Unknown. Affirmation of interim rule as final rule

160,686 words·~730 min read·/register/2008/07/02/08-1406

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2008-07-02.xml --- 73 128 Wednesday, July 2, 2008 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Food and Nutrition Service See Forest Service See Rural Utilities Service Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Asian Longhorned Beetle; Additions to Quarantined Areas in New York, 37775 E8-15016 PROPOSED RULES Importation of Cooked Pork Skins, 37892-37896 E8-15014 Civil Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings:

Vermont Advisory Committee, 37929 E8-15001 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Potomac River, Oxon Hill, MD and Alexandria, VA, 37806-37808 E8-14954 Thames River, New London, CT, 37809 E8-15026 Enforcement of regulation: Bellingham Bay, Bellingham, WA, 37809 E8-15029 Elliot Bay, Seattle, WA, 37810 E8-15038 Lake Union, Seattle, WA, 37809-37810 E8-15032 Regulated Navigation Area and Safety Zone: Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL, 37810-37813 E8-14993 Safety Zone:

City of Berkeley Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Berkeley, CA, 37820-37822 E8-14957 Olcott, NY Fireworks, Lake Ontario, Olcott, NY, 37818-37820 E8-15058 Peninsula Celebration Association Annual Fireworks Spectacular, Redwood City, CA, 37815-37818 E8-15059 Red, White, and Blue Fireworks; Incline Village, NV, 37813-37815 E8-14956 Safety Zones: City of Martinez Fourth of July Fireworks Display; Martinez, CA, 37827-37829 E8-14989 Fireworks Displays within the Sector Delaware Bay Captain of the Port Zone, 37829-37833 E8-15045 Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce Fourth of July Fireworks Display;

Pittsburg, CA, 37822-37824 E8-14988 Tahoe City Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Tahoe City, CA, 37824-37827 E8-14990 Security Zone: USCGC EAGLE, Elliott Bay, Seattle, WA, 37833-37835 E8-15040 Security Zones: Escorted Vessels, Savannah, Georgia, Captain of the Port Zone, 37835-37838 E8-14955 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37976-37979 E8-15034 E8-15035 E8-15036 Commerce Commerce Department See National Institute of Standards and Technology See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration See Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37929-37930 E8-14931 Copyright Copyright Office, Library of Congress RULES Copyright Rules and Regulations, 37838-37840 E8-14890 Defense Defense Department See Navy Department NOTICES Revised Non-Foreign Overseas Per Diem Rates, 37938-37943 E8-14774 Education Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37945 E8-15031 Charter Schools Program (CSP): Grants to Non-State Educational Agencies for Planning, Program Design, and Implementation and for Dissemination, 37945-37946 E8-15042 Employment Employment Standards Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37986-37987 E8-14978 E8-14979 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board; Savannah River Site, 37946 E8-14996 Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee, 37946-37947 E8-14997 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Pennsylvania, 37840-37846 E8-14867 E8-14868 E8-14869 E8-14878 Atrazine;

Pesticide Tolerances, 37850-37852 E8-15010 Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 protein; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance, 37846-37850 E8-14794 Residues of Quaternany Ammonium Compounds, Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Carbonate and Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Bicarbonate: Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance, 37852-37858 E8-14880 US Filter Recovery Services, Inc., Under Project XL, 37858-37861 E8-15005 NOTICES Meetings: Coastal Elevations and Sea Level Rise Advisory Committee, 37949 E8-15009 Registration Review;

Biopesticide Dockets Opened for Review and Comment, 37949-37951 E8-15012 Reregistration Eligibility Decisions; Availability: Alkyl trimethylenediamines et al., 37951-37954 E8-15008 Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: ATR Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, -500 Airplanes; and Model ATR72-101, -201, -102, et al. Airplanes, 37789-37791 E8-14191 Boeing Model 747 400, 747 400D, and 747 400F Series Airplanes, 37778-37780 E8-14188 Boeing Model 757 Airplanes Equipped with Rolls Royce RB211-535E Engines, 37786-37789 E8-14190 Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER Series Airplanes, 37781-37783 E8-14189 Bombardier Model DHC 8 400 Series Airplanes, 37775-37777 E8-13728 Dornier Model 328-100 Airplanes, 37795-37797 E8-14205 Hartzell Propeller Inc.

( )HC ( )(2,3)Y(K,R)-2 Two-and Three-Bladed Compact Series Propellers, 37791-37793 E8-14312 Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Type Certificates No. 3A15 No. 3A16 No. A23CE and No. A30CE, 37783-37786 E8-14090 Turbomeca S.A. Arrius 2F Turboshaft Engines, 37793-37795 E8-14311 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Salida, CO, 37797 E8-14939 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 747 100, 747 100B, 747 100B SUD, 747 200B, 747 200C, 747 200F, 747 300, 747 400, 747 400D, 747 400F, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes, 37900-37903 E8-14974 Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-401, and DHC 8 402 Airplanes, 37896-37898 E8-14964 Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 Airplanes, 37898-37900 E8-14969 Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and Mark 0100 Airplanes, 37903-37905 E8-14976 Establishment of Low Altitude Area Navigation Route (T-Route):

Houston, TX, 37905-37907 E8-15018 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 38019-38020 E8-15023 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Development and Extension of Runway 9R/27L and Other Associated Airport Projects at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, 38020-38021 E8-15061 Request to Release Airport Property: Brownsville/South Padre Island International Airport, Brownsville, TX, 38021 E8-15021 FCC Federal Communications Commission RULES Development of Nationwide Broadband Data to Evaluate Reasonable and Timely Deployment of Advanced Services to All Americans, etc., 37861-37882 E8-14873 E8-14874 High-Cost Universal Service Support;

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, 37882-37891 E8-14897 PROPOSED RULES Development of Nationwide Broadband Data to Evaluate Reasonable and Timely Deployment of Advanced Services to All Americans, etc., 37911-37922 E8-14875 NOTICES Debarment: Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, 37954-37956 E8-15033 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, E8-14959 37980-37981 E8-14960 E8-14961 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Notice of Filings, 37947-37949 E8-14991 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in Alaska, 38021-38022 E8-14962 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement:

Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska, 38022-38023 E8-14965 FMC Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 37956 E8-15039 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 37956-37970 E8-15037 E8-15041 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Commercial Driver's License Standards: Isuzu Motors America, Inc.; Exemption Renewal, 38023-38024 E8-14995 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies, E8-14916 37970-37971 E8-14968 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 37971 E8-14915 Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking Activities etc., 37971 E8-14914 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Submission of Quality Information for Biotechnology Products in the Office of Biotechnology Products;

Notice of Pilot Program, 37972-37974 E8-14999 Withdrawal of Food Additive Petitions: Danisco USA, Inc.; Correction, 37974 E8-14998 Food Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council on Maternal, Infant and Fetal Nutrition, 37928 E8-15028 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Gypsy Moth Management in the United States; A Cooperative Approach, 37928 E8-14963 Health Health and Human Services Department See Food and Drug Administration See National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37971-37972 E8-14920 Meetings: American Health Information Community, 37972 E8-15007 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Federal Emergency Management Agency See Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Meetings: Homeland Security Information Network Advisory Committee, 37975-37976 E8-14941 Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37982-37985 E8-15025 E8-15027 E8-15030 Regulatory Waiver Requests Granted for the First Quarter of Calendar Year (2008), 38072-38091 E8-14805 Indian Indian Affairs Bureau PROPOSED RULES Class III Tribal State Gaming Compact Process, 37907-37910 E8-14951 Interior Interior Department See Indian Affairs Bureau See Land Management Bureau IRS Internal Revenue Service RULES Amendments to the Section 7216 Regulations;

Disclosure or Use of Information by Preparers of Returns, 37804-37806 E8-15046 Dependent Child of Divorced or Separated Parents or Parents Who Live Apart, 37797-37804 E8-15044 PROPOSED RULES Amendments to the Section 7216 Regulations; Disclosure or Use of Information by Preparers of Returns, 37910-37911 E8-15047 Multiemployer Plan Funding Guidance; Correction, 37910 E8-15043 Justice Justice Department NOTICES National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification, 38030-38070 E8-14656 Labor Labor Department See Employment Standards Administration See Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37985-37986 E8-14946 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Invitation for Coal Exploration License Application: Colorado Coal Resources, LLC, 37985 E8-14981 Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease: Nevada, 37985 E8-14977 Library Library of Congress See Copyright Office, Library of Congress Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 38024 E8-15017 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Environmental Statements;

Availability, etc.: New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Notice of Public Hearing, 37922-37927 08-1406 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37930 E8-14934 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 37975 E8-14938 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 37975 E8-14925 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37930-37932 E8-14932 E8-14933 E8-14935 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS): Atlantic Shark Management Measures, 37932-37934 E8-15053 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries: Applications for Exempted Fishing Permits, 37934-37935 E8-14943 Marine mammals: Withdrawal of amendment request, 37935 E8-15050 Meetings: Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 37935-37936 E8-14936 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals:

Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Coastal Commercial Fireworks Displays at Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, CA, 37936-37938 E8-15051 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, 37989 E8-14994 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Deadline for Submission of Donation Applications for the ex-CHARLES F. ADAMS (DDG 2), 37943-37944 E8-14970 Intent to Grant Exclusive Patent License: Nomadics, Inc., 37944-37945 E8-14967 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37989-37990 E8-14971 Order Imposing Fingerprinting and Criminal History Record Check Requirements for Access to Safeguards Information, 37990-37993 E8-14958 Orders Imposing Requirements for the Protection of Certain Safeguards Information, 37993-37997 E8-14973 Occupational Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37987-37989 E8-14980 Patent Patent and Trademark Office PROPOSED RULES Fiscal Year 2009 Changes to Patent Cooperation Treaty Transmittal and Search Fees;

Correction, 38027 Z8-13730 Peace Peace Corps NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37997-37998 E8-15011 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Pipeline Safety: Dynamic Riser Inspection, Maintenance, and Monitoring Records on Offshore Floating Facilities, 38024-38025 E8-14953 Presidential Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Defense and national security: Classified national security information; reforming processes for government employment, fitness for contractors, and eligibility for access (EO 13467), 38101-38108 08-1409 RUS Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37928-37929 E8-15006 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Internal Control Over Financial Reporting in Exchange Act Periodic Reports of Non-Accelerated Filers, 38094-38100 E8-14942 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, E8-14982 37998-38000 E8-14985 E8-14986 Self-Regulatory Organizations: International Securities Exchange, LLC, 38000-38001 E8-14927 National Stock Exchange, Inc., 38001-38003 E8-14928 NYSE Arca, Inc., 38003-38008 E8-14929 Self-Regulatory Organizations;

Proposed Rule Changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 38008-38010 E8-15002 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 38010-38012 E8-14922 Depository Trust Co., 38012-38013 E8-14984 Fixed Income Clearing Corp., 38013-38014 E8-14975 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 38014-38016 E8-14926 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 38016-38017 E8-14983 State State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: Jan Lievens: A Dutch Master Rediscovered, 38017-38018 E8-15048 Leonardo da Vinci;

Drawings from the Biblioteca Reale in Turin, 38018 E8-15019 Palekh-Icons to Souvenir Boxes to Icons, 38018 E8-15049 Van Gogh and the Colors of the Night, 38018 E8-15022 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Simplified Standards for Rail Rate Cases; Taxes in Revenue Shortfall Allocation Method, 38025-38026 E8-15024 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration See Maritime Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration See Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B, 38018-38019 E8-14987 Aviation Proceedings:

Agreements filed (week ending June 20, 2008), 38019 E8-14992 Transportation Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37981-37982 E8-15013 Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Justice Department, 38030-38070 E8-14656 Part III Housing and Urban Development Department, 38072-38091 E8-14805 Part IV Securities and Exchange Commission, 38094-38100 E8-14942 Part V Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, 08-1409 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 73 128 Wednesday, July 2, 2008 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 301 [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0104] Asian Longhorned Beetle; Additions to Quarantined Areas in New York AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that amended the Asian longhorned beetle regulations by expanding the boundaries of the quarantined areas in New York and restricting the interstate movement of regulated articles from these areas. The interim rule was necessary to prevent the artificial spread of the Asian longhorned beetle to noninfested areas of the United States.

DATES: Effective on July 2, 2008, we are adopting as a final rule the interim rule published at 72 FR 46373-46375 on August 20, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Julie Twardowski, Assistant Staff Officer, Emergency and Domestic Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 137, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;

(301)734-5332. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The regulations in 7 CFR 301.51-1 through 301.51-9 (referred to below as the regulations) restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas to prevent the artificial spread of Asian longhorned beetle

(ALB)to noninfested areas of the United States. Quarantined areas are listed in § 301.51-3(c) of the regulations. In an interim rule 1 effective and published in the **Federal Register** on August 20, 2007 (72 FR 46373-46375, Docket No. APHIS 2007-0104), we amended the regulations in § 301.51-3 by adding a portion of the Borough of Richmond in the City of New York, NY, to the list of quarantined areas. 1 To view the interim rule, go to *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0104* . Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before October 19, 2007. We did not receive any comments. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule without change. This action also affirms the information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and the Paperwork Reduction Act. Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301 Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES Accordingly, we are adopting as a final rule, without change, the interim rule that amended 7 CFR part 301 and that was published at 72 FR 46373-46375 on August 20, 2007. Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of June 2008. Cindy J. Smith, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-15016 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0178; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-366-AD; Amendment 39-15571; AD 2008-13-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards * * *. [A]ssessment showed that supplemental maintenance tasks [inspections of various fuel system components such as shields, harnesses, sleeves, and sealant] are required to prevent potential ignition sources inside the fuel system, which could result in a fuel tank explosion. * * * We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective August 6, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rocco Viselli, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7331; fax

(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That supplemental NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on May 1, 2008 (73 FR 23990). That supplemental NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the aircraft fuel system against fuel tank standards introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed Amendment

(NPA)2002-043. The identified non-compliances were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001, to determine if mandatory corrective action is required. The assessment showed that supplemental maintenance tasks [inspections of various fuel system components such as shields, harnesses, sleeves, and sealant] are required to prevent potential ignition sources inside the fuel system, which could result in a fuel tank explosion. Revision has been made to Part 2 “Airworthiness Limitation Items” of the DHC-8-400 Maintenance Requirements Manual to introduce the required maintenance tasks. The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the supplemental NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed in the supplemental NPRM. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a **Note** within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 38 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $3,040, or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-13-08 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.):** Amendment 39-15571. Docket No. FAA-2008-0178; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-366-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective August 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-401, and DHC-8-402 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph

(g)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 28: Fuel. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the aircraft fuel system against fuel tank standards introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed Amendment

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. Actions and Compliance

(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, or before December 16, 2008, whichever occurs first, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the inspection requirements of Dash 8 Q400 (Bombardier) Temporary Revision

(TR)ALI-69, dated February 9, 2007, to Section 4, “Fuel System Limitations,” of Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitation Items,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 Maintenance Requirements Manual, Product Support Manual

(PSM)1-84-7 (“the TR to the MRM”). For all fuel system limitations tasks contained in the TR to the MRM, the initial compliance times start at the later of the “Threshold” and “Grace Period” times specified in Table 1 of this AD, and the repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the interval specified in the TR to the MRM, except as provided by paragraphs (f)(2) and (g)(1) of this AD. Table 1.—Initial Compliance Times for Limitation Tasks Description Compliance time (whichever occurs later) Threshold Grace period Tasks with 18,000 flight hours/108-month inspection intervals Before the accumulation of 18,000 total flight hours, or within 108 months since new, whichever occurs first Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. Note 2: The actions required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may be done by inserting a copy of Dash 8 Q400 (Bombardier) TR ALI-69 into the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 MRM PSM1-84-7. When this TR has been included in general revisions of the MRM, the general revisions may be inserted in the MRM, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in Dash 8 Q400 (Bombardier) TR ALI-69.

(2)After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be used unless the inspections or inspection intervals are part of a later revision of Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 MRM, PSM 1-84-7, Revision 4, dated October 30, 2003, that is approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or Transport Canada Civil Aviation

(TCCA)(or its delegated agent); or unless the inspections or inspection intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance

(AMOC)in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note 3: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*AMOCs:* The Manager, New York ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Rocco Viselli, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7331; fax

(516)794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-33, dated December 17, 2007; and Dash 8 Q400 (Bombardier) Temporary Revision ALI-69, dated February 9, 2007, to Section 4, “Fuel System Limitations,” of Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations Items,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 MRM PSM 1-84-7. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use Dash 8 Q400 (Bombardier) Temporary Revision ALI-69, dated February 9, 2007, to Section 4, “Fuel System Limitations,” of Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitation Items,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 Maintenance Requirements Manual, Product Support Manual 1-84-7, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada.

(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 6, 2008. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-13728 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26110; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-112-AD; Amendment 39-15585; AD 2008-13-22] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes. This AD requires replacement of an electronic flight instrument system/engine indicating and crew alerting system (EFIS/EICAS) interface unit

(EIU)located on the E2-6 shelf of the main equipment center with a new or modified EIU. This AD results from two instances where all six integrated display units

(IDUs)on the flight deck panels went blank in flight. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of the IDUs due to failure of all three EIUs, which could result in the inability of the flightcrew to maintain safe flight and landing of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective August 6, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of August 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Yi, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6494; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes. That supplemental NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 23, 2007 (72 FR 48246). That supplemental NPRM proposed to require replacement of an electronic flight instrument system/engine indicating and crew alerting system (EFIS/EICAS) interface unit

(EIU)located on the E2-6 shelf of the main equipment center with a new or modified EIU. We issued that supplemental NPRM to propose reducing the compliance time for replacing the EIU. Compliance With AD 2004-10-05, Amendment 39-13635 We have determined that in order to comply with both this AD and the EIU replacements required by paragraph (d)(1) of AD 2004-10-05, at least one of the three EIUs must be part number (P/N) 622-8589-105 and the other two EIUs may be either P/N 622-8589-104 or P/N 622-8589-105. (The installation of P/N 622-8589-105 is required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, and the installation of P/N 622-8589-104 is required by paragraph (d)(1) of AD 2004-10-05.) Boeing has confirmed that P/N 622-8589-104 and P/N 622-8589-105 are fully interchangeable and may be used in any combination. Therefore, we have revised paragraph

(h)of this AD accordingly. In addition, we have removed the information that appeared in paragraph

(b)of the supplemental NPRM and included it in paragraph

(h)of this AD. These changes are necessary to ensure that operators are able to comply with both this AD and AD 2004-10-05, in light of the parts availability constraint. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Support for the Supplemental NPRM The National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB)supports reducing the compliance time from 60 months to 24 months. The Association of Asia Pacific Airlines

(AAPA)supports the intent of the supplemental NPRM. Request To Extend the Compliance Time Boeing, Korean Air, Japan Airlines, United Airlines, and the AAPA request that we extend the compliance time to 60 months for replacing at least one EIU. As justification for extending the compliance time, Boeing states that

(1)the loss of primary displays has been demonstrated and certified as not being a catastrophic condition,

(2)pilots are able to maintain continued safe flight and landing by using backup or standby instruments as certified, and

(3)mitigating action has been provided with issuance of the Boeing 747-400 Flight Crew Operations Maintenance Bulletin

(OMB)TB1-20, “Flight Deck Display Unit Blanking Anomaly,” dated February 25, 2003, to the Boeing 747 Flight Crew Operations Manual. Boeing further states that the EIU manufacturer has advised that it has limited capacity to modify units, which needs to be taken into consideration in the fleet modification plan. Boeing also asserts that most operators will choose to modify all three EIUs simultaneously to ease configuration control and logistics. AAPA states that its member airlines operate about 50 percent of the affected airplanes worldwide, and that none of its members have reported any blanking of all integrated display units (IDUs). AAPA further states that many of its members have already planned to replace all three EIUs, but that the 24-month compliance time will require them to change their existing retrofit programs to meet the new timeline. AAPA asserts this schedule change could involve removing airplanes from revenue service before scheduled maintenance, thus affecting their operational flexibility (capacity, manpower, and revenue generation). AAPA also states that the capacity of the EIU manufacturer must be considered at the global level, as many operators have already started their replacement programs based on replacing all three EIUs within a 60-month compliance time. Korean Air states that the 24-month compliance time will impose an excessive burden considering the parts availability constraint. United Airlines and Japan Airlines state that replacing one EIU, instead of all three EIUs, creates a risk that the requirements of the AD could be inadvertently undone at a later time. They further state that replacing all three EIUs, which can be done only within a 60-month compliance time, will ensure that the requirements of the AD cannot be undone. We do not agree to extend the compliance time for any of the stated reasons. We also disagree with AAPA's assertion that none of its members have experienced blanking of the IDUs; we have received a report that one of its members experienced losing all IDUs on two Model 747-400 series airplanes. We have determined that a 24-month compliance time is the longest acceptable compliance time for ensuring that an acceptable level of safety is maintained, even with the mitigating action mentioned by Boeing. While the loss of the primary displays, by itself, is not catastrophic in the same sense as other types of failures such as a major structural failure, it is still considered to be unsafe. When all primary displays are lost, flightcrew access to critical flight management information is denied and flightcrew workload could be significantly increased. In addition to the primary displays of airplane flight and navigation data, such information includes engine monitoring, depiction of hazardous weather and terrain, flightcrew warnings, fuel management, and other vital systems information. Access to this information is critical to the flightcrew's ability to maintain airplane control, positional awareness, and awareness of the airplane's condition. Conversely, a simultaneous loss of all of this information unacceptably degrades the flightcrew's ability to continue safe flight and landing. We have taken AD action on other airplane models that also experienced loss of the primary displays. We recognize that operators would prefer to replace all three EIUs simultaneously for fleet management reasons, and that replacing only one EIU involves more complicated maintenance planning. However, operators' approved maintenance programs should provide sufficient controls to minimize the risk of releasing airplanes for service in a noncompliant condition. Further, the parts availability constraint will prevent operators from replacing all three EIUs on all affected airplanes within 24 months. The only course of action that likely can be supported with adequate parts availability for a 24-month compliance time is a requirement to replace one EIU. Although under the provisions of paragraph

(i)of this AD, we will consider requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have revised paragraph

(i)of this AD to specify the information that must be submitted with the request. Request To Require Replacement of All Three EIUs The NTSB reiterates its concern about requiring replacement of only one EIU. The NTSB states that, despite the intended redundancy of three EIUs, if only one EIU is replaced and that modified EIU suffers an unrelated fault removing it from operation, an airplane is still exposed to the potential for the IDUs to go blank since the other two EIUs would not have the auto-restart capability. The NTSB urges that we continue to work with the EIU manufacturer and operators to ensure that all three EIUs are replaced with new or modified parts in a timely manner. We infer the NTSB requests that we revise this AD to require replacement of all three EIUs. Although we understand the NTSB's concern, we do not agree to revise this AD. We have performed a risk assessment of a modified EIU failing and have determined that the risk of failure of the modified EIU is remote enough that an acceptable level of safety is maintained by replacing only one EIU. Further, since we have reduced the compliance time, there are only enough modification kits available for all operators to replace one EIU per airplane within the 24-month compliance time. Further, operators have already indicated that, for fleet management reasons, they are likely to replace all three EIUs as more parts become available. Also, the unsafe condition has been further mitigated by the Boeing 747-400 Flight Crew OMB TB1-20, “Flight Deck Display Unit Blanking Anomaly.” That document advises flightcrews of the problem and provides instructions for restarting the EIUs should there be a display blanking problem during operation. We have not revised this AD in this regard. Request To Revise Work-Hour Estimate AAPA states that the work-hour estimate in the supplemental NPRM is without basis, and that time to remove, install, and test the EIU must be included to accurately determine the time for performing the task. Based on operator experience, AAPA asserts that the EIU modification, replacement, and testing range between 6 to 40 hours per airplane. We disagree with revising the work hour estimate. The cost information in an AD describes only the direct costs of the specific actions required by this AD. Based on the best data available, the manufacturer provided the number of work hours necessary to do the required actions. This number represents the time necessary to perform only the actions actually required by this AD. We recognize that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur incidental costs in addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however, typically does not include incidental costs such as the time required to gain access and close up, time necessary for planning, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Those incidental costs, which might vary significantly among operators, are almost impossible to calculate. Therefore, we have not revised this AD in this regard. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed in the supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance There are about 639 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 79 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts cost about $2,840 per airplane (for one EIU). Based on these figures, the estimated cost of this AD for U.S. operators is $230,680, or $2,920 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2008-13-22 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15585. Docket No. FAA-2006-26110; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-112-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective August 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-31-2368, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2006. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from two instances where all six integrated display units

(IDUs)on the flight deck panels went blank in flight. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of the IDUs due to failure of all three electronic flight instrument system/engine indicating and crew alerting system (EFIS/EICAS) interface units (EIUs), which could result in the inability of the flightcrew to maintain safe flight and landing of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Replacement

(f)Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, replace at least one of the three EIUs, part number (P/N) 622-8589-104, located on the E2-6 shelf of the main equipment center with a new or modified EIU, P/N 622-8589-105, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-31-2368, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2006. Note 1: Boeing Service Bulletin 747-31-2368, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2006, refers to Rockwell Collins Service Bulletin EIU-7000-31-502, dated March 21, 2006, as an additional source of service information for modifying an EIU by adding auto restart circuitry, which converts EIU P/N 622-8589-104 to P/N 622-8589-105. Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Service Bulletin

(g)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-31-2368, dated November 22, 2005 (Revision 1 of the service bulletin specifies that the original issue is dated December 1, 2005), are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraph

(f)of this AD. Terminating Action for AD 2004-10-05, Amendment 39-13635

(h)Replacing an EIU with a new or modified EIU in accordance with paragraph

(f)of this AD constitutes terminating action for the EIU replacement of paragraph (d)(1) of AD 2004-10-05, provided that the other two EIUs are replaced with EIUs having P/N 622-8589-104 or P/N 622-8589-105. All other actions required by paragraph (d)(1) of AD 2004-10-05 must be complied with. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. We will only grant a compliance time extension for this AD if the requestor can show that it is unable to accomplish the minimum requirements of the AD (i.e., one modified EIU for each airplane) by the compliance time for reasons beyond its control, such as the inability to obtain enough parts to comply with the minimum requirements of the AD by the compliance time. Therefore, requests to extend the compliance time for this AD must include the following information:

(i)How many airplanes are included in the request,

(ii)An inventory of how many modified EIUs the requestor currently has on hand,

(iii)A forecast inventory showing that the requestor will not have enough modified EIUs available to accomplish the minimum AD requirements (i.e., one modified EIU for each airplane) by the AD compliance time, based upon the current inventory on hand and delivery rates from the parts supplier,

(iv)Documentation of supplier delivery commitments for modified EIUs or conversion kits, as applicable, including firm delivery commitment dates, that will provide the requestor with an adequate number of parts to be able to accomplish the minimum AD requirements on its affected airplanes, and

(v)Documentation of maintenance facility schedule availability for accomplishing the AD requirements on all airplanes included in the request. We will not approve AMOC requests that propose replacing or modifying all three EIUs in a time frame longer than 24 months instead of replacing or modifying one EIU within 24 months. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Material Incorporated by Reference

(j)You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 747-31-2368, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

(3)You may review copies of the service information incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 8, 2008. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14188 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0012; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-204-AD; Amendment 39-15584; AD 2008-13-21] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER series airplanes. This AD requires an inspection to determine the manufacturer and manufacture date of the oxygen masks in the passenger service units and the flight attendant and lavatory oxygen boxes, as applicable. This AD also requires related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from a report that several passenger masks with broken in-line flow indicators were found following a mask deployment. We are issuing this AD to prevent the in-line flow indicators of the passenger oxygen masks from fracturing and separating, which could inhibit oxygen flow to the masks and consequently result in exposure of the passengers and cabin attendants to hypoxia following a depressurization event. DATES: This AD is effective August 6, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hettman, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6457; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive

(AD)that would apply to certain Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on January 14, 2008 (73 FR 2190). That NPRM proposed to require an inspection to determine the manufacturer and manufacture date of the oxygen masks in the passenger service units and the flight attendant and lavatory oxygen boxes, as applicable. That NPRM also proposed to require related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received from the two commenters. Request To Revise the Relevant Service Information Section Boeing requests that we revise the Relevant Service Information section of the NPRM to include a general visual inspection of the flow indicator to determine whether the letter “W” appears on the right side of the identification

(ID)label. Boeing states that this inspection should be included in the NPRM, since the presence of the letter “W” on the ID label indicates that the corrective actions have already been accomplished. We agree to clarify the related investigative and corrective actions required by this AD. If the ID label on the oxygen mask shows that the mask was manufactured by B/E Aerospace between January 1, 2002, and March 1, 2006, then the related investigative action must be done. The related investigative action includes doing a general visual inspection of the flow indicator to determine the color of the flow direction mark and the word “flow” on the flow indicator, and to determine whether the letter “W” appears on the right side of the ID label. If the flow direction mark and the word “flow” on the flow indicator of the oxygen mask are not green and the letter “W” is not shown on the right side of the ID label, then the corrective action must be done. The corrective action includes replacing the oxygen mask with one that was not manufactured by B/E Aerospace between January 1, 2002, and March 1, 2006, or with a modified oxygen mask having an improved flow indicator. We have revised paragraph

(f)of this AD accordingly. (Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-35-0054, dated July 6, 2006, refers to B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 174080-35-01, dated February 6, 2006; and Revision 1, dated May 1, 2006; as additional sources of service information for modifying the oxygen mask assembly by replacing the flow indicator with an improved flow indicator.) The intent of this AD is to accomplish all of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-35-0054. Since the Relevant Service Information section is not retained in an AD, we have not changed this AD in this regard. Request To Revise the Discussion Section Boeing requests that we add a statement to the Discussion section of the NPRM clarifying that only masks manufactured by B/E Aerospace between January 1, 2002, and March 1, 2006, would require corrective action. Boeing states that no further action is required for oxygen masks manufactured outside those dates or manufactured by other suppliers. Boeing also states that not including all of the contents of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-35-0054 in this AD, and not clarifying the intent of the AD, will generate many requests for clarification from operators. We have clarified the requirements of this AD in our response to the previous comment. No additional change to this AD is necessary in this regard, since the Discussion section of the NPRM is not retained in this final rule. Request To Delete Certain Requirements or Add a Terminating Action British Airways states that it does not agree with the proposed requirement to replace a discrepant oxygen mask with one having an improved flow indicator because only the oxygen masks identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-35-0054 are potentially defective. The commenter also states that it has inspected some of its airplanes and replaced all discrepant masks with new masks that do not fall within the rejection criteria. The commenter believes that it should not have to re-inspect the oxygen masks assemblies for the presence of an improved flow indicator after this AD is issued. The commenter, therefore, requests that we revise this AD in either one of the following ways: • Delete the phrase from paragraph

(f)of this AD that states “* * * except where the service bulletin specifies installing a new oxygen mask, replace the oxygen mask with a new or modified oxygen mask having an improved flow indicator.” • Add a statement to this AD specifying that inspections done in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-35-0054 before issuance of this AD comply with the intent of this AD and do not need to be repeated. We agree that inspections done in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-35-0054 before the effective date of this AD do not need to be accomplished again. However, no change is necessary in this regard, since a similar statement is contained in paragraph

(e)of this AD. Further, as stated previously, we have clarified the phrase regarding replacement of the oxygen mask in paragraph

(f)of this AD. The intent of that phrase is to provide the option of replacing a discrepant oxygen mask with one that was not manufactured by B/E Aerospace between January 1, 2002, and March 1, 2006, or with a modified oxygen mask having an improved flow indicator in accordance with B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 174080-35-01. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We also determined that this change will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 688 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 242 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions take about 53 work hours per airplane, with an average of 360 oxygen masks per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $1,026,080, or $4,240 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-13-21 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15584. Docket No. FAA-2008-0012; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-204-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)is effective August 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-35-0054, dated July 6, 2006. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report that several passenger masks with broken in-line flow indicators were found following a mask deployment. We are issuing this AD to prevent the in-line flow indicators of the passenger oxygen masks from fracturing and separating, which could inhibit oxygen flow to the masks and consequently result in exposure of the passengers and cabin attendants to hypoxia following a depressurization event. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspection and Related Investigative/Corrective Actions

(f)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection to determine the manufacturer and manufacture date of the oxygen masks in the passenger service units and the flight attendant and lavatory oxygen boxes, as applicable, and do the applicable related investigative and corrective actions, by accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-35-0054, dated July 6, 2006; except where the service bulletin specifies installing a new oxygen mask, replace the oxygen mask with one that was not manufactured by B/E Aerospace between January 1, 2002, and March 1, 2006, or with a modified oxygen mask having an improved flow indicator. The related investigative and corrective actions must be done before further flight. Note 1: The Boeing service bulletin refers to B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 174080-35-01, dated February 6, 2006; and Revision 1, dated May 1, 2006; as additional sources of service information for modifying the oxygen mask assembly by replacing the flow indicator with an improved flow indicator. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Material Incorporated by Reference

(h)You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-35-0054, dated July 6, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

(3)You may review copies of the service information incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 8, 2008. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14189 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28434; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-053-AD; Amendment 39-15580; AD 2008-13-17] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (Type Certificates No. 3A15, No. 3A16, No. A23CE, and No. A30CE Previously Held by Raytheon Aircraft Company) F33 Series and Models G33, V35B, A36, A36TC, B36TC, 95-B55, D55, E55, A56TC, 58, 58P, 58TC, G58, and 77 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA adopts a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Hawker Beechcraft Corporation F33 series and Models G33, V35B, A36, A36TC, B36TC, 95-B55, D55, E55, A56TC, 58, 58P, 58TC, G58, and 77 airplanes. This AD requires you to replace certain circuit breaker toggle switches with improved design circuit breaker toggle switches. This AD results from reports of certain circuit breaker toggle switches used in various electrical systems throughout the affected airplanes overheating. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the circuit breaker toggle switch, which could result in smoke in the cockpit and the inability to turn off the switch. DATES: This AD becomes effective on August 6, 2008. On August 6, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD. ADDRESSES: To get the service information identified in this AD, contact Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, 9709 East Central, Wichita, Kansas 67291; telephone:

(800)429-5372 or

(316)676-3140. To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* . The docket number is FAA-2007-28434; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-053-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jose Flores, Aviation Safety Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:

(316)946-4132; fax:

(316)946-4107. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion On June 29, 2007, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain Hawker Beechcraft Corporation F33 series and Models G33, V35B, A36, A36TC, B36TC, 95-B55, D55, E55, A56TC, 58, 58P, 58TC, G58, and 77 airplanes. This proposal was published in the **Federal Register** as a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)on July 6, 2007 (72 FR 36912). The NPRM proposed to require you to replace certain circuit breaker toggle switches with improved design circuit breaker toggle switches. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and FAA's response to each comment: Comment Issue No. 1: Reopen the Comment Period The American Bonanza Society and six other commenters request more time to further investigate and evaluate replacing all circuit breaker switches in numerous models of Hawker Beechcraft piston airplanes. One commenter requests the extension to better research the number of service difficulty reports (SDRs), the number of airplanes affected, and the availability of replacement switches. We do not agree with the commenters. The failure mode creates an internal short circuit that will cause overheating. Testing of the circuit breaker switches revealed all the circuit breaker switches are susceptible to the failure mode and overheating. We have identified an unsafe condition and determined that reopening the comment period will only allow the unsafe condition to potentially go undetected. If any owner/operator identifies an alternative method of compliance

(AMOC)to this AD that will provide a level of safety acceptable to the FAA, they can apply for an AMOC using the procedures outlined in 14 CFR 39.19 and this AD. We are not changing the final rule AD action based on these comments. Comment Issue No. 2: Change Required Actions James Blodgett and Adam Dagys suggest that turning off the master switch would better eliminate the problem rather than replacing the circuit breaker switches. The commenters request that the FAA change the proposed AD action to mandate this change to prevent smoke in the cockpit. We do not agree with the commenters. Turning off the master switch may mitigate the overheating in some circuit breaker switches. However, in certain flight conditions, removing electrical power could create a more hazardous condition by disabling electrical equipment required for continued safe flight and landing, thus creating an additional unsafe condition. We are not changing the final rule AD action based on these comments. Comment Issue No. 3: AD Unwarranted The American Bonanza Society, the Bonanza Service Ltd., KT Graham Inc., and eight other commenters state that the AD is unwarranted because failure of the affected circuit breaker switches is an uncommon occurrence and that there is no imminent threat to airplane occupants or the public. The commenters state that they have seen no or very few circuit breaker switch failures in the field. Of the thousands of affected airplanes and over 100,000 circuit breaker switches, none of these resulted in a reportable mishap. High utilization fleet service has shown there is no significant threat of circuit breaker switch overheat. The commenters state that the testing done by Hawker Beechcraft and the FAA does not indicate a wider threat of failure, and failure in itself will not bring about a dangerous condition. Also, the only switches tested were those that had been previously squawked for overheating and removed under existing maintenance procedures. We disagree that an AD is unwarranted. A failed circuit breaker switch creating smoke and possible in-flight fire is considered a hazardous condition. Although failure of these circuit breaker switches is uncommon, we have received reports of failures occurring. The resulting hazardous safety effect combined with the number of occurrences and other factors indicate AD action is necessary. 14 CFR 39.5 states that the “FAA issues an AD addressing a product when we find that an unsafe condition exists in the product, and the condition is likely to exist or develop in products of the same type design.” Even though the failures that have happened are uncommon, the condition “is likely to exist or develop” on other affected airplanes. Therefore, AD action is necessary to address the unsafe condition following 14 CFR part 39. We are not changing the final rule AD action based on these comments. Comment Issue No. 4: AD Is Too Costly The American Bonanza Society, Bonanza Service Ltd., KT Graham Inc., and seven other commenters state that because of the operational history of the affected airplanes and the uncommon occurrence of failure of the affected circuit breaker switches, the cost per airplane and per fleet appears to be too costly. Operational history does not warrant the cost or impact on the airplane owners/operators. We do not agree that the AD is not warranted because of the associated cost. We understand that ADs can be costly. However, we have determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop in other airplanes of the same type design, and the continued operational safety of the affected airplanes must be addressed. Therefore, issuing this AD and not allowing an unsafe condition to go undetected on the affected airplanes overrides the associated cost. We are not changing the final rule AD action based on these comments. Comment Issue No. 5: Add Inspection or Testing Before Replacement Fred von Zabern and Adam Dagys request allowing inspection or testing to identify the overheating switches before replacement. Using a test or inspection to identify overheating switches may eliminate the need to replace all the switches in any given airplane. It may also eliminate replacing operable

(good)switches. We do not agree with the commenters. Because of the failure mode, an over voltage test or inspection may not identify the failed circuit breaker switch. The failure condition identified is the failure of an internal wire braid that may create a short circuit inside the housing of the circuit breaker switch. The replacement circuit breaker switch includes added insulation around the wire braid to provide increased isolation and prevent the short circuit. We have determined that all the circuit breaker switches identified in the service information are susceptible to the overheating failure condition, and they need to be replaced to address this unsafe condition. We are not changing the final rule AD action based on these comments. Comment Issue No. 6: Limit the Applicability of the AD The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the American Bonanza Society, and Bart Sisson request that we limit the applicability of the AD to Baron Models 58, 58G, 58P, and 58TC airplanes. The commenters also request that we limit the AD to the circuit breaker switches used in high electrical load items, such as lighting, taxi lights, and anti-ice equipment. The commenters state that the SDRs only affect high electrical load items and only Model 58 airplanes. There are no SDRs or operational history to show all circuit breaker switches are susceptible to the overheating. The airworthiness concern sheet identifies only those circuit breaker switches removed from high current circuits on Baron airplane models. We do not agree with the commenters. Although the circuit breaker switches that were reported, and used for the investigation, were removed from high electrical load items on Baron airplane models, there is no reason to believe the failure mode is limited to high electrical load circuits or Baron models. The failure mode creates an internal short circuit that will cause overheating regardless of the electrical load. Testing of the circuit breaker switches revealed all the circuit breaker switches are susceptible to the failure mode and overheating. Hawker Beechcraft Recommended Service Bulletin SB 24-3807, Issued: May 2007, and Raytheon Aircraft Company Recommended Service Bulletin SB 24-3735, Issued: August 2005, call out all the susceptible circuit breaker switches. We are not changing the final rule AD action based on these comments. Comment Issue No. 7: Replacement Parts Not Available The American Bonanza Society states that there is a shortage of replacement switches available. Manufacturer parts availability shows a shortage of parts. The shortage would not be made up in time to prevent a large number of affected aircraft from being grounded due to the lack of replacement parts at the end of the 12-month compliance time. We do not agree with the commenter. Hawker Beechcraft has assured us that the replacement parts are either available or could be manufactured within the 12-month compliance time. If there becomes a shortage of parts, we would consider extending the compliance time following the AMOC procedures outlined in 14 CFR 39.19 and this AD. We are not changing the final rule AD action based on these comments. Comment Issue No. 8: Promote Education Instead of Issuing a Regulation The American Bonanza Society suggests an improved level of safety would result from education in lieu of issuing a regulation. The commenter states that an educational effort to publicize Beech's guidance and generic electrical fire or overheat procedure for pilots whose pilot's operating handbook

(POH)does not contain such a checklist would provide the information necessary to detect and respond in the uncommon event of a switch overheat condition. Beech technical support recommends monitoring the switches by feel to detect looseness and heat and to replace any switch that feels loose or hot to the touch. We do not agree with the commenter. An educational effort may improve awareness to the unsafe condition; however, it would not eliminate the failure mode. The only way to eliminate the failure mode is to replace the affected circuit breaker switches. We have determined that an education effort is insufficient to correct the unsafe condition. We are not changing the final rule AD action based on these comments. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections: • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD affects 10,821 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the replacement: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per circuit breaker toggle switch Total cost on U.S. operators 1 work-hour × $80 per hour = $80 per circuit breaker toggle switch. $105 per circuit breaker toggle switch. $185 for each circuit breaker toggle switch. Each airplane typically has more than 1 circuit breaker toggle switch installed. Some airplanes may have up to 15. From $2,001,885 to replace one circuit breaker toggle switch per affected airplane up to $30,028,275 to replace 15 circuit breaker toggle switches per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28434; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-053-AD” in your request. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. FAA amends § 39.13 by adding a new AD to read as follows: **2008-13-17 Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (Type Certificates No. 3A15, No. 3A16, No. A23CE, and No. A30CE previously held by Raytheon Aircraft Company) and Raytheon Aircraft Company:** Amendment 39-15580; Docket No. FAA-2007-28434; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-053-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective on August 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial numbers that have a part number (P/N) 35-380132-1 through 35-380132-53 circuit breaker toggle switch installed and are certificated in any category: Models Serial Nos.

