in a single year. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* Approximately 65,000 hours per year. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from the NASS Clearance Officer, at

(202)720-5778. *Comments:* Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval. Signed at Washington, DC, February 19, 2008. Joseph T. Reilly, Associate Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-4082 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Weather Modification Activities Reports. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0025. *Form Number(s):* None. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 55. *Number of Respondents:* 55. *Average Hours Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* Weather Modification Activities Reports are required by Public Law-92-205, Section 6(b). All entities which engage in weather modification (e.g. cloud-seeding to enhance precipitation or disperse fog) are required to report various data to NOAA. NOAA maintains the data for use in scientific research, historical statistics, international reports, and other purposes. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions; individuals or households; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Frequency:* On occasion and annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,

(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number

(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: February 28, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-4092 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* Sea Grant Program Application Requirements for Grants, for Sea Grant Fellowships and for Designation as a Sea Grant College or Regional Consortium. *OMB Control Number:* 0648-0362. *Form Number(s):* None. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 857. *Number of Respondents:* 162. *Average Hours Per Response:* Control forms, 30 minutes; program record forms, 20 minutes; budget forms, 15 minutes; applications for designation as a Sea Grant college or regional consortium, 20 hours; and fellowship applications, 2 hours. *Needs and Uses:* Applications are required for the designation of a public or private institution of higher education, institute, laboratory, or State or local agency as a Sea Grant college or Sea Grant institute. Applications are also required in order to be awarded a Sea Grant Fellowship, including the Dean John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowships. The grant monies are available for funding activities that help attain the objectives of the Sea Grant Program. In addition to the SF-424 and other standard grant application requirements, three NOAA forms are required with a grant application. These are the Sea Grant Control Form, used to identify the organizations and personnel who would be involved in the grant; the Project Record Form, which collects summary data on projects; and the Sea Grant Budget Form (used in place of the SF-424A or SF-424C). *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions; individuals or households. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,

(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: February 28, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-4093 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-868] Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce EFFECTIVE DATE: (March 4, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita or Benjamin Caryl, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4243 or

(202)482-3003, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 26, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 41057 (July 26, 2007). This review covers the period June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007. The preliminary results of review are currently due no later than March 1, 2008. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Review Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period. The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of the administrative review of folding metal tables and chairs from the PRC within this time limit. Specifically, due to complex issues related to the selection of surrogate values, we find that additional time is needed to complete these preliminary results. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completion of the preliminary results of this review by 90 days until May 30, 2008. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: February 27, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-4130 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-803] Notice of Amended Final Results in Accordance With Court Decision: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People(s Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 2008. SUMMARY: On November 20, 2007, the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) sustained the remand redetermination issued by the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) pursuant to the CIT's remand of the final results of the twelfth administrative review of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. Ltd., Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corporation, Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation, and Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corporation v. United States* , Slip Op. 07-169 (CIT, 2007) (“ *Shandong Huarong II* ”). The CIT issued the public version of *Shandong Huarong II* on January 8, 2008. The period of review (“POR”) for the twelfth review is February 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003. In its redetermination, the Department assigned dumping margins to sales of

(1)bars/wedges by Shandong Huarong Machinery Corporation Limited (“Huarong”);

(2)bars/wedges by Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation/Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation Ltd. (collectively “LMC/LIMAC”);

(3)bars/wedges by Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corporation (“SMC”); and

(4)axes/adzes, bars/wedges, hammers/sledges, and picks/mattocks by Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corporation (“TMC”). As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case which is not in harmony with the underlying results of the disputed administrative review, the Department is amending the final results of the 2002-2003 antidumping duty administrative review of heavy forged hand tools from the PRC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3936. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 15, 2004, the Department published its final results of antidumping duty administrative review. *See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, and Determination Not to Revoke in Part* , 69 FR 55581 (September 15, 2004) (“ *Final Results* ”). In its *Final Results* the Department calculated antidumping duty margins for Huarong, LMC/LIMAC, SMC, and TMC. On September 16, 2004, the four respondents filed a summons with the CIT, and on September 20, 2004, they filed a complaint with the CIT in which they identified the aspects of the *Final Results* they are challenging. On September 17, 2004, the petitioner, Ames True Temper ((Ames(), submitted comments alleging that the Department made certain ministerial errors in the Final Results. On September 28, 2004, the Department requested a voluntary remand to consider certain ministerial error allegations raised by the parties. The CIT granted the Department(s request on November 3, 2004, and ordered the Department to address the alleged ministerial errors (without issuing a slip opinion). The Department corrected certain errors and published amended final results on December 1, 2004. *See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 69 FR 69892 (December 1, 2004). In *Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. Ltd., Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corp. Ltd., Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corp., and Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corp. v. United States and Ames True Temper* , Court No. 04(00460, Slip Op. 06-88 (June 9, 2006) (“ *Shandong Huarong I* ”), the CIT remanded the underlying final results of review to the Department to:

(1)Explain why the failure of Huarong and TMC to report information on scrapers and forged tampers, respectively, justifies the use of total adverse facts available (“AFA”), rather than just partial AFA, pursuant to sections 776(a) and

(b)of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”), for the axes/adzes order for Huarong and the bars/wedges order for TMC;

(2)provide a factual basis showing that the rate calculated for TMC is a reasonable estimate of its actual rate plus an added amount to encourage cooperation;

(3)explain how the Department(s commercial quantities methodology fulfills the purpose of 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), in relation to its refusal to revoke SMC from the hammers/sledges order;

(4)analyze further the issue of valuation of steel pallets manufactured by certain hand tool factories;

(5)revisit its decision that certain miscellaneous handling expenses are not included in the surrogate price of foreign brokerage and handling and, if the Department continues to find that the handling expenses in question are not in the surrogate price of brokerage and handling, to provide a thorough explanation;

(6)explain why its decision to analyze market economy (“ME”) purchases of ocean freight in aggregate is reasonable; and

(7)explain further its decision to deny the request for a circumstance of sale ((COS() adjustment to TMC's normal value (“NV”). The Department released the *Draft Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand* to the petitioner and the respondents for comment on December 15, 2006. The Department received comments from both Ames and the respondents on December 29, 2006. On January 12, 2007, the Department issued to the CIT its final results of redetermination pursuant to *Shandong Huarong I* . *See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand* , Court No. 04-00460 (January 12, 2007) found at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands/06-88.pdf. In the remand redetermination the Department did the following: (1)(i) explained that AFA was applied to all of Huarong's sales of axes/adzes, pursuant to sections 776(a) and

(b)of the Act, because it failed to report requested information regarding its production and sales of scrapers, which are subject to the axes/adzes order; (1)(ii) explained that total AFA was applied to TMC's sales of bars/wedges because, in part, it failed to report its sales of forged tampers, which are subject to the bars/wedges order;

(2)redetermined an AFA rate for TMC's sales of merchandise covered by the bars/wedges order;

(3)explained that the period of investigation sales quantity is a valid benchmark for determining whether the respondent sold in commercial quantities because it represents the respondent(s behavior without the discipline of an antidumping order;

(4)included in the Department(s calculation of NV the cost of labor and welding rod consumed in making steel pallets;

(5)examined the record of *Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India; Final Results of Administrative Review* , 63 FR 48184 (September 9, 1998), and concluded that the brokerage and handling surrogate value included all expenses noted by the petitioner, except those that the record does not show were incurred;

(6)chose to continue to apply the respondents' average ME ocean freight expense to sales shipped with non-market economy carriers; and

(7)continued to deny the petitioner's request for a COS adjustment to TMC's NV because there was insufficient detail to determine whether there was a correlation between the expenses incurred by TMC and the surrogate producer. Based on the above redeterminations, the Department recalculated the antidumping duty rates applicable to SMC's sale of bars/wedges and TMC's sales of axes/adzes, bars/wedges, hammers/sledges, and picks/mattocks as a result of the Department(s modifications to NV. The Department made no change to the antidumping duty rates of Huarong's and LMC/LIMAC's sales of bars/wedges. On November 20, 2007, the CIT sustained all aspects of the remand redetermination made by the Department pursuant to the CIT's remand of the *Final Results* . *See Shandong Huarong II* . The CIT issued the public version of *Shandong Huarong II* on January 8, 2008. Consistent with the decision made by the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) in *Timken Company v. United States* , 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990), on January 17, 2008, the Department published a “Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review,” which continued suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise until there was a (final and conclusive( decision in this case. * See Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review * , 73 FR 3236 (January 17, 2008). On January 20, 2008, the opportunity to appeal the CIT's decision to the CAFC expired. Since no party has appealed this decision to the CAFC, the CIT's decision upholding the Department's remand redetermination is final and conclusive. Amended Final Results The time period for appealing the CIT's final decision to the CAFC has expired and no party has appealed this decision. As there is now a final and conclusive court decision with respect to litigation for Huarong, LMC/LIMAC, SMC, and TMC, we are amending the final results of review to reflect the findings of the remand results, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The amended weighted-average margins are as follows: Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Shandong Huarong Machinery Corporation Limited (Huarong) Bars/Wedges 139.31 Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation (LMC)/ Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation Ltd. (LIMAC) Bars/Wedges 139.31 Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corporation

(SMC)Bars/Wedges 4.05 Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corporation