(1)F33 and G33 CD-1235 through CD-1304.

(2)F33A CE-290 through CE-1791.

(3)F33C CJ-26 through CJ-179.

(4)V35B D-9069 through D-10403.

(5)A36 E-185 through E-3629 and E-3631 through E-3635.

(6)A36TC and B36TC EA-1 through EA-695.

(7)95-B55 TC-1913, TC-1936 through TC-2456.

(8)D55 TE-452 through TE-767.

(9)E55 TE-768 through TE-1201.

(10)A56TC TG-84 through TG-94.

(11)58 TH-1 through TH-2124.

(12)58P TJ-3 through TJ-497.

(13)58TC TK-1 through TK-151.

(14)G58 TH-2126, TH-2127, TH-2131 through TH-2134, TH-2136, TH-2137, TH-2139 through TH-2141, and TH-2143 through TH-2150.

(15)77 WA-1 through WA-312. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of certain circuit breaker toggle switches used in various electrical systems through the affected airplanes overheating. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the circuit breaker toggle switch, which could result in smoke in the cockpit and the inability to turn off the switch. Compliance

(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures

(1)Replace all affected circuit breaker toggle switches specified in paragraph

(c)of this AD with an improved circuit breaker toggle switch, P/N 35-380132-61 through 35-380132-113, as applicable Within the next 12 months after August 6, 2008 (the effective date of this AD) As specified in Hawker Beechcraft Recommended Service Bulletin SB 24-3807, Issued: May 2007, and Raytheon Aircraft Company Recommended Service Bulletin SB 24-3735, Issued: August 2005.

(2)Do not install a circuit breaker toggle switch specified in paragraph

(c)of this AD Before further flight after the replacement required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Not applicable. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(f)The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jose Flores, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:

(316)946-4132; fax:

(316)946-4107. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Material Incorporated by Reference

(g)You must use Hawker Beechcraft Recommended Service Bulletin SB 24-3807, Issued: May 2007; and Raytheon Aircraft Company Recommended Service Bulletin SB 24-3735, Issued: August 2005, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, 9709 East Central, Wichita, Kansas 67291; telephone:

(800)429-5372 or

(316)676-3140.

(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 16, 2008. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14090 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0225; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-210-AD; Amendment 39-15583; AD 2008-13-20] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Airplanes Equipped With Rolls Royce RB211-535E Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 757 airplanes equipped with Rolls Royce RB211-535E engines. This AD requires repetitive inspections for signs of damage of the aft hinge fittings and attachment bolts of the thrust reversers, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from reports of several incidents of bolt failure at the aft hinge fittings of the thrust reversers due to, among other things, high operational loads. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the attachment bolts and consequent separation of a thrust reverser from the airplane during flight, which could result in structural damage to the airplane. DATES: This AD is effective August 6, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Deutschman, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6449; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive

(AD)that would apply to certain Boeing Model 757 airplanes equipped with Rolls Royce RB211-535E engines. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on November 26, 2007 (72 FR 65903). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for signs of damage of the aft hinge fittings and attachment bolts of the thrust reversers, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. Request to Include Terminating Action Continental Airlines

(CAL)and Federal Express (FedEx) ask that the preventive modification specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletins 757-54-0049 and 757-54-0050, both dated July 16, 2007, be included in the AD as follows: CAL asks that a new paragraph be added to clarify that accomplishing the preventive modification provided in Part III of the above referenced service bulletins constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph

(f)of the NPRM. FedEx states that the referenced service bulletins specify that the repetitive inspections are no longer necessary once the preventive modification is accomplished. FedEx would like to confirm that accomplishing the preventive modification will terminate any further inspections in the NPRM, and asks that we include the terminating action in the AD. We agree that clarification is necessary for the reasons provided; therefore, we have added a new paragraph

(h)to this AD (and re-identified subsequent paragraphs) to include optional terminating action for paragraph

(f)of this AD. Request To Clarify Applicability FedEx asks that Model 757-200SF (special freighter) airplanes be added to the applicability specified in paragraph

(c)of the NPRM. FedEx states that the NPRM applies to Model 757-200, -200CB, -200PF, and -300 series airplanes equipped with Rolls Royce RB211-535E engines. FedEx states that its airplanes will be modified from the Model 757-200 passenger configuration to a special freighter configuration. FedEx adds that it will submit a supplemental type certificate

(STC)to the FAA to confirm the new certification of the airplane after release of this AD. We do not agree that Model 757-200SF airplanes should be added to the applicability in this AD. The airplanes cited by the commenter are legally known as “Model 757-200 airplanes” as identified on the airplane data plate. Even though they might be modified by STC and commonly known as “special freighters,” these airplanes continue to be identified by the type certificated model designation. We have made no change to the AD in this regard. FedEx also asks for clarification of the difference between the effectivity specified in the concurrent service information referenced in paragraph

(h)of the NPRM and the applicability in the NPRM. FedEx states that the concurrent service bulletin (Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0015, Revision 3, dated September 19, 1996) addresses the replacement of older hinge fittings for airplanes having line numbers 2 through 241. We provide the following clarification. Paragraph

(h)of the NPRM (changed to paragraph

(i)in the final rule) requires accomplishing the actions in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0015 prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the actions specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-54-0049, dated July 16, 2007. Airplanes having line number 242 and subsequent have the production change installed and are covered by paragraph

(e)of this AD. The NPRM is applicable to airplanes equipped with Rolls Royce RB211-535E engines; no line numbers are identified. Therefore, we have made no change to the AD in this regard. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We also determined that this change will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 606 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 295 airplanes of U.S. registry. The inspections take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $47,200, or $160 per airplane, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-13-20 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15583. Docket No. FAA-2007-0225; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-210-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)is effective August 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, -200PF, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category; equipped with Rolls Royce RB211-535E engines. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of several incidents of bolt failure at the aft hinge fittings of the thrust reversers due to, among other things, high operational loads. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the attachment bolts and consequent separation of a thrust reverser from the airplane during flight, which could result in structural damage to the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Repetitive Inspections/Investigative and Corrective Actions

(f)At the time specified in paragraph 1.E. “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-54-0049 or 757-54-0050, both dated July 16, 2007, as applicable, except as provided by paragraph

(g)of this AD: Do a detailed inspection for signs of damage of the aft hinge fittings and attachment bolts of the thrust reversers by doing all the actions, including all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions at the time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the applicable service bulletin. If any damage is found and the service bulletins specify to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(k)of this AD.

(g)Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletins 757-54-0049 and 757-54-0050, both dated July 16, 2007, specify compliance times relative to the date on the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD. Optional Terminating Action

(h)Accomplishing the preventive modification specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-54-0049 or 757-54-0050, both dated July 16, 2007, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph

(f)of this AD. Concurrent Actions

(i)Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the actions specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-54-0049, dated July 16, 2007, accomplish the replacement specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0015, Revision 3, dated September 19, 1996.

(j)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0015, dated February 16, 1989; Revision 1, dated December 20, 1990; or Revision 2, dated April 21, 1994 are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph

(i)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(l)You must use the Boeing service information contained in Table 1 of this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

(3)You may review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Table 1.—Material Incorporated by Reference Service information Revision Date Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-54-0015 3 September 19, 1996. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-54-0049 Original July 16, 2007. Boeing Service Bulletin 757-54-0050 Original July 16, 2007. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 8, 2008. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14190 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0293; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-287-AD; Amendment 39-15582; AD 2008-13-19] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; ATR Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, -500 Airplanes; and Model ATR72-101, -201, -102, -202, -211, -212, and -212A Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: A recent incident evidenced that some failures of the Pitot probe heating resistance may not be seen by the low current detection system on aircraft not equipped with [ATR] modification 05469 * * *. In some conditions, an out of tolerance resistance, failing to provide a proper Pitot probe de-icing could not be detected. The unsafe condition is that undetected icing of the pitot probe could produce incorrect airspeed readings, which could lead to loss of control of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective August 6, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1137; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on March 13, 2008 (73 FR 13496). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: A recent incident evidenced that some failures of the Pitot probe heating resistance may not be seen by the low current detection system on aircraft not equipped with [ATR] modification 05469 (SB (Service Bulletin) ATR42-30-0072 or ATR72-30-1042). In some conditions, an out of tolerance resistance, failing to provide a proper Pitot probe de-icing could not be detected. To address this unsafe condition, this Airworthiness Directive

(AD)requires repetitive verification of the Pitot probes' resistance and replacement of any defective probes, and ultimate replacement of the three low current sensors for Captain, First Officer and Standby Pitot probes. The unsafe condition is that undetected icing of the pitot probe could produce incorrect airspeed readings, which could lead to loss of control of the airplane. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued ATR has issued revisions to two of the service information documents identified in the NPRM: Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletins ATR42-30-0074 and ATR72-30-1044, both Revision 01, both dated September 26, 2007. We have changed paragraphs (f)(1) and

(h)accordingly, and added paragraph (f)(3) to give credit for actions done per the original versions of those service bulletins. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 51 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $1,880 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $112,200, or $2,200 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-13-19 ATR—Gie Avions de Transport Régional (Formerly Aerospatiale)** : Amendment 39-15582. Docket No. FAA-2008-0293; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-287-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective August 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to ATR Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and -500 airplanes and Model ATR72-101, -201, -102, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers; except for airplanes having ATR Modification 05469 installed in production, or installed in service in accordance with Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-30-0072 or ATR72-30-1042, both Revision l, both dated June 1, 2005; as applicable. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 30: Ice and Rain Protection. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: A recent incident evidenced that some failures of the Pitot probe heating resistance may not be seen by the low current detection system on aircraft not equipped with [ATR] modification 05469 (SB (Service Bulletin) ATR42-30-0072 or ATR72-30-1042). In some conditions, an out of tolerance resistance, failing to provide a proper Pitot probe de-icing could not be detected. To address this unsafe condition, this Airworthiness Directive

(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)Within 550 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, measure the heating resistance of the three pitot probes, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-30-0074 or ATR72-30-1044, both Revision 01, both dated September 26, 2007, as applicable. If any resistance exceeds 50 ohms, before next flight, replace the pitot probe in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin. Repeat the measurement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 550 flight hours, until the current sensors have been replaced as required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.

(2)Within 5,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, replace the three pitot probe current sensors, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-30-0072 or ATR72-30-1042, both Revision 1, both dated June 1, 2005, as applicable. Doing this paragraph ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(3)Actions are also acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD if done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-30-0074 or ATR72-30-1044, both dated May 14, 2007, as applicable. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1137; fax

(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)Airworthiness Directive 2007-0179, dated July 31, 2007, and the service information described in Table 1 of this AD, for related information. Table 1.—Service Information Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin Revision Date ATR42-30-0072 1 June 1, 2005. ATR42-30-0074 01 September 26, 2007. ATR72-30-1042 1 June 1, 2005. ATR72-30-1044 01 September 26, 2007. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use the applicable service information specified in Table 2 of this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-30-0072, Revision, 1 dated June 1, 2005, contains the following effective pages: Page Nos. Revision level shown on page Date shown on page 1, 2 1 June 1, 2005. 3-9 Original October 21, 2004.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact ATR, 316 Route de Bayonne, 31060 Toulouse, Cedex 03, France.

(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Table 2.—Material Incorporated by Reference Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin Revision Date ATR42-30-0072 1 June 1, 2005. ATR42-30-0074 01 September 26, 2007. ATR72-30-1042 1 June 1, 2005. ATR72-30-1044 01 September 26, 2007. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 8, 2008. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14191 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0254; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-06-AD; Amendment 39-15591; AD 2008-13-28] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Hartzell Propeller Inc. ( )HC-( )(2,3)Y(K,R)-2 Two- and Three-Bladed Compact Series Propellers AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for Hartzell Propeller Inc. left-hand rotating ( )HC-( )(2,3)Y(K,R)-2 two- and three-bladed, aluminum hub, “compact” series propellers, with hubs having a non-suffix serial number, and lubrication holes located on the shoulder of the hub blade socket. These propellers are installed on Lycoming Engines LIO-360 series and LO-360 series reciprocating engines installed on Piper Aircraft, Inc. Seneca PA-34-200 and Seminole PA-44-180, and Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Model 76 Duchess, airplanes. This AD requires initial and repetitive eddy current inspections (ECI), of the area around the lubrication holes of the hub blade sockets. This AD results from four reports of propeller hub cracks, including two in-flight blade separation events. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the propeller hub, which could result in blade separation and loss of control of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective July 17, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of July 17, 2008. We must receive any comments on this AD by September 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this AD: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Docket Management Facility, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. Contact Hartzell Propeller Inc. Technical Publications Department, One Propeller Place, Piqua, OH 45356; telephone

(937)778-4200; fax

(937)778-4391, for the service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Smyth, Senior Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696; e-mail: *timothy.smyth@faa.gov;* telephone

(847)294-8110; fax

(847)294-7132. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We received four reports of hub cracks initiating from the lubrication holes on “left-hand” rotating propellers, including incidents of in-flight blade separation, in Hartzell two blade “compact” series aluminum propellers. These propellers have hubs with a non-suffix serial number, and lubrication holes located on the shoulder of the hub blade socket. We received the most recent report of a cracked hub, in June 2007. The lubrication holes on the “left-hand” rotating propeller experience additional stresses not experienced in the lubrication holes on “right-hand” rotating propellers. Some of the hub cracks were found during inspection following a report of abnormal vibration or grease leakage. Such a crack typically initiates in the area around the lubrication holes. As a crack spreads across the blade socket, the spreading can accelerate. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the propeller hub which could result in blade separation and loss of control of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of Hartzell Propeller Inc. Alert Service Bulletin

(ASB)No. HC-ASB-61-297, Revision 1, dated November 14, 2007. That ASB describes procedures for performing initial and repetitive ECIs of the propeller hubs for cracks. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other Hartzell Propeller Inc. left-hand rotating ( )HC-( )(2,3)Y(K,R)-2 two- and three-bladed compact series propellers of the same type design. For that reason, we are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the propeller hub, which could result in blade separation and loss of control of the airplane. This AD requires an initial ECI of the affected propeller hubs within 50 hours time-in-service

(TIS)or 12 months after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs first. This AD also requires repetitive ECIs of the affected propeller hubs within 50-hour TIS intervals or within 12 months from the previous ECI, whichever occurs first. You must use the service information described previously to perform the actions required by this AD. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we have found that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “AD Docket No. FAA-2008-0254; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-06-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify it. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **2008-13-28 Hartzell Propeller Inc.:** Amendment 39-15591. Docket No. FAA-2008-0254; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-06-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective July 17, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Hartzell Propeller Inc. left-hand rotating ( )HC-( )(2,3)Y(K,R)-2 two- and three-bladed, aluminum hub, “compact” series propellers, with hubs having a non-suffix serial number (SN), and lubrication holes located on the shoulder of the hub blade socket. These propellers are installed on Lycoming Engines LIO-360 series and LO-360 series reciprocating engines, installed on Piper Aircraft, Inc. Seneca PA-34-200 and Seminole PA-44-180, and Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Model 76 Duchess, airplanes.

(d)The parentheses appearing in the propeller model number indicates the presence or absence of an additional letter(s) that varies the basic propeller model. This AD still applies regardless of whether these letters are present or absent in the propeller model designation. Unsafe Condition

(e)This AD results from four reports of propeller hub cracks, including two in-flight blade separation events. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the propeller hub, which could result in blade separation and loss of control of the airplane. Compliance

(f)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done. Initial Eddy Current Inspection

(g)Within 50 hours time-in-service

(TIS)or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform an initial ECI of the area around the lubrication holes of the hub blade sockets.

(h)Use paragraphs 3.A. through 3.A.(3)(d) of Hartzell Propeller Inc. Alert Service Bulletin

(ASB)No. HC-ASB-61-297, Revision 1, dated November 14, 2007, to do the initial ECI.

(i)If any cracks are found, remove the propeller hub from service before further flight.

(j)If no cracks are found, mark the propeller using paragraph 3.A.(5)(a) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Hartzell Propeller Inc., ASB No. HC-ASB-61-297, Revision 1, dated November 14, 2007, to indicate compliance with this ASB. Repetitive ECIs

(k)At repetitive intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS or 12 months from the previous ECI, whichever occurs first, perform ECIs of the area around the lubrication holes of the hub blade sockets.

(l)Use paragraphs 3.A. through 3.A.(3)(d) of Hartzell Propeller Inc. ASB No. HC-ASB-61-297, Revision 1, dated November 14, 2007, to do the repetitive ECIs.

(m)If any cracks are found, remove the propeller hub from service before further flight. Optional Terminating Action

(n)As optional terminating action to the repetitive ECIs required by this AD, replace the non-suffix SN propeller hub with a propeller hub identified by an “A” or “B” suffix letter in the propeller hub SN.

(o)Replacement propeller hub part numbers can be found in paragraph 2.A., Material Information, of Hartzell Propeller Inc. ASB No. HC-SB-61-297, Revision 1, dated November 14, 2007. Prohibition of Propeller Hub Reuse

(p)After the effective date of this AD, propeller hubs that have a non-suffix SN, or an “E” suffix letter in the SN removed from affected propellers in this AD, are not eligible for installation on any engine in any aircraft. Previous Credit

(q)ECIs of the propeller hubs done before the effective date of this AD that use Hartzell Propeller Inc. ASB No. HC-SB-61-297, dated September 17, 2007, comply with the requirements specified in this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance

(r)The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information

(s)Contact Tim Smyth, Senior Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696; e-mail: *timothy.smyth@faa.gov* ; telephone

(847)294-8110; fax

(847)294-7132, for more information about this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(t)You must use Hartzell Propeller Inc. Alert Service Bulletin No. HC-ASB-61-297, Revision 1, dated November 14, 2007, to perform the ECIs required by this AD. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Hartzell Propeller Inc. Technical Publications Department, One Propeller Place, Piqua, OH 45356; telephone

(937)778-4200; fax

(937)778-4391, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 19, 2008. Diane Cook, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14312 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28053; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-18-AD; Amendment 39-15590; AD 2008-13-27] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Arrius 2F Turboshaft Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: This AD is issued following a case of non-commanded in-flight engine shut-down which occurred on an ARRIUS 2F turboshaft engine, following the seizing of the gas generator. The result may be an emergency autorotation landing or, at worst, an accident. Investigations of this event have revealed that the seizing of the gas generator was caused by the fracture of the separator cage of the gas generator front bearing, due to high-cycle fatigue cracks initiated in the lubrication slots of the separator cage. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncommanded shutdown of the engine, which could lead to an accident. DATES: This AD becomes effective August 6, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *james.lawrence@faa.gov* ; telephone

(781)238-7176; fax

(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49236). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that: This AD is issued following a case of non-commanded in-flight engine shut-down which occurred on an Arrius 2F turboshaft engine, following the seizing of the gas generator. The result may be an emergency autorotation landing, or, at worst, an accident. Investigations of this event have revealed that the seizing of the gas generator was caused by the fracture of the separator cage of the gas generator front bearing, due to high-cycle fatigue cracks initiated in the lubrication slots of the separator cage. Modification Tf 12 introduces a new gas generator front bearing without lubrication slots on the separator cage. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Change to the Compliance End Date We have changed the compliance time from “at the next shop visit after the effective date of the AD, but no later than April 30, 2008” to “at the next shop visit after the effective date of this AD, but no later than 30 days after the effective date of this AD” to allow the operators more time to complete the requirements of this AD. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information The Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information

(MCAI)and service information require the operators to comply with the requirements at the next shop visit after the effective date of the AD, but no later than April 30, 2008. We require compliance at the next shop visit after the effective date of this AD, but no later than 30 days after the effective date of this AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 61 engines of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 10 work-hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $111,440. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $6,846,640. Our cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-13-27 Turbomeca S.A.:** Amendment 39-15590. Docket No. FAA-2007-28053; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-18-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective August 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. Arrius 2F turboshaft engines that have not incorporated Turbomeca Modification Tf 12A. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Eurocopter EC120B helicopters. Reason

(d)European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)AD No. 2007-0057, dated March 1, 2007, states: This AD is issued following a case of non-commanded in-flight engine shut-down which occurred on an Arrius 2F turboshaft engine, following the seizing of the gas generator. The result may be an emergency autorotation landing, or, at worst, an accident. Investigations of this event have revealed that the seizing of the gas generator was caused by the fracture of the separator cage of the gas generator front bearing, due to high-cycle fatigue cracks initiated in the lubrication slots of the separator cage. Modification Tf12 introduces a new gas generator front bearing without lubrication slots on the separator cage. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncommanded shutdown of the engine, which could lead to an accident. Actions and Compliance

(e)Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)At the next engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD, but no later than 30 days after the effective date of this AD, replace the engine module 02 with a module that incorporates Turbomeca Modification Tf 12A. Turbomeca Modification Tf 12A installs into the engine module 02 a new gas generator front bearing without lubrication slots on the separator cage.

(2)Use the Instructions to be Incorporated section of Turbomeca Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 319 72 4012, Update No. 1, dated September 19, 2006, to do the actions in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD. FAA AD Differences

(f)The Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information

(g)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information

(h)Refer to EASA AD 2007-0057, dated March 1, 2007, for related information.

(i)Contact James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *james.lawrence@faa.gov* ; telephone

(781)238-7176; fax

(781)238-7199, for more information about this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(j)You must use Turbomeca Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 319 72 4012, Update No. 1, dated September 19, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; telephone

(33)05 59 74 40 00, fax

(33)05 59 74 45 15.

(3)You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 18, 2008. Diane Cook, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14311 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0297; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-330-AD; Amendment 39-15586; AD 2008-13-23] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dornier Model 328-100 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: During maintenance water has been found in the elevator [assembly]. The unsafe condition is water or ice accumulating in the elevator assembly, which could result in corrosion and consequent reduced structural integrity of the flight control surface, or an unbalanced flight control surface. These conditions could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective August 6, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2125; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on March 13, 2008 (73 FR 13503). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: During maintenance water has been found in the elevator [assembly]. The unsafe condition is water or ice accumulating in the elevator assembly, which could result in corrosion and consequent reduced structural integrity of the flight control surface, or an unbalanced flight control surface. These conditions could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 12 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $100 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $3,120, or $260 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-13-23 328 Support Services GmbH (Formerly Avcraft Aerospace GmbH):** Amendment 39-15586. Docket No. FAA-2008-0297; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-330-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective August 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Dornier Model 328-100 airplanes, certificated in any category. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 55: Stabilizers. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: During maintenance water has been found in the elevator [assembly]. The unsafe condition is water or ice accumulating in the elevator assembly, which could result in corrosion and consequent reduced structural integrity of the flight control surface, or an unbalanced flight control surface. These conditions could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Actions and Compliance

(f)Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do the following actions. Install a drain hole in the lower skin of the left and right-hand elevator horns in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Avcraft Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-55-450, Revision 1, dated November 19, 2003. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: Although the MCAI or service information specifies a compliance time for installing the drain hole within 23 days, paragraph

(f)of this AD requires that the installation be done within 90 days after the effective date of the AD. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2125; fax

(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to MCAI German Airworthiness Directive D-2004-004, effective January 8, 2004; and Avcraft Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-55-450, Revision 1, dated November 19, 2003; for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use Avcraft Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-55-450, Revision 1, dated November 19, 2003, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (Only the odd-numbered pages of this document contain the document date; no other page of the document contains this information.)

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact 328 Support Services GmbH, Post Box 1252, D-82231 Wessling, Federal Republic of Germany.

(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 7, 2008. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14205 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0293; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-18] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Salida, CO AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action will establish Class E airspace at Salida, CO. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using a new Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)Standard Instrument Approach Procedure

(SIAP)at Harriet Alexander Field. This will improve the safety of Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR)aircraft executing the new RNAV GPS SIAP at Harriet Alexander Field, Salida, CO. DATES: *Effective Date:* 0901 UTC, September 25, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Area, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA, 98057; telephone

(425)203-4537. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History On March 28, 2008, the FAA published in the **Federal Register** a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish controlled airspace at Salida, CO, (73 FR 16579). This action would improve the safety of IFR aircraft executing a new RNAV GPS SIAP approach procedure at Harriet Alexander Field, Salida, CO. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9R signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order. The Rule This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Salida, CO. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate IFR aircraft executing a new RNAV

(GPS)approach procedure at Harriet Alexander Field, Salida, CO. The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAAs authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Harriet Alexander Field, Salida, CO. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). Adoption of the Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007 is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005. Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANM CO, E5 Salida, CO [New] Harriet Alexander Field, CO (Lat. 38°32′18″ N., long. 106°02′55″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.5 mile radius of Harriet Alexander Field. Issued in Seattle, Washington, on June 18, 2008. Clark Desing, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center. [FR Doc. E8-14939 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9408] RIN 1545-BD01 Dependent Child of Divorced or Separated Parents or Parents Who Live Apart AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations relating to a claim that a child is a dependent by parents who are divorced, legally separated under a decree of separate maintenance, or separated under a written separation agreement, or who live apart at all times during the last 6 months of the calendar year. The regulations reflect amendments under the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 (WFTRA) and the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005. DATES: *Effective Date:* These regulations are effective July 2, 2008. *Applicability Date:* For date of applicability, see § 1.152-4(h). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria Driscoll

(202)622-4920 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act The collection of information contained in these final regulations has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) in connection with OMB Control Number 1545-0074. This control number is assigned to all information collections associated with individual tax returns (series 1040 and associated forms and schedules, and related regulatory information collections). Information collections associated with control number 1545-0074 are subject to annual public comment and approval by OMB in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The collection of information in these final regulations is in § 1.152-4(e). The information will help the IRS determine if a taxpayer may claim a child as a dependent when the parents of the child are divorced or separated or live apart at all times during the last six months of a calendar year. The collection of information is required to obtain a benefit. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget. The information will be reported on IRS Form 8332, Release/Revocation of Release of Claim to Exemption for Child by Custodial Parent, or successor form. The time needed to complete and file this form will vary depending on individual circumstances. The estimated burden for individual taxpayers filing this form is included in the estimates shown in the instructions for their individual income tax return. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and suggestions for reducing this burden should be sent to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, SE:W:CAR:MP:T:T:SP, Washington, DC 20224, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. Background This document contains final amendments to the Income Tax Regulations, 26 CFR part 1, relating to section 152(e) and the entitlement of divorced or separated parents or parents who live apart at all times during the last 6 months of the calendar year to claim a child as a dependent. On May 2, 2007, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-149856-03) was published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 24192). Written and electronic comments responding to the notice of proposed rulemaking were received. A public hearing was requested and held on April 3, 2008, however, the hearing was adjourned after no speakers appeared. After consideration of all the comments, the proposed regulations are adopted as amended by this Treasury decision. The comments and revisions are discussed in the preamble. Explanation of Revisions and Summary of Comments 1. Scope of Section 152(e) a. Custodial Parent's Failure To Release Exemption For taxable years beginning before January 1, 2005, section 152(e)(1) provided that a custodial parent generally was entitled to claim the dependency exemption. Thus, if

(1)parents of a child were divorced, legally separated, or lived apart during the last 6 months of the taxable year,

(2)the child was in the custody of one or both parents for more than one-half of the taxable year, and

(3)the child received over one-half of the child's support during the calendar year from one or both parents, the child was treated as receiving over one-half of the child's support from the custodial parent unless an exception applied. Section 152(e)(2) provided an exception treating the child as receiving over one-half of the child's support from the noncustodial parent if the custodial parent released the claim to the exemption. In contrast, as amended by WFTRA (Pub. L. 108-311, 118 Stat. 1166) for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004, section 152(e) includes no general rule allowing the custodial parent to claim an exemption for a child. It provides that a child is treated as the qualifying child or qualifying relative of the noncustodial parent if

(1)the parents are divorced, legally separated, or live apart during the last 6 months of the taxable year,

(2)the child receives over one-half of the child's support during the calendar year from one or both parents,

(3)the child is in the custody of one or both parents for more than one-half of the calendar year, and

(4)the custodial parent releases the claim to the exemption. Thus, under current section 152(e), the custodial parent's release of the claim is not an exception to a general rule, but is a condition precedent to the application of section 152(e). The proposed regulations include an example illustrating that section 152(e) does not apply if the custodial parent does not release the claim, in which case entitlement to the exemption is determined under section 152(c) or (d). Commentators suggested that the final regulations should reverse the conclusion of this example. The commentators opined that the final regulations should interpret section 152(e) as if it included the pre-WFTRA general rule and provide that the custodial parent is entitled to the exemption if the custodial parent does not release the claim. The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion because it is inconsistent with the language of section 152(e) as amended by WFTRA. b. Definition of Custody Section 152(e) includes two provisions relating to the concept of “custody:”

(1)Section 152(e) applies only if a child is in the custody of one or both parents for over one-half of the calendar year; and

(2)in the absence of a qualified pre-1985 agreement, the noncustodial parent may claim the exemption only if the custodial parent (defined as the parent having custody for the greater portion of the calendar year) releases the claim to the exemption. The proposed regulations do not define the term *custody.* The lack of a definition of the term *custody* in the proposed regulations may create ambiguity in determining whether section 152(e) applies. For example, a commentator suggested that the final regulations clarify whether a child who has attained the age of majority and is emancipated under state law is in the custody of one or both parents. The final regulations provide that a child is in the custody of one or both parents for more than one-half of the calendar year if one or both parents have the right under state law to physical custody of the child for more than one-half of the calendar year. However, a child is not in the custody of either parent for purposes of section 152(e), for example, when the child reaches the age of majority under state law. *See Boltinghouse* v. *Commissioner,* T.C.M. 2007-324. The final regulations include an example that illustrates that a child is not in the custody of a parent after the child attains the age of majority and is emancipated under state law. c. Application of Section 152(e) to Child Residing With Third Party Section 152(e)(1) provides that, if specified conditions are met, section 152(e) applies notwithstanding the principal place of abode test of section 152(c)(1)(B) and the tiebreaker rule of section 152(c)(4) for a qualifying child, or the support test of section 152(d)(1)(C) for a qualifying relative. A commentator requested that the final regulations clarify whether section 152(c), rather than section 152(e), applies when a child resides with someone other than a parent for more than one-half of the year because of a parent's lengthy absence. The final regulations include additional examples illustrating when section 152(e) applies to determine the right to claim a child as a dependent, and how the nights during which the child resides with a third party may be allocated to a parent. d. Coordination of Section 152(e) and Other Provisions The proposed regulations provide that a child who is treated as the qualifying child or qualifying relative of a noncustodial parent under section 152(e) is treated as a dependent of both parents for purposes of sections 105(b), 132(h)(2)(B), and 213(d)(5). Consistent with the statutory language of those provisions, the final regulations clarify that, if section 152(e) does not apply, then this rule treating the child as a dependent of both parents does not apply. Thus, if a custodial parent does not release the claim to the exemption, only the taxpayer who is entitled to claim the child as a dependent under section 152(c) or

(d)may treat the child as a dependent for purposes of sections 105(b), 132(h)(2)(B), and 213(d)(5). 2. Definition of Custodial Parent The proposed regulations define *custodial parent* as the parent with whom the child resides for the greater number of nights during the calendar year (the counting nights rule) and include rules for allocating nights when the child resides with neither parent. a. Counting Nights Rule A commentator requested that the final regulations clarify that the counting nights rule applies to determine where a child resides under the tiebreaker rule of section 152(c)(4)(B) as well as to identify the custodial parent for purposes of section 152(e). The tiebreaker rule of section 152(c)(4)(B) is outside the scope of these regulations and therefore is not addressed. Commentators requested clarification of the term *night* for purposes of the counting nights rule. A commentator noted that the rule does not address how the child's residence for a night is determined (for example, by the child's physical location at a given time such as midnight, or by where the child sleeps) and for which year the night of December 31 to January 1 is counted. In response to this comment, the final regulations provide that, for purposes of section 152(e), a child resides for a night with a parent if the child sleeps

(1)at the parent's residence (whether or not the parent is present), or

(2)in the company of the parent when the child does not sleep at a parent's residence (for example, if the parent and child are on vacation). Under this rule, the time that a child goes to sleep is irrelevant. The final regulations provide that a night that extends over two taxable years is allocated to the taxable year when the night begins. Thus, the night that begins on December 31, 2008, is counted for taxable year 2008. Commentators suggested that the counting nights rule may be inequitable in certain situations, for example if a parent works nights and cares for the child during the day, and the other parent works days and cares for the child at night. Under the counting nights rule, the parent who cares for the child at night is the custodial parent although the other parent may spend more time with the child. A commentator opined that the counting nights rule should create only a rebuttable presumption regarding which parent is the custodial parent. Defining custodial parent by means of a rebuttable presumption would add complexity and uncertainty and increase the potential for controversy. As a “bright-line” test, the counting nights rule is easy to understand and apply. The statute and regulations provide flexibility by allowing the custodial parent to release the claim to the exemption. Nonetheless, the final regulations allow an exception for cases in which a child resides for a greater number of days but not nights with a parent who works at night. b. Allocation of Nights The proposed regulations provide that a child who resides with neither parent for a night is treated as residing with the parent with whom the child would have resided for the night but for the absence. However, if a child would not have resided with either parent (for example, because a court awarded custody of the child to a third party for the period of absence), the child is treated as not residing with either parent for the night of the absence. A commentator suggested that the final regulations omit the language “for example” and provide that an award of custody to a third party is the exclusive circumstance in which a night is not allocated to either parent. The final regulations do not incorporate this suggestion, as other situations may occur in which a child would not have resided with either parent for a night. However, the final regulations omit the parenthetical and illustrate this situation in the examples. Other commentators noted additional circumstances in which it would be difficult to determine the parent with whom a child would have resided for the night. Therefore, the final regulations provide that a night is not counted for either parent if the child would not have resided with either parent for the night or it cannot be determined with which parent the child would have resided for the night. Commentators requested that the final regulations address how nights are allocated in additional situations involving a child's absence. The final regulations provide additional examples in response to these comments. A commentator asked how a night is allocated in situations involving the absence of a parent, for example, if a child spends the night in a parent's residence in the care of a third party, but the parent is absent. Another commentator requested clarification on how a night is allocated if a child is scheduled to reside with one parent but, because of unexpected circumstances (such as that parent's unplanned absence) the child resides with the other parent for that night. These comments are addressed by the addition in the final regulations of the rule, discussed earlier in this preamble, that a child resides with a parent for a night if the child sleeps

(1)at the residence of the parent (whether or not the parent is present), or

(2)in the company of the parent, when the child does not sleep at a parent's residence. 3. Release of Exemption and Revocation of Release a. Release of Claim to Exemption Section 152(e)(2) provides that a custodial parent may release a claim to an exemption for a child by signing a written declaration that he or she will not claim the child as a dependent. The proposed regulations provide that the written declaration may be made on Form 8332, Release/Revocation of Release of Claim to Exemption for Child by Custodial Parent, or successor form, and any declaration not on Form 8332 must conform to the substance of that form. The proposed regulations also provide that a court order or decree may not serve as the written declaration. A commentator asserted that the final regulations should allow a noncustodial parent to claim a child as a dependent if a divorce decree allocates the exemption to that parent, whether or not the custodial parent releases the right to claim the child. Another commentator suggested that presumptions in favor of the custodial parent in the proposed regulations unfairly burden the noncustodial parent. A state court may not allocate an exemption because sections 151 and 152, not state law, determine who may claim an exemption for a child for Federal income tax purposes. Section 152(e) provides for the unilateral release of an exemption by a custodial parent. Therefore, the final regulations do not adopt these comments. Commentators suggested that the final regulations should specify that a written separation agreement may not serve as the written declaration. One commentator recommended that the final regulations provide that the release must be on Form 8332 or that the release may be on either Form 8332 or a document that is executed for the sole purpose of releasing the claim. Other commentators opined, however, that the final regulations should provide specifically that a separation agreement that includes an unconditional release or a divorce decree may serve as a written declaration. A commentator suggested that a divorce settlement agreed to by both parents should determine the right to claim a child as a dependent without regard to which parent is the custodial parent and without requiring a separate written declaration. Divorce decrees, separation agreements, and similar instruments are complex documents that may be subject to differing interpretations governed by state law. Allowing these documents to serve as a written declaration creates complexity and uncertainty. Therefore, the final regulations retain the rule that a written declaration not on Form 8332 (or successor form) must conform to the substance of Form 8332, and further provide that a release not on a Form 8332 must be a document executed for the sole purpose of releasing the claim. The final regulations provide specifically that a court order or decree or a separation agreement may not serve as the written declaration. These rules will improve tax administration and reduce controversy. The proposed regulations provide that if a release of a claim to a child is for more than one year, the noncustodial parent must attach the original written declaration to the parent's return for the first taxable year for which the release is effective and a copy of the written declaration for later years. A commentator requested that the final regulations allow a taxpayer to attach a copy of a declaration (rather than the original) to a tax return in the first year the release is effective as well as subsequent years. The final regulations adopt this comment. b. Revocation of Release of Exemption Under the proposed regulations, Form 8332 or a substitute document may be executed for multiple years. Further, to provide flexibility to parents whose circumstances change, the proposed regulations allow a custodial parent to revoke a release, but the revocation may be effective no earlier than the taxable year that begins in the first calendar year after the calendar year in which the parent revoking the release provides notice of the revocation to the other parent. Commentators objected to the custodial parent's broad discretion to revoke a release under the proposed regulations. A commentator recommended that the final regulations provide that a taxpayer may revoke a release only if both parents agree. Section 152(e) provides for the unilateral release of an exemption by a custodial parent. The final regulations retain the rule allowing unilateral revocation by the custodial parent as consistent with the statute. A commentator suggested that a revocation should take effect in the taxable year that the parent signs the revocation. The final regulations do not adopt this comment, which could result in insufficient notice of the revocation to the noncustodial parent and increase controversies. The proposed regulations also provide that the taxpayer revoking the release must attach the original or a copy of the revocation to the taxpayer's tax return for any taxable year the taxpayer claims the exemption as a result of the revocation, and keep a copy of the revocation and evidence of delivery of written notice of revocation to the noncustodial parent. A commentator recommended that the final regulations require the custodial parent to send a copy of the written revocation to the noncustodial parent at the last known address or at an address reasonably calculated to ensure receipt. The commentator opined that proof of mailing by certified mail or other tracked delivery should suffice as evidence of notification. Another commentator expressed concern that a parent whose location is unknown may not receive notice of a revocation. To retain flexibility but increase the likelihood that a noncustodial parent will receive notice of a revocation, the final regulations require that the parent revoking the release notify, or make reasonable attempts to notify, in writing, the other parent of the revocation. What is a reasonable attempt is determined under the facts and circumstances, but mailing a copy of the written revocation to the noncustodial parent at the last known address or at an address reasonably calculated to ensure receipt satisfies this requirement. A commentator recommended that the final regulations provide that a release may be revoked only on a Form 8332. Consistent with the requirements for a release, the final regulations provide that

(1)a revocation may be made on Form 8332, or successor form designated by the IRS,

(2)a revocation not on the designated form must conform to the substance of the form and be in a document executed for the sole purpose of revoking a release, and

(3)a taxpayer revoking a release may attach a copy rather than an original to the taxpayer's return for the first taxable year the revocation is effective, as well as for later years. c. Releases Predating Applicability Date The proposed regulations do not address whether the rules for releasing a claim to an exemption and for revoking a release apply to a written declaration that is effective for multiple years and that was executed before the applicability date of the regulations. The final regulations apply prospectively, but clarify that a multiple year written declaration executed in a taxable year beginning on or before July 2, 2008, that satisfies the requirements for the form of a written declaration in effect at the time the written declaration is executed is treated as satisfying the requirements for the form of a release under the final regulations. However, the final regulations provide that the rules for revoking a release of a claim to an exemption apply without regard to whether a custodial parent executed the release in a taxable year beginning on or before July 2, 2008. Thus, a release executed in a taxable year beginning on or before *July 2, 2008* , may be revoked. 4. Effective/Applicability Date These final regulations apply to taxable years beginning after *July 2, 2008* . Special Analyses This Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations and, because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking that preceded these final regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Victoria J. Driscoll of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Amendment to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 is amended by adding an entry to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. * * * Section 1.152-4 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 152(e) * * * **Par. 2.** Section 1.152-4 is revised to read as follows: § 1.152-4 Special rule for a child of divorced or separated parents or parents who live apart.

(a)*In general.* A taxpayer may claim a dependency deduction for a child (as defined in section 152(f)(1)) only if the child is the qualifying child of the taxpayer under section 152(c) or the qualifying relative of the taxpayer under section 152(d). Section 152(c)(4)(B) provides that a child who is claimed as a qualifying child by parents who do not file a joint return together is treated as the qualifying child of the parent with whom the child resides for a longer period of time during the taxable year or, if the child resides with both parents for an equal period of time, of the parent with the higher adjusted gross income. However, a child is treated as the qualifying child or qualifying relative of the noncustodial parent if the custodial parent releases a claim to the exemption under section 152(e) and this section.

(b)*Release of claim by custodial parent* —(1) *In general* . Under section 152(e)(1), notwithstanding section 152(c)(1)(B), (c)(4), or (d)(1)(C), a child is treated as the qualifying child or qualifying relative of the noncustodial parent (as defined in paragraph

(d)of this section) if the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section are met.

(2)*Support, custody, and parental status—*

(i)*In general.* The requirements of this paragraph (b)(2) are met if the parents of the child provide over one-half of the child's support for the calendar year, the child is in the custody of one or both parents for more than one-half of the calendar year, and the parents—

(A)Are divorced or legally separated under a decree of divorce or separate maintenance;

(B)Are separated under a written separation agreement; or

(C)Live apart at all times during the last 6 months of the calendar year whether or not they are or were married.

(ii)*Multiple support agreement.* The requirements of this paragraph (b)(2) are not met if over one-half of the support of the child is treated as having been received from a taxpayer under section 152(d)(3).

(3)*Release of claim to child.* The requirements of this paragraph (b)(3) are met for a calendar year if—

(i)The custodial parent signs a written declaration that the custodial parent will not claim the child as a dependent for any taxable year beginning in that calendar year and the noncustodial parent attaches the declaration to the noncustodial parent's return for the taxable year; or

(ii)A qualified pre-1985 instrument, as defined in section 152(e)(3)(B), applicable to the taxable year beginning in that calendar year, provides that the noncustodial parent is entitled to the dependency exemption for the child and the noncustodial parent provides at least $600 for the support of the child during the calendar year.

(c)*Custody.* A child is in the custody of one or both parents for more than one-half of the calendar year if one or both parents have the right under state law to physical custody of the child for more than one-half of the calendar year.

(d)*Custodial parent* —(1) *In general.* The *custodial parent* is the parent with whom the child resides for the greater number of nights during the calendar year, and the *noncustodial parent* is the parent who is not the custodial parent. A child is treated as residing with neither parent if the child is emancipated under state law. For purposes of this section, a child resides with a parent for a night if the child sleeps—

(i)At the residence of that parent (whether or not the parent is present); or

(ii)In the company of the parent, when the child does not sleep at a parent's residence (for example, the parent and child are on vacation together).

(2)*Night straddling taxable years.* A night that extends over two taxable years is allocated to the taxable year in which the night begins.

(3)*Absences.*

(i)Except as provided in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section, for purposes of this paragraph (d), a child who does not reside (within the meaning of paragraph (d)(1) of this section) with a parent for a night is treated as residing with the parent with whom the child would have resided for the night but for the absence.

(ii)A child who does not reside (within the meaning of paragraph (d)(1) of this section) with a parent for a night is treated as not residing with either parent for that night if it cannot be determined with which parent the child would have resided or if the child would not have resided with either parent for the night.

(4)* Special rule for equal number of nights.* If a child is in the custody of one or both parents for more than one-half of the calendar year and the child resides with each parent for an equal number of nights during the calendar year, the parent with the higher adjusted gross income for the calendar year is treated as the custodial parent.

(5)*Exception for a parent who works at night.* If, in a calendar year, due to a parent's nighttime work schedule, a child resides for a greater number of days but not nights with the parent who works at night, that parent is treated as the custodial parent. On a school day, the child is treated as residing at the primary residence registered with the school.

(e)*Written declaration* —(1) *Form of declaration* —(i) *In general* . The written declaration under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section must be an unconditional release of the custodial parent's claim to the child as a dependent for the year or years for which the declaration is effective. A declaration is not unconditional if the custodial parent's release of the right to claim the child as a dependent requires the satisfaction of any condition, including the noncustodial parent's meeting of an obligation such as the payment of support. A written declaration must name the noncustodial parent to whom the exemption is released. A written declaration must specify the year or years for which it is effective. A written declaration that specifies all future years is treated as specifying the first taxable year after the taxable year of execution and all subsequent taxable years.

(ii)*Form designated by IRS.* A written declaration may be made on Form 8332, Release/Revocation of Release of Claim to Exemption for Child by Custodial Parent, or successor form designated by the IRS. A written declaration not on the form designated by the IRS must conform to the substance of that form and must be a document executed for the sole purpose of serving as a written declaration under this section. A court order or decree or a separation agreement may not serve as a written declaration.

(2)*Attachment to return.* A noncustodial parent must attach a copy of the written declaration to the parent's return for each taxable year in which the child is claimed as a dependent.

(3)*Revocation of written declaration* —(i) *In general.* A parent may revoke a written declaration described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section by providing written notice of the revocation to the other parent. The parent revoking the written declaration must make reasonable efforts to provide actual notice to the other parent. The revocation may be effective no earlier than the taxable year that begins in the first calendar year after the calendar year in which the parent revoking the written declaration provides, or makes reasonable efforts to provide, the written notice.

(ii)*Form of revocation.* The revocation may be made on Form 8332, Release/Revocation of Release of Claim to Exemption for Child by Custodial Parent, or successor form designated by the IRS whether or not the written declaration was made on a form designated by the IRS. A revocation not on that form must conform to the substance of the form and must be a document executed for the sole purpose of serving as a revocation under this section. The revocation must specify the year or years for which the revocation is effective. A revocation that specifies all future years is treated as specifying the first taxable year after the taxable year the revocation is executed and all subsequent taxable years.

(iii)* Attachment to return.* The parent revoking the written declaration must attach a copy of the revocation to the parent's return for each taxable year for which the parent claims a child as a dependent as a result of the revocation. The parent revoking the written declaration must keep a copy of the revocation and evidence of delivery of the notice to the other parent, or of the reasonable efforts to provide actual notice.

(4)*Ineffective declaration or revocation.* A written declaration or revocation that fails to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph

(e)has no effect.

(5)*Written declaration executed in a taxable year beginning on or before July 2, 2008.* A written declaration executed in a taxable year beginning on or before July 2, 2008, that satisfies the requirements for the form of a written declaration in effect at the time the written declaration is executed, will be treated as meeting the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section. Paragraph (e)(3) of this section applies without regard to whether a custodial parent executed the written declaration in a taxable year beginning on or before July 2, 2008.

(f)*Coordination with other sections.* If section 152(e) and this section apply, a child is treated as the dependent of both parents for purposes of sections 105(b), 132(h)(2)(B), and 213(d)(5).

(g)*Examples.* The provisions of this section are illustrated by the following examples that assume, unless otherwise provided, that each taxpayer's taxable year is the calendar year, one or both of the child's parents provide over one-half of the child's support for the calendar year, one or both parents have the right under state law to physical custody of the child for more than one-half of the calendar year, and the child otherwise meets the requirements of a qualifying child under section 152(c) or a qualifying relative under section 152(d). In addition, in each of the examples, no qualified pre-1985 instrument or multiple support agreement is in effect. The examples are as follows: *Example 1.*

(i)B and C are the divorced parents of Child. In 2009, Child resides with B for 210 nights and with C for 155 nights. B executes a Form 8332 for 2009 releasing B's right to claim Child as a dependent for that year, which C attaches to C's 2009 return.

(ii)Under paragraph

(d)of this section, B is the custodial parent of Child in 2009 because B is the parent with whom Child resides for the greater number of nights in 2009. Because the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and

(3)of this section are met, C may claim Child as a dependent. *Example 2.* The facts are the same as in *Example 1* except that B does not execute a Form 8332 or similar declaration for 2009. Therefore, section 152(e) and this section do not apply. Whether Child is the qualifying child or qualifying relative of B or C is determined under section 152(c) or (d). *Example 3.*

(i)D and E are the divorced parents of Child. Under a custody decree, Grandmother has the right under state law to physical custody of Child from January 1 to July 31, 2009.

(ii)Because D and E do not have the right under state law to physical custody of Child for over one-half of the 2009 calendar year, under paragraph

(c)of this section, Child is not in the custody of one or both parents for over one-half of the calendar year. Therefore, section 152(e) and this section do not apply, and whether Child is the qualifying child or qualifying relative of D, E, or Grandmother is determined under section 152(c) or (d). *Example 4.*

(i)The facts are the same as in *Example 3,* except that Grandmother has the right to physical custody of Child from January 1 to March 31, 2009, and, as a result, Child resides with Grandmother during this period. D and E jointly have the right to physical custody of Child from April 1 to December 31, 2009. During this period, Child resides with D for 180 nights and with E for 95 nights. D executes a Form 8332 for 2009 releasing D's right to claim Child as a dependent for that year, which E attaches to E's 2009 return.

(ii)Under paragraph

(c)of this section, Child is in the custody of D and E for over one-half of the calendar year, because D and E have the right under state law to physical custody of Child for over one-half of the calendar year.

(iii)Under paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section, the nights that Child resides with Grandmother are not allocated to either parent. Child resides with D for a greater number of nights than with E during the calendar year and, under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, D is the custodial parent.

(iv)Because the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and

(3)of this section are met, section 152(e) and this section apply, and E may claim Child as a dependent. *Example 5.*

(i)The facts are the same as in *Example 4,* except that D is away on military service from April 10 to June 15, 2009, and September 6 to October 20, 2009. During these periods Child resides with Grandmother in Grandmother's residence. Child would have resided with D if D had not been away on military service. Grandmother claims Child as a dependent on Grandmother's 2009 return.

(ii)Under paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section, Child is treated as residing with D for the nights that D is away on military service. Because the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and

(3)of this section are met, section 152(e) and this section apply, and E, not Grandmother, may claim Child as a dependent. *Example 6.* F and G are the divorced parents of Child. In May of 2009, Child turns age 18 and is emancipated under the law of the state where Child resides. Therefore, in 2009 and later years, F and G do not have the right under state law to physical custody of Child for over one-half of the calendar year, and Child is not in the custody of F and G for over one-half of the calendar year. Section 152(e) and this section do not apply, and whether Child is the qualifying child or qualifying relative of F or G is determined under section 152(c) or (d). *Example 7.*

(i)The facts are the same as in *Example 6,* except that Child turns age 18 and is emancipated under state law on August 1, 2009, resides with F from January 1, 2009, through May 31, 2009, and resides with G from June 1, 2009, through December 31, 2009. F executes a Form 8332 releasing F's right to claim Child as a dependent for 2009, which G attaches to G's 2009 return.

(ii)Under paragraph

(c)of this section, Child is in the custody of F and G for over one-half of the calendar year.

(iii)Under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, Child is treated as not residing with either parent after Child's emancipation. Therefore, Child resides with F for 151 nights and with G for 61 nights. Because the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and

(3)of this section are met, section 152(e) and this section apply, and G may claim Child as a dependent. *Example 8.* H and J are the divorced parents of Child. Child generally resides with H during the week and with J every other weekend. Child resides with J in H's residence for 10 consecutive nights while H is hospitalized. Under paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, Child resides with H for the 10 nights. *Example 9.* K and L, who are separated under a written separation agreement, are the parents of Child. In August 2009, K and Child spend 10 nights together in a hotel while on vacation. Under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, Child resides with K for the 10 nights that K and Child are on vacation. *Example 10.* M and N are the divorced parents of Child. On December 31, 2009, Child attends a party at M's residence. After midnight on January 1, 2010, Child travels to N's residence, where Child sleeps. Under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, Child resides with N for the night of December 31, 2009, to January 1, 2010, because Child sleeps at N's residence that night. However, under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the night of December 31, 2009, to January 1, 2010, is allocated to taxable year 2009 for purposes of determining whether Child resides with M or N for a greater number of nights in 2009. *Example 11.* O and P, who never married, are the parents of Child. In 2009, Child spends alternate weeks residing with O and P. During a week that Child is residing with O, O gives Child permission to spend a night at the home of a friend. Under paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section, the night Child spends at the friend's home is treated as a night that Child resides with O. *Example 12.* The facts are the same as in *Example 11,* except that Child also resides at summer camp for 6 weeks. Because Child resides with each parent for alternate weeks, Child would have resided with O for 3 weeks and with P for 3 weeks of the period that Child is at camp. Under paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section, Child is treated as residing with O for 3 weeks and with P for 3 weeks. *Example 13.* The facts are the same as in *Example 12,* except that Child does not spend alternate weeks residing with O and P, and it cannot be determined whether Child would have resided with O or P for the period that Child is at camp. Under paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section, Child is treated as residing with neither parent for the 6 weeks. *Example 14.*

(i)Q and R are the divorced parents of Child. Q works from 11 PM to 7 AM Sunday through Thursday nights. Because of Q's nighttime work schedule, Child resides with R Sunday through Thursday nights and with Q Friday and Saturday nights. Therefore, in 2009, Child resides with R for 261 nights and with Q for 104 nights. Child spends all daytime hours when Child is not in school with Q and Q's address is registered with Child's school as Child's primary residence. Q executes a Form 8332 for 2009 releasing Q's right to claim Child as a dependent for that year, which R attaches to R's 2009 return.

(ii)Under paragraph

(d)of this section, Q is the custodial parent of Child in 2009. Child resides with R for a greater number of nights than with Q due to Q's nighttime work schedule, and Child spends a greater number of days with Q. Therefore, paragraph (d)(5) of this section applies rather than paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Because the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and

(3)of this section are met, R may claim Child as a dependent. *Example 15.*

(i)In 2009, S and T, the parents of Child, execute a written separation agreement. The agreement provides that Child will live with S and that T will make monthly child support payments to S. In 2009, Child resides with S for 335 nights and with T for 30 nights. S executes a letter declaring that S will not claim Child as a dependent in 2009 and in subsequent alternate years. The letter contains all the information requested on Form 8332, does not require the satisfaction of any condition such as T's payment of support, and has no purpose other than to serve as a written declaration under section 152(e) and this section. T attaches the letter to T's return for 2009 and 2011.

(ii)In 2010, T fails to provide support for Child, and S executes a Form 8332 revoking the release of S's right to claim Child as a dependent for 2011. S delivers a copy of the Form 8332 to T, attaches a copy of the Form 8332 to S's tax return for 2011, and keeps a copy of the Form 8332 and evidence of delivery of the written notice to T.

(iii)T may claim Child as a dependent for 2009 because S releases the right to claim Child as a dependent under paragraph (b)(3) of this section by executing the letter, which conforms to the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section, and T attaches the letter to T's return in accordance with paragraph (e)(2) of this section. In 2010, S revokes the release of the claim in accordance with paragraph (e)(3) of this section, and the revocation takes effect in 2011, the taxable year that begins in the first calendar year after S provides written notice of the revocation to T. Therefore, in 2011, section 152(e) and this section do not apply, and whether Child is the qualifying child or qualifying relative of S or T is determined under section 152(c) or (d). *Example 16.* The facts are the same as *Example 15,* except that the letter expressly states that S releases the right to claim Child as a dependent only if T is current in the payment of support for Child at the end of the calendar year. The letter does not qualify as a written declaration under paragraph (b)(3) of this section because S's agreement not to claim Child as a dependent is conditioned on T's payment of support and, under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section, a written declaration must be unconditional. Therefore, section 152(e) and this section do not apply, and whether Child is the qualifying child or qualifying relative of S or T for 2009 as well as 2011 is determined under section 152(c) or (d). *Example 17.*

(i)U and V are the divorced parents of Child. Child resides with U for more nights than with V in 2009 through 2011. In 2009, U provides a written statement to V declaring that U will not claim Child as a dependent, but the statement does not specify the year or years it is effective. V attaches the statement to V's returns for 2009 through 2011.

(ii)Because the written statement does not specify a year or years, under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, it is not a written declaration that conforms to the substance of Form 8332. Under paragraph (e)(4) of this section, the statement has no effect. Section 152(e) and this section do not apply, and whether Child is the qualifying child or qualifying relative of U or V is determined under section 152(c) or (d). *Example 18.*

(i)W and X are the divorced parents of Child. In 2009, Child resides solely with W. The divorce decree requires X to pay child support to W and requires W to execute a Form 8332 releasing W's right to claim Child as a dependent. W fails to sign a Form 8332 for 2009, and X attaches an unsigned Form 8332 to X's return for 2009.

(ii)The order in the divorce decree requiring W to execute a Form 8332 is ineffective to allocate the right to claim Child as a dependent to X. Furthermore, under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the unsigned Form 8332 does not conform to the substance of Form 8332, and under paragraph (e)(4) of this section, the Form 8332 has no effect. Therefore, section 152(e) and this section do not apply, and whether Child is the qualifying child or qualifying relative of W or X is determined under section 152(c) or (d).

(iii)If, however, W executes a Form 8332 for 2009, and X attaches the Form 8332 to X's return, then X may claim Child as a dependent in 2009. *Example 19.*

(i)Y and Z are the divorced parents of Child. In 2003, Y and Z enter into a separation agreement, which is incorporated into a divorce decree, under which Y, the custodial parent, releases Y's right to claim Child as a dependent for all future years. The separation agreement satisfies the requirements for the form of a written declaration in effect at the time it is executed. Z attaches a copy of the separation agreement to Z's returns for 2003 through 2009.

(ii)Under paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, a separation agreement may not serve as a written declaration. However, under paragraph (e)(5) of this section, a written declaration executed in a taxable year beginning on or before July 2, 2008, that satisfies the requirements for the form of a written declaration in effect at the time the written declaration is executed, will be treated as meeting the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section. Therefore, the separation agreement may serve as the written declaration required by paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section for 2009, and Z may claim Child as a dependent in 2009 and later years. *Example 20.*

(i)The facts are the same as in *Example 19,* except that in 2009 Y executes a Form 8332 revoking the release of Y's right to claim Child as a dependent for 2010. Y complies with all the requirements of paragraph (e)(3) of this section.

(ii)Although Y executes the separation agreement releasing Y's right to claim Child as a dependent in a taxable year beginning on or before July 2, 2008, under paragraph (e)(5) of this section, Y's execution of the Form 8332 in 2009 is effective to revoke the release. Therefore, section 152(e) and this section do not apply in 2010, and whether Child is the qualifying child or qualifying relative of Y or Z is determined under section 152(c) or (d).

(h)*Effective/applicability date.* This section applies to taxable years beginning after July 2, 2008. § 1.152-4T [Removed] **Par. 3.** Section 1.152-4T is removed. Linda E. Stiff, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: June 23, 2008. Eric Solomon, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy). [FR Doc. E8-15044 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 301 [TD 9409] RIN 1545-BI01 Amendments to the Section 7216 Regulations—Disclosure or Use of Information by Preparers of Returns AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final and temporary regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains final and temporary regulations that provide rules relating to the disclosure and use of tax return information by tax return preparers. These regulations provide updated guidance regarding the disclosure of a taxpayer's social security number to a tax return preparer located outside of the United States. The text of these regulations also serves as the text of the proposed regulations set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the **Federal Register** . DATES: *Effective Date:* These regulations are effective on July 2, 2008. *Applicability Date:* See § 301.7216-3T(d). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence E. Mack,

(202)622-4940 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This document amends 26 CFR part 301 to provide modified rules relating to the ability of a tax return preparer located within the United States to disclose a taxpayer's social security number constituting tax return information with the taxpayer's consent to a tax return preparer located outside of the United States. In the accompanying and cross-referenced notice of proposed rulemaking, the Treasury Department and IRS request comments on the proposed rule from all interested persons. On December 8, 2005, the Treasury Department and IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-137243-02) in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 72954) proposing amendments to the regulations under section 7216 (regarding the use or disclosure of tax return information by income tax return preparers). On January 3, 2008, the Treasury Department and IRS issued final regulations under section 7216 (TD 9375) applicable to disclosures or uses of tax return information occurring on or after January 1, 2009. Thus, TD 9375 replaces previously issued final regulations that remain applicable to disclosures or uses of tax return information occurring prior to January 1, 2009. TD 9375 included the revision of § 301.7216-3(b)(4), which, for disclosures and uses of tax return information occurring on or after January 1, 2009, provides that an income tax return preparer located in the United States may not disclose the taxpayer's social security number

(SSN)to a tax return preparer located outside of the United States even if the taxpayer consents to the disclosure. These temporary regulations modify the rules under § 301.7216-3(b)(4). Explanation of Provisions The Treasury Department and IRS are amending the regulations under section 7216 applicable to disclosures and uses of tax return information occurring on or after January 1, 2009, to provide a limited exception to the general rule that an income tax return preparer located in the United States may not disclose a taxpayer's SSN to a tax return preparer located outside of the United States. Section 301.7216-3(b)(4) provides that a tax return preparer located within the United States, including any territory or possession of the United States, may not obtain consent to disclose a taxpayer's SSN to a tax return preparer located outside of the United States or any territory or possession of the United States. Thus, with one exception, if a tax return preparer located within the United States obtains consent from a taxpayer to disclose tax return information to another tax return preparer located outside of the United States, as provided under §§ 301.7216-3(a)(3)(i)(D), 301.7216-2(c)(2) and 301.7216-2(d), the tax return preparer located in the United States may not disclose the taxpayer's SSN, and must redact or otherwise mask the taxpayer's SSN before the tax return information is disclosed outside of the United States. The exception is limited to the circumstance in which a tax return preparer located inside the United States initially receives the SSN from a tax return preparer located outside the United States and the preparer within the United States retransmits the SSN to the preparer that provided the SSN. When a taxpayer-client requests that a tax return preparer within the United States transfer the return preparation engagement to a tax return preparer located outside the United States, the preparer still must redact or otherwise mask the taxpayer's SSN before the information is disclosed and, in this situation, it will be incumbent upon the taxpayer to provide the SSN directly to the tax return preparer located abroad. The revisions containing the SSN disclosure prohibition in § 301.7216-3(b)(4) were explained in the preamble to the final regulations. The regulation was adopted in light of factors including:

(1)The fact that it is not necessary for tax return preparers to disclose certain taxpayer identifying information to other tax return preparers who are assisting them in preparing a return;

(2)the important role an SSN plays in the tax administration process, and the heightened potential for misuse when an SSN is readily associated with confidential information, such as tax return information; and 3) the heightened concern about the theft of taxpayer identifying information resulting from disclosures outside the United States. Upon further consideration, the Treasury Department and IRS have concluded that § 301.7216-3(b)(4) can be amended to provide flexibility to allow a tax return preparer within the United States to disclose an SSN with the taxpayer's consent to a tax return preparer located outside of the United States if both tax return preparers have sufficient data security programs and procedures in operation to protect such important confidential information from misuse or unauthorized access or disclosure. These measures will significantly reduce the security risks associated with the disclosure of this information outside of the United States. Although SSN security is the primary focus of these regulations, the flexibility provided by these regulations will enable qualified tax return preparers to address situations in which there is a need for a tax return preparer in the United States to disclose an SSN to a tax return preparer located outside of the United States, as appropriate under the circumstances. This includes, but is not limited to, situations in which the tax return preparer located outside of the United States is a signing tax return preparer or requires an unredacted SSN to file a return on behalf of a taxpayer, the tax return preparer located outside the United States may need a copy of the entire return, including the taxpayer's SSN (for example, to assist an expatriated U.S. taxpayer secure treaty benefits from the relevant foreign government), or the taxpayer prefers that the tax return preparer located within the United States disclose the taxpayer's SSN to the tax return preparer located outside the United States (for example, because the taxpayer concludes that the data security protection provided by the tax return preparer in the United States and the tax return preparer located outside of the United States is sound). In light of these considerations, the Treasury Department and IRS, pursuant to these temporary regulations, amend the regulations contained in TD 9375 (applicable to disclosures and uses of tax return information on or after January 1, 2009) to include an exception to § 301.7216-3(b)(4). The exception in § 301.7216-3T(b)(4)(ii) provides that a tax return preparer located within the United States, including any territory or possession of the United States, may obtain consent to disclose the taxpayer's SSN to a tax return preparer located outside of the United States or any territory or possession of the United States if the tax return preparer discloses the SSN through the use of an “adequate data protection safeguard” as described in guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin and verifies the maintenance of the adequate data protection safeguards in the request for the taxpayer's consent pursuant to the specifications described in guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. The exception authorizes only those preparers with an adequate data protection safeguard in operation to request a taxpayer's consent to disclose an SSN to a preparer located outside the United States that also has an adequate data protection safeguard. The Treasury Department and IRS anticipate that requiring tax return preparers that seek a taxpayer's consent to disclose an SSN to a tax return preparer located abroad to maintain adequate data security would provide the further benefit of enhancing the level of security of any data transfer, including the data transfer of the taxpayer's SSN, while providing additional flexibility to address situations in which there is a reason or need to disclose an SSN to a tax return preparer located abroad. Tax return preparers without an adequate data protection safeguard, or those preparers with an adequate data protection safeguard that seek to disclose an SSN to a tax return preparer located abroad that does not have an adequate data protection safeguard, must continue to comply with the general rule in § 301.7216-3T(b)(4)(i), and are still required to mask any SSN prior to disclosure to a tax return preparer located outside the United States, or any territory or possession of the United States, even if the taxpayer has consented to disclosure of an SSN. Revenue Procedure 2008-35, published concurrently with these regulations, provides the relevant guidance regarding the exception in § 301.7216-3T(b)(4)(ii) to the general rule requiring SSN masking. Section 4.07 of Revenue Procedure 2008-35 provides guidance regarding the requirements for an adequate data protection safeguard. Pursuant to Section 4.07, an “adequate data protection safeguard” is a data security program, policy and practice that meets or conforms to one of the following privacy or data security frameworks:

(1)The United States Department of Commerce “safe harbor” framework for data protection (or successor program);

(2)A foreign law data protection safeguard that includes a security component, for example, the European Commission's Directive on Data Protection;

(3)A framework that complies with the requirements of a financial or similar industry-specific standard that is generally accepted as best practices for technology and security related to that industry, for example, the BITS (Financial Services Roundtable) Financial Institution Shared Assessment Program;

(4)The requirements of the AICPA/CICA Privacy Framework;

(5)The requirements of the most recent version of IRS Publication 1075, Tax Information Security Guidelines for Federal, State and Local Agencies and Entities; or

(6)Any other data security framework that provides the same level of privacy protection as contemplated by one or more of the frameworks described in

(1)through (5). Section 4.04(1)(e)(ii) of Revenue Procedure 2008-35 provides guidance regarding mandatory language that must be included in each request for consent provided to an individual taxpayer by the tax return preparer that seeks consent to disclose an SSN to a return preparer located outside the United States or its or territories or possessions. See § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b). These regulations clarify that the rule in § 301.7216-3T(b)(4) applies only to a tax return preparer's request for consent to disclose tax return information, including an SSN, from a taxpayer filing a return in the Form 1040 series, for example, Form 1040, Form 1040NR, Form 1040A, or Form 1040EZ. Also, the regulations clarify that a tax return preparer located outside of the United States does not include a tax return preparer who is continuously and regularly employed in the United States or any territory or possession of the United States and who is in a temporary travel status outside of the United States. This clarification is necessary to avoid disruption of the performance of the duties of employees of tax return preparers based in the United States who are on a temporary travel assignment in a location outside of the United States. The Treasury Department and IRS also conclude that the addition of the exception in § 301.7216-3T(b)(4)(ii) appropriately balances concerns regarding safeguarding of sensitive tax return information and identity theft against the tax return preparers' needs for disclosing SSNs and a taxpayer's right to control access to his or her SSN. In a separate notice of proposed rulemaking published with these temporary regulations, the Treasury Department and IRS request comments on the proposed rules, as well as the guidance regarding the requirements for an adequate data protection safeguard in Section 4.07 of Revenue Procedure 2008-35. Special Analyses It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations because they are interpretive regulations. Because these regulations are necessary to provide tax return preparers and taxpayers with immediate guidance on the application of the section 7216 rules regarding SSN masking requirements, particularly in light of the January 1, 2009 applicability date provided by the recently promulgated section 7216 regulations contained in TD 9375, and as these regulations are intended to provide a limited exception to, and relief from, the rule requiring SSN masking in all instances where tax return information is disclosed to a tax return preparer located outside of the United States and its territories and possessions, good cause would otherwise exist for dispensing with notice and public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c). For applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), refer to the Special Analyses section of the preamble to the cross-referenced notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the **Federal Register** . Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, these temporary regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business. Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Lawrence E. Mack, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301 Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is amended as follows: PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 301 is amended by adding an entry in numerical order to read as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. * * * Section 301.7216-3T also issued under 26 U.S.C. 7216. * * * **Par. 2.** Section 301.7216-3 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: § 301.7216-3 Disclosure or use permitted only with the taxpayer's consent.

(b)* * *

(4)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 301.7216-3T(b)(4). **Par. 3.** Section 301.7216-3T is added to read as follows: § 301.7216-3T Disclosure or use permitted only with the taxpayer's consent (temporary).

(a)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 301.7216-3(a).

(b)*Timing requirements and limitations* —(1) through

(3)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 301.7216-3(b)(1) through (3).