(TMC)Axes/Adzes 10.39 Bars/Wedges 139.31 Hammers/Sledges 6.38 Picks/Mattocks 4.61 Assessment Rates The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above *de minimis* on an *ad valorem* basis, calculated by dividing the dumping margins found on examined subject merchandise by the estimated entered value, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on that importer(s entries of subject merchandise. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the importer-specific assessment rate is *de minimis (i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent *ad valorem* ). Since the actual entered value of the merchandise was not reported to the Department, we have divided, where applicable, the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between NV and export price) for each importer by the total number of units sold to the importer. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting unit dollar amount against each unit of subject merchandise entered by the importer during the POR. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of these amended final results of review. This notice is published in accordance with section 516A(e) of the Act. Dated: February 26, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-4128 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-601] Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4474. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 26, 2007 the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished or unfinished (“TRBs”), from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for the period June 1, 2006 through May 31, 2007. The preliminary results of this review are currently due no later than March 1, 2008. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 41057 (July 26, 2007). Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue preliminary results within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time period to a maximum of 365 days. Completion of the preliminary results of this review within the 245-day period is not practicable because the Department needs additional time to analyze information pertaining to the respondents' reporting methodology with respect to U.S. sales, to evaluate certain issues raised by the petitioners, and to issue and review responses to supplemental questionnaires. Because it is not practicable to complete this review within the time specified under the Act, we are fully extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review to 365 days until June 29, 2008, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Because this deadline falls on a weekend, the appropriate deadline is the next business day ( *i.e.* , Monday). Therefore, we will issue the preliminary results no later than June 30, 2008. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: February 27, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-4127 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Evacuation Movement and Behavior Questionnaires AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before May 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Erica Kuligowski, *erica.kuligowski@nist.gov* , 301-975-2309. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract NIST will be collecting data on evacuation behavior and movement of occupants from approximately 50 high-rise buildings' evacuation drills in cities across the United States at a rate of several buildings per year. The high-rise buildings of interest include buildings of varying heights (e.g., 1-10 stories, 11-20 stories, 21-35 stories, and 35+ stories) and of varying occupancy types (e.g., residential, office, and assembly occupancies). The proposed data collection will consist of questionnaires that will be distributed, by city or building's fire department staff or NIST staff, to occupants who have evacuated previously-identified high-rise buildings as a part of a scheduled evacuation drill. The purpose of these questionnaires is to obtain information (anonymously) on:

(1)The background of the occupant (occupant demographics, previous training and education in fire safety, and previous experience in fire evacuations);

(2)actions and decisions made by the occupant on his/her floor during the building evacuation; and

(3)actions and decisions made by the occupant during the building evacuation via the stairs and/or elevators. This information is necessary to better inform building and life safety code requirements, building occupant education and training about fire safety, and tools that are currently used to assess the life safety of high-rise buildings in the United States. II. Method of Collection This data will be collected via paper questionnaires. Either fire department staff will collect the questionnaires from the buildings or each questionnaire will be equipped with an NIST-address-stamped envelope and pre-paid postage. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* None. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:* 6,666. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 10 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1,111. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: February 28, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-4077 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Notice of Government Owned Invention Available for Licensing AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of jointly owned invention available for licensing. SUMMARY: The invention listed below is jointly owned by the U.S. Government as represented by the Department of Commerce, and Cree Inc. The invention is available for licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally funded research and development. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical and licensing information on this invention may be obtained by writing to: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of Technology Partnerships, Attn: Mary Clague, Building 222, Room A155, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Information is also available via telephone: 301-975-4188, fax 301-975-3482, or e-mail: *mary.clague@nist.gov.* Any request for information should include the NIST Docket number and title for the invention as indicated below. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NIST may enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (“CRADA”) with the licensee to perform further research on the invention for purposes of commercialization. The invention available for licensing is: [NIST DOCKET NUMBER: 06-008] *Title:* Power Switching Semiconductor Devices Including Rectifying Junction-Shunts. *Abstract:* Typical applications for switching power devices (e.g., IGBT or Power MOSFET) require reverse conduction for rectification or clamping by either an internal or external diode. Because Power MOSFETs have an inherent PiN diode within the structure, this internal diode must either be made to work effetely for the rectification and clamping, or must be bypassed by an external diode. Because the inherent internal PiN diode results in majority carrier injection from the drain-body junction (PN junction at Body-to-Drift-Layer interface) it has slow reverse recovery time and may result in SiC crystal degradation. The concept of inclusion of reverse conducting SIR junction shunts provides substantial benefits by:

(1)Bypassing current flow from the inherent internal drain-body junction preventing it from injecting majority carriers and thus preventing slow reverse recovery and crystal degradation, and