(4)*No consent to the disclosure of a taxpayer's social security number to a return preparer outside of the United States with respect to a taxpayers filing a return in the Form 1040 Series* —(i) *In general.* Except as provided in paragraph

(ii)of this section, a tax return preparer located within the United States, including any territory or possession of the United States, may not obtain consent to disclose the taxpayer's social security number

(SSN)with respect to taxpayers filing a return in the Form 1040 Series, for example, Form 1040, Form 1040NR, Form 1040A, or Form 1040EZ, to a tax return preparer located outside of the United States or any territory or possession of the United States. Thus, if a tax return preparer located within the United States (including any territory or possession of the United States) obtains consent from an individual taxpayer to disclose tax return information to another tax return preparer located outside of the United States, as provided under §§ 301.7216-2(c) and 301.7216-2(d), the tax return preparer located in the United States may not disclose the taxpayer's SSN, and the tax return preparer must redact or otherwise mask the taxpayer's SSN before the tax return information is disclosed outside of the United States. If a tax return preparer located within the United States initially receives or obtains a taxpayer's SSN from another tax return preparer located outside of the United States, however, the tax return preparer within the United States may, without consent, retransmit the taxpayer's SSN to the tax return preparer located outside the United States that initially provided the SSN to the tax return preparer located within the United States. For purposes of this section, a tax return preparer located outside of the United States does not include a tax return preparer who is continuously and regularly employed in the United States or any territory or possession of the United States and who is in a temporary travel status outside of the United States.

(ii)*Exception.* A tax return preparer located within the United States, including any territory or possession of the United States, may obtain consent to disclose the taxpayer's SSN to a tax return preparer located outside of the United States or any territory or possession of the United States where the tax return preparer within the United States discloses the SSN to a tax return preparer outside of the United States through the use of an adequate data protection safeguard as defined by the Secretary in guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b) of this chapter) and verifies the maintenance of the adequate data protection safeguards in the request for the taxpayer's consent pursuant to the specifications described by the Secretary in guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. (b)(5) and

(c)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 301.7216-3(b)(5) and (c).

(d)*Effective/applicability date.* This section applies to disclosures or uses of tax return information occurring on or after January 1, 2009. The applicability of this section expires on or before January 1, 2012. Linda E. Stiff, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: June 25, 2008. Eric Solomon, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy). [FR Doc. E8-15046 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [USCG-2008-0207] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Potomac River, Oxon Hill, MD and Alexandria, VA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the regulations governing the operation of the new Woodrow Wilson Memorial (I-95) Bridge, mile 103.8, across Potomac River between Alexandria, Virginia and Oxon Hill, Maryland. This action is necessary to finalize construction of the drawbridge. DATES: This temporary rule is effective from July 2, 2008 to March 1, 2009. ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2008-0207 and are available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* . This material is also available for inspection or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and the Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, call Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, at

(757)398-6222. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On April 18, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Potomac River, Oxon Hill, MD and Alexandria, VA” in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 21090). We received two e-mails commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . While construction continues, this rule will allow the drawbridge to remain closed-to-navigation each day from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. until and including March 1, 2009. Background and Purpose On March 5, 2008, we published a notice of temporary deviation from the regulations entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Potomac River, Between Maryland and Virginia” in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 13127), which ended on May 30, 2008. The Maryland State Highway Administration and the Virginia Department of Transportation, co-owners of the drawbridge, requested an extension of the aforementioned temporary deviation for a longer period of time in an effort to minimize the potential for major regional traffic impacts and consequences during bridge openings while construction continues. Bridge owners requested that the drawbridge not be available for openings for vessels each day between the hours of 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. through Sunday, March 1, 2009 or until the bridge is properly commissioned, whichever comes first. Construction will continue during this time period and the normal vehicular traffic pattern with five lanes operating in each direction is not anticipated until near the end of the time period. From a river-user standpoint, the coordinators for the construction of the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project have received no requests from boaters or mariners to open during the 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. timeframe since the first temporary deviation was issued in late June 2006. In fact, no requests have been received for an opening of the new bridge at all since July 3, 2006. Finally, the coordinators have received no complaints on the 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. restriction. This temporary rule will affect only vessels with mast heights of 75 feet or greater. Furthermore, all operators of affected vessels with mast heights greater than 75 feet will be able to request an opening of the drawbridge in the “off-peak” vehicle traffic hours (evening and overnight) in accordance with 33 CFR 117.255(a). Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard received two comments by e-mail to the NPRM. One respondent stated that this temporary change of the regulation will have minimal effect on their Potomac River operation and the delivery of the jet fuel barge can be scheduled around the daily planned closure. The other respondent indicated that their tugs did not need to open the drawbridge; the vertical clearance is sufficient and did not foresee any issues as long as they can still use the channel. Based on the comments received, we are issuing a temporary rule without substantive change from the NPRM. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is temporarily amending 33 CFR § 117.255 by inserting new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (a)(4)(iv), which allow the draw of the Woodrow Wilson Memorial (I-95) Bridge, at mile 103.8, between Alexandria, Virginia and Oxon Hill, Maryland to remain closed between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. through March 1, 2009. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We reached this conclusion based on the fact that this temporary change will have only a minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the bridge. All operators of affected vessels with mast heights greater than 75 feet will be able to request an opening of the drawbridge in the “off-peak” vehicle traffic hours (evening and overnight) in accordance with 33 CFR 117.255(a), and mariners can plan their trips in accordance with the scheduled bridge openings to minimize delays. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule only adds minimal restrictions to the movement of navigation, all operators of affected vessels with mast heights greater than 75 feet will be able to request an opening of the drawbridge in the “off-peak” vehicle traffic hours (evening and overnight) in accordance with 33 CFR 117.255(a), and mariners who plan their transits in accordance with the scheduled bridge openings can minimize delay. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. From July 2, 2008 to March 1, 2009, in § 117.255 add new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (a)(4)(iv) to read as follows: § 117.255 Potomac River.

(a)* * *

(2)* * *

(iii)From July 2, 2008 to March 1, 2009, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., the draw need not be opened.

(4)* * *

(iv)From July 2, 2008 to March 1, 2009, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., the draw need not be opened. Dated: June 19, 2008. Fred M. Rosa, Jr., Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-14954 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [USCG-2008-0592] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Thames River, New London, CT AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the Amtrak Bridge, mile 3.0, across the Thames River at New London, Connecticut. While this temporary deviation is in effect, the bridge may remain in the closed position for three days and operate on a temporary operating schedule for nine days. DATES: This deviation is effective from June 28, 2008 through July 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0592 and are available online at *http://www.regulations.gov.* They are also available for inspection or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at

(212)668-7165. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Amtrak Bridge, across the Thames River at mile 3.0, at New London, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 30 feet at mean high water and 33 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.224. The waterway has seasonal recreational vessels, fishing vessels, and U.S. Navy vessels of various sizes. The U.S. Navy and other marine facilities were notified regarding this deviation and no objections were received. The owner of the bridge, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), requested a temporary deviation to facilitate rehabilitation construction at the bridge. Under this temporary deviation the Amtrak Bridge, mile 3.0, across the Thames River at New London may remain in the closed position from June 28, 2008 through June 30, 2008. From July 1, 2008, through July 9, 2008, the draw may remain in the closed position; except that, the draw shall open for the passage of vessel traffic during the following time periods: Monday through Thursday from: 5 a.m. to 5:40 a.m.; 11:20 a.m. to 11:55 a.m.; 3:35 p.m. to 4:15 p.m.; and 8:30 p.m. to 8:55 p.m. Friday and Saturday from: 8:30 a.m. to 9:10 a.m.; 12:35 p.m. to 1:05 p.m.; 3:40 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.; 5:35 p.m. to 6:05 p.m.; and 7:35 p.m. to 8:40 p.m. Sunday from: 8:30 a.m. to 9:20 a.m.; 11:35 a.m. to 12:15 p.m.; 1:30 p.m. to 1:55 p.m.; 6:30 p.m. to 7:10 p.m.; and 8:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. The draw shall open on signal at any time for U.S. Navy submarines and their associated escort vessels. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may do so at all times. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: June 25, 2008. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-15026 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0559] RIN 1625-AA08 Bellingham Bay, Bellingham, WA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Bellingham Bay, Bellingham, WA Safety Zone in Bellingham Bay from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4th, 2008. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of participants and spectators during the Bellingham Bay, Bellingham, WA (Haggens 4th of July Blast). During the enforcement period, entry into the Safety Zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound, Seattle, WA. DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1304 will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4th, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ensign Heidi Bevis, c/o Captain of the Port Puget Sound, Coast Guard Sector Seattle, 1519 Alaskan Way South, Seattle, WA 98134 at

(206)217-6002. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Bellingham Bay, Bellingham, WA Fireworks Show, 33 CFR 165.1304 on July 4th, 2008 from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. This safety zone provides for a regulated area to protect spectators. Movements are regulated for all vessels in the area as described under 33 CFR 165.1306 or unless otherwise regulated by the COTP or his designee. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this safety zone. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1304, all waters of Bellingham Bay, Washington, bounded by a circle with a radius of 1,000 yards centered on the fireworks launching site located on the Georgia Pacific Lagoon Seawall at position latitude 48°44′56″ N, longitude 122°29′40″ W, including the entrances to the I & J Street Waterway and the Whatcom Creek Waterway. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1304(c) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). Dated: June 18, 2008. Stephen P. Metruck, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Puget Sound. [FR Doc. E8-15029 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0561] RIN 1625-AA08 Lake Union, Seattle, WA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Lake Union, Seattle, WA Safety Zone in Lake Union from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4th, 2008. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of participants and spectators during the Lake Union, Seattle, WA (Ivar's Fireworks Show). During the enforcement period, entry into the Safety Zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound, Seattle, WA. The Captain of the Port may establish transit lanes along the east and west shorelines of Lake Union and may allow boaters to transit north and south through the safety zone in these lanes. If established, these transit lanes will remain open until 10 p.m. and then be closed until the end of the fireworks display. DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1306 will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4th, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ensign Heidi Bevis, c/o Captain of the Port Puget Sound, Coast Guard Sector Seattle, 1519 Alaskan Way South, Seattle, WA 98134 at

(206)217-6002. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Lake Union, Seattle, WA Fireworks Show, 33 CFR 165.1306 on July 4th, 2008, from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. This safety zone provides for a regulated area to protect spectators. Movements are regulated for all vessels in the area as described under 33 CFR § 165.1306 or unless otherwise regulated by the COTP or his designee. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this safety zone. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1306, all portions of the waters of Lake Union bounded by the following coordinates: Latitude 47°38′32″ N, Longitude 122°20′34″ W; thence to Latitude 47°38′32″ N, Longitude 122°19′48″ W; thence to Latitude 47°38′10″ N, Longitude 122°20′24″ W; thence returning to the origin. This safety zone begins 1,000 feet south of Gas Works Park and encompasses all waters from east to west for 2,500 feet. Floating markers will be placed by the sponsor of the fireworks demonstration to delineate the boundaries of the safety zone. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1306(c) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). Dated: June 18, 2008. Stephen P. Metruck, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Puget Sound. [FR Doc. E8-15032 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0560] RIN 1625-AA08 Elliot Bay, Seattle, WA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the annual Elliot Bay Seattle, WA safety zone in Elliot Bay from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4th, 2008. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of participants and spectators during the Ivar's Spectacular Fireworks show. During the enforcement period, entry into, transit through, mooring, or anchoring within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representatives. DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1307 will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4th, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ensign Heidi Bevis, c/o Captain of the Port Puget Sound, Coast Guard Sector Seattle, 1519 Alaskan Way South, Seattle, WA 98134 at

(206)217-6002. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for Elliot Bay, Seattle, WA Fireworks Show, 33 CFR 165.1307 from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4th, 2008. This safety zone provides for a regulated area to protect spectators while providing unobstructed vessel traffic lanes to ensure timely arrival of emergency response craft. Movements are regulated for all vessels in the area as described under 33 CFR 165.1307 or unless otherwise regulated by the COTP or his designee. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this safety zone. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1307, all waters of Elliott Bay within a box bounded by the points: 47°37′22″ N, 122°22′06″; 47°37′06″ N, 122°21′45″; 47°36′54″ N, 122°22′05″; 47°37′08″ N, 122°22′27″; thence returning to the origin. The safety zone resembles a square centered around the barge from which the fireworks will be launched and begins 100 yards off the shore of Myrtle Edwards Park. Floating markers will be placed by the sponsor of the fireworks display to delineate the boundaries of the safety zone. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1307(c) and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). Dated: June 18, 2008. Stephen P. Metruck, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Puget Sound. [FR Doc. E8-15038 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0470] RIN 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area and Safety Zone, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary regulated navigation area and safety zone on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal near Romeoville, IL. This regulated navigation area and safety zone places navigational and operational restrictions on all vessels transiting through the electrical dispersal barrier IIA. DATES: Amendments for §§ 165.923 and 165.T09-0470 are effective from June 30, 2008, until August 15, 2008; and the amendment for § 165.T09-4001 is effective from 7 a.m., July 14, 2008, until 5 p.m., August 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2008-0470 and are available online at *www.regulations.gov.* The material is also available for inspection and copying at two places: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and the Ninth Coast Guard District, Room 2069, 1240 East 9th Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44199, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this temporary rule call CDR Tim Cummins, Deputy Prevention Division, Ninth Coast Guard District, telephone 216-902-6045. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 12, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)entitled Regulated Navigation Area and Safety Zone, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL, in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 33337). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of persons and vessels, and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. Background and Purpose The electrodes on the demonstration electrical dispersal barrier I located between mile markers 296.1 and 296.7 of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal are beginning to fail. This barrier was constructed to prevent Asian Carp from entering Lake Michigan through the Illinois River system by generating a low-voltage electric field across the canal. The Army Corps of Engineers intends to shutdown barrier I and begin the process of replacing the barrier electrodes which run across the bottom of the canal. Divers will be in the water and a barge-mounted crane will be operating during maintenance operations to barrier I. Electrical dispersal barrier IIA located on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal 270 feet south of mile marker 296.1 to mile marker 296.7 will be in operation while repairs are being made to demonstration electrical dispersal barrier I. Barrier IIA will operate continuously for a two week period before taking barrier I off line for electrode replacement. Electrical dispersal barrier IIA generates a more powerful electric field than barrier I over a larger area within the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The Coast Guard and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted field tests to ensure the continued safe navigation of commercial and recreational traffic across the barrier; however, results indicated an arcing risk and hazardous electrical discharges as vessels transited the barrier posing a serious risk to navigation through the barrier. To mitigate these risks, navigational and operational restrictions will be placed on all vessels transiting through the vicinity. Until the potential electrical hazards can be rectified, the Coast Guard will require vessels transiting the regulated navigation area to adhere to specified operational and navigational requirements. Discussion of Comment and Changes No comments were received and no changes were made. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based on the fact that traffic will still be able to transit through the regulated navigation area and the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the safety zone. The safety zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones' activation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small: the owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal from June 30, 2008 to August 15, 2008. This regulated navigation area and safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Vessel traffic will be able to transit through the regulated navigation area. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will contract bow boat assistance for barge tows containing one or more Red Flag barges. Vessel traffic will only be limited for one five hour period and one four hour period each day the safety zone is in effect. In the event this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that these regulations and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this proposed rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedure; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded, under the Instruction, that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This temporary rule establishes a regulated navigation area and safety zone and as such is covered by this paragraph. A final environmental analysis checklist and a final categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. § 165.923 [Suspended] 2. Section 165.923 is suspended from June 30, 2008 until August 15, 2008. 3. A new temporary § 165.T09-0470 is added to read as follows: § 165.T09-0470 Temporary Regulated Navigation Area, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL.

(a)*Regulated Navigation Area.* The following is a Regulated Navigation Area: All waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL, 270 feet south of the Romeo Road Bridge Mile Marker 296.1 to the south side of the Aerial Pipeline Mile Marker 296.7.

(b)*Effective period.* This section is effective from June 30, 2008 until August 15, 2008.

(c)*Definitions.* The following definitions apply to this section: *Designated representative* means the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan. *Red Flag* barges means barges containing hazardous materials as identified by the following commodity codes:

(i)01 (Empty with previous hazardous material);

(ii)20 (Petroleum and Petroleum Products);

(iii)21 (Crude Petroleum);

(iv)22 (Gasoline, Jet Fuel and Kerosene);

(v)23 (Distillate, Residual and other Fuel Oils; Lubricating Oils and Greases);

(vi)24 (Petroleum Pitches, Coke Asphalt, Naphtha and Solvents);

(vii)30 (Chemicals and Related Products);

(viii)31 (Fertilizer-Nitrogenous, Potassic, Phosphatic and Others); and

(ix)32 (Organic Industrial Chemicals (Crude Products) from Coal, Tar, Petroleum and Natural Gas, Dyes, Organic Pigment Dying and Tanning Materials, Alcohols, Benzene; Inorganic Industrial Chemicals (Sodium Hydroxide); Radioactive and Associated Materials; Drugs)).

(d)*Regulations.*

(1)The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.13 apply.

(2)All up-bound and down-bound barge tows that contain one or more red flag barges transiting through the regulated navigation area must be assisted by a bow boat until the entire tow is clear of the expanded regulated navigation area boundaries.

(i)Information on how to contact the contractor for bow boat assistance will be provided to the public in a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

(ii)Towing assistance will be provided from at least one mile above the regulated navigation area to as least one mile below the regulated navigation area.

(3)All vessels are prohibited from loitering in the regulated navigation area.

(4)Vessels may enter the regulated navigation area for the sole purpose of transiting to the other side and must maintain headway throughout the transit.

(5)All personnel on open decks must wear a Coast Guard approved Type I personal flotation device while in the regulated navigation area.

(6)Vessels may not moor or lay up on the right or left descending banks of the regulated navigation area.

(7)Towboats may not make or break tows in the regulated navigation area.

(8)Vessels may not pass (meet or overtake) in the regulated navigation area and must make a SECURITE call when approaching the barrier to announce intentions and work out passing arrangements on either side.

(9)Commercial tows transiting the regulated navigation area must be made up with wire rope to ensure electrical connectivity between all segments of the tow.

(e)*Compliance.* All persons and vessels must comply with this section and any additional instructions of the Ninth Coast Guard District Commander, or his designated representative. 4. A new temporary § 165.T09-4001 is added to read as follows: § 165.T09-4001 Safety Zone; Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL.

(a)*Safety Zone.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: All waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal from mile marker 296.1 to 296.7.

(b)*Effective period.* This regulation is effective from 7 a.m., July 14, 2008 to 5 p.m., August 9, 2008. The safety zone will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on July 14, 2008 through August 9, 2008.

(c)*Regulations.*

(1)In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his on-scene representative, for paragraph

(a)of this section.

(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his on-scene representative, for paragraph

(a)of this section.

(3)The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf for paragraph

(a)of this section. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative. Dated: June 24, 2008. David R. Callahan, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-14993 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0511] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Red, White, and Blue Fireworks, Incline Village, NV AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of Lake Tahoe for the loading, transport, and launching of fireworks to celebrate Independence Day. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of participants and spectators from the dangers associated with the pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on June 28, 2008, through 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0511 and are available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* . They are also available for inspection or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, 1 Yerba Buena Island, San Francisco, California, 94130, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this temporary rule, call Lieutenant Junior Grade Sheral Richardson, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at

(415)399-7436. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA)(5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)with respect to this rule because the event would occur before the rulemaking process was complete. Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Any delay in the effective date of this rule would expose mariners to the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in the fireworks display. Background and Purpose The Red, White, and Blue Tahoe organization will sponsor a fireworks display on July 4, 2008, in the waters of Lake Tahoe. The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes to celebrate Independence Day. This safety zone is issued to establish a temporary restricted area in Lake Tahoe around the fireworks launch barge during loading of the pyrotechnics, during the transit of the barge to the display location, and during the fireworks display. This restricted area around the launch barge is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with the pyrotechnics on the fireworks barge. The Coast Guard has granted the event sponsor a marine event permit for the fireworks display. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of the Lake Tahoe. During the loading of the fireworks barge, while the barge is being towed to the display location, and until the start of the fireworks display, the temporary safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. From 9 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008, the area to which the temporary safety zone applies will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 1,000 feet. Loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barges is scheduled to commence at 8 a.m. on June 28, 2008, and will take place at Obexer Marina in Homewood, CA. Towing of the barges from Obexer Marina to the display location is scheduled to take place between 7:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. on July 3, 2008. From 3 p.m. on July 3, 2008, until the conclusion of the fireworks show, at 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008, the barges will be anchored approximately 700-800 feet off the shoreline of Incline Village in position 39°14′16″ N, 119°53′59″ W (NAD 83). The fireworks show is scheduled to commence between the hours of 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. on July 4, 2008. The fireworks display is scheduled to last approximately thirty minutes. The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks barge while the fireworks are loaded, during the transit of the fireworks barge, and until the conclusion of the scheduled display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels a safe distance away from the fireworks barge to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect owners and operators of pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for several reasons:

(i)Vessel traffic can pass safely around the area,

(ii)vessels engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing have ample space outside of the affected portion of Lake Tahoe to engage in these activities,

(iii)this rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and

(iv)the maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded, under the instruction, that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final environmental analysis checklist and a final categorical exclusion determination will be available in the docket under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 165-T11-049 to read as follows: § 165-T11-049 Safety Zone; Red, White, and Blue Fireworks, Incline Village, NV.

(a)*Location* . This temporary safety zone is established for the waters of Lake Tahoe.

(1)Loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barges will take place at Obexer Marina in Homewood, CA.

(2)Towing of the barges from Obexer Marina to the display location.

(3)The position the barges will be anchored in, and the launch site, is approximately 700-800 feet off the shoreline of Incline Village in position 39°14′16″ N, 119°53′59″ W (NAD 83).

(b)*Definitions* . As used in this section, designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port San Francisco

(COTP)in the enforcement of the safety zone.

(c)*Regulations* .

(1)Under the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(2)The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(3)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-16 or the 24-hour Command Center via telephone at

(415)399-3547.

(d)*Effective period* . This section is effective from 8 a.m. on June 28, 2008, through 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008. Dated: June 24, 2008. D.J. Swatland, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, San Francisco. [FR Doc. E8-14956 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0504] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Peninsula Celebration Association Annual Fireworks Spectacular, Redwood City, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone in the navigable waters of Redwood Creek for the loading, transport, and launching of fireworks used during the Peninsula Celebration Association Annual Fireworks Spectacular Display to be held on July 4, 2008. This safety zone is intended to prohibit vessels and people from entering into or remaining within the regulated areas in order to ensure the safety of participants and spectators. DATES: This rule is effective from 9 a.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0504 and are available online at *http://www.regulations.gov.* They are also available for inspection or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, 1 Yerba Buena Island, San Francisco, California 94130, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this temporary rule, call Lieutenant Junior Grade Sheral Richardson, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at

(NPRM)with respect to this rule because the event would occur before the rulemaking process was complete. Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Any delay in the effective date of this rule would expose mariners to the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in the fireworks display. Background and Purpose Peninsula Celebration Association will sponsor a fireworks display on July 4, 2008 in the waters of Redwood Creek near the Port of Redwood City. The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes. This safety zone is issued to establish a temporary restricted area in Redwood Creek around the fireworks launch barge during loading of the pyrotechnics, during the transit of the barge to the display location, and during the fireworks display. This restricted area around the launch barge is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with the pyrotechnics on the fireworks barge. The Coast Guard has granted the event sponsor a marine event permit for the fireworks display. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of Redwood Creek near Pier 50 and in Redwood Creek. During the loading of the fireworks barge, while the barge is being towed to the display location, and until the start of the fireworks display, the temporary safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. Fifteen minutes prior to and during the fifteen minute fireworks display, the area to which the temporary safety zone applies will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 1,000 feet. Loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge is scheduled to commence at 9 a.m. on July 4, 2008, and will take place at Pier 50 in San Francisco. Towing of the barge from Pier 50 to the display location is scheduled to take place between 12 p.m. and 8 p.m. on July 4, 2008. During the fireworks display, scheduled to commence at approximately 9:30 p.m., the fireworks barge will be located approximately 600 feet off Wharf #5 in the Port of Redwood City in approximate position 37°30.35′ N, 122°12.85′ W (NAD 83). Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect owners and operators of pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for several reasons:

(i)Vessel traffic can pass safely around the area,

(ii)vessels engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing have ample space outside of the effected portion of Redwood Creek to engage in these activities,

(iii)this rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded, under the Instruction, that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final environmental analysis checklist and a final categorical exclusion determination will be available in the docket under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 165.T11-054 to read as follows: § 165.T11-054 Safety Zone; Peninsula Celebration Association Annual Fireworks Spectacular, Redwood City, CA.

(a)*Location.* This temporary safety zone is established for the waters of Redwood Creek surrounding a barge used as a launch platform for a fireworks display.

(1)Loading of pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge will take place at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA.

(2)Towing of the barge from Pier 50 to the display location is scheduled to take place between 12:01 p.m. and 8 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(3)The fireworks barge will be located approximately 600 feet off Wharf #5 in the Port of Redwood City in approximate position 37°30.35′N, 122°12.85′ W (NAD 83).

(b)*Definitions.* As used in this section, designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port San Francisco

(COTP)in the enforcement of the safety zone.

(c)*Regulations.*

(1)Under the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(2)The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(415)399-3547.

(d)This rule is effective from 9 a.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2008. Dated: June 24, 2008. D.J. Swatland, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, San Francisco. [FR Doc. E8-15059 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0589] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Olcott, NY Fireworks, Lake Ontario, Olcott, NY AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Ontario, Olcott, NY. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Ontario during the July 3, 2008 Olcott, NY fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. DATES: This rule is effective from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0589 and are available online at *http://www.regulations.gov.* They are also available for inspection or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann Boulevard, Buffalo, NY 14203 between 9:30 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have further questions on this temporary rule, call Commander Joseph Boudrow, Prevention Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, at 716-843-9572. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA)(5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when an agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under U.S.C. 553 (b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)with respect to this rule because the permit application was not received in time to publish a NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. Background and Purpose This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a fireworks display. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, and the explosive hazards of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launches proximate to watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks. Discussion of Rule A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading and launching of a fireworks display in conjunction with the Olcott, NY fireworks display. The fireworks display will occur between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. on July 3, 2008. The safety zone for the fireworks will encompass all waters of Lake Ontario within a 600 FT Radius of position 43°20′24″ N, 078°43′09″ W, located on the West Federal pier. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones' activation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Ontario, Olcott, NY between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. on July 3, 2008. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only one hour for one event. Vessel traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the event. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Buffalo to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that these regulations and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this Rule or options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedure; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded, under the Instruction that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This event establishes a safety zone therefore paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction applies. A final environmental analysis check list and a final categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. A new temporary § 165.T09-0589 is added as follows: § 165.T09-0589 Safety zone; Olcott, NY Fireworks, Lake Ontario, Olcott, NY.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: All waters of Lake Ontario, Olcott, NY, within a 600 ft Radius of position 43°20′24″ N, 078°43′09″ W, located on the West Federal Pier. (DATUM: NAD 83).

(b)*Effective period.* This zone will be effective from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 3, 2008.

(c)*Regulations.*

(1)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative.

(3)The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.

(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative. Dated: June 20, 2008. S.J. Ferguson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo. [FR Doc. E8-15058 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0494] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; City of Berkeley Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Berkeley, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the launching of fireworks being sponsored by the City of Berkeley. The fireworks display will be held on July 4, 2008, on the Berkeley Municipal Pier. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of participants and spectators from the dangers associated with the pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. DATES: This rule is effective from 11 a.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0494 and are available online at *http://www.regulations.gov.* They are also available for inspection or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, 1 Yerba Buena Island, San Francisco, California, 94130, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this temporary rule, call Lieutenant Junior Grade Sheral Richardson, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at

(NPRM)with respect to this rule because the event would occur before the rulemaking process was complete. Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Any delay in the effective date of this rule would expose mariners to the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in the fireworks display. Background and Purpose The City of Berkeley is sponsoring a brief fireworks display on July 4, 2008. The fireworks show is meant for entertainment purposes and will be used to celebrate Independence Day. The fireworks display is scheduled to launch at 9:30 p.m., on July 4, 2008, and last thirty minutes. The safety zone is being issued to establish a temporary regulated area on San Francisco Bay around the fireworks launch site. The safety zone around the launch site is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with the pyrotechnics on the fireworks. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on specified waters of San Francisco Bay. The safety zone will apply to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks site within a radius of 500 feet. The fireworks launch site is on the Berkeley Municipal Pier and will be located in position 37°51′34″ N, 122°19′37″ W (NAD83). The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict general navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks launch site. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone. This safety zone is needed to keep spectators and vessels a safe distance away from the fireworks launch site to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect owners and operators of pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for several reasons:

(i)vessel traffic can pass safely around the area,

(ii)vessels engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing have ample space outside of the effected portion of San Francisco Bay to engage in these activities,

(iii)this rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded, under the Instruction, that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final environmental analysis checklist and a final categorical exclusion determination will be available in the docket under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 165.T11-047 to read as follows: § 165.T11-047 Safety Zone; City of Berkeley Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Berkeley, CA.

(a)*Location.* This temporary safety zone is established for the waters of San Francisco Bay surrounding the launch site for the fireworks display, taking place on the Berkeley Municipal Pier located in position 37°51′34″ N, 122°19′37″ W (NAD 83).

(COTP)in the enforcement of the safety zone.

(c)*Regulations.*

(1)Under the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(2)The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(415)399-3547.

(d)*Effective period.* This section is effective from 11 a.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2008. Dated: June 21, 2008. D.J. Swatland, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Francisco. [FR Doc. E8-14957 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0509] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Pittsburg, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone in the navigable waters of the New York Slough for the loading, transport, and launching of fireworks used during the Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce Fireworks Display to be held on July 4, 2008. This safety zone is intended to prohibit vessels and people from entering into or remaining within the regulated areas in order to ensure the safety of participants and spectators. DATES: This rule is effective from 9 a.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0509 and are available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* . They are also available for inspection or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, 1 Yerba Buena Island, San Francisco, California 94130, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this temporary rule, call Lieutenant Junior Grade Sheral Richardson, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at

(NPRM)with respect to this rule because the event would occur before the rulemaking process was complete. Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register.** Any delay in the effective date of this rule would expose mariners to the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in the fireworks display. Background and Purpose The Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce will sponsor a fireworks display on July 4, 2008, in the waters of New York Slough. The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes. This safety zone is issued to establish a temporary restricted area in New York Slough around the fireworks launch barge during loading of the pyrotechnics, during the transit of the barge to the display location, and during the fireworks display. This restricted area around the launch barge is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with the pyrotechnics on the fireworks barge. The Coast Guard has granted the event sponsor a marine event permit for the fireworks display. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone in the navigable waters of New York Slough near Pittsburg Marina. During the loading of the fireworks barge, while the barge is being towed to the display location, and until the start of the fireworks display, the safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. Fifteen minutes prior to and during the 20-minute fireworks display, the area to which the temporary safety zone applies will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 1,000 feet. Loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge is scheduled to commence at 9 a.m. on July 4, 2008, and will take place at Pier 50 in San Francisco. Towing of the barge from Pier 50 to the display location is scheduled to take place between 1 p.m. and 8 p.m. on July 4, 2008. During the fireworks display, scheduled to start at approximately 9:30 p.m., the fireworks barge will be located approximately 400 feet from Pittsburg Marina on the New York Slough in position 38°02.42′ N, 121°52.97′ W (NAD 83). The effect of the temporary, moving safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks barge while the fireworks are loaded at Pier 50, during the transit of the fireworks barge, and until the conclusion of the scheduled display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels a safe distance away from the fireworks barge to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect owners and operators of pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for several reasons:

(i)Vessel traffic can pass safely around the area,

(ii)vessels engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing have ample space outside of the effected portion of New York Slough to engage in these activities,

(iii)this rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded, under the Instruction, that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final environmental analysis checklist and a final categorical exclusion determination will be available in the docket under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 165-T11-057 to read as follows: § 165-T11-057 Safety Zone; Pittsburg Chamber of Commerce Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Pittsburg, CA.

(a)*Location* . This temporary safety zone is established for the waters of New York Slough surrounding a barge used as a launch platform for a fireworks display.

(1)Loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge will take place at Pier 50 in San Francisco.

(2)Towing of the barge from Pier 50 to the launch position.

(3)During the fireworks display, scheduled to start at approximately 9:30 p.m., the fireworks barge will be located approximately 400 feet from Pittsburg Marina on the New York Slough in position 38°02.42′ N, 121°52.97′ W (NAD 83).

(COTP)in the enforcement of the safety zone.

(c)*Regulations* .

(1)Under the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(2)The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(415)399-3547.

(d)This rule is effective from 9 a.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2008. Dated: June 23, 2008. D.J. Swatland, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Francisco. [FR Doc. E8-14988 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0516] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Tahoe City Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Tahoe City, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of Lake Tahoe for the loading, transport, and launching of fireworks to celebrate Independence Day. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of participants and spectators from the dangers associated with the pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. DATES: This rule is effective from 9 a.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0516 and are available online at *www.regulations.gov* . They are also available for inspection or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, 1 Yerba Buena Island, San Francisco, California 94130, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this temporary rule, call Lieutenant Junior Grade Sheral Richardson, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at

(NPRM)with respect to this rule because the event would occur before the rulemaking process was complete. Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Any delay in the effective date of this rule would expose mariners to the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in the fireworks display. Background and Purpose Rotary Club of Tahoe City will sponsor a fireworks display on July 4, 2008, in the waters of Lake Tahoe. The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes to celebrate Independence Day. This safety zone is issued to establish a temporary restricted area in Lake Tahoe around the fireworks launch barge during loading of the pyrotechnics, during the transit of the barge to the display location, and during the fireworks display. This restricted area around the launch barge is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with the pyrotechnics on the fireworks barge. The Coast Guard has granted the event sponsor a marine event permit for the fireworks display. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of the Lake Tahoe. During the loading of the fireworks barge, while the barge is being towed to the display location, and until the start of the fireworks display, the temporary safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. From 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 4, 2008, the area to which the temporary safety zone applies will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 1,000 feet. Loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge is scheduled to commence at 9 a.m. on July 4, 2008, and will take place at Obexer's Boat Company, Homewood, California. Towing of the barge from Obexer's Boat Company to the display location is scheduled to take place between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. on July 4, 2008. During the fireworks display, scheduled to commence at approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008, the fireworks barge will be located approximately 600-700 feet off of the shore line of Tahoe City in position 39°10′00″ N, 120°08′00″ W. The fireworks display is scheduled to last approximately thirty minutes. The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks barge while the fireworks are loaded, during the transit of the fireworks barge, and until the conclusion of the scheduled display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels a safe distance away from the fireworks barge to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect owners and operators of pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for several reasons:

(i)Vessel traffic can pass safely around the area,

(ii)vessels engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing have ample space outside of the effected portion of Lake Tahoe to engage in these activities,

(iii)this rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and

(iv)the maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded, under the Instruction, that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final environmental analysis checklist and a final categorical exclusion determination will be available in the docket under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 165-T11-061 to read as follows: § 165-T11-061 Safety Zone; Tahoe City Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Tahoe City, CA.

(a)*Location* . This temporary safety zone is established for the waters of Lake Tahoe.

(1)Loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barges will take place at Obexer Marina in Homewood, California.

(2)Towing of the barges from Obexer Marina to the display location.

(3)During the fireworks display, scheduled to commence at approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008, the fireworks barge will be located approximately 600-700 feet off of the shore line of Tahoe City in po sition 39°10′00″ N, 120°08′00″ W. These coordinates are based upon NAD 83.

(COTP)in the enforcement of the safety zone.

(c)*Regulations* .

(1)Under the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(2)The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(415)399-3547.

(d)*Effective period* . This section is effective from 9 a.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2008. Dated: June 20, 2008. D.J. Swatland, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, San Francisco. [FR Doc. E8-14990 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0502] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; City of Martinez Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Martinez, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the launching of fireworks being sponsored by the City of Martinez. The fireworks display will be held on July 4, 2008, on the shoreline of Carquinez Straits. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of participants and spectators from the dangers associated with the pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0502 and are available online at *www.regulations.gov* . They are also available for inspection or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, 1 Yerba Buena Island, San Francisco, California 94130, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this temporary rule, call Lieutenant Junior Grade Sheral Richardson, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at

(NPRM)with respect to this rule because the event would occur before the rulemaking process was complete. Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Any delay in the effective date of this rule would expose mariners to the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in the fireworks display. Background and Purpose The City of Martinez is sponsoring a brief fireworks display on July 4, 2008. The fireworks show is meant for entertainment purposes and will be used to celebrate Independence Day. The fireworks display is scheduled to launch at 9:30 p.m., on July 4, 2008, and last twenty minutes. The safety zone is being issued to establish a temporary regulated area on Carquinez Straits around the fireworks launch site. The safety zone around the launch site is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with the pyrotechnics on the fireworks. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on specified waters of Carquinez Straits, for the City of Martinez Fourth of July Fireworks Display. The safety zone will apply to the navigable waters around the fireworks site within a radius of 500 feet. The fireworks launch site is on the shoreline of Martinez and will be located in position 38°01′32″ N, 122°08′24″ W (NAD83). The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict general navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks launch site. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone. This safety zone is needed to keep spectators and vessels a safe distance away from the fireworks launch site to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect owners and operators of pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for several reasons:

(i)Vessel traffic can pass safely around the area,

(ii)vessels engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing have ample space outside of the effected portion of Carquinez Straits to engage in these activities,

(iii)this rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and

(iv)the maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded, under the Instruction, that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final environmental analysis checklist and a final categorical exclusion determination will be available in the docket under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 165-T11-048 to read as follows: § 165-T11-048 Safety Zone; City of Martinez Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Martinez, CA.

(a)*Location.* The temporary safety zone is on specified waters of Carquinez Straits. The safety zone will apply to the navigable waters around fireworks site within a radius of 500 feet. The fireworks launch site is on the shoreline of Martinez and will be located in position 38°01′32″ N, 122°08′24″ W (NAD83).

(COTP)in the enforcement of the safety zone.

(c)*Regulations.*

(1)Under the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(2)The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(415)399-3547.

(d)*Effective period.* This section is effective from 8:30 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2008. Dated: June 20, 2008. D.J. Swatland, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Francisco. [FR Doc. E8-14989 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0590] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; Fireworks Displays Within the Sector Delaware Bay Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will establish several safety zones for fireworks displays at various locations within the geographic boundary of the Sector Delaware Bay Captain of the Port Zone. This action is necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime public from the hazards posed by fireworks displays. Entry into or movement within these proposed zones during the enforcement periods is prohibited without approval of the Captain of the Port. DATES: This rule is effective from July 3, 2008 through September 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0590 and are available online at *www.regulations.gov.* This material is also available for inspection or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay, One Washington Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19147 between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this temporary rule, call MST2 Jan-Michael Myers, Waterways Management Division, at

(215)271-4889. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act

(NPRM)with respect to this rule, publishing an NPRM would be impracticable and contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the public during this safety zone. The Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners to advise mariners of the restriction and on scene Coast Guard and local law enforcement assets will also provide notice to mariners. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest, because immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event. However, notifications will be made to users of the effected areas via marine information broadcasts, local notice to mariners, commercial radio stations and area newspapers. Safety zones are enforced during fireworks displays in order to prevent personal injury to mariners and damage to vessel traffic as a result of burning debris in the secured fallout area. Coast Guard assets and the on scene patrol commander serve to protect mariners on the navigable waterways during these permitted marine events. Background and Purpose Each year organizations in the Sector Delaware Bay Captain of the Port Zone sponsor fireworks displays in the same general location and time period. Each event uses a barge or an on-shore site near the shoreline as the fireworks launch platform. A safety zone is used to control vessel movement within a specified distance surrounding the launch platforms to ensure the safety of persons and property. Coast Guard personnel on scene could allow persons within the safety zone if conditions permit. Seven locations require the establishment of safety zones. These locations are the following: 1. North Atlantic Ocean, Bethany Beach, DE; 2. North Atlantic Ocean, Avalon, NJ; 3. Barnegat Bay, Barnegat Township, NJ; 4. North Atlantic Ocean, Cape May, NJ; 5. Great Egg Harbor Inlet, Margate City, NJ; 6. North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, NJ; 7. Metedeconk River, Brick Township, NJ. The Coast Guard Captain of the Port would give notice of the enforcement of each safety zone by all appropriate mean to provide the widest publicity among affected segments of the public. This would include publication in the Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information Broadcasts. Marine information and facsimile broadcasts may also be made for these events, beginning 24 to 48 hours before the event is scheduled to begin, to notify the public. This rule is to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the events and to give the marine community adequate notice of the specific locations and times for each event. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard revises the regulations by adding the following seven temporary safety zone locations. All coordinates listed for the following safety zones reference Datum NAD 1983. North Atlantic Ocean, Bethany Beach, DE, Safety Zone The waters of the North Atlantic Ocean within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks launch platform in approximate position latitude 38°32′08″ N, longitude 075°03′15″ W, on the shoreline at Bethany Beach, DE. North Atlantic Ocean, Avalon, NJ, Safety Zone The waters of the North Atlantic Ocean within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 39°05′31″ N, longitude 074°43′00″ W, in the vicinity of the shoreline at Avalon, NJ. Barnegat Bay, Barnegat Township, NJ, Safety Zone The waters of Barnegat Bay within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 39°44′50″ N, longitude 074°11′21″ W, approximately 70 yards north of Conklin Island, NJ. North Atlantic Ocean, Cape May, NJ, Safety Zone The waters of the North Atlantic Ocean within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°55′36″ N, longitude 074°55′26″ W, immediately adjacent to the shoreline at Cape May, NJ. Great Egg Harbor Inlet, Margate City, NJ, Safety Zone All waters within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 39°19′33″ N, longitude 074°31′28″ W, on the Intracoastal Waterway near Margate City, NJ. North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, NJ, Safety Zone The waters of the North Atlantic Ocean within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 39°16′22″ N, longitude 074°33′54″ W, in the vicinity of the shoreline at Ocean City, NJ. Metedeconk River, Brick Township, NJ, Safety Zone The waters of the Metedeconk River within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks launch platform in approximate position latitude 40°03′24″ N, longitude 074°06′42″ W, on the shoreline at Brick Township, NJ. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Although this regulation restricts vessel traffic from transiting a small segments of coastal waters and the intracoastal waterway, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited durations that the regulated areas will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities some of which may be small entities: The owners and operator of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the safety zones during the times these zones are enforced. These safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The enforcement periods will be short in duration and in many of the zones vessels can transit safely around the safety zones. Generally, blanket permission to enter, remain in, or transit through these safety zones will be given except during the period that the Coast Guard patrol vessel is present. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories widely. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded, under the Instruction, that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule because the included events are all of very short duration lasting only 2 hours or less each. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C 191,195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary 165.T05-001, to read as follows: § 165.T05-001 North Atlantic Ocean, Bethany Beach, DE, Safety Zone.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: The waters of the North Atlantic Ocean within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks launch platform in approximate location latitude 38°32′08″ N, longitude 075°03′15″ W, on the shoreline of Bethany Beach, DE.

(b)*Effective Period.* The effective period for this event is on July 4, 2008 from 9 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

(c)*Regulations.* All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones in 33 CFR 165.23 of this part.

(1)No person or vessel may enter or navigate within this safety zone unless authorized to do so by the Coast Guard or designated representatives. Any person or vessel authorized to enter the safety zone must operate in strict conformance with any directions given by the Coast Guard or designated representative and leave the safety zone immediately if the Coast Guard or designated representative so orders.

(2)All Coast Guard assets enforcing this safety zone can be contacted on VHF marine band radio, channels 13 and 16. The Captain of the Port can be contacted at

(215)271-4807.

(3)The Captain of the Port will notify the public of any changes in the status of this safety zone by Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio, channel 22 (157.1 MHZ).

(d)*Definitions.* The Captain of the Port means the Commanding Officer of Sector Delaware Bay or any Coast Guard commissioned warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. 3. Add temporary § 165.T05-002, to read as follows: § 165.T05-002 North Atlantic Ocean, Avalon, NJ, Safety Zone.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: The waters of the North Atlantic Ocean within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate location latitude 39°05′31″ N, longitude 074°43′00″ W, in the vicinity of the shoreline at Avalon, NJ.

(b)*Effective Period.* The effective period for this event is on July 5, 2008 from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.

(c)*Regulations.* All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones in 33 CFR 165.23 of this part.

(2)All Coast Guard assets enforcing this safety zone can be contacted on VHF marine band radio, channels 13 and 16. The Captain of the Port can be contacted at

(215)271-4807.

(3)The Captain of the Port will notify the public of any changes in the status of this safety zone by Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio, channel 22 (157.1 MHZ).

(d)*Definitions.* The Captain of the Port means the Commanding Officer of Sector Delaware Bay or any Coast Guard commissioned warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. 4. Add temporary § 165.T05-003, to read as follows: § 165.T05-003 Barnegat Bay, Barnegat Township, NJ, Safety Zone.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: The waters of Barnegat Bay within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 39°44′50″ N, longitude 074°11′21″ W, approximately 70 yards north of Conklin Island, NJ.

(b)*Effective Period.* The effective period for this event is on July 4, 2008 from 9:15 p.m. to 9:45 p.m.; and on September 6, 2008 from 9 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

(c)*Regulations.* All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones in 33 CFR 165.23 of this part.

(2)All Coast Guard assets enforcing this safety zone can be contacted on VHF marine band radio, channels 13 and 16. The Captain of the Port can be contacted at

(215)271-4807.

(3)The Captain of the Port will notify the public of any changes in the status of this safety zone by Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio, channel 22 (157.1 MHZ).

(d)*Definitions.* The Captain of the Port means the Commanding Officer of Sector Delaware Bay or any Coast Guard commissioned warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. 5. Add temporary § 165.T05-004, to read as follows: § 165.T05-004 North Atlantic Ocean, Cape May, NJ, Safety Zone.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: The waters of the North Atlantic Ocean within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°55′36″ N, longitude 074°55′26″ W, immediately adjacent to the shoreline at Cape May, NJ.

(b)*Effective Period.* The effective period for this event is on July 4, 2008 from 9 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.; with a rain date of July 5, 2008.

(c)*Regulations.* All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones in 33 CFR 165.23 of this part.

(2)All Coast Guard assets enforcing this safety zone can be contacted on VHF marine band radio, channels 13 and 16. The Captain of the Port can be contacted at

(215)271-4807.

(3)The Captain of the Port will notify the public of any changes in the status of this safety zone by Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio, channel 22 (157.1 MHZ).

(d)*Definitions.* The Captain of the Port means the Commanding Officer of Sector Delaware Bay or any Coast Guard commissioned warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. 6. Add temporary § 165.T05-005, to read as follows: § 165.T05-005 Great Egg Harbor Inlet, Margate City, NJ, Safety Zone.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: All waters within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 39°19′33″ N, longitude 074°31′28″ W, on the Intracoastal Waterway near Margate City, NJ.

(b)*Effective Period.* The effective period for this event is on August 24, 2008 from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.

(c)*Regulations.* All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones in 33 CFR 165.23 of this part.

(2)All Coast Guard assets enforcing this safety zone can be contacted on VHF marine band radio, channels 13 and 16. The Captain of the Port can be contacted at

(215)271-4807.

(3)The Captain of the Port will notify the public of any changes in the status of this safety zone by Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio, channel 22 (157.1 MHZ).

(d)*Definitions.* The Captain of the Port means the Commanding Officer of Sector Delaware Bay or any Coast Guard commissioned warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. 7. Add temporary § 165.T05-006, to read as follows: § 165.T05-006 North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, NJ, Safety Zone.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: The waters of the North Atlantic Ocean within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 39°16′22″ N, longitude 074°33′54″ W, in the vicinity of the shoreline at Ocean City, NJ.

(b)*Effective Period.* The effective period for this event is on July 4, 2008 from 9 p.m. to 9:15 p.m.; with a rain date of July 5, 2008.

(c)*Regulations.* All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones in 33 CFR 165.23 of this part.

(2)All Coast Guard assets enforcing this safety zone can be contacted on VHF marine band radio, channels 13 and 16. The Captain of the Port can be contacted at

(215)271-4807.

(3)The Captain of the Port will notify the public of any changes in the status of this safety zone by Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio, channel 22 (157.1 MHZ).

(d)*Definitions.* The Captain of the Port means the Commanding Officer of Sector Delaware Bay or any Coast Guard commissioned warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. 8. Add temporary § 165.T05-007, to read as follows: § 165.T05-007 Metedeconk River, Brick Township, NJ, Safety Zone.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: The waters of the Metedeconk River within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks launch platform in approximate position latitude 40°03′24″ N, longitude 074°06′42″ W, on the shoreline at Brick Township, NJ.

(b)*Effective Period.* The effective periods for this event are on July 3, July 17, July 31, August 14, and August 28, 2008 from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m.; with rain dates of July 10, July 24, August 7, August 21, and September 4, 2008, respectively.

(c)*Regulations.* All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones in 33 CFR 165.23 of this part.

(2)All Coast Guard assets enforcing this safety zone can be contacted on VHF marine band radio, channels 13 and 16. The Captain of the Port can be contacted at

(215)271-4807.

(3)The Captain of the Port will notify the public of any changes in the status of this safety zone by Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio, channel 22 (157.1 MHZ).

(d)*Definitions.* The Captain of the Port means the Commanding Officer of Sector Delaware Bay or any Coast Guard commissioned warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. Dated: June 19, 2008. D.L. Scott, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Delaware Bay. [FR Doc. E8-15045 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0558] RIN 1625-AA00 Security Zone; USCGC EAGLE, Elliott Bay, Seattle, WA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard is establishing a 100 yard temporary security zone surrounding the USCGC EAGLE during a reception while anchored in Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington. This security zone is necessary to ensure the safety of dignitaries embarked on USCGC EAGLE for the reception. Entry into, transit through, mooring, or anchoring within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representatives. DATES: This rule is effective from 12 noon.

(PDT)to 11 p.m.

(PDT)on July 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0558 and are available for inspection or copying at USCG Sector Seattle, Waterways Management Division between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning this rule, call Ensign Heidi A. Bevis, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Seattle, at 206-217-6147. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing a NPRM would be contrary to public interest since immediate action is necessary to ensure the safety of the dignitaries that will be on board USCGC EAGLE on the date and times this rule will be in effect. If normal notice and comment procedures were followed, this rule would not become effective until after the date of the event. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the U.S. Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication is necessary to ensure the safety of the dignitaries that will be onboard the USCGC EAGLE on the date and times this rule will be in effect. Background and Purpose The U.S. Coast Guard is establishing a 100 yard temporary security zone surrounding USCGC EAGLE to provide for the safety of visiting dignitaries while on board USCGC EAGLE for a reception. USCGC EAGLE's presence in the Puget Sound is part of the annual ASTA Pacific Tall Ships Challenge and the Tacoma Tall Ships 2008 Event. The U.S. Coast Guard is establishing this zone to ensure that no unauthorized vessels or persons enter into the 100 yard area surrounding the USCGC EAGLE. The security zone is needed to protect the dignitaries from any waterborne threats. Discussion of Rule This rule will control the movement of all vessels and persons in a security zone surrounding USCGC EAGLE as indicated in section 2 of this Temporary Final Rule. The security zone includes all waters within 100 yards surrounding USCGC EAGLE. The security zone does not extend on land. The U.S. Coast Guard through this action intends to promote the security of personnel and USCGC EAGLE. Entry into this zone by all vessels or persons will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port. This security zone will be enforced by U.S. Coast Guard personnel. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies as needed. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This rule will be in effect for only 11 hours and vessel traffic can pass safely around the security zone. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The U.S. Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only 11 hours and vessel traffic can pass safely around the security zone. Before the effective period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available throughout the Puget Sound. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule because it concerns an emergency situation of less than 1 week in duration. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165, as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 2. From 12 noon

(PDT)to 11 p.m.

(PDT)on July 2, 2008, a temporary § 165.T13-048 is added to read as follows: § 165.T13-048 Security Zone: USCGC EAGLE, Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington.

(a)*Location.* The following area is a security zone: 100 yards surrounding the USCGC EAGLE during a reception while anchored in Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington.

(b)*Regulations.* In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR Part 165, Subpart C, no vessel may enter, transit, moor, or anchor within this security zone, except for vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representatives.

(c)*Enforcement period.* This section is effective from 12 noon

(PDT)to 11 p.m.

(PDT)on July 2, 2008. If the need for the security zone ends before the scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port will cease enforcement of this section and will announce that fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Dated: June 20, 2008. Stephen P. Metruck, Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound. [FR Doc. E8-15040 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2007-0157] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone; Escorted Vessels, Savannah, GA, Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a security zone around any escorted vessel by one or more Coast Guard, State, or local law enforcement assets on the navigable waters of the Captain of the Port

(COTP)Zone, Savannah, Georgia. This action is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and facilities from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature. No vessel or person is allowed in this zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. DATES: This interim rule is effective July 2, 2008. Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before August 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2007-0157 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:

(1)*Online: http://www.regulations.gov* .

(2)*Mail:* Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

(3)*Hand delivery:* Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

(4)*Fax:* 202-493-2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, call LT Jeanita Jefferson at MSU Savannah

(912)652-4353. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation

(DOT)to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below. Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-0157), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. For example, we may ask you to resubmit your comment if we are not able to read your original submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this rule in view of them. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time, click on “Search for Dockets,” and enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-0157) in the Docket ID box, and click enter. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov* . Public Meeting We do not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing a NPRM and delaying the effective date would be contrary to public interest since the security zones around escorted vessels are necessary to ensure the safe transit of the escorted vessels as well as the public. Certain vessel movements are more vulnerable to terrorist acts and it would be contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM that would delay the effective date of this rule. The Coast Guard coordinates escorts for vessels in the Captain of the Port Zone Savannah, Georgia for the port's safety and security. To ensure safe boating, it is imperative that a standard exclusionary zone be broadcast and safe speeds be followed for all escorted vessels. For the same reasons above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The terrorist attacks of September 2001 heightened the need for development of various security measures throughout the seaports of the United States, particularly around vessels and facilities whose presence or movement creates a heightened vulnerability to terrorist acts; or those for which the consequences of terrorist acts represent a threat to national security. The President of the United States has found that the security of the United States is and continues to be endangered following the attacks of September 11 (E.O. 13,273, 67 FR 56215, Sep. 3, 2002 and 72 FR 54205, Sep. 21, 2007). Additionally, national security and intelligence officials continue to warn that future terrorist attacks are likely. The Captain of the Port Zone Savannah, Georgia frequently receive vessels that require additional security, including, but not limited to, vessels carrying sensitive Department of Defense cargoes, vessels carrying dangerous cargoes, and foreign naval vessels. The Captain of the Port has determined that these vessels have a significant vulnerability to subversive activity by other vessels or persons, or, in some cases, themselves pose a risk to a port and the public within the Captain of the Port Zone, as described in 33 CFR 3.35-15. This rule enables the COTP Savannah to provide effective port security, while minimizing the public's confusion and easing the administrative burden of implementing separate temporary security zone rules for each escorted vessel. Discussion of Rule This rule establishes a security zone that prohibits persons and vessels from coming within 300 yards of all escorted vessels within the navigable waters of the Captain of the Port Zone Savannah, Georgia unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, or Captain of the Port's designated representative. The navigable waterways included in this rule are the Port of Savannah and the Port of Brunswick in Georgia. Persons or vessels that receive permission to enter the security zone must proceed at a minimum safe speed and must comply with all orders issued by the COTP or a designated representative. Those vessels granted permission to enter the 300-yard security zone may not come within 50 yards of an escorted vessel. An escorted vessel will be defined as a vessel, other than a large U.S. naval vessel as defined in 33 CFR 165.2015, that is accompanied by one or more Coast Guard assets or other Federal, State or local law enforcement agency assets clearly identifiable by lights, vessel markings, or with agency insignia as listed below: • Coast Guard surface or air asset displaying the Coast Guard insignia. • State and/or local law enforcement asset displaying the applicable agency markings and/or equipment associated with the agency. • When escorted vessels are moored, dayboards or other visual indications such as lights or buoys may be used. In all cases, broadcast notice to mariners will be issued to advise mariners of these restrictions. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. The limited geographic area impacted by the security zone will not restrict the movement or routine operation of commercial or recreational vessels through the Ports of Savannah and Brunswick, Georgia. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit in the vicinity of escorted vessels. This rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because the zones are limited in size, in most cases leaving ample space for vessels to navigate around them. The zones will not significantly impact commercial and passenger vessel traffic patterns, and mariners will be notified of the zones via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Where such space is not available and security conditions permit, the Captain of the Port will attempt to provide flexibility for individual vessels to transit through the zones as needed. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does 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. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Once the comment period is closed and all comments have been addressed, a final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.749 to read as follows: § 165.749 Security Zone: Escorted Vessels, Savannah, Georgia, Captain of the Port Zone.

(a)*Definitions* . The following definitions apply to this section: *COTP* means Captain of the Port Savannah, GA. *Designated representatives* means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, State, and local officers designated by or assisting the COTP, in the enforcement of the security zone. *Escorted vessel* means a vessel, other than a large U.S. naval vessel as defined in 33 CFR 165.2015, that is accompanied by one or more Coast Guard assets or other Federal, State or local law enforcement agency assets clearly identifiable by lights, vessel markings, or with agency insignia as listed below:

(1)Coast Guard surface or air asset displaying the Coast Guard insignia.

(2)State and/or local law enforcement asset displaying the applicable agency markings and/or equipment associated with the agency.

(3)When escorted vessels are moored, dayboards or other visual indications such as lights or buoys may be used. In all cases, broadcast notice to mariners will be issued to advise mariners of these restrictions. *Minimum safe speed* means the speed at which a vessel proceeds when it is fully off plane, completely settled in the water and not creating excessive wake. Due to the different speeds at which vessels of different sizes and configurations may travel while in compliance with this definition, no specific speed is assigned to minimum safe speed. In no instance should minimum safe speed be interpreted as a speed less than that required for a particular vessel to maintain steerageway. A vessel is not proceeding at minimum safe speed if it is:

(1)On a plane;

(2)In the process of coming up onto or coming off a plane; or

(3)Creating an excessive wake.

(b)*Regulated Area* . All navigable waters, as defined in 33 CFR 2.36, within the Captain of the Port Zone, Savannah, Georgia 33 CFR 3.35-15.

(c)*Security Zone* . A 300-yard security zone is established around each escorted vessel within the regulated area described in paragraph

(b)of this section. This is a moving security zone when the escorted vessel is in transit and becomes a fixed zone when the escorted vessel is anchored or moored. A security zone will not extend beyond the boundary of the regulated area in this section.

(d)*Regulations* .

(1)The general regulations for security zones contained in § 165.33 of this part apply to this section.

(2)A vessel may request the permission of the COTP Savannah or a designated representative to enter the security zone described in paragraph

(c)of this section. If permitted to enter the security zone, a vessel must proceed at the minimum safe speed and must comply with the orders of the COTP or a designated representative. No vessel or person may enter the inner 50-yard portion of the security zone closest to the vessel.

(e)*Notice of Security Zone* . The COTP will inform the public of the existence or status of the security zones around escorted vessels in the regulated area by Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Coast Guard assets or other Federal, State or local law enforcement agency assets will be clearly identified by lights, vessel markings, or with agency insignia. When escorted vessels are moored, dayboards or other visual indications such as lights or buoys may be used.

(f)*Contact Information* . The COTP Savannah may be reached via phone at

(912)652-4353. Any on scene Coast Guard or designated representative assets may be reached via VHF-FM channel 16. Dated: June 11, 2008. D.W. Murk, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Captain of the Port Zone Savannah. [FR Doc. E8-14955 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office 37 CFR Parts 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, and 211 [Docket No. RM 2008-4] Copyright Rules and Regulations AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress. ACTION: Final rule, technical amendments. SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is making non-substantive housekeeping amendments to its regulations to update them and to correct minor errors. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tanya Sandros, General Counsel. Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400. Washington, DC 20024. Telephone:

(202)707-8380. Telefax:

(202)707-8366. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Copyright Office periodically reviews its regulations as published in the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)to correct minor errors in the published text and to make technical amendments. This final rule corrects minor errors identified in the published rules but also makes technical amendments required because of new office designations and other non-substantial changes resulting from the business process reengineering initiative that was implemented by the Office in July 2007. The following parts are amended to make these corrections: parts 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, and 211. List of Subjects 37 CFR Part 201 Copyright, General provisions. 37 CFR Part 202 Copyright, Registration. 37 CFR Part 203 Freedom of Information Act. 37 CFR Part 204 Privacy Act. 37 CFR Part 205 Legal processes. 37 CFR Part 211 Mask works. 37 CFR Part 212 Vessel hull designs. 37 CFR Part 251 Administrative practice and procedure, Hearing and appeal procedures. 37 CFR Part 253 Copyright, Noncommercial educational broadcasting. 37 CFR Part 254 Coin-operated phonorecord players, Compulsory license fees. 37 CFR Part 255 Compulsory license fees, Phonorecords. 37 CFR Part 260 Copyright, Digital audio transmissions, Performance right, Sound recordings. 37 CFR Part 261 Copyright, Digital audio transmissions, Performance right, Sound recordings. 37 CFR Part 262 Copyright, Digital audio transmissions, Performance right, Sound recordings. 37 CFR Part 263 Copyright, Digital audio transmissions, Performance right, Sound recordings. 37 CFR Part 270 Notice of use, Sound recordings, Statutory license. Final Rule Accordingly, 37 CFR Chapter II is amended by making the following corrections and amendments: PART 201—GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows: Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702. § 201. 1 [Amended] 2. Amend § 201. 1 as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(3), by removing “Certifications and Documents Section, LM-402,” and adding in its place “Records Research and Certification Section, LM-455,”; b. In paragraph (a)(4), by removing “Reference and Bibliography Section, LM-450,” and adding in its place “Records Research and Certification Section, LM-455,”; c. In paragraph (b)(1), by removing “Certifications and Documents Section or Reference and Bibliography Section” and adding in its place “Records Research and Certification Section”; and removing “Southwest Station”. d. By revising paragraph (b)(2). The revisions to § 201. 1 read as follows: § 201.1 Communication with the Copyright Office

(b)* * *

(2)*Copyright Royalty Board. See* § 301. 2 of this title for the mailing address for claims, pleadings, and general correspondence intended for the Copyright Royalty Board. § 201. 2 [Amended] 3. Amend § 201. 2 as follows: a. In paragraph (b)(1), by removing “Certifications and Documents Section” and adding in its place “Records Research and Certification Section”; b. In paragraph (b)(2), by removing “Records Maintenance Unit” and adding in its place “Records Management Section”; c. In (b)(3) introductory text, by removing “Information and Reference Division” and adding in its place “Information and Records Division”. d. In paragraph (b)(3)(i) introductory text by removing “Certification and Documents Section” and adding in its place “Records Research and Certification Section”; e. In the undesignated text at the end of paragraph (b)(4), by removing “Public Information Office” and adding in its place “Copyright Information Section”. f. In paragraph (b)(5), by removing “Southwest Station”; and g. In paragraphs (b)(7) and (d)(1)(iv), by removing “Certifications and Documents Section” each place it appears and adding in its place “Records Research and Certifications Section”. § 201. 5 [Amended] 4. Amend § 201. 5(c)(2) by removing “Public Information Office” and adding in its place “Copyright Information Section”. § 201. 8 [Amended] 5. Amend § 201. 8(g) as follows: a. By removing “Copyright Office Receiving & Processing Division” and adding in its place “Copyright Office Receipt, Analysis and Control Division”; b. By removing “Copyright Office Public Information Office” and adding in its place “Copyright Information Section”; and c. By removing “Receiving & Processing Division” and adding in its place “Receipt, Analysis and Control Division”. § 201. 29 [Amended] 6. Amend § 201. 29(e)(3) by removing “Room LM-458” and adding in its place “Room LM-504”. § 201. 33 [Amended] 7. Amend § 201. 33(d)(1) by removing “Southwest Station”. § 201. 34 [Amended] 8. Amend § 201. 34(d)(2) by removing “Southwest Station”. § 201. 38 [Amended] 9. Amend § 201. 38 as follows: a. In paragraph (e), by removing “Public Information Office of the Copyright Office” and adding in its place “Copyright Information Section” and by removing “Southwest Station”. b. In paragraph (f), by removing “Public Information Office of the Copyright Office” and adding in its place “Copyright Information Section”. § 201. 39 [Amended] 10. Amend § 201. 39(g)(1) by removing “Public Information Office” and adding in its place “Copyright Information Section”. PART 202—PREREGISTRATION AND REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO COPYRIGHT 11. The authority citation for part 202 continues to read as follows: Authority: 17 U.S.C. 408(i), 702. § 202. 3 [Amended] 12. Amend § 202. 3 as follows: a. In paragraph (b)(2)(i) and (ii), introductory text, by removing “Public Information Office” and adding in its place “Copyright Information Section” each place it appears; and b. In paragraph (b)(6)(ii), by removing “Library of Congress, Group Periodicals Registration” and adding in its place “Group Periodicals Registration, Library of Congress.” § 202. 5 [Amended] 13. Amend § 202. 5 as follows: a. In paragraphs

(b)introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4),

(c)introductory text, (c)(1) and (c)(3), by removing “Examining Division” each place it appears and adding in its place “Registration and Recordation Program ; b. In paragraph (d)(1), by removing ”Copyright R&P Division” and adding in its place “Copyright RAC Division”. § 202. 12 [Amended] 14. Amend § 202. 12(c)(4)(vi) by removing “Performing Arts Section of the Examining Division” and adding in its place “Performing Arts Division of the Registration and Recordation Program”. § 202. 16 [Amended] 15. Amend § 202. 16(c)(11) by removing “Certification and Documents Section of the Information and Reference Division” and adding in its place “Records Research and Certification Section of the Information and Records Division”. § 202. 17 [Amended] 16. Amend § 202. 17(g)(1) by removing “Public Information Office” and adding in its place “Copyright Information Section”. § 202. 19 [Amended] 17. Amend § 202. 19(e)(3) by removing “Chief, Examining Division” and adding in its place “Associate Register for Registration and Recordation Program”. § 202. 20 [Amended] 18. Amend § 202. 20 as follows: a. In paragraphs (c)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(xvi), and (c)(2)(xix)(B), by removing “Examining Division” each place it appears and adding in its place “Registration and Recordation Program.”; and b. In paragraphs (d)(3), by removing “Chief, Examining Division” and adding in its place “Associate Register for Registration and Recordation Program”. § 202. 21 [Amended] 19. Amend § 202. 21(h) by removing “Examining Division” and adding in its place “Registration and Recordation Program”. § 202. 23 [Amended] 20. Amend § 202. 23(b)(2) by removing “Information and Reference Division” and adding in its place “Information and Records Division”. PART 203—FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 21. The authority citation for part 203 continues to read as follows: Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702, 5 U.S.C. 552. § 203. 3 [Amended] 22. Amend § 203. 3 as follows: a. In paragraph

(b)introductory text, by removing “Associate Register of Copyright for Operations” and adding in its place “Copyright Office Chief of Operations”; b. In paragraph (b)(1), by removing “Receiving and Processing Division” and adding in its place “Receipt, Analysis and Control Division”; c. In paragraph (b)(2), by removing “Examining Division” and adding in its place “Registration and Recordation Program”; d. In paragraph (b)(3), by removing “Cataloging Division” and adding in its place “Registration and Recordation Program”; e. In paragraph (b)(4) by removing “Information and Reference Division” and adding in its place “Information and Records Division” each place it appears; and by removing “Public Information Office” and adding in its place “Copyright Information Section”; f. In paragraphs (b)(5) and (c), by removing “Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels” each place it appears and adding in its place “Copyright Royalty Board”; and g. By removing paragraph

(e)and redesignating paragraphs

(f)through

(i)as paragraphs

(e)through (h), respectively. § 203. 4 [Amended] 23. Amend § 203. 4(f) by removing “Southwest Station” each place it appears. PART 204—PRIVACY ACT: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 24. The authority citation for part 204 continues to read as follows: Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702, 5 U.S.C. 552(a). § 204.4 [Amended] 25. Amend § 204.4(a) by adding “Copyright” before “Information Section” and by removing “Southwest Station”. § 204.5 [Amended] 26. Amend § 204.5(a) by adding “Copyright” before “Information Section” and by removing “Southwest Station”. § 204.7 [Amended] 27. Amend § 204.7(a) by adding “Copyright” before “Information Section” and by removing “Southwest Station”. § 204.8 [Amended] 28. Amend § 204.8(a) by removing “Southwest Station”. PART 205—PRODUCTION OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS AND OFFICIAL TESTIMONY 29. The authority citation for part 205 continues to read as follows: Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702. § 205.2 [Amended] 30. Amend § 205.2 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), by removing “Southwest Station”; and b. In paragraph (b), by removing “Public Information Office” and adding in its place “Copyright Information Section”. § 205.13 [Amended] 31. Amend § 205.13 by removing “Southwest Station” and by removing “Public Information Office” and adding in its place “Copyright Information Section”. § 205.22 [Amended] 32. Amend § 205.22

(a)and

(b)by removing “ Certifications and Documents Section” and adding in its place “Records Research and Certification Section” each place it appears. PART 211—MASK WORK PROTECTION 33. The authority citation for part 211 continues to read as follows: Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702 and 908. § 211. 4 [Amended] 34. Amend § 211. 4(b)(1) by removing “Public” and adding “Copyright” in its place. § 211. 5 [Amended] 35. Amend § 211. 5(d) by removing “Chief, Examining Division of the Copyright Office, Washington, DC 20559-6000” and adding in its place “Associate Register for Registration and Recordation Program, Library of Congress, Copyright Office - RPO, 101 Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20559-6200”. Dated: June 24, 2008 Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyright, U.S. Copyright Office. [FR Doc. E8-14890 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-33-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0178; FRL-8687-2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for the Columbia County Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for at least 10 years after the April 30, 2004 designations, as well as a 2002 base-year inventory for the Columbia County Area. EPA is approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Columbia County Area as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on August 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0178. All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat,

(215)814-2036, or by e-mail at *becoat.gregory@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On May 14, 2008 (73 FR 27783), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPR)for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed approval of Pennsylvania's SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for the Columbia County Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after designation, and a 2002 base-year emissions inventory. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on December 17, 2007. Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's SIP revision and the rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. II. Final Action EPA is approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Columbia County Area, submitted on December 17, 2007, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is approving the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Columbia County Area because it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52. 02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ); • 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); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 2, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Columbia County Area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: June 24, 2008. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDed] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52. 2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for Columbia County at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52. 2020 Identification of plan.

(e)* * *

(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for at least 10 years after the April 30, 2004 designations, as well as a 2002 base-year inventory for the Susquehanna County Area. EPA is approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Susquehanna County Area as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on August 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0182. All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* website. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information

(215)814-2036, or by e-mail at *becoat.gregory@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On May 14, 2008 (73 FR 27788), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPR)for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed approval of Pennsylvania's SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for the Susquehanna County Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after designation, and a 2002 base-year emissions inventory. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on December 17, 2007. Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's SIP revision and the rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. II. Final Action EPA is approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Susquehanna County Area, submitted on December 17, 2007, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is approving the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Susquehanna County Area because it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52. 02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* .); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .); • 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); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 2, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Susquehanna County Area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: June 24, 2008. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52. 2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for Susquehanna County at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52. 2020 Identification of plan.

(e)* * *

(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for at least 10 years after the April 30, 2004 designations, as well as a 2002 base-year inventory for the Crawford County Area. EPA is approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Crawford County Area as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on August 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0180. All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* website. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information

(215)814-2036, or by e-mail at *becoat.gregory@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On May 14, 2008 (73 FR 27791), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPR)for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed approval of Pennsylvania's SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for the Crawford County Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after designation, and a 2002 base-year emissions inventory. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on December 17, 2007. Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's SIP revision and the rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. II. Final Action EPA is approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Crawford County Area, submitted on December 17, 2007, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is approving the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Crawford County Area because it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52. 02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ); • 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); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 2, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Crawford County Area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: June 24, 2008. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDed] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52. 2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for Crawford County at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.2020 Identification of plan.

(e)* * *

(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for at least 10 years after the April 30, 2004 designations, as well as a 2002 base-year inventory for the Somerset County Area. EPA is approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Somerset County Area as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on August 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0181. All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, *i.e.* , confidential business information

(215)814-2036, or by e-mail at *becoat.gregory@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On May 14, 2008 (73 FR 27786), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPR)for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed approval of Pennsylvania's SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for the Somerset County Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after designation, and a 2002 base-year emissions inventory. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on December 17, 2007. Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's SIP revision and the rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. II. Final Action EPA is approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Somerset County Area, submitted on December 17, 2007, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is approving the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Somerset County Area because it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52. 02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • 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); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.,* as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 2, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Somerset County Area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: June 24, 2008. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDed] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52. 2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for Somerset County at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52. 2020 Identification of plan.