(2)enabling current to flow for voltages lower than the drain-body junction built in potential (e.g., approximately 3 V for SiC) and thus provides lower on-state losses than a PiN diode for the lower current range condition. Dated: February 27, 2008. Richard F. Kayser, Acting Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E8-4135 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Vessel and Gear Marking AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before *May 5, 2008* . ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Michael Clark, 301-713-2347 or *Michael.Clark@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Under current regulations at 50 CFR 635.6, fishing vessels permitted for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species must display their official vessel numbers on their vessels. Flotation devices attached to certain fishing gears must also be marked with the vessel's number to identify which vessel is responsible for the gear. These requirements are necessary for law enforcement and monitoring purposes. Specifically, all vessels owners that hold a valid Highly Migratory Species

(HMS)permit, other than an HMS angling permit, are required to mark their vessels with their vessel identification number. The numbers should be permanently affixed to, or painted on the port and starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull, and on an appropriate weather deck, so as to be clearly visible from an enforcement vessel or aircraft. Furthermore, fishermen that use longline gear must mark high-flyers and terminal buoys with their vessel identification number. The gillnet fishermen must mark their terminal buoys, and handgear or harpoon fishermen must mark all buoys attached to their gear with their vessel identification number. Buoy gear fishermen must mark all flotation devices attached to certain fishing gears. II. Method of Collection There is no form under this requirement. Official vessel numbers issued to vessel operators are marked on the vessel and on flotation devices attached to certain fishing gears, if applicable. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0648-0373. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 7,842. *Estimated Time per Response:* 45 minutes to mark a vessel and 15 minutes to mark a flotation device. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 6,954. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $286,040. IV. Request for Comments *Comments are invited on:*

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(DOI)to work with partners to strengthen the protection of U.S. oceans and coastal resources by developing a national system of marine protected areas. The Departments of Commerce and the Interior plan to work closely with state, territorial, local, and tribal governments, as well as other stakeholders, to identify and inventory the Nation's existing marine protected areas. Toward this end, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA)and DOI have created a data form, available on a password-protected Web site, to be used as a survey tool to collect and analyze information on these existing sites. This survey will allow NOAA and DOI to better understand the existing protections for marine resources within marine protected areas in the United States. This information also would support activities on marine protected areas by state and local governments, tribes, and other interested parties. The survey contains directed questions regarding the location, management and enforcement authorities, types of protections and restrictions, and the length of time those protections or restrictions are in place for each marine protected area. Basic information about the resources and activities at the sites will also be collected. It is expected that site managers from each marine protected area will fill out the survey. The collected information will be housed in a searchable database that will be made available to the public via the marine protected area Web site at mpa.gov. The survey has been used for the last six years and this notice proposes to extend the data collection OMB approval. II. Method of Collection The information will be collected using a data form. III. Data *OMB Control Number:* 0648-0449. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* State, local or tribal governments. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 500. *Estimated Time per Response:* 5 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 2,500. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. IV. Request for Comments *Comments are invited on:*

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: February 27, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-4076 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Extension of Application Period for Vacancies on the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council AGENCY: National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice and request for applications. SUMMARY: The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS) is seeking applicants for the Chumash Community member and alternate vacant positions on its Sanctuary Advisory Council (Council). Applicants are chosen based upon: their particular expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are applying, community and professional affiliations, views regarding the protection and management of marine resources, and the length of residence in the communities located near the Sanctuary. Applicants who are chosen as members should expect to serve in a volunteer capacity for 2-year terms, pursuant to the Council's Charter. DATES: The applicant period has been extended and applications are now due by April 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Application materials are available at: *http://www.channelislands.noaa.gov/sac/news.html.* Completed applications should be sent to *Danielle.lipski@noaa.gov.* Application kits may also be obtained from Dani Lipski, Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, 113 Harbor Way Suite 150 Santa Barbara, CA 93109-2315. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Murray, Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, 113 Harbor Way Suite 150 Santa Barbara, CA 93109-2315, 805-966-7107 extension 464, *michel.murray@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CINMS Advisory Council was originally established in December 1998 and has a broad representation consisting of 21 members, including ten government agency representatives and eleven members from the general public. The Council functions in an advisory capacity to the Sanctuary Superintendent. The Council works in concert with the Sanctuary Superintendent by keeping him or her informed about issues of concern throughout the Sanctuary, offering recommendations on specific issues, and aiding the Superintendent in achieving the goals of the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Specifically, the Council's objectives are to provide advice on:

(1)Protecting natural and cultural resources and identifying and evaluating emergent or critical issues involving Sanctuary use or resources;

(2)Identifying and realizing the Sanctuary's research objectives;

(3)Identifying and realizing educational opportunities to increase the public knowledge and stewardship of the Sanctuary environment; and

(4)Assisting to develop an informed constituency to increase awareness and understanding of the purpose and value of the Sanctuary and the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Authority: 16 U.S.C. Sections 1431, *et seq.* (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program). Dated: February 25, 2008. Daniel J. Basta, Director, National Marine Sanctuary Program, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. 08-918 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 44

Traces to 44 documents

U.S. Code