(e)* * *

(1)* * * Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation * * * * * * * 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory Somerset County 12/17/07 7/2/08. [Insert page number where the document begins] [FR Doc. E8-14867 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 174 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0346; FRL-8369-4] Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 protein; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the *Bacillus thuringiensis* Cry2Ab2 protein in or on corn when used as plant-incorporated protectant in the food and feed commodities of corn; corn, field; corn, sweet; and corn, pop. Monsanto Company submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), requesting to amend the existing temporary tolerance(s) in 40 CFR 174.503 for the *Bacillus thuringiensis* Cry2Ab2 protein to establish a permanent exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the *Bacillus thuringiensis* Cry2Ab2 protein in or on all food commodities when used as a plant-incorporated protectant in all food commodities. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of the *Bacillus thuringiensis* Cry2Ab2 insecticidal protein in or on the food and feed commodities of corn; corn, field; corn, sweet; and corn, pop. DATES: This regulation is effective July 2, 2008. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 2, 2008, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0346. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susanne Cerrelli, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-8077; e-mail address: *cerrelli.susanne@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this “ **Federal Register** ” document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 174 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0346 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before September 2, 2008. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0346, by one of the following methods. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. II. Background and Statutory Findings In the **Federal Register** of August 1, 2007 (72 FR 42075-42077) (FRL-8129-8), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 6F7143) by Monsanto Company, 800 North Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63167. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 174 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the *Bacillus thuringiensis* Cry2Ab2 protein in or on all food commodities when used as plant-incorporated protectant in all food commodities. This notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Monsanto Company. One commenter objected to the petition, expressing concerns about Monsanto obtaining an exemption from tolerance and potential harmful effects. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns about potential effects of this particular plant-incorporated protectant to humans and the environment. Pursuant to its authority under the FFDCA, EPA conducted a comprehensive assessment of Cry2Ab2 protein, including a review of acute oral toxicity data on Cry2Ab2 protein, amino acid sequence comparisons to known toxins and allergens, as well as data demonstrating that Cry2Ab2 proteins are rapidly degraded by gastric fluid *in vitro* , are not glycosylated, and are present in low levels in the tissues expressing the plant-incorporated protectant. Based on these data, the Agency has concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from dietary exposure to residues of Cry1Ab2 protein in the food and feed commodities of corn; corn, field; corn, sweet; and corn, pop, when used as a plant-incorporated protectant. Thus, under the standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), a tolerance exemption is appropriate. In taking this action, EPA, pursuant to its authority under section 408(d)(4)(A)(i) of the FFDCA, is issuing a final regulation that varies from the regulation sought by Monsanto in its petition. Specifically, instead of issuing a tolerance exemption that covers residues of the subject plant-incorporated protectant in all food commodities, EPA is issuing a tolerance exemption that covers residues of the subject plant-incorporated protectant in those commodities in which it will be used as a plant-incorporated protectant — in this case, the food and feed commodities of corn; corn,field; corn, sweet; and corn, pop. In this way, the tolerance exemption is coextensive with the registered uses for this particular plant-incorporated protectant. In addition, instead of amending the existing temporary tolerance exemption in 40 CFR 174.503 for the *Bacillus thuringiensis* Cry2Ab2 protein in corn by making it a permanent exemption, EPA instead is opting to amend the existing permanent tolerance exemption in 40 CFR 174.519 for the *Bacillus thuringiensis* Cry2Ab2 protein in cotton by adding to that provision the permanent tolerance exemption for *Bacillus thuringiensis* Cry2Ab2 protein in corn established by this final rule. Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . . ” Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA requires that the Agency consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues ” and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. III. Toxicological Profile Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Mammalian toxicity and allergenicity assessment. Monsanto has submitted acute oral toxicity data demonstrating the lack of mammalian toxicity at high levels of exposure to the pure Cry2Ab2 protein. These data demonstrate the safety of the product at a level well above maximum possible exposure levels that are reasonably anticipated in corn using Cry2Ab2 expression values found in corn. Basing this conclusion on acute oral toxicity data without requiring further toxicity testing and residue data is similar to the Agency position regarding toxicity testing and the requirement of residue data for the microbial *Bacillus thuringiensis* products from which this plant-incorporated protectant was derived (See 40 CFR 158.2130). For microbial products, further toxicity testing (Tiers II and III) and residue data are only triggered when significant adverse acute effects occur in toxicological studies, such as the acute oral toxicity study, to verify the observed adverse effects and clarify the source of these effects. An acute oral toxicity study in mice (Master Record Identification Number 44966602) indicated that Cry2Ab2 is non-toxic to humans. The Cry2Ab2 protein does not appear to cause any significant adverse effects at an exposure level of up to 1,000 milligrams/kilograms (mg/kg) bodyweight. When proteins are toxic, they are known to act via acute mechanisms and at very low dose levels (Sjoblad, Roy D., *et al* ., “Toxicological Considerations for Protein Components of Biological Pesticide Products,” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 15, 3-9 (1992)). Therefore, since no acute effects were shown to be caused by Cry2Ab2, even at relatively high dose levels, the Cry2Ab2 protein is not considered toxic. Further, amino acid sequence comparisons between the Cry2Ab2 protein and known toxic proteins in protein databases showed no similarities that would raise a safety concern. In addition, the Cry2Ab2 protein was shown to be substantially degraded by heat when examined by immunoassay. This instability to heat would also lessen the potential dietary exposure to intact Cry2Ab2 protein in cooked or processed foods. These biochemical features, along with the lack of adverse results in the acute oral toxicity test support the conclusion that there is a reasonable certainty no harm from toxicity will result from dietary exposure to residues of Cry2Ab2 in or on the identified corn commodities. Since Cry2Ab2 is a protein, allergenic potential was also considered. Currently, no definitive tests for determining the allergenic potential of novel proteins exist. Therefore, EPA uses a weight-of- evidence approach where the following factors are considered: Source of the trait; amino acid sequence comparison with known allergens; and biochemical properties of the protein, including *in vitro* digestibility in simulated gastric fluid (SGF), and glycosylation. This approach is consistent with the approach outlined in the Annex to the Codex Alimentarius, “Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants.” The allergenicity assessment for Cry2Ab2 follows: 1. *Source of the trait* . *Bacillus thuringiensis* is not considered to be a source of allergenic proteins. 2. *Amino acid sequence* . A comparison of the amino acid sequence of Cry2Ab2 with known allergens showed no significant overall sequence similarity (using the CODEX similarity standard of 35% amino acid similarity in any 80 amino acid window) or identity at the level of eight contiguous amino acid residues, indicting a lack of potential linear epitopes found in known food allergens. 3. *Digestibility* . The Cry2Ab2 protein was digested within 15 seconds in simulated gastric fluid containing pepsin. The rapid degradation of Cry2Ab2 in the gastric environment suggests little possible exposure to intact protein in the intestinal lumen, where sensitization to food allergens occurs. 4. *Glycosylation* . Cry2Ab2 expressed in corn was shown not to be glycosylated. 5. *Conclusion* . Considering all of the available information, EPA has concluded that the potential for Cry2Ab2 to be a food allergen is minimal. The information on the safety of pure Cry2Ab2 protein provides adequate justification to address possible exposures in all corn crops. IV. Aggregate Exposures In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses). A. Dietary Exposure The Agency has considered available information on the aggregate exposure levels of consumers (and major identifiable subgroups of consumers) to the pesticide chemical residue and to other related substances. These considerations include dietary exposure under the tolerance exemption and all other tolerances or exemptions in effect for residues of the plant-incorporated protectant, and exposure from non-occupational sources. Although the allergenicity assessment focuses on its potential to be a food allergen, the data (comparing amino acid sequence similarity to allergens, including aeroallergens) also indicate a low potential for Cry2Ab2 to be an inhalation allergen. Exposure via residential or lawn use to infants and children is also not expected because the use sites for the Cry2Ab2 protein are agricultural. Oral exposure, at very low levels, may occur from ingestion of processed corn products and, theoretically, drinking water. However, oral toxicity testing done at dose levels several orders of magnitude above the plant expression level showed no adverse effects. Food. The data submitted and cited regarding potential health effects for the Cry2Ab2 protein includes the characterization of the expressed Cry2Ab2 protein in corn, as well as the acute oral toxicity study, amino acid sequence comparisons to known allergens and toxins, and the *in vitro* digestibility of the protein. The results of these studies were used to evaluate human risk, and the validity, completeness, and reliability of the available data from the studies were also considered. Adequate information was submitted to show that the Cry2Ab2 test material derived from microbial culture was biochemically and functionally equivalent to the protein in the plant. Microbially produced protein was used in the safety studies so that sufficient material for testing was available. The acute oral toxicity data submitted support the prediction that the Cry2Ab2 protein would be non-toxic to humans. As mentioned in this unit, when proteins are toxic, they are known to act via acute mechanisms and at very low dose levels (Sjoblad, Roy D., *et al* ., “Toxicological Considerations for Protein Components of Biological Pesticide Products,” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 15, 3-9 (1992)). Since no treatment-related adverse effects were shown to be caused by the Cry2Ab2 protein even at high dose levels (e.g., 1,450 mg/kg bodyweight), the Cry2Ab2 protein is not considered toxic. Basing this conclusion on acute oral toxicity data without requiring further toxicity testing and residue data is similar to the Agency's position regarding toxicity and the requirement of residue data for the microbial *Bacillus thuringiensis* products from which this plant-incorporated protectant was derived (See 40 CFR 158.740(b)(2)(i)). For microbial products, further toxicity testing and residue data are only triggered when significant adverse effects are seen in toxicological studies, such as the acute oral toxicity study. Further studies verify the observed adverse effects and clarify the source of those effects. Residue chemistry data were not required for a human health effects assessment of the subject plant-incorporated protectant because of the lack of mammalian toxicity. Nonetheless, data submitted demonstrated low levels of the Cry2Ab2 protein in corn tissues (1-3 ppm in grain, 20-90 ppm in forage or leaf tissue), indicating a low potential for dietary exposure. Since Cry2Ab2 is a protein, potential allergenicity is also considered as part of the toxicity assessment. Considering all of the available information: 1. Cry2Ab2 originates from a non-allergenic source; 2. Cry2Ab2 has no sequence similarities with known allergens; 3. Cry2Ab2 is not glycosylated; and 4. Cry2Ab2 is rapidly digested in simulated gastric fluid; EPA has concluded that the potential for Cry2Ab2 to be a food allergen is minimal. Neither available information concerning the dietary consumption patterns of consumers (and major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children) nor safety factors that are generally recognized as appropriate for the use of animal experimentation data were evaluated. The lack of mammalian toxicity at high levels of exposure to the Cry2Ab2 protein, as well as the minimal potential to be a food allergen, demonstrate the safety of the product at levels well above possible maximum exposure levels anticipated in the crop. The genetic material necessary for the production of the plant-incorporated protectant active ingredient include the nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) that encode these proteins and regulatory regions. The genetic material (DNA, RNA) necessary for the production of the Cry2Ab2 protein has been exempted from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 174.507 (Nucleic acids that are part of a plant-incorporated protectant; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance). B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure *Dermal and inhalation exposure* . Exposure via the skin or inhalation is not likely since the plant-incorporated protectant is contained within plant cells, which essentially eliminates these exposure routes or reduces these exposure routes to negligible. In addition, even if exposure can occur through inhalation, the potential for Cry2Ab2 to be an allergen is minimal as discussed in Unit.III. V. Cumulative Effects Pursuant to section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA, EPA has considered available information on the cumulative effects of such residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. These considerations included the cumulative effects on infants and children of such residues and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Because there is no indication of mammalian toxicity from the plant-incorporated protectant, we conclude that there are no cumulative effects for the Cry2Ab2 protein. VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall assess the available information about consumption patterns among infants and children, special susceptibility of infants and children to pesticide chemical residues and the cumulative effects on infants and children of the residues and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. In addition, section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA also provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. In this instance, based on all the available information, the Agency concludes that there is a finding of no toxicity for the Cry2Ab2 protein. Thus, there are no threshold effects of concern and, as a result, the provision requiring an additional tenfold margin of safety does not apply. Further, the considerations of consumption patterns, special susceptibility, and cumulative effects do not apply. VII. Other Considerations A. Endocrine Disruptors The pesticidal active ingredient is a protein, derived from a source that is not known to exert an influence on the endocrine system. Therefore, the Agency is not requiring information on the endocrine effects of this plant-incorporated protectant at this time. B. Analytical Methods A protocol for an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection and quantification of Cry2Ab2 in corn tissue has been submitted, and a commercially available qualitative immunochromatographic test strip was shown to detect the Cry2Ab2 protein in corn tissues. C. Codex Maximum Residue Level No Codex maximum residue level exists for the plant-incorporated protectant *Bacillus thuringiensis* Cry2Ab2. VIII. Conclusions There is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the U.S. population, including infants and children, to residues of the Cry2Ab2 protein in or on all food and feed commodities of corn; corn, field; corn, sweet; and corn, pop. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. The Agency has arrived at this conclusion because, as discussed above, no toxicity to mammals has been observed, nor any indication of allergenicity potential for the plant-incorporated protectant. IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes a tolerance exemption under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final 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) or Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .) do not apply. This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). X. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 174 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 10, 2008. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 174—[AMENDed] 1. The authority citation for part 174 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136-136y; 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371. § 174.503 [Removed] 2. Section 174.503 is removed. 3. Section 174.519 is revised to read as follows: § 174.519 Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 protein in corn and cotton; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Residues of *Bacillus thuringiensis* Cry2Ab2 protein in or on corn or cotton are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used as a plant-incorporated protectant in the food and feed commodities of corn; corn, field; corn, sweet; corn, pop; and cotton seed, cotton oil, cotton meal, cotton hay, cotton hulls, cotton forage, and cotton gin byproducts. [FR Doc. E8-14794 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0192; FRL-8364-1] Atrazine; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of atrazine in or on vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4. Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). DATES: This regulation is effective July 2, 2008. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 2, 2008, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0192. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hope Johnson, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)305-5410; e-mail address: *johnson.hope@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those engaged in the following activities: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0192 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or before September 2, 2008. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0192, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(703)305-5805. II. Petition for Tolerance In the **Federal Register** of August 15, 2006 (71 FR 46911) (FRL-8064-1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6F7022) by Syngenta Crop Protection Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27409. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.220 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide atrazine, 2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-isopropylamino-s-triazine, in or on leafy vegetables (excluding brassica) at 0.60 parts per million (ppm). That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection Inc., the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, *http://www.regulations.gov* . Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C. Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has concluded that a tolerance level of 0.25 ppm shall be established for the raw agricultural commodities vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....” Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for tolerances for residues of atrazine on vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 at 0.25 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance were discussed in the Notice published in the **Federal Register** of June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35664) (FRL-8065-4) which made available the cumulative risk assessment for the chlorinated triazine pesticides, which include atrazine. The Agency concluded that the cumulative risks associated with the chlorinated triazine pesticides are below the Agency's level of concern. In the risk assessment for the inadvertant residues of atrazine on leafy vegetables, EPA concluded that the food related exposures to atrazine from leafy vegetables are insignificant. Thus, the atrazine-related risks calculated in the triazine cumulative risk assessment will be unchanged by this action. The triazine cumulative risk assessment can be accessed at *http://www.regulations.gov* under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0481. Based on the risk assessment discussed in the above notice, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to atrazine residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate enforcement methodology (Syngenta Analytical Methods AG-601, AG-484, AG-564 (plants), Method III in Pam Vol. II

(milk)and Method I in PAM Vol. II (meat)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:

(410)305-2905; e-mail address: *residuemethods@epa.gov* . B. International Residue Limits The Codex Alimentarius Commission has not proposed or established maximum residue limits

(MRLs)for residues of atrazine in or on agricultural commodities. C. Response to Comments Several comments were received from a private citizen objecting to pesticide body load, animal testing, establishing tolerances, and pesticide residues. The Agency has received these same comments from this commenter on numerous previous occasions. Refer to the following **Federal Register** cites: 70 FR 37686, June 30, 2005; 70 FR 1354, January 7, 2005; 69 FR 63096-63098 October 29, 2004; for the Agency's response to these objections. D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has concluded that a tolerance level of 0.25 ppm on leafy vegetables (excluding brassica) is more appropriate than 0.60 ppm as it covers the maximum residue level found in the study submitted, while retaining the capability of detecting instances of misuse. The Agency is revising the raw agricultural commodities nomenclature for “leafy vegetables (excluding brassica)” to “vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4.” V. Conclusion Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of atrazine, 2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-isopropylamino-s-triazine, in or on vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 at 0.25 ppm. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget

(d)to read as follows: § 180.220 Atrazine; tolerances for residues.

(d)*Indirect or inadvertant residues* . Tolerances are established for indirect or inadvertant residues of atrazine, 2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-isopropylamino-s-triazine, in or on the following raw agricultural commodity when present therein as a result of application of atrazine to the growing crops in paragraph

(a)of this section: Commodity Parts per million Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 0.25 [FR Doc. E8-15010 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-1024; FRL-8368-1] Residues of Quaternany Ammonium Compounds, Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Carbonate and Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Bicarbonate; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the quaternany ammonium compounds, didecyl dimethyl ammonium carbonate and didecyl dimethyl ammonium bicarbonate (hereinafter cited jointly as DDACB), on food-contact surfaces when applied/used in public eating places, dairy processing equipment, and/or food processing equipment and utensils. Lonza, Inc., submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), requesting to establish concentration limits of DDACB in end-use products eligible for the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. As amended, the regulation will exempt solutions from the requirement of tolerance residues resulting from contact with surfaces treated with solutions where the end-use concentration of DDACB does not exceed 240 parts per million (ppm). DATES: This regulation is effective July 2, 2008. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 2, 2008, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-1024. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Velma Noble, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-6233; e-mail address: *noble.velma@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are dairy cattle milk producer, food manufacturer, or beverage manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Dairy Cattle Milk Production (NAICS code 11212). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Beverage Manufacturing (NAICS code 3121). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-1024 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before September 2, 2008. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-1024, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs

(703)305-5805. II. Petition for Exemption In the **Federal Register** of November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67300) (FRL-8141-2), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 6F7131) by Lonza, Inc., 90 Boroline Rd., Allendale, NJ 07401. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.190(a) be amended by establishing concentration limits for DDACB in end-use solutions eligible for tolerance exemption. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Lonza, Inc., the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, *http://www.regulations.gov.* There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, which requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue ....” Consistent with section 408(c)(2)(A) of FFDCA, and the factors specified in section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for residues of DDACB on food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy processing equipment, and food processing equipment and utensils. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the exemption from the requirement for a tolerance follows. A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by DDACB as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit. DDACB is a part of the aliphatic alkyl quaternaries chemical case which is comprised of six compounds that are structurally similar quaternary ammonium compounds (quats). This group of chemicals are characterized by having a positively charged nitrogen covalently bonded to two alkyl group substituents (at least one C 8 or longer) and two methyl substituents. In finished form, these quats are salts with positively charged nitrogen (cation) balanced by a negatively charged molecule (anion). The anion for the quats in this group are chlorine, carbonate, bicarbonate, or bromine. In 1988, EPA issued PR Notice 88-2 outlining “Clustering of Quaternary Ammonium Compounds.” In that PR Notice, quats were clustered into 4 groups as follows: Group I: The alkyl or hydroxyalkyl (straight chain) substituted quats; otherwise referred to as the aliphatic alkyl quaternaries. Group II: The non-halogenated benzyl substituted quats (including alkyl benzyl, dodecyhlbenzyl, hydroxybenzyl, hydroxyethylbenzyl, and naphylmethyl). Group III: The di- and tri-chlorobenzyl substituted quats. Group IV: Quats with unusual substitutes (charged heterocyclic compounds). In all types of aliphatic alkyl ammonium chloride quaternaries, it is the positive entity (quaternized nitrogen containing the aliphatic alkyl and/or aromatic alkyl groups) that is of relevance from toxicology and exposure perspectives. The negative part of the aliphatic alkyl ammonium chloride quaternaries (counter ion) is relatively non-toxic entities (bicarbonate, carbonate, chloride). Aliphatic alkyl ammonium chloride quaternaries were originally formulated with chloride as the negative or the counter ion. However, one negative ion in the aliphatic alkyl ammonium chloride quaternaries can be replaced with another without disrupting the structural integrity of the chemical (i.e., quaternized nitrogen) and thereby without having a significant effect on toxicity. Accordingly, the toxicological profiles of the aliphatic alkyl ammonium chloride quaternaries are very similar and a toxicological assessment of any of the aliphatic alkyl ammonium chloride quaternaries is representative of the group. Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride (DDAC), was chosen as the representative chemical for aliphatic alkyl ammonium chloride quaternaries because it was registered first. On this basis, the toxicology database for DDAC is accepted as representative of the hazard for this class of quaternary ammonium compounds. The aliphatic alkyl ammonium chloride quaternaries are corrosive, highly irritating to the eye and skin, with moderate acute toxicity by oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. These chemicals are classified as “not likely” to be a human carcinogen based on negative carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice feeding studies using doses above limit dose. There is no evidence of these chemicals being associated with increased susceptibility to developmental toxicity or reproductive toxicity based on two developmental toxicity studies and a 2-generation reproductive study. Lastly, they are negative for mutagenicity and neurotoxicity. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the toxic effects caused by aliphatic alkyl quaternaries can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0338, Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride (DDAC)—Report of Antimicrobials Division Toxicity Endpoint Committee

(ADTC)and the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee (HIARC). B. Toxicological Endpoints For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure

(POD)is identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose

(BMD)approach is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors

(UFs)are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. The Level of Concern

(LOC)is a reference value expressed as either a reference dose/population adjusted dose (RfD/PAD) or margin of exposure (MOE). Safety is assessed for acute and chronic dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose

(aPAD)and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms of the probability of a cancer occurrence greater than that expected in a lifetime. Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm* . The Agency's LOC for aliphatic alkyl ammonium chloride quaternaries' inhalation and oral exposures is 100 (i.e., a MOE less than 100 exceeds the Agency’s level of concern). The LOC is based on an UF of 10x for interspecies extrapolation and 10x UF for intraspecies extrapolation. For dermal exposures, irritation as the effect was selected for the short-term endpoint and a reduced MOE was used to characterize the risk. The use of irritation as a toxic endpoint for assessment of dermal risk is appropriate in this case, as dermal exposure that results in primarily an irritation response is considered a self-limiting type of exposure that is not expected to last for any length of time, and variability in the response is not expected to be as great as systemic toxic responses. For aliphatic alkyl quaternaries, the MOE for short-term dermal risk is reduced to a total factor of 10x (3x for interspecies extrapolation, 3x for intraspecies variation). A summary of the toxicological endpoints for aliphatic alkyl quaternaries used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit. Specific information on the studies received such as the NOAEL and the LOAEL from the toxicity studies caused by aliphatic alkyl quaternaries can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0338, Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride (DDBAC)—Report of Antimicrobials Division Toxicity Endpoint Committee

(ADTC)and the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee (HIARC). **Table 1. —Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Aliphatic Alkyl Ammonium Chloride Quaternaries for Use in Human Risk Assessment** Exposure/Scenario Point of Departure and Uncertainty/Safety Factors RfD, PAD, LOC for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Acute dietary (Females 13-50 years of age) NOAEL = 10 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day) UF A = 10x UF H = 10 x FQPA SF = 1x Acute RfD = 0.1 mg/kg/day aPAD = 0.1 mg/kg/day Prenatal Developmental Toxicity—Rat (MRID 41886701) LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of skeletal variations. Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL= 10 mg/kg/day UF A = 10x UF H = 10 x FQPA SF = 1x Chronic RfD =0.1 mg/kg/day cPAD = 0.1 mg/kg/day Chronic Toxicity—Dog (MRID 41970401) LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of clinical signs in males and females and decreased total cholesterol levels in females. Incidental oral short-term (1 to 30 days) NOAEL= 10 mg/kg/day UF A = 10x UF H = 10 x FQPA SF = 1x LOC for MOE = 100 Prenatal Developmental Toxicity—Rat (MRID 41886701) LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of skeletal variations. Incidental oral intermediate-term (1 to 6 months) NOAEL= 10 mg/kg/day UF A = 10x UF H = 10x FQPA SF =1x LOC for MOE = 100 Chronic Toxicity—Dog (MRID 41970401) LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of clinical signs in males and females and decreased total cholesterol levels in females Dermal short-term (formulated product 0.13% a.i.) No endpoint identified. No dermal or systemic effects identified in the 21-day dermal toxicity study (MRID 45656601) up to and including the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. Dermal short-term (1 to 6 months) Dermal study NOAEL= 2 mg/kg/day ( (8 micrograms (ug)/centimeters

(cm)2 ) a %when appropriate) UF A = 3 x UF H = 3x FQPA SF = 1x LOC for MOE = 10 90-Day Dermal Toxicity—Rat (MRID 41305901) LOAEL = 6 mg/kg/day based on increased clinical and gross findings (erythema, edema, exfoliation, excoriation, and ulceration. Dermal intermediate- and Long-term No endpoint identified. Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 days) Oral study NOAEL b = 10 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption rate = 100%) UF A = 10 x UF H = 10 x FQPA SF = 1x LOC for MOE = 100 Prenatal Developmental Toxicity (MRID 41886701) LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of skeletal variations. Inhalation (1 to 6 months) Oral) study NOAEL b = 10 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption rate = 100%) UF A = 10x UF H = 10x FQPA SF = 1x LOC for MOE = 100 Chronic Toxicity Study—Dog (MRID 41970401) LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of clinical signs males and females and decreased total cholesterol levels in females. UF A = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UF H = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). UF L = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL. UF S = use of a short-term study for long-term risk assessment. UF DB = to account for the absence of data or other data deficiency. FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level of concern. a Short-term dermal endpoint = (2 mg/kg rat x 0.2 kg rat x 1,000 ug/mg)/50 cm 2 area of rat dosed = 8 ug/cm 2 . b An additional UF of 10x is used for route extrapolation from an oral endpoint to determine, if a confirmatory study is warranted. C. Exposure Assessment 1. *Dietary exposure from food and feed uses* . In evaluating dietary exposure to DDACB, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for exemption as well as all existing aliphatic alkyl quaternaries exemptions or tolerances in (40 CFR 180.940(a)). EPA assessed dietary exposures from DDACB in food as follows: Aliphatic alkyl quaternaries are to be used as a sanitizer on appliances, beverage bottling, counter tops, food packaging, refrigerators, tables, and utensils. The use of these actives in antimicrobial products for use on food or feed-contact surfaces, agricultural commodities, and application to food-grade eggs may result in pesticide residues in human food. Residues from treated surfaces, such as appliances, countertops, equipment, and utensils can migrate to food coming into contact with the treated and rinsed surfaces and can be ingested by humans. The Agency assessed acute and chronic dietary exposures from the use of DDACB as a disinfectant and food-contact sanitizer on utensils, countertops, and in food/beverage processing facilities. The assessment calculated the Daily Dietary Dose

(DDD)and the Estimated Daily Intake

(EDI)using modified Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)methodologies for utensils and Indirect Dietary Residential Exposure Model software (IDREAM) for countertops. IDREAM incorporates consumption data from United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA)Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) for 1994-1996 and 1998. The USDA CSFII 1994-1996 and 1998 data are based on the reported consumption of more than 20,000 individuals over two non-consecutive survey days. The EDI calculations presented in this assessment for treated indirect dietary exposures resulting from sanitizing utensils assumed that food would contact 4,000 cm 2 (which represents contact with treated china, glass, and silverware used by an individual who regularly eats three meals per day at an institutional or public facility) and that the residual solution remaining on the surface or pesticide migration fraction is 1 mg/cm 2 of treated area. The body weights used for this assessment were 70 kg for an adult male, 60 kg for an adult woman, and 10 kg for an infant. Based on data provided in a new residue study, Transferability Equivalence among Quats and Measured Food Surrogate Transfer Efficiency (MRID 46870703), a conservative transfer rate of 43% was used to demonstrate the amount of residues on the surface that will be transferred to food and subsequently ingested. The maximum application rate for DDACB on utensils is 0.0020 lbs active ingredient (a.i) per gallon of treatment solution. There are two levels of refinement for assessing dietary exposure to antimicrobial products used on countertops. The three dimensional approach, Tier 2, was utilized for this assessment. This conservative approach uses food consumption and preparation patterns as well as data and assumptions that are not chemical specific. Food ingredients are separated into nine categories based on food preparation, food physical properties, and potential, or likelihood of contact with treated countertops. The nine food categories are liquids, fruit, bread, cheese, vegetable, meat, purees (e.g., oatmeal, pudding), pieces (foods normally consumed in small pieces), and powders (foods normally used in powder/granular forms). Assumed countertop residues are converted to estimated residues contacting the countertops using a translation factor for each food category, and default residue transfer efficiency for a representative food. Therefore, IDREAM combines the estimated countertop residues for surface treatment products, CSFII consumption data, food-specific conversion factors that relate the surface area contacting a countertop with corresponding weight of the food item, and the transfer efficiency of residues from countertops to food. Conservative assumptions for these analyses include: All disinfectants registered to disinfect kitchen countertops are included; all foods are prepared on those countertops; all prepared foods will come in contact with treated countertops at the maximum application rate and transfer residues do not diminish over time (i.e., residue reduction will not occur from cooking or preparation processes); there is a 100% likelihood of contact to account for both commercial and residential scenarios: All commercial and households use the same active ingredients; all foods are prepared and consumed. When assessing the food bottling/packaging use, EPA assumed a 100% transfer rate because the food is potentially in contact with the treated surfaces for very long periods of time. The maximum application rate for DDACB for bottling/packing of food is 0.0020 lbs a.i. per gallon of treatment solution. EDI values were calculated using an approach similar to that used for treated food utensils. Exposure was assumed to occur through the ingestion of three food products that might be packaged with treated material: Beverages (alcoholic and non-alcoholic), egg products, and milk. A calorie intake modification factor of 0.64 was applied to the EDI for a child to account for the differences between intake values among children and adults. The calculated percent of an aPAD and a cPAD do not exceed 100% and therefore are not of a concern. 2. *Dietary exposure from drinking water* . DDACB outdoor uses are as an algaecide in wood preservative treatment and a slimicide in secondary oil field uses. The oil field uses are considered to be contained. The other uses are not expected to significantly contaminate drinking water sources. Therefore, the DDACB contributions for drinking water exposure are considered to be negligible and are not quantified. 3. *From non-dietary exposure* . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables). DDACB is currently registered for the following residential non-dietary sites: Homes and day-care nurseries. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Residential exposure may occur during the application as well as post application of DDACB to indoor hard surfaces (e.g., mopping, trigger pump sprays, wiping). The residential handler scenarios were assessed to determine dermal and inhalation exposures. Residential post application scenarios such as children exposure to treated toys and floors were also assessed to determine dermal and incidental oral exposures. Surrogate dermal, inhalation, and incidental oral unit exposure values were estimated using Pesticide Handler Exposure Database

(PHED)data and the Chemical Manufactures Association Antimicrobial Exposure Assessment Study (EPA, 1999). Note that for this assessment, EPA assumed that residential users complete all elements of an application (mix/load/apply) without the use of personal protective equipment. The duration for most residential exposures is believed to be best represented by the short-term duration (1 to 30 days). The short-term duration was chosen for this assessment because the residential handler and post-application scenarios are assumed to be performed on an episodic, not daily basis. Specific information on the residential exposure assessment for DDACB can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-1024, Review of Petition to Amend 40 CFR 180.940 to add Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Carbonate/Bicarbonate. 4. *Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity* . Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” EPA's risk assessment for the Group I Cluster is based on an assessment of the cumulative exposure to all aliphatic alkyl quaternary compounds. The individual exposure scenarios in the DDAC assessments (as well as the aggregate assessment in the Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternary

(DDAC)Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)) were developed by assuming that a DDAC compound was used on 100% of the surfaces authorized on the label that could result in human exposure and summing the percent active ingredients on the labels for all of the aliphatic alkyl quaternary compounds when used in combination. Thus, because the risk assessment for DDAC accounts for exposures to all of the aliphatic alkyl quaternary compounds, there is no need for a separate cumulative risk assessment for those compounds. The Agency has not identified any other substances as sharing a common mode of toxicity with DDAC. D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. * In general* . Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional

(10x)tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA SF. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10x when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA SF value based on the use of traditional UFs and/or FQPA SFs, as appropriate. 2. *Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity* . Given the data on the aliphatic alkyl ammonium chloride quaternaries, there is no evidence that DDACB result in increased susceptibility in *in utero* rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. 3. *Conclusion* . EPA has determined that reliable data show that it would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA SF to 1x. That decision is based on the following findings: i. The toxicity database for aliphatic alkyl ammonium chloride quaternaries is complete. ii. There is no indication that aliphatic alkyl ammonium chloride quaternaries are a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity. iii. There is no evidence that aliphatic alkyl ammonium chloride quaternaries result in increased susceptibility in *in utero* rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. Although EPA may, in the future, refine exposure estimates for aliphatic alkyl ammonium chloride quaternaries based on more sophisticated modeling techniques, the current exposure assessment is based on a combination of conservative assumptions that is likely to overstate exposure from food to aliphatic alkyl ammonium chloride quaternaries. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety 1. *Dietary risks from food and feed uses* . EPA compares the estimated dietary exposures to an aPAD and a cPAD, 0.1 mg/kg/day, which are the same value for DDACB. Generally, a dietary exposure estimate that is less than 100% of the aPAD or the cPAD does not exceed the Agency’s LOC. The antimicrobial indirect food use acute and chronic risk estimates from exposure to treated utensils and countertops are below the Agency’s LOC. For adult males, the acute and chronic dietary exposure risk estimates are 5.9% for utensils and 1. 92% for countertops. The aPAD and cPAD for adult females of child bearing age (13-49), the highly exposed group, is 6.9% for utensils and 1. 79% for countertops. For children ages 1-2, the most highly exposed population subgroup, the acute and chronic dietary risk estimates are 41. 3% for utensils and 6.21% for countertops. Therefore, dietary exposure estimates are below the Agency’s LOC for all population subgroups. The antimicrobial indirect food use chronic risk estimates from exposure to treated food packaging and beverage bottles are below the Agency’s LOC. The percent cPAD values exceeded 100% and are not of concern. Specific information on the dietary exposure assessment for DDACB can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-2006-1024, Review of Petition to Amend 40 CFR 180.940 to add Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Carbonate/Bicarbonate. 2. *Non-occupational risk* . Aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for other non-occupational exposures, EPA has concluded that food, water, and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs greater than or equal to 100 for the inhalation route of exposure and 10 for dermal exposure; therefore, are not of concern. Based on the toxicological and exposure data discussed in this preamble, EPA concludes that DDACB will not pose a risk under reasonably foreseeable circumstances. Accordingly, EPA finds that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to DDACB residues. IV. Other Considerations An analytical method for food is not needed. Food-contact sanitizers are typically regulated by the State health departments to ensure that the food industry is using products in compliance with the regulations in 40 CFR 180.940. The end-use solution that is applied to the food-contact surface is analyzed not food items that may come into contact with treated surface. An analytical method is available to analyze the use dilution that is applied to food-contact surfaces. A titration method is used to determine the total amount of quaternary compound. If the use solution is a mixture of ADBAC and DDACB, then high pressure liquid chromatogram with ultraviolet visible (HPLC-UV) is used to determine the amount of ADBAC. The amount of DDACB is determined by calculating the difference between the total amount of quaternary compounds and ADBAC. V. Conclusion Therefore, an exemption is established for residues of DDACB, regulated chemical, on food-contact surfaces in public eating establishments, on dairy processing equipment, and food processing equipment and utensils. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled * Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use * (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(a)to read as follows: § 180.940 Tolerance exemptions for active and inert ingredients for use in antimicrobial formulations (Food-contact surface sanitizing solutions).

(a)* * * Pesticide Chemical CAS Reg. No. Limits * * * * * * * Quaternary ammonium compounds, didecyl dimethyl ammonium carbonate/didecyl dimethyl ammonium bicarbonate 148788-55-0/148812-654-1 When ready for use, the end-use concentration of these specific ammonium compounds is not to exceed 240 ppm of active quaternary ammonium compound. * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E8-14880 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 261 and 266 [FRL-8687-6] RIN 2090-AA15 US Filter Recovery Services, Inc., Under Project XL AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)is withdrawing a final rule published on May 22, 2001 which modified the regulations under the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA)to enable the implementation of the US Filter Recovery Services, Inc. (USFRS) project that was developed under EPA's Project eXcellence in Leadership (Project XL) program. Project XL was a national pilot program that allowed state and local governments, businesses and federal facilities to work with EPA to develop more cost-effective ways of achieving environmental and public health protection. In exchange, EPA provided regulatory, policy or procedural flexibilities to conduct the pilot experiments. DATES: The final rule is effective August 1, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Panetta, Mail Code 1870T, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Ms. Panetta's telephone number is

(202)566-2184 and her e-mail address is *panetta.sandra@epa.gov* . Further information on today's action may also be obtained on the Internet at * http:// www.epa.gov/projectxl/usfilter/index.htm * . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is withdrawing the final rule which published on May 22, 2001 (66 FR 28066) in response to USFRS's decision not to go forward with the XL project and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's

(MPCA)decision not to promulgate an enabling revision to USFRS's permit. EPA provided USFRS with the regulatory flexibility to carry out a pilot project involving the use, storage and collection of ion exchange canisters for interested and approved USFRS customers under Project XL. The final rule was to remain in effect until 5 years from the date that MPCA revised USFRS's permit incorporating the changes required by the rule. Following the publication of the final rule, USFRS changed ownership. The new owners have chosen not to go forward with the XL project and therefore the project terminated by default under the change of ownership clause in the site-specific rule. MPCA did not initiate the required changes to USFRS's permit. Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because EPA is withdrawing a rule that can no longer be implemented. The company changed ownership and the project terminated by default because the new owners did not wish to continue the project. The rule no longer applies to the company and removal of the rule has no legal effect. Notice and public procedure would serve no useful purpose and is thus unnecessary. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). 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 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order. 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.* because it is withdrawing a rule that was not implemented and does not impose any new requirements. 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 Today's final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA)or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the APA or any other statute because it withdraws a rule that applied to only one facility and does not impose any new requirements. Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute [see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section], it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). 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 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. ( **Note:** The term “enforceable duty” does not include duties and conditions in voluntary federal contracts for goods and services.) Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute [see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section], it is not subject to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)(Pub. L. 104-4). 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 final 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. This rule withdraws a rule that was specific to one facility. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. 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 final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final rule withdraws a rule that was not implemented. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: “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. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) This 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 Advancement Act As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 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 action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider 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 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 final 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 rule applies to one facility and withdraws a rule that was not implemented. K. The Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules

(1)rules of particular applicability;

(2)rules relating to agency management or personnel; and

(3)rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because it is a rule of particular applicability and does not impose any new requirements. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 261 Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 266 Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 26, 2008. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, parts 261 and 266 of chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows: PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and 6938. 2. Section 261. 6 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) introductory text and removing paragraph (a)(2)(v) to read as follows: § 261. 6 Requirements for recyclable materials.

(a)* * *

(2)The following recyclable materials are not subject to the requirements of this section but are regulated under subparts C through N of part 266 of this chapter and all applicable provisions in parts 270 and 124 of this chapter: PART 266—STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES 3. The authority citation for part 266 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1006, 2002(a), 3001-3009, 3014, 6905, 6906, 6912, 6921, 6922, 6924-6927, 6934, and 6937. 4. Subpart O is removed. [FR Doc. E8-15005 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1 and 43 [WC Docket No. 07-38; FCC 08-148] 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

(VoIP)Subscribership AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In the Order on Reconsideration (Order), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) amends the FCC Form 477 data collection to collect additional data on broadband service subscriptions. The Commission modifies Form 477 to require broadband providers to report the percentage of broadband connections in service that are residential. DATES: The requirements in this document contain information collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the **Federal Register** announcing the effective date. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Feldman, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division,

(202)418-0940. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order on Reconsideration in WC Docket No. 07-38, adopted on June 11, 2008, and released on June 12, 2008. The complete text of this Order on Reconsideration is available for public inspection Monday through Thursday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. in the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is available also on the Commission's Internet site at *http://www.fcc.gov.* Alternative formats are available for persons with disabilities by contacting the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at

(202)418-0531, TTY

(202)418-7365, or at *fcc504@fcc.gov.* The complete text of the decision may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copying and Printing, Inc., Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, telephone

(202)488-5300, facsimile

(202)488-5563, TTY

(202)488-5562, or e-mail at *fcc@bcpiweb.com.* Synopsis of Order on Reconsideration 1. On June 12, 2008, the Commission released *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

(VoIP)Subscribership,* WC Docket No. 07-38, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 08-89 ( *Form 477 Order* ) (published elsewhere in this issue). Pursuant to section 1. 108 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1. 108, the Commission reconsiders on its own motion the reporting requirements of Form 477 as adopted by the *Form 477 Order.* In particular, the Commission expands the *Form 477 Order's* broadband connecting reporting requirement to also require reporting of the percentage of residential broadband connections. 2. While comments in the record for the *Form 477 Order* show support for distinguishing residential services from business services, the Commission maintained the pre-existing requirement to report the percentage of residential broadband connections at the state level. On May 13, 2008, after the Commission adopted the *Form 477 Order,* representatives from AT&T and Free Press met with the Commission to discuss the feasibility of extending the existing requirement that providers report state-wide percentages of residential lines to the Census Tract level. These parties proposed an approach that, subject to certain assumptions, would enable reporting of the percentage of residential broadband connections at the Census Tract level. The Commission finds that proposed approach reasonable, and therefore adopts such a requirement, as discussed below. 3. On reconsideration, the Commission concludes that extending the existing residential percentage reporting requirement will improve its understanding of the scope of broadband deployment and will assist the Commission's ongoing efforts to foster increased deployment of broadband services to residential customers in accordance with the Commission's obligation under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, to an extent that outweighs the cost to providers. The Commission therefore requires wired, terrestrial fixed wireless, and satellite broadband service providers to report, for each Census Tract and each speed tier in which the provider offers service, the number of subscribers and the percentage of subscribers that are residential. For terrestrial mobile wireless broadband service providers, which only report broadband connection at the state level under the *Form 477 Order* as adopted, the Commission does not modify the obligation for such providers to report percentage of residential broadband connections at the state level. As in the *Form 477 Order,* the Commission finds that granting a blanket exemption to small carriers would undercut the benefits of the revised information collection by depriving the Commission and other parties of adequate information on broadband deployment and adoption in rural, unserved, and underserved areas of the nation, the areas where additional information is most needed and would be likely to have the greatest impact. Additionally, the Commission notes that all Form 477 filers must currently submit, for each state in which they provide service, the percentage of their broadband subscribers that are residential. The Commission concludes that any incremental burden associated with providing this information on the Census Tract basis is outweighed by the utility of the data the Commission will obtain. The Commission thus applies the revised requirement to all broadband service providers, regardless of size. However, we note that the *Form 477 Order* created an alternative form of reporting this information which we retain but modify slightly here. See *Form 477 Order,* paras. 15, 32. Upon a showing of significant hardship, reporting entities may report a list of service addresses or GIS coordinates of service, along with the speed and technology of service offered at each address and whether the subscriber at that service address is a residential or business subscriber, in lieu of the requirement to report subscriber counts and percentage residential by Census Tract and speed tier. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 4. This Order on Reconsideration contains proposed new and modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” Legal Basis 5. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the Order on Reconsideration is contained in Sections 1 through 5, 10, 11, 201 through 205, 215, 218 through 220, 251 through 271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 155, 160, 161, 201 through 205, 215, 218 through 220, 251 through 271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503, and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 6. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)was incorporated in the *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

(VoIP)Subscribership,* WC Docket No. 07-38, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 7760, 7765-66, paras. 10-12, 22

(2007)( *Data Gathering Notice* ). The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Data Gathering Notice, including comment on the IRFA. A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(FRFA)was adopted in conjunction with the Commission's *Form 477 Order.* This present Supplemental FRFA conforms to the RFA, and addresses the new requirements adopted in this Order on Reconsideration (Order). Need for, and Objectives of, the Order 7. In the Order, the Commission adopted certain changes to Form 477 to collect additional, improved data on broadband availability and use. The Commission expanded the FCC Form 477 data collection adopted in the *Form 477 Order* to collect additional data on the percentage of residential broadband service subscriptions. These changes will greatly improve the ability of the Commission to understand the extent of broadband deployment, and will enable the Commission to continue to develop and maintain appropriate broadband policies, in particular to carry out its obligation under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 8. In the *Form 477 Order,* and accompanying FRFA, the Commission discussed the significant issues raised in response to public comments on the IRFA. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules May Apply 9. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which:

(1)Is independently owned and operated;

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

(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Wireline Carriers and Service Providers 10. *Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to incumbent local exchange services. 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. 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 its action. 11. *Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), 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. According to Commission data, 859 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange carrier or competitive access provider 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 providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers” are small entities that may be affected by its action. 12. The Commission has 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.” 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. The Commission has therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although it emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. 13. *Local Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 184 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, an estimated 181 have 1,500 or fewer employees and three have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local resellers are small entities that may be affected by its action. 14. *Toll Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of these, an estimated 853 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 28 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small entities that may be affected by its action. 15. *Payphone Service Providers (PSPs)* . Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for payphone services 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. According to Commission data, 657 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of payphone services. Of these, an estimated 653 have 1,500 or fewer employees and four have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of payphone service providers are small entities that may be affected by its action. 16. *Interexchange Carriers (IXCs)* . Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to interexchange services. 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. According to Commission data, 330 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange services. Of these 330 companies, an estimated 309 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 21 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange service providers are small entities that may be affected by its action. 17. *Operator Service Providers (OSPs)* . Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for operator 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. According to Commission data, 23 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these, an estimated 22 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities that may be affected by its action. 18. *Prepaid Calling Card Providers* . Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 104 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these, an estimated 102 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may be affected by its action. 19. *800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers* . Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 800 and 800-like service (“toll free”) subscribers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of these service subscribers appears to be data the Commission collects on the 800, 888, 877, and 866 numbers in use. According to the Commission's data, at the beginning of July 2006, the number of 800 numbers assigned was 7,647,941; the number of 888 numbers assigned was 5,318,667; the number of 877 numbers assigned was 4,431,162; and the number of 866 numbers assigned was 6,008,976. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these subscribers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of toll free subscribers that would qualify as small businesses under the SBA size standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are 7,647,941 or fewer small entity 800 subscribers; 5,318,667 or fewer small entity 888 subscribers; 4,431,162 or fewer small entity 877 subscribers; and 5,318,667 or fewer small entity 866 subscribers. Wireless Carriers and Service Providers 20. Below, for those services subject to auctions, the Commission notes that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. 21. *Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)* . Since 2007, the SBA has recognized wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category. Prior to that time, the SBA had developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the now-superseded census categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Because Census Bureau data are not yet available for the new category, the Commission will estimate small business prevalence using the prior categories and associated data. For the first category of Paging, data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms 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. For the second category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms 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, using the prior categories and the available data, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small. According to Commission data, 432 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), or Specialized Mobile Radio

(SMR)Telephony services, which are placed together in the data. The Commission estimates that 221 of these are small, under the SBA small business size standard. Thus, under this category and size standard, about half of firms can be considered small. 22. *Common Carrier Paging* . The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Paging, under which a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 365 carriers have reported that they are engaged in Paging or Messaging Service. Of these, an estimated 360 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 5 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of paging providers are small entities that may be affected by its action. In addition, in the Paging Third Report and Order, the Commission developed a small business size standard for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. A “small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a “very small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 985 licenses auctioned, 440 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won. 23. *Wireless Communications Services* . This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission established small business size standards for the wireless communications services

(WCS)auction. A “small business” is an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a “very small business” is an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. The Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, held in April 1997, there were seven winning bidders that qualified as “very small business” entities, and one that qualified as a “small business” entity. 24. *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. 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. The Commission has estimated that 221 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard. 25. *Broadband Personal Communications Service* . The broadband Personal Communications Service

(PCS)spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined “small entity” for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an additional classification for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These standards defining “small entity” in the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses, within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. On March 23, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses. There were 48 small business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as “small” or “very small” businesses. Subsequent events, concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant. 26. *Narrowband Personal Communications Services* . To date, two auctions of narrowband personal communications services

(PCS)licenses have been conducted. For purposes of the two auctions that have already been held, “small businesses” were entities with average gross revenues for the prior three calendar years of $40 million or less. Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41 licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. To ensure meaningful participation of small business entities in future auctions, the Commission has adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order. A “small business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $40 million. A “very small business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. In the future, the Commission will auction 459 licenses to serve Metropolitan Trading Areas

(MTAs)and 408 response channel licenses. There is also one megahertz of narrowband PCS spectrum that has been held in reserve and that the Commission has not yet decided to release for licensing. The Commission cannot predict accurately the number of licenses that will be awarded to small entities in future actions. However, four of the 16 winning bidders in the two previous narrowband PCS auctions were small businesses, as that term was defined under the Commission's Rules. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that a large portion of the remaining narrowband PCS licenses will be awarded to small entities. The Commission also assumes that at least some small businesses will acquire narrowband PCS licenses by means of the Commission's partitioning and disaggregation rules. 27. *220 MHz Radio Service—Phase I Licensees* . The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such non-nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard for small entities specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such licensees that are small businesses, the Commission applies the small business size standard under the SBA rules applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” companies. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. The Commission estimates that nearly all such licensees are small businesses under the SBA's small business size standard. 28. *220 MHz Radio Service—Phase II Licensees* . The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The Phase II 220 MHz service is a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission adopted a small business size standard for “small” and “very small” businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. This small business size standard indicates that a “small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. A “very small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998. In the first auction, 908 licenses were auctioned in three different-sized geographic areas: Three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group

(EAG)Licenses, and 875 Economic Area

(EA)Licenses. Of the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold. Thirty-nine small businesses won licenses in the first 220 MHz auction. The second auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses. Fourteen companies claiming small business status won 158 licenses. 29. *800 MHz and 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses* . The Commission awards “small entity” and “very small entity” bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio

(SMR)geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the three previous calendar years, or that had revenues of no more than $3 million in each of the previous calendar years, respectively. These bidding credits apply to SMR providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands that either hold geographic area licenses or have obtained extended implementation authorizations. The Commission does not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. The Commission assumes, for purposes here, that all of the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA. The Commission has held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR bands. There were 60 winning bidders that qualified as small or very small entities in the 900 MHz SMR auctions. Of the 1,020 licenses won in the 900 MHz auction, bidders qualifying as small or very small entities won 263 licenses. In the 800 MHz auction, 38 of the 524 licenses won were won by small and very small entities. 30. *700 MHz Guard Band Licensees* . In the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, the Commission adopted a small business size standard for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. A “small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a “very small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. An auction of 52 Major Economic Area

(MEA)licenses commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001 and closed on February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a total of two licenses. 31. *Rural Radiotelephone Service* . The Commission has not adopted a size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS). The Commission uses the SBA's small business size standard applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,” i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 32. *Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service* . The Commission has not adopted a small business size standard specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission will use SBA's small business size standard applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,” i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as small under the SBA small business size standard. 33. *Aviation and Marine Radio Services* . Small businesses in the aviation and marine radio services use a very high frequency

(VHF)marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency position-indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency locator transmitter. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to these small businesses. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category “Cellular and Other Telecommunications,” which is 1,500 or fewer employees. Most applicants for recreational licenses are individuals. Approximately 581,000 ship station licensees and 131,000 aircraft station licensees operate domestically and are not subject to the radio carriage requirements of any statute or treaty. For purposes of its evaluations in this analysis, the Commission estimates that there are up to approximately 712,000 licensees that are small businesses (or individuals) under the SBA standard. In addition, between December 3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an auction of 42 VHF Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship transmit) and 161. 775-162. 0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a “small” business as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million. In addition, a “very small” business is one that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million. There are approximately 10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as “small” businesses under the above special small business size standards. 34. *Fixed Microwave Services* . Fixed microwave services include common carrier, private operational-fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. At present, there are approximately 22,015 common carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services. The Commission has not created a size standard for a small business specifically with respect to fixed microwave services. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category “Cellular and Other Telecommunications,” which is 1,500 or fewer employees. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are up to 22,015 common carrier fixed licensees and up to 61,670 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that may be small and may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. The Commission notes, however, that the common carrier microwave fixed licensee category includes some large entities. 35. *Offshore Radiotelephone Service* . This service operates on several UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this service. The Commission is unable to estimate at this time the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard for “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” services. Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 36. *39 GHz Service* . The Commission created a special small business size standard for 39 GHz licenses—an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years. An additional size standard for “very small business” is: an entity that, together with affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. The auction of the 2,173 39 GHz licenses began on April 12, 2000 and closed on May 8, 2000. The 18 bidders who claimed small business status won 849 licenses. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 18 or fewer 39 GHz licensees are small entities that may be affected by its action. 37. *Wireless Cable Systems* . Wireless cable systems use 2 GHz band frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service (“BRS”), formerly Multipoint Distribution Service (“MDS”), and the Educational Broadband Service (“EBS”), formerly Instructional Television Fixed Service (“ITFS”), to transmit video programming and provide broadband services to residential subscribers. These services were originally designed for the delivery of multichannel video programming, similar to that of traditional cable systems, but over the past several years licensees have focused their operations instead on providing two-way high-speed Internet access services. The Commission estimates that the number of wireless cable subscribers is approximately 100,000, as of March 2005. Local Multipoint Distribution Service (“LMDS”) is a fixed broadband point-to-multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way video telecommunications. As described below, the SBA small business size standard for the broad census category of Cable and Other Program Distribution, which consists of such entities generating $13. 5 million or less in annual receipts, appears applicable to MDS, ITFS and LMDS. Other standards also apply, as described. 38. The Commission has defined small MDS (now BRS) and LMDS entities in the context of Commission license auctions. In the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission defined a small business as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. This definition of a small entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the SBA. In the MDS auction, 67 bidders won 493 licenses. Of the 67 auction winners, 61 claimed status as a small business. At this time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business MDS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent MDS licensees that have gross revenues that are not more than $40 million and are thus considered small entities. MDS licensees and wireless cable operators that did not receive their licenses as a result of the MDS auction fall under the SBA small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution. Information available to the Commission indicates that there are approximately 850 of these licensees and operators that do not generate revenue in excess of $13. 5 million annually. Therefore, the Commission estimates that there are approximately 850 small entity MDS (or BRS) providers, as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules. 39. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities; however, the Commission has not created a specific small business size standard for ITFS (now EBS). The Commission estimates that there are currently 2,032 ITFS (or EBS) licensees, and all but 100 of the licenses are held by educational institutions. Thus, the Commission estimates that at least 1,932 ITFS licensees are small entities. 40. In the 1998 and 1999 LMDS auctions, the Commission defined a small business as an entity that has annual average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. Moreover, the Commission added an additional classification for a “very small business,” which was defined as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of less than $15 million in the previous three calendar years. These definitions of “small business” and “very small business” in the context of the LMDS auctions have been approved by the SBA. In the first LMDS auction, 104 bidders won 864 licenses. Of the 104 auction winners, 93 claimed status as small or very small businesses. In the LMDS re-auction, 40 bidders won 161 licenses. Based on this information, the Commission believes that the number of small LMDS licenses will include the 93 winning bidders in the first auction and the 40 winning bidders in the re-auction, for a total of 133 small entity LMDS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules. 41. *218-219 MHz Service* . The first auction of 218-219 MHz spectrum resulted in 170 entities winning licenses for 594 Metropolitan Statistical Area

(MSA)licenses. Of the 594 licenses, 557 were won by entities qualifying as a small business. For that auction, the small business size standard was an entity that, together with its affiliates, has no more than a $6 million net worth and, after federal income taxes (excluding any carry over losses), has no more than $2 million in annual profits each year for the previous two years. In the 218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission established a small business size standard for a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an entity and their affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not to exceed $15 million for the preceding three years. A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an entity and its affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not to exceed $3 million for the preceding three years. These size standards will be used in future auctions of 218-219 MHz spectrum. 42. *24 GHz—Incumbent Licensees* . This analysis may affect incumbent licensees who were relocated to the 24 GHz band from the 18 GHz band, and applicants who wish to provide services in the 24 GHz band. The applicable SBA small business size standard is that of “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” companies. This category provides that such a company is small if it employs no more than 1,500 persons. The Commission believes that there are only two licensees in the 24 GHz band that were relocated from the 18 GHz band, Teligent and TRW, Inc. It is the Commission's understanding that Teligent and its related companies have less than 1,500 employees, though this may change in the future. TRW is not a small entity. Thus, only one incumbent licensee in the 24 GHz band is a small business entity. 43. *24 GHz—Future Licensees* . With respect to new applicants in the 24 GHz band, the small business size standard for “small business” is an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not in excess of $15 million. “Very small business” in the 24 GHz band is an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. These size standards will apply to the future auction, if held. Satellite Service Providers 44. *Satellite Telecommunications* . Since 2007, the SBA has recognized satellite firms within this revised category, with a small business size standard of $13. 5 million. The most current Census Bureau data, however, are from the

(last)economic census of 2002, and the Commission will use those figures to gauge the prevalence of small businesses in this category. Those size standards are for the two census categories of “Satellite Telecommunications” and “Other Telecommunications.” Under both prior categories, such a business was considered small if it had, as now, $13. 5 million or less in average annual receipts. 45. 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, the Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by its action. 46. 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, 303 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by its action. Cable and OVS Operators 47. In 2007, the SBA recognized new census categories for small cable entities. However, there is no census data yet in existence that may be used to calculate the number of small entities that fit these definitions. Therefore, the Commission will use prior definitions of these types of entities in order to estimate numbers of potentially-affected small business entities. In addition to the estimates provided above, the Commission considers certain additional entities that may be affected by the data collection from broadband service providers. Because section 706 requires it to monitor the deployment of broadband regardless of technology or transmission media employed, the Commission anticipates that some broadband service providers will not provide telephone service. Accordingly, the Commission describes below other types of firms that may provide broadband services, including cable companies, MDS providers, and utilities, among others. 48. *Cable and Other Program Distribution* . The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged as third-party distribution systems for broadcast programming. The establishments of this industry deliver visual, aural, or textual programming received from cable networks, local television stations, or radio networks to consumers via cable or direct-to-home satellite systems on a subscription or fee basis. These establishments do not generally originate programming material.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution, which is: all such firms having $13. 5 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. 49. *Cable Companies and Systems* . The Commission has also developed its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are small under this size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Industry data indicate that, of 7,208 systems nationwide, 6,139 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an additional 379 systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers. Thus, under this second size standard, most cable systems are small. 50. *Cable System Operators* . The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard. The Commission notes that it neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore it is unable to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this size standard. 51. *Open Video Services.* Open Video Service

(OVS)systems provide subscription services. As noted above, the SBA has created a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution. This standard provides that a small entity is one with $13. 5 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified approximately 45 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and some of these are currently providing service. Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc.

(RCN)received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, DC, and other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity. Little financial information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission concludes that up to 44 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution 52. *Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution.* The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry group comprises establishments primarily engaged in generating, transmitting, and/or distributing electric power. Establishments in this industry group may perform one or more of the following activities:

(1)Operate generation facilities that produce electric energy;

(2)operate transmission systems that convey the electricity from the generation facility to the distribution system; and

(3)operate distribution systems that convey electric power received from the generation facility or the transmission system to the final consumer.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for firms in this category: “A firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours.” According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 1,644 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Census data do not track electric output and the Commission has not determined how many of these firms fit the SBA size standard for small, with no more than 4 million megawatt hours of electric output. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 1,644 or fewer firms may be considered small under the SBA small business size standard. Internet Service Providers, Web Portals, and Other Information Services 53. In 2007, the SBA recognized two new small business, economic census categories. They are

(1)Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals, and

(2)All Other Information Services. However, there is no census data yet in existence that may be used to calculate the number of small entities that fit these definitions. Therefore, the Commission will use prior definitions of these types of entities in order to estimate numbers of potentially-affected small business entities. 54. *Internet Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs “provide clients access to the Internet and generally provide related services such as web hosting, web page designing, and hardware or software consulting related to Internet connectivity.” Under the SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has average annual receipts of $23 million or less. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 2,529 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 2,437 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 47 firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by its action. Other Internet-Related Entities 55. *Web Search Portals.* The Commission's action pertains to interconnected VoIP services, which could be provided by entities that provide other services such as e-mail, online gaming, web browsing, video conferencing, instant messaging, and other, similar IP-enabled services. The Commission has not adopted a size standard for entities that create or provide these types of services or applications. However, the Census Bureau has identified firms that “operate Web sites that use a search engine to generate and maintain extensive databases of Internet addresses and content in an easily searchable format. Web search portals often provide additional Internet services, such as e-mail, connections to other Web sites, auctions, news, and other limited content, and serve as a home base for Internet users.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that size standard is $6.5 million or less in average annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 342 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 303 had annual receipts of under $5 million, and an additional 15 firms had receipts of between $5 million and $9,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by its action. 56. *Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services.* Entities in this category “primarily * * * provid[e] infrastructure for hosting or data processing services.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that size standard is $23 million or less in average annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 6,877 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 6,418 had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 251 firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by its action. 57. *All Other Information Services.* “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing other information services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives).” The Commission's action pertains to interconnected VoIP services, which could be provided by entities that provide other services such as e-mail, online gaming, web browsing, video conferencing, instant messaging, and other, similar IP-enabled services. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that size standard is $6.5 million or less in average annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 155 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 138 had annual receipts of under $5 million, and an additional four firms had receipts of between $5 million and $9,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by its action. 58. *Internet Publishing and Broadcasting.* “This industry comprises establishments engaged in publishing and/or broadcasting content on the Internet exclusively. These establishments do not provide traditional (non-Internet) versions of the content that they publish or broadcast.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this census category; that size standard is 500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 1,362 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 1,351 had employment of 499 or fewer employees, and six firms had employment of between 500 and 999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by its action. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements 59. In today's Order, the Commission expands the requirements adopted in the *Form 477 Order* to require wired, terrestrial fixed wireless, and satellite broadband providers to report the percentage of residential broadband connections they have in service in individual Census Tracts. While both large and small entities will be subject to these reporting requirements, the task is comparably easier for smaller entities that provide service to fewer customers and in more concentrated geographic areas, as the reporting procedures are broken down by geographic region and type of service. Few skills beyond the basic accounting skills already required of Form 477 filers, including small entities, are required to comply with the new and modified reporting and recordkeeping requirements adopted in this Order. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 60. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in developing its approach, which may include (among others) the following four alternatives:

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

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

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

(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 61. In the *Data Gathering Notice,* the Commission invited comment on a variety of proposals that would impose further reporting and recordkeeping requirements, including alternatives to the measures taken in this Order. The Commission sought comment on whether there are any alternatives to the proposals in the order that would also serve the objective of improving broadband data collection, and the Commission invited comment on ways to mitigate the burden that might be imposed on small entities. The Commission sought comment on how the proposals might be tailored to mitigate the burden on smaller entities but nevertheless obtain data that would enable the Commission to determine whether subscribers in those territories have access to broadband services. To analyze the impact on small entities, the Data Gathering Notice asked whether entities maintain the required information in billing or marketing databases, and asked commenters to demonstrate the burden for the entities to collect and report this type of information. 62. The Commission finds that the approach adopted in today's Order best balances the costs of information collection and the public interest benefits of more detailed information on broadband deployment. As in the *Form 477 Order,* the Commission finds that granting a blanket exemption to small carriers would undercut the benefits of the revised information collection by depriving the Commission and other parties of adequate information on broadband deployment and adoption in rural, unserved, and underserved areas of the nation, the areas where additional information is most needed and would be likely to have the greatest impact. Additionally, the Commission notes that all Form 477 filers must currently submit, for each state in which they provide service, the percentage of their broadband subscribers that are residential. The Commission concludes that any incremental burden associated with providing this information on the Census Tract basis is outweighed by the utility of the data the Commission will obtain. The Commission thus applies the revised requirement to all broadband service providers, regardless of size. 63. *Report to Congress.* The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the **Federal Register** . Ordering Clauses 64. Accordingly, *it is ordered* that, pursuant to Sections 1 through 5, 11, 201 through 205, 211, 215, 218 through 220, 251 through 271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 155, 161, 201 through 205, 211, 215, 218 through 220, 251 through 271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503, and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt, this Order on Reconsideration, with all attachments, is adopted. 65. *It is further ordered* that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration, including the Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 66. *It is further ordered,* pursuant to sections 1. 103(a) and 1. 427(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1. 103(a), 1. 427(b), that the Commission will publish a document in the **Federal Register** announcing the effective date. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-14874 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1 and 43 [WC Docket No. 07-38; FCC 08-89] 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

(VoIP)Subscribership AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In the Report and Order (Order), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) amends the FCC Form 477 data collection in several respects to collect additional data on broadband service subscriptions. The Commission modifies Form 477 to require broadband providers to report the number of broadband connections in service in individual Census Tracts. The Commission adopts a voluntary household self-reporting system, and will recommend to the Census Bureau that the American Community Survey questionnaire be modified to gather information about broadband availability and subscription in households. The Commission adopts three additional changes to FCC Form 477. First, the Commission requires providers to report broadband service speed data in conjunction with subscriber counts according to new categories for download and upload speeds. These new speed tiers will better identify services that support advanced applications. Second, the Commission amends reporting requirements for mobile wireless broadband providers to require them to report the number of subscribers whose data plans allow them to browse the Internet and access the Internet content of their choice. Finally, the Commission requires providers of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (interconnected VoIP) service to report subscribership information on Form 477. DATES: The amendments to §§ 1. 7001 and 43. 11 in this document contain information collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the **Federal Register** announcing the effective date. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Feldman, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division,

(202)418-0940. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order in WC Docket No. 07-38, adopted on March 19, 2008, and released on June 12, 2008. The complete text of this Report and Order is available for public inspection Monday through Thursday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. in the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is available also on the Commission's Internet site at *www.fcc.gov.* Alternative formats are available for persons with disabilities by contacting the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at

(202)418-0531, TTY

(202)488-5300, facsimile

(202)488-5563, TTY

(202)488-5562, or e-mail at *fcc@bcpiweb.com.* Synopsis of Report and Order Reporting Broadband Connection Information by Census Tract 1. *Wired, Terrestrial Fixed Wireless, and Satellite Broadband—Subscriber Counts.* Currently Form 477 requires covered providers to report the number of broadband connections they provide at the state level. In addition, to measure general service availability, Form 477 requires providers to report the 5-digit ZIP Codes in which they have at least one customer. The Commission agrees with those commenters who argue that collecting actual subscribership numbers in Census Tract areas will significantly improve the quality of the information collected, and that the value of these more detailed, informative reports outweighs the burdens of additional costs, if any, imposed on providers by this requirement. 2. Certain commenters argue that changing the geographic unit of reporting subscribers to 9-digit ZIP Codes would increase the granularity of reported information significantly, enabling policymakers to pinpoint unserved or underserved areas. Commenters opposing 9-digit ZIP Codes argue that reporting broadband subscribership information at that level would be inappropriate, would result in confidentiality problems, or would simply be too expensive. Still other commenters propose the use of geocoded data or of census-based data instead of 9-digit ZIP Codes. 3. The Commission agrees with those commenters who argue that census-based units provide more useful information for the Commission's policy purposes, and will thus require providers to report numbers of subscribers on the Census Tract level. Census-based units are more stable and static than ZIP Codes and thus will enable the Commission to measure change over time more effectively. Additionally, census-based units correspond more consistently to actual locations, are less likely to reveal individual identifiable information about consumers, and can be correlated with valuable demographic data (including race, income, education, and tribal land status), giving policymakers additional tools with which to analyze broadband uptake. By contrast, because ZIP Codes are designed for a different purpose than census-based units, namely to deliver efficiently the nation's mail, ZIP Codes are less useful for the Commission's purposes. In addition, 9-digit ZIP Codes “do not correspond to any commonly recognized geographic boundaries, such as state or county lines, Congressional districts or service territories.” 4. Although some commenters urge us to select the smaller Census Block as the geographic unit for reporting subscriber numbers, the Commission finds that the larger Census Tract is more appropriate for the Commission's purposes. Census Tract numbers provide the beneficial census characteristics listed above, and because a Census Tract is larger than a Census Block, requiring providers to report at the Census Tract level rather than the Census Block level will be less burdensome. For this reason, among others, the Commission therefore disagrees with commenters that reporting by census-based units is overly burdensome compared to the benefits of this reporting. The California Public Utilities Commission comments that the California legislature recently enacted a statute requiring statewide video franchise applicants to report subscribers on a census basis. Commenters argue that this statute has provided California with valuable information from three large providers with minimal burden on the providers. 5. The Commission therefore requires facilities-based providers of wired, terrestrial fixed wireless, and satellite broadband connections to report the number of connections that they have in service to households and businesses in each of the Census Tracts in which they operate. The Commission requires these providers to report subscriptions in separate categories based on the speeds of the services. This information will provide us with a highly detailed and reliable account of broadband subscription and deployment nationwide, enabling us to make more informed policy determinations and to support more effectively the efforts of states and others seeking to promote broadband services. Because of the volume of information being reported, the Commission requires providers to supply, in a standardized database format, the number of subscribers in each Census Tract, broken down by technology type and upload and download speed. 6. The Commission disagrees with commenters that reporting by census-based units is, in general, overly burdensome compared to the benefits of this reporting. Nevertheless, the Commission will permit reporting entities to report data in an alternative format under limited circumstances, recognizing that some entities might suffer undue hardship in reporting on a census level. Specifically, upon a showing of significant hardship, entities will be permitted to report a list of service addresses or GIS coordinates of service, along with the speed and technology of the broadband connection in service at each address, in lieu of reporting subscriber counts by Census Tract. 7. *Terrestrial Mobile Wireless Broadband—Subscriber Counts.* In the current Form 477 data collection process, mobile wireless broadband service providers report the number of connections they provide in particular states, and they report the 5-digit ZIP Codes that best represent their broadband service footprint. Because mobile service subscribers may move within and among broadband service areas, the Commission will continue to require them to report only the number of connections they provide in individual states. For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds that the benefits of reporting service footprints at the Census Tract level outweighs the costs of the additional reporting. Therefore, the Commission requires mobile wireless broadband service providers to report the Census Tracts that best represent their broadband service footprint for each of the speed tiers in which they offer service. For purposes of Form 477, entities that use unlicensed devices to provide a commercial broadband Internet access service that can be received at any location within a service footprint, *e.g.* , throughout a town, adjoining towns, or portion of a metropolitan area, will continue to report subscriber information in the “terrestrial mobile wireless” category. By contrast, entities that use unlicensed devices to provide broadband Internet access connections to dispersed, fixed end user premises locations are required to report information in the “terrestrial fixed wireless” category of Form 477. 8. *Collecting Additional Information on Broadband Deployment and Adoption.* Comments in the record indicate strong support for creating a self-reporting system, at least as a supplement to other information collection methods. The Commission will design and implement a voluntary system that households may use to report availability and speed of broadband Internet access service at their premises. The voluntary registry will enable households to use the telephone, mail, email, or the Internet to report apparent unavailability of broadband service for their location and information about existing service, such as the type and actual speed of Internet access service they use. The information collected through the voluntary registry will be shared with public-private partnerships and with the Telecommunications Program of the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA)Rural Development Agency. Furthermore, in order to obtain data on broadband services at an even more granular level than the information collected by the changes that the Commission adopts in this Order, the Commission will recommend to the Census Bureau that the following question be added to the American Community Survey and the Puerto Rico Community Survey: “What is the main method household members use to access the Internet from home?

(1)No members of this household access the Internet from home.

(2)A regular ‘dial-up’ telephone line.

(3)DSL (Digital Subscriber Line).

(4)A cable modem.

(5)A fiber optic line.

(6)A wireless or satellite connection.

(7)Some other means.” New Broadband Connection Speed Categories 9. Form 477 currently gathers information within “speed tiers” in which providers categorize the maximum speeds of connections offered to customers. These tiers includes connections with information transfer rates that exceed 200 kbps in both directions and are less than 2. 5 mbps in the faster direction. The next tier includes connections with information transfer rates that exceed 200 kbps in both directions and are greater than or equal to 2. 5 mbps and less than 10.0 mbps in the faster direction. As many commenters noted, the range of information transfer capacities included in the current lowest tier of 200 kbps to 2. 5 mbps captures a wide variety of services, ranging from services capable of transmitting real time video to simple always-on connections not suitable for more than basic email or web browsing activities. The Commission finds that requiring providers to report data in more detailed speed tiers will better identify services that support advanced applications, creating distinctions that reflect different capacities for transmitting high quality video and similar high bandwidth communications. The Commission also finds that, as technologies and services evolve, upload speeds are an increasingly significant aspect of broadband services, and increased granularity in reporting both download and upload speed data will assist us in understanding the broadband services market. 10. Accordingly, in order to gather more detailed and therefore useful information about subscription to broadband services, the Commission revises Form 477 to establish an increased number of transfer speed categories, applicable to both download and upload service speeds. Specifically, the reporting tiers applicable to the reporting of both download and upload transfer rates under the new Form 477 collection are:

(1)Greater than 200 kbps but less than 768 kbps;

(2)equal to or greater than 768 kbps but less than 1. 5 mbps;

(3)equal to or greater than 1. 5 mbps but less than 3. 0 mbps;

(4)equal to or greater than 3. 0 mbps but less than 6.0 mbps,

(5)equal to or greater than 6.0 mbps but less than 10.0 mbps;

(6)equal to or greater than 10.0 mbps but less than 25.0 mbps;

(7)equal to or greater than 25.0 mbps but less than 100.0 mbps; and

(8)equal to or greater than 100 mbps. The Commission finds it appropriate to continue to evaluate broadband deployment by monitoring the migration of customers and services to higher speed tiers by continuing to collect information beginning at the 200 kbps threshold that is appropriately considered “first generation.” Additionally, the Commission will retain the requirement that providers report connections with download transfer rates above 200 kbps and upload speeds of less than or equal to 200 kbps, because upload services in this category continue to be a prevalent offering in the broadband services market. Filers will report the number of subscribers for each type of technology of service they offer, in each combination of download and upload speed categories, within each Census Tract in which the providers have subscribers. 11. The action the Commission takes in this Order will help ensure that the Commission gathers the data it requires in order to carry out its obligations. While these changes may increase reporting requirements for some service providers, and require new methods for comparison of new data to old data, the Commission agrees with commenters who note that such changes will improve the Commission's understanding of the market for broadband services. Through these adjustments, the Commission continues and extend the Commission's efforts to collect data to assess broadband deployment based on tiered speeds. It is the Commission's intention to revisit these speed thresholds every two years to assess whether advances in technology warrant further refinements. Other Reporting Requirements for Mobile Wireless Broadband Providers 12. *Distinguishing Subscribers by Service Usage.* The Commission notes that providers of mobile wireless broadband service are currently required to “report the number of end users whose mobile device, such as wireless modem laptop cards, smartphones, or handsets, are capable of sending or receiving data at speeds in excess of 200 kbps.” This information is valuable in that it represents, in the broadest sense, those mobile wireless users with the capacity to access broadband services. Commenters note that tracking those users with a month-to-month or longer plan for broadband data transfer produces more accurate information about mobile broadband usage than simply tracking users who are capable of such use. The Commission agrees with these commenters and concludes that the benefits of gathering separate information about mobile broadband subscriptions that contain a data plan, including the increased ability of the Commission to understand the level of mobile wireless usage, outweigh any additional reporting costs. The Commission therefore revises Form 477 to add a second reporting category in which mobile service providers will report the number of subscribers whose device and subscription permit them to access the lawful Internet content of their choice. When counting such subscribers, the Commission directs providers to exclude subscribers whose choice of content is restricted to only customized-for-mobile content, and to exclude subscribers whose subscription does not include, either in a bundle or as a feature added to a voice subscription, a data plan providing the ability to transfer, on a monthly basis, either a specified or an unlimited amount of data to and from Internet sites of the subscriber's choice. 13. *Residential Subscribers.* The Commission modifies the Form 477 instructions for counting certain mobile wireless broadband subscribers as residential subscribers. Commenters note that many individuals who use a mobile device for business purposes also use it for personal purposes, and that employers variously underwrite employees' business-related use of mobile wireless services. Commenters also note that mobile wireless providers may differ in their marketing strategies and how they distinguish market segments. Nevertheless, the Commission wishes to obtain greater Form 477 reporting consistency and accuracy. Therefore, the Commission directs mobile wireless broadband providers to report as residential subscriptions those subscriptions that are not billed to a corporate account, to a non-corporate business customer account, or to a government or institutional account. Reporting Requirements for Interconnected VoIP Service Providers 14. Only some providers of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol

(VoIP)services are required to report information on Form 477. Interconnected VoIP service subscribers represent an important and rapidly growing part of the U.S. voice service market, and interconnected VoIP services are becoming increasingly competitive with other forms of local telephone service. Under the Commission's current reporting rules, end-user subscriptions to interconnected VoIP services are substantially underreported, which distorts the Commission's view of the extent of interconnected VoIP service deployment and uptake, and potentially distorts the Commission's picture of the U.S. voice service market. The Commission's predictive judgment is that, if the Commission did nothing to update its reporting rules, these distortions would continue to grow. 15. The Commission concludes that the Commission has the authority under Title I of the Act to impose reporting obligations on providers of interconnected VoIP service, and are justified in exercising this authority. Ancillary jurisdiction may be employed, in the Commission's discretion, when Title I of the Act gives the Commission subject matter jurisdiction over the service to be regulated and the assertion of jurisdiction is “reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of [its] various responsibilities.” Both predicates for ancillary jurisdiction are satisfied here. 16. First, as the Commission concluded in previous orders, interconnected VoIP services fall within the subject matter jurisdiction granted to the Commission in the Act. Second, the Commission's analysis requires us to evaluate whether imposing reporting obligations is reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of the Commission's various responsibilities. Based on the record in this matter, the Commission finds that requiring interconnected VoIP service providers to report the number of subscribers they serve (both end user and for resale), the percentage of these who are residential, and whether the interconnected VoIP service is provided over a broadband connection provided by the filer or by the filer's affiliate is reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of the Commission's various responsibilities under the Act. The Commission has a responsibility under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability. Furthermore, the Act specifically authorizes the Commission to require annual reports from all carriers subject to the Act, as well as to require the production of other information necessary to enable the Commission to perform the duties and carry out the objects for which it was created. 17. The Commission's primary goal underlying the reporting requirements is the identification of unserved and underserved areas with respect to advanced telecommunications capability. The Commission's ability to perform its functions related to this objective depends upon its having adequate information about deployment and uptake of advanced telecommunications capability. As explained above, the Commission does not believe it is possible to obtain an accurate view of the U.S. voice service market without gathering data about interconnected VoIP service subscribers. Thus, the Commission's continued ability to exercise its responsibilities—such as identifying unserved and underserved markets—depends in part on requiring interconnected VoIP providers to report the number of end-user and resale subscribers they serve, the percentage of these who are residential, and whether the interconnected VoIP service is used over a broadband connection provided by the filer or by the filer's affiliate. Thus, the Commission concludes that imposing these reporting obligations is reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of its responsibilities. 18. Commenters noted that interconnected VoIP services are becoming increasingly competitive with local telephone service, and that it is appropriate to collect information on subscriptions, including the number of connections and the percentage of those connections that are residential, in order to determine the extent of competition posed by the services. The Commission concludes that gathering the number of end-user and resale subscribers to interconnected VoIP service and the percentage of those subscribers who are residential would provide valuable information that would enable the Commission to track deployment and adoption of interconnected VoIP service across the nation. Accordingly, the Commission modifies Form 477 to require providers of interconnected VoIP service to report information about the number of end-user and resale subscribers they have in individual states, and the percentage of the subscribers who purchase the provider's residential grade service plan. Additionally, to collect useful information as set forth in the Data Gathering Notice, the Commission modifies Form 477 to require providers of interconnected VoIP service to report a list of 5-digit ZIP Codes within each state in which they have at least one subscriber. This requirement achieves regulatory parity across technologies that offer voice-grade equivalent lines or channels. 19. The Commission also concludes that gathering information regarding the number of subscribers who receive broadband service in conjunction with interconnected VoIP service, and the share of interconnected VoIP service subscribers who can use the service over any broadband connection, would provide valuable information on the deployment of interconnected VoIP service. The Commission therefore requires interconnected VoIP providers to report information about the type(s) of broadband connections, if any, they or their affiliates provide in conjunction with interconnected VoIP service, and to report whether the interconnected VoIP service must be used over a single predetermined broadband connection or can be used over any broadband connection. Other Matters 20. *Exemptions for Small and Medium-Size Operators.* The changes to the Commission's Form 477 information collection will significantly increase the Commission's ability to carry out its statutory duties under section 706 of the Communications act to monitor broadband deployment. The new information gathered by Form 477 will enable the Commission, the industry, and other parties to realize many benefits, including forming a more detailed understanding of the scope of broadband adoption, connecting data on broadband services to demographic data collected by the Census Bureau, and pinpointing areas that are currently unserved or underserved. Some commenters suggest that small and medium sized carriers should be exempt from the modified reporting requirements that the Commission adopts in this Order. The Commission disagrees. Creating a blanket exemption for small and medium sized carriers would undercut the benefits of the Commission's revised information collection by depriving the Commission and other parties of adequate information on broadband deployment and adoption in rural, unserved, and underserved areas of the nation, the areas where additional information is most needed and would be likely to have the greatest impact. However, in order to ease the process of this transition in reporting methodology, upon a showing of significant hardship, reporting entities may report a list of service addresses or GIS coordinates of service, along with the speed and technology of service offered at each address, in lieu of producing and reporting subscribership counts by Census Tract. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 21. This Report and Order contains proposed new and modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” Legal Basis 22. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the Further Notice is contained in sections 1 through 5, 10, 11, 201 through 205, 215, 218 through 220, 251 through 271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 155, 160, 161, 201 through 205, 215, 218 through 220, 251 through 271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 23. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)was incorporated in the April 2007 Data Gathering Notice. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Data Gathering Notice, including comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(FRFA)conforms to the RFA. Need for, and Objectives of, the Order 24. In today's Report and Order (Order), the Commission adopts certain changes to Form 477 to collect additional, improved data on broadband availability and use. The Commission amends the FCC Form 477 data collection in several respects to collect additional data on broadband service subscriptions. These changes will greatly improve the ability of the Commission to understand the extent of broadband deployment, and will enable the Commission to continue to develop and maintain appropriate broadband policies, in particular to carry out its obligation under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” 25. These changes include requiring certain reporting entities to report broadband service subscribership counts within Census Tracts, and to report Census Tract information concerning the availability of their broadband services. The Order also changes the speed tiers under which broadband connections are reported, establishes new terminology for levels of broadband connection speed, and changes Form 477 to collect certain subscribership information from wireless and interconnected VoIP service providers. These new reporting requirements will facilitate the Commission's understanding of the extent of broadband deployment in the United States, particularly deployment in unserved and underserved areas Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 26. In this section, the Commission responds to comments filed in response to the IRFA. The Commission recognizes that many businesses, including small rural ILECs, will need to modify their practices to collect, maintain, and report additional data at the Census Tract level. The Commission is not persuaded by comments in the record arguing that the costs of complying with the increased reporting requirements in today's Order outweighs the benefits of collecting additional data, and the Commission is persuaded by comments indicating that it ought to collect information at a more granular level, and in particular at the level of Census Tracts. Nevertheless, in the Order, the Commission provides an express exception to this rule of which small businesses can avail themselves. Specifically, upon a showing of significant hardship, reporting entities will be permitted to report a list of service addresses or GIS coordinates of service, along with the speed and technology of the broadband connection in service at each address, in lieu of reporting subscriber counts by technology, speed, and Census Tract. Comments in the record also contend that the Data Gathering Notice failed to include a complete estimate of the costs and burdens of compliance as a general matter. However, the record developed in this proceeding, in response to the Data Gathering Notice, demonstrates that the costs would not be burdensome. More importantly, other than conclusory assertions that the data collection as proposed in the Data Collection Order would be burdensome, the record includes no convincing evidence of any specific, actual burden, such as employee hours or monetary costs. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules May Apply 27. 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 adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which:

(1)Is independently owned and operated;

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

(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Wireline Carriers and Service Providers 28. *Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to incumbent local exchange services. 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. 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 its action. 29. *Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), 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. According to Commission data, 859 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange carrier or competitive access provider 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 providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers” are small entities that may be affected by its action. 30. The Commission has 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.” 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. The Commission has therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although it emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. 31. *Local Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 184 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, an estimated 181 have 1,500 or fewer employees and three have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local resellers are small entities that may be affected by its action. 32. *Toll Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of these, an estimated 853 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 28 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small entities that may be affected by its action. 33. *Payphone Service Providers (PSPs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for payphone services 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. According to Commission data, 657 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of payphone services. Of these, an estimated 653 have 1,500 or fewer employees and four have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of payphone service providers are small entities that may be affected by its action. 34. *Interexchange Carriers (IXCs)* . Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to interexchange services. 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. According to Commission data, 330 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange services. Of these 330 companies, an estimated 309 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 21 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange service providers are small entities that may be affected by its action. 35. *Operator Service Providers (OSPs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for operator 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. According to Commission data, 23 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these, an estimated 22 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities that may be affected by its action. 36. *Prepaid Calling Card Providers* . Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 104 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these, an estimated 102 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may be affected by its action. 37. *800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers* . Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 800 and 800-like service (“toll free”) subscribers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of these service subscribers appears to be data the Commission collects on the 800, 888, 877, and 866 numbers in use. According to the Commission's data, at the beginning of July 2006, the number of 800 numbers assigned was 7,647,941; the number of 888 numbers assigned was 5,318,667; the number of 877 numbers assigned was 4,431,162; and the number of 866 numbers assigned was 6,008,976. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these subscribers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of toll free subscribers that would qualify as small businesses under the SBA size standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are 7,647,941 or fewer small entity 800 subscribers; 5,318,667 or fewer small entity 888 subscribers; 4,431,162 or fewer small entity 877 subscribers; and 5,318,667 or fewer small entity 866 subscribers. Wireless Carriers and Service Providers 38. Below, for those services subject to auctions, the Commission notes that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. 39. *Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).* Since 2007, the SBA has recognized wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category. Prior to that time, the SBA had developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the now-superseded census categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Because Census Bureau data are not yet available for the new category, the Commission will estimate small business prevalence using the prior categories and associated data. For the first category of Paging, data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms 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. For the second category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms 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, using the prior categories and the available data, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small. According to Commission data, 432 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), or Specialized Mobile Radio

(SMR)Telephony services, which are placed together in the data. The Commission estimates that 221 of these are small, under the SBA small business size standard. Thus, under this category and size standard, about half of firms can be considered small. 40. *Common Carrier Paging.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Paging, under which a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 365 carriers have reported that they are engaged in Paging or Messaging Service. Of these, an estimated 360 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 5 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of paging providers are small entities that may be affected by its action. In addition, in the Paging Third Report and Order, the Commission developed a small business size standard for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. A “small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a “very small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 985 licenses auctioned, 440 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won. 41. *Wireless Communications Services* . This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission established small business size standards for the wireless communications services

(WCS)auction. A “small business” is an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a “very small business” is an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. The Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, held in April 1997, there were seven winning bidders that qualified as “very small business” entities, and one that qualified as a “small business” entity. 42. *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. 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. The Commission has estimated that 221 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard. 43. *Broadband Personal Communications Service.* The broadband Personal Communications Service

(PCS)spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined “small entity” for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an additional classification for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years.” These standards defining “small entity” in the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses, within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. On March 23, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses. There were 48 small business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as “small” or “very small” businesses. Subsequent events, concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant. 44. *Narrowband Personal Communications Services* . To date, two auctions of narrowband personal communications services

(MTAs)and 408 response channel licenses. There is also one megahertz of narrowband PCS spectrum that has been held in reserve and that the Commission has not yet decided to release for licensing. The Commission cannot predict accurately the number of licenses that will be awarded to small entities in future actions. However, four of the 16 winning bidders in the two previous narrowband PCS auctions were small businesses, as that term was defined under the Commission's Rules. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that a large portion of the remaining narrowband PCS licenses will be awarded to small entities. The Commission also assumes that at least some small businesses will acquire narrowband PCS licenses by means of the Commission's partitioning and disaggregation rules. 45. *220 MHz Radio Service—Phase I Licensees.* The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such non-nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard for small entities specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such licensees that are small businesses, the Commission applies the small business size standard under the SBA rules applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” companies. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. The Commission estimates that nearly all such licensees are small businesses under the SBA's small business size standard. 46. *220 MHz Radio Service—Phase II Licensees.* The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The Phase II 220 MHz service is a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission adopted a small business size standard for “small” and “very small” businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. This small business size standard indicates that a “small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. A “very small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998. In the first auction, 908 licenses were auctioned in three different-sized geographic areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group

(EAG)Licenses, and 875 Economic Area

(EA)Licenses. Of the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold. Thirty-nine small businesses won licenses in the first 220 MHz auction. The second auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses. Fourteen companies claiming small business status won 158 licenses. 47. *800 MHz and 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses.* The Commission awards “small entity” and “very small entity” bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio

(SMR)geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the three previous calendar years, or that had revenues of no more than $3 million in each of the previous calendar years, respectively. These bidding credits apply to SMR providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands that either hold geographic area licenses or have obtained extended implementation authorizations. The Commission does not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. The Commission assumes, for purposes here, that all of the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA. The Commission has held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR bands. There were 60 winning bidders that qualified as small or very small entities in the 900 MHz SMR auctions. Of the 1,020 licenses won in the 900 MHz auction, bidders qualifying as small or very small entities won 263 licenses. In the 800 MHz auction, 38 of the 524 licenses won were won by small and very small entities. 48. *700 MHz Guard Band Licensees.* In the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, the Commission adopted a small business size standard for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. A “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a “very small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. An auction of 52 Major Economic Area

(MEA)licenses commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001 and closed on February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a total of two licenses. 49. *Rural Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted a size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS). The Commission uses the SBA's small business size standard applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,” i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 50. *Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted a small business size standard specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission will use SBA's small business size standard applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,” i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as small under the SBA small business size standard. 51. *Aviation and Marine Radio Services.* Small businesses in the aviation and marine radio services use a very high frequency

(VHF)marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency position-indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency locator transmitter. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to these small businesses. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category “Cellular and Other Telecommunications,” which is 1,500 or fewer employees. Most applicants for recreational licenses are individuals. Approximately 581,000 ship station licensees and 131,000 aircraft station licensees operate domestically and are not subject to the radio carriage requirements of any statute or treaty. For purposes of its evaluations in this analysis, the Commission estimates that there are up to approximately 712,000 licensees that are small businesses (or individuals) under the SBA standard. In addition, between December 3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an auction of 42 VHF Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship transmit) and 161. 775-162. 0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a “small” business as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million dollars. In addition, a “very small” business is one that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million dollars. There are approximately 10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as “small” businesses under the above special small business size standards. 52. *Fixed Microwave Services.* Fixed microwave services include common carrier, private operational-fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. At present, there are approximately 22,015 common carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services. The Commission has not created a size standard for a small business specifically with respect to fixed microwave services. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category “Cellular and Other Telecommunications,” which is 1,500 or fewer employees. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are up to 22,015 common carrier fixed licensees and up to 61,670 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that may be small and may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. The Commission notes, however, that the common carrier microwave fixed licensee category includes some large entities. 53. *Offshore Radiotelephone Service.* This service operates on several UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this service. The Commission is unable to estimate at this time the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard for “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” services. Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 54. *39 GHz Service.* The Commission created a special small business size standard for 39 GHz licenses—an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years. An additional size standard for “very small business” is: an entity that, together with affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. The auction of the 2,173 39 GHz licenses began on April 12, 2000 and closed on May 8, 2000. The 18 bidders who claimed small business status won 849 licenses. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 18 or fewer 39 GHz licensees are small entities that may be affected by its action. 55. *Wireless Cable Systems.* Wireless cable systems use 2 GHz band frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service (“BRS”), formerly Multipoint Distribution Service (“MDS”), and the Educational Broadband Service (“EBS”), formerly Instructional Television Fixed Service (“ITFS”), to transmit video programming and provide broadband services to residential subscribers. These services were originally designed for the delivery of multichannel video programming, similar to that of traditional cable systems, but over the past several years licensees have focused their operations instead on providing two-way high-speed Internet access services. The Commission estimates that the number of wireless cable subscribers is approximately 100,000, as of March 2005. Local Multipoint Distribution Service (“LMDS”) is a fixed broadband point-to-multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way video telecommunications. As described below, the SBA small business size standard for the broad census category of Cable and Other Program Distribution, which consists of such entities generating $13. 5 million or less in annual receipts, appears applicable to MDS, ITFS and LMDS. Other standards also apply, as described. 56. The Commission has defined small MDS (now BRS) and LMDS entities in the context of Commission license auctions. In the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission defined a small business as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. This definition of a small entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the SBA. In the MDS auction, 67 bidders won 493 licenses. Of the 67 auction winners, 61 claimed status as a small business. At this time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business MDS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent MDS licensees that have gross revenues that are not more than $40 million and are thus considered small entities. MDS licensees and wireless cable operators that did not receive their licenses as a result of the MDS auction fall under the SBA small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution. Information available to the Commission indicates that there are approximately 850 of these licensees and operators that do not generate revenue in excess of $13. 5 million annually. Therefore, the Commission estimates that there are approximately 850 small entity MDS (or BRS) providers, as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules. 57. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities; however, the Commission has not created a specific small business size standard for ITFS (now EBS). The Commission estimates that there are currently 2,032 ITFS (or EBS) licensees, and all but 100 of the licenses are held by educational institutions. Thus, the Commission estimates that at least 1,932 ITFS licensees are small entities. 58. In the 1998 and 1999 LMDS auctions, the Commission defined a small business as an entity that has annual average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. Moreover, the Commission added an additional classification for a “very small business,” which was defined as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of less than $15 million in the previous three calendar years. These definitions of “small business” and “very small business” in the context of the LMDS auctions have been approved by the SBA. In the first LMDS auction, 104 bidders won 864 licenses. Of the 104 auction winners, 93 claimed status as small or very small businesses. In the LMDS re-auction, 40 bidders won 161 licenses. Based on this information, the Commission believes that the number of small LMDS licenses will include the 93 winning bidders in the first auction and the 40 winning bidders in the re-auction, for a total of 133 small entity LMDS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules. 59. *218-219 MHz Service.* The first auction of 218-219 MHz spectrum resulted in 170 entities winning licenses for 594 Metropolitan Statistical Area

(MSA)licenses. Of the 594 licenses, 557 were won by entities qualifying as a small business. For that auction, the small business size standard was an entity that, together with its affiliates, has no more than a $6 million net worth and, after federal income taxes (excluding any carry over losses), has no more than $2 million in annual profits each year for the previous two years. In the 218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission established a small business size standard for a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an entity and their affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not to exceed $15 million for the preceding three years. A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an entity and its affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not to exceed $3 million for the preceding three years. These size standards will be used in future auctions of 218-219 MHz spectrum. 60. *24 GHz—Incumbent Licensees.* This analysis may affect incumbent licensees who were relocated to the 24 GHz band from the 18 GHz band, and applicants who wish to provide services in the 24 GHz band. The applicable SBA small business size standard is that of “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” companies. This category provides that such a company is small if it employs no more than 1,500 persons. The Commission believes that there are only two licensees in the 24 GHz band that were relocated from the 18 GHz band, Teligent and TRW, Inc. It is the Commission's understanding that Teligent and its related companies have less than 1,500 employees, though this may change in the future. TRW is not a small entity. Thus, only one incumbent licensee in the 24 GHz band is a small business entity. 61. *24 GHz—Future Licensees.* With respect to new applicants in the 24 GHz band, the small business size standard for “small business” is an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not in excess of $15 million. “Very small business” in the 24 GHz band is an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. These size standards will apply to the future auction, if held. Satellite Service Providers 62. *Satellite Telecommunications.* Since 2007, the SBA has recognized satellite firms within this revised category, with a small business size standard of $13. 5 million. The most current Census Bureau data, however, are from the

(last)economic census of 2002, and the Commission will use those figures to gauge the prevalence of small businesses in this category. Those size standards are for the two census categories of “Satellite Telecommunications” and “Other Telecommunications.” Under both prior categories, such a business was considered small if it had, as now, $13. 5 million or less in average annual receipts. 63. 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, the Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by its action. 64. 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, 303 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by its action. Cable and OVS Operators 65. In 2007, the SBA recognized new census categories for small cable entities. However, there is no census data yet in existence that may be used to calculate the number of small entities that fit these definitions. Therefore, the Commission will use prior definitions of these types of entities in order to estimate numbers of potentially-affected small business entities. In addition to the estimates provided above, the Commission considers certain additional entities that may be affected by the data collection from broadband service providers. Because section 706 requires it to monitor the deployment of broadband regardless of technology or transmission media employed, the Commission anticipates that some broadband service providers will not provide telephone service. Accordingly, the Commission describes below other types of firms that may provide broadband services, including cable companies, MDS providers, and utilities, among others. 66. *Cable and Other Program Distribution.* The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged as third-party distribution systems for broadcast programming. The establishments of this industry deliver visual, aural, or textual programming received from cable networks, local television stations, or radio networks to consumers via cable or direct-to-home satellite systems on a subscription or fee basis. These establishments do not generally originate programming material.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution, which is: all such firms having $13. 5 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. 67. *Cable Companies and Systems.* The Commission has also developed its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are small under this size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Industry data indicate that, of 7,208 systems nationwide, 6,139 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an additional 379 systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers. Thus, under this second size standard, most cable systems are small. 68. *Cable System Operators.* The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard. The Commission notes that it neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore it is unable to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this size standard. 69. *Open Video Services.* Open Video Service

(RCN)received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., and other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity. Little financial information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission concludes that up to 44 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution 70. *Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution.* The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry group comprises establishments primarily engaged in generating, transmitting, and/or distributing electric power. Establishments in this industry group may perform one or more of the following activities:

(1)Operate generation facilities that produce electric energy;

(2)operate transmission systems that convey the electricity from the generation facility to the distribution system; and

(3)operate distribution systems that convey electric power received from the generation facility or the transmission system to the final consumer.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for firms in this category: “A firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours.” According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 1,644 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Census data do not track electric output and the Commission has not determined how many of these firms fit the SBA size standard for small, with no more than 4 million megawatt hours of electric output. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 1,644 or fewer firms may be considered small under the SBA small business size standard. Internet Service Providers, Web Portals, and Other Information Services 71. In 2007, the SBA recognized two new small business, economic census categories. They are

(1)Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals, and

(2)All Other Information Services. However, there is no census data yet in existence that may be used to calculate the number of small entities that fit these definitions. Therefore, the Commission will use prior definitions of these types of entities in order to estimate numbers of potentially-affected small business entities. 72. *Internet Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs “provide clients access to the Internet and generally provide related services such as web hosting, web page designing, and hardware or software consulting related to Internet connectivity.” Under the SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has average annual receipts of $23 million or less. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 2,529 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 2,437 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 47 firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by its action. Other Internet-Related Entities 73. *Web Search Portals.* The Commission's action pertains to interconnected VoIP services, which could be provided by entities that provide other services such as email, online gaming, web browsing, video conferencing, instant messaging, and other, similar IP-enabled services. The Commission has not adopted a size standard for entities that create or provide these types of services or applications. However, the Census Bureau has identified firms that “operate web sites that use a search engine to generate and maintain extensive databases of Internet addresses and content in an easily searchable format. Web search portals often provide additional Internet services, such as e-mail, connections to other web sites, auctions, news, and other limited content, and serve as a home base for Internet users.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that size standard is $6.5 million or less in average annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 342 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 303 had annual receipts of under $5 million, and an additional 15 firms had receipts of between $5 million and $9,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by its action. 74. *Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services.* Entities in this category “primarily * * * provid[e] infrastructure for hosting or data processing services.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that size standard is $23 million or less in average annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 6,877 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 6,418 had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 251 firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by its action. 75. *All Other Information Services.* “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing other information services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives).” The Commission's action pertains to interconnected VoIP services, which could be provided by entities that provide other services such as email, online gaming, web browsing, video conferencing, instant messaging, and other, similar IP-enabled services. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that size standard is $6.5 million or less in average annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 155 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 138 had annual receipts of under $5 million, and an additional four firms had receipts of between $5 million and $9,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by its action. 76. *Internet Publishing and Broadcasting.* “This industry comprises establishments engaged in publishing and/or broadcasting content on the Internet exclusively. These establishments do not provide traditional (non-Internet) versions of the content that they publish or broadcast.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this census category; that size standard is 500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 1,362 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 1,351 had employment of 499 or fewer employees, and six firms had employment of between 500 and 999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms small entities that may be affected by its action. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements 77. Today's Report and Order requires broadband providers to report the number of broadband connections they have in service in individual Census Tracts; it requires providers to report subscriber counts under alternative speed tiers; it requires mobile wireless broadband providers to report the number of subscribers whose data plans allow them to browse the Internet and access the Internet content of their choice; and it requires providers of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (interconnected VoIP) service to report subscribership information. While both large and small entities will be subject to these reporting requirements, the task is comparably easier for smaller entities that provide service to fewer customers and in more concentrated geographic areas, as the reporting procedures are broken down by geographic region and type of service. Few skills beyond the basic accounting skills already required of Form 477 filers, including small entities, are required to comply with the new and modified reporting and recordkeeping requirements; specifically, they will need to modify their billing systems in order to accommodate the reporting of information by Census Tract. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 78. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in developing its approach, which may include (among others) the following four alternatives:

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

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

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

(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 79. In the Data Gathering Notice, the Commission invited comment on a variety of proposals that would impose further reporting and recordkeeping requirements, including alternatives to the measures taken in this Order. The Commission sought comment on whether there are any alternatives not discussed that would also serve the objective of improving broadband data collection, and it invited comment on ways to mitigate the burden that might be imposed on small entities. The Commission sought comment on how the proposals might be tailored to mitigate the burden on smaller entities but nevertheless obtain data that would enable it to determine whether subscribers in those territories have access to broadband services. To analyze the impact on small entities, the Data Gathering Notice asked whether entities maintain the required information in billing or marketing databases, and asked commenters to demonstrate the burden for the entities to collect and report this type of information. 80. The Commission finds that the approach adopted in today's Order best balances the costs of information collection and the public interest benefits of more detailed information on broadband deployment. Collecting subscriber count information at the Census Tract level, as compared to collecting information at the 5-digit or 9-digit ZIP Code level or some other unit, results in a greatly improved understanding of the market for broadband services while imposing a minimum burden on reporting entities. While additional information collected by other methods, such as public-private partnerships, self-reporting, and the U.S. Census, can supplement required reporting by service providers, these methods have many limitations and are not sufficient by themselves, and cannot replace existing Form 477 reported information. 81. The Commission offers an alternative for businesses for which the Census Tract reporting poses a significant hardship. Upon a showing of significant hardship, entities will be permitted to report a list of service addresses or GIS coordinates of service, along with the speed and technology of service offered at each address, in lieu of reporting subscriber counts by technology, speed, and Census Tract. This alternative will merely require an entity to report the data it already has or ought to have, and the Commission will use its own resources to analyze the data. 82. While the Commission recognizes that service providers will still incur implementation and recurring costs for these modified reporting requirements, it concludes that the benefits to the public of gathering more complete information on the extent of broadband deployment between the economic burden imposed on these providers. To the extent that a reporting entity would suffer a significant hardship, the Commission has created an alternative reporting requirement. 83. *Report to Congress:* The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the **Federal Register** . Ordering Clauses 84. Accordingly, *it is ordered* that, pursuant to sections 1 through 5, 11, 201 through 205, 211, 215, 218 through 220, 251 through 271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 155, 161, 201 through 205, 211, 215, 218 through 220, 251 through 271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt, this Further Notice, with all attachments, *is adopted.* 85. *It is further ordered* that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, *shall send* a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 86. The amendments to §§ 1. 7001 and 43. 11 in this document contain information collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the **Federal Register** announcing the effective date. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1 and 43 Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Final Rules For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1 and 43 as follows: PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 *et seq.* ; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 225, and 303(r). 2. Section 1. 7001 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b), and

(c)to read as follows: § 1. 7001 Scope and content of filed reports.

(a)* * *

(2)*Own facilities.* Lines and wireless channels the entity actually owns and facilities that it obtained the right to use from other entities as dark fiber or satellite transponder capacity.

(b)All commercial and government-controlled entities, including but not limited to common carriers and their affiliates (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153 (1)), cable television companies, fixed wireless providers, terrestrial and satellite mobile wireless providers, utilities and others, that are facilities-based providers, shall file with the Commission a completed FCC Form 477, in accordance with the Commission's rules and the instructions to the FCC Form 477, for each state in which they provide service.

(c)Respondents identified in paragraph

(b)of this section shall include in each report a certification signed by an appropriate official of the respondent (as specified in the instructions to FCC Form 477). PART 43—REPORTS OF COMMUNICATION COMMON CARRIERS AND CERTAIN AFFILIATES 3. The authority citation for part 43 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154; Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, secs. 402(b)(2)(B), (c), 110 Stat. 56

(1996)as amended unless otherwise noted. 47 U.S.C. 211, 219, 220 as amended. 4. Section 43. 11 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and

(c)to read as follows: § 43. 11 Reports of Local Exchange Competition Data.

(a)All common carriers and their affiliates (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(1)) providing telephone exchange or exchange access service (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(16) and (47)), commercial mobile radio service

(CMRS)providers offering mobile telephony (as defined in § 20.15(b)(1) of this chapter), and Interconnected Voice over IP service providers (as defined in § 9.3 of this chapter), shall file with the Commission a completed FCC Form 477, in accordance with the Commission's rules and the instructions to the FCC Form 477, for each state in which they provide service.

(b)Respondents identified in paragraph

(a)of this section shall include in each report a certification signed by an appropriate official of the respondent (as specified in the instructions to FCC Form 477).

(c)Respondents may make requests for Commission non-disclosure of provider-specific data contained in the Form 477 under § 0.459 of this chapter by so indicating on the Form 477 at the time that the subject data are submitted. The Commission shall make all decisions regarding non-disclosure of provider-specific information, except that the Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau may release provider-specific information to a state commission, provided that the state commission has protections in place that would preclude disclosure of any confidential information. [FR Doc. E8-14873 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 32, 36 and 54 [WC Docket No. 05-337; CC Docket No. 96-45; FCC 08-122] High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Order. SUMMARY: In this Order, the Commission takes action to rein in the explosive growth in high-cost universal service support disbursements. As recommended by the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, the Commission adopts an interim, emergency cap on the amount of high-cost support that competitive eligible telecommunications carriers

(ETCs)may receive. Specifically, as of the effective date of this Order, total annual competitive ETC support for each state will be capped at the level of support that competitive ETCs in that state were eligible to receive during March 2008 on an annualized basis. The Commission also adopts two limited exceptions from the specific application of the interim cap. The interim cap will remain in place only until the Commission adopts comprehensive high-cost universal service reform. In addition, the Commission resolves most of the petitions for ETC designation currently pending before the Commission. DATES: This Order will be effective August 1, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted Burmeister, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 202-418-7389 or TTY: 202-418-0484. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Order in WC Docket No. 05-337 and CC Docket No. 96-45, adopted on April 29, 2008, and released on May 1, 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.* *Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis:* This document contains new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat. 163 (1995). It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(ETCs)may receive. *See High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45, Recommended Decision, 22 FCC Rcd 8998 (Fed.-State Jt. Bd. 2007) ( *Recommended Decision* ). Specifically, as of the effective date of this Order, total annual competitive ETC support for each state will be capped at the level of support that competitive ETCs in that state were eligible to receive during March 2008 on an annualized basis. We also adopt two limited exceptions from the specific application of the interim cap. First, a competitive ETC will not be subject to the interim cap to the extent it files cost data demonstrating that its costs meet the support threshold in the same manner as the incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC). Second, we adopt a limited exception for competitive ETCs serving tribal lands or Alaska Native regions. The interim cap will remain in place only until the Commission adopts comprehensive high-cost universal service reform. The Commission plans to move forward on adopting comprehensive reform measures in an expeditious manner. The Commission commits to completing a final order on comprehensive reform as quickly as feasible after the comment cycle is completed on the pending Commission Notices regarding comprehensive reform. Finally, we resolve most of the petitions for ETC designation currently pending before the Commission. Background 2. For the past several years, the Joint Board has been exploring recommending modifications to the Commission's high-cost universal service support rules. 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. *See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 67 FR 70703 (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. 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. 3. 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. See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* CC Docket No. 96-45, Order, 69 FR 48232, para. 1

(2004)( *Rural Referral Order* ); *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Multi-Association Group

(MAG)Plan for Regulation of Interstate Services of Non-Price Cap Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers and Interexchange Carriers,* Fourteenth Report and Order, Twenty-Second Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96-45, and Report and Order in CC Docket No. 00-256, 66 FR 30080

(2001)( *Rural Task Force Order* ); *see also Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; High-Cost Universal Service Support,* CC Docket No. 96-45, WC Docket No. 05-337, Order, 71 FR 30298

(2006)(extending the *Rural Task Force Order* plan). 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. *See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Seeks Comment on Certain of the Commission's Rules Relating to High-Cost Universal Service Support,* CC Docket No. 96-45, Public Notice, 69 FR 53917 (Fed.-State Jt. Bd. 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. *See Federal State Joint Board on Universal Service Seeks Comment on Proposals to Modify the Commission's Rules Relating to High-Cost Universal Service Support,* CC Docket No. 96-45, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 14267 (Fed.-State Jt. Bd. 2005); *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service Seeks Comment on the Merits of Using Auctions to Determine High-Cost Universal Service Support,* WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 9292 (Fed.-State Jt. Bd. 2006). 4. On May 1, 2007, the Joint Board recommended that the Commission adopt an interim cap on high-cost universal service support for competitive ETCs while the Joint Board considered proposals for comprehensive reform. *See Recommended Decision,* 22 FCC Rcd at 8999-9001, paras. 4-7. Specifically, the Joint Board recommended that the Commission cap competitive ETC support at the amount of support received by competitive ETCs in 2006. The Joint Board recommended that the cap on competitive ETC support be applied at the state level. Finally, the Joint Board recommended that the interim cap apply until one year from the date that the Joint Board makes its recommendation regarding high-cost universal service reform. On May 14, 2007, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, seeking comment on the Joint Board's recommendation. *High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 72 FR 28936

(2007)( *Notice* ). On November 19, 2007, the Joint Board submitted to the Commission recommendations for comprehensive reform of high-cost universal service support. *High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45, Recommended Decision, 22 FCC Rcd 20477

(2007)( *Comprehensive Reform Recommended Decision* ). On January 29, 2008, the Commission released three notices of proposed rulemaking addressing proposals for comprehensive reform of the high-cost universal service support program. *High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 73 FR 11580

(2008)( *Identical Support Rule NPRM* ); *High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 73 FR 11591

(2008)( *Reverse Auctions NPRM* ); *High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 73 FR 11587

(2008)( *Joint Board Comprehensive Reform NPRM* ) (collectively *Reform Notices* ). Comments on the *Reform Notices* were due by April 17, 2008 and reply comments were due by May 19, 2008. *High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* CC Docket No. 96-45; WC Docket No. 05-337, Order, DA 08-674 (rel. Mar. 24, 2008) (extending comment and reply comment dates); *High-Cost Universal Service Support; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* CC Docket No. 96-45; WC Docket No. 05-337, Order, DA 08-1168 (rel. May 15, 2008) (extending reply comment date). Discussion 5. We adopt, with limited modifications, the Joint Board's recommendation for an emergency, interim cap on high-cost support for competitive ETCs. This action is necessary to halt the rapid growth of high-cost support that threatens the sustainability of the universal service fund. As described below, annual support for competitive ETCs in each state will be capped at the level of support that competitive ETCs in that state were eligible to receive during March 2008, on an annualized basis. As further discussed below, we also create a limited exception to the cap to allow competitive ETCs that serve tribal lands or Alaska Native regions to continue to receive support at uncapped levels. Need for a Cap on Competitive ETC Support A Cap on Competitive ETC Support Is Required To Preserve the Sustainability and Sufficiency of Universal Service 6. We agree with the Joint Board's assessment that the rapid growth in high-cost support places the federal universal service fund in dire jeopardy. In 2007, the universal service fund provided approximately $4.3 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 since 2003, competitive ETC support, in the seven years from 2001 through 2007, has grown from under $17 million to $1. 18 billion—an average annual growth rate of over 100 percent. We find that the continued growth of the fund at this rate is not sustainable and would require excessive (and ever growing) contributions from consumers to pay for this fund growth. 7. We conclude that immediate action must be taken to stem the dramatic growth in high-cost support. Therefore, as recommended by the Joint Board, we immediately impose an interim cap on high-cost support provided to competitive ETCs until fundamental comprehensive reforms are adopted to address issues related to the distribution of support and to ensure that the universal service fund will be sustainable for future years. The interim cap that we adopt herein limits the annual amount of high-cost support that competitive ETCs can receive in the interim period for each state to the amount competitive ETCs were eligible to receive in that state during March 2008, on an annualized basis. 8. We find that adopting an interim cap is consistent with the requirement of section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), that support be “sufficient” to meet the Act's universal service purposes. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56

(1996)(the Act). The Commission previously has concluded that the statutory principle of “sufficiency” proscribes support in excess of that necessary to achieve the Act's universal service goals. *MAG Plan Order* , 66 FR 59719, paras. 131-32; *Rural Task Force Order* , 66 FR 30080, para. 27; *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service* , CC Docket No. 96-45, Order on Remand, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 68 FR 69627, paras. 36-37 (2003), *remanded, Qwest Corp.* v. *FCC* , 398 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2005); 47 U.S.C. 254(b). Notably, the Commission has previously adopted cost controls, including adopting an indexed cap on the high-cost loop support mechanism, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held to be consistent with the Act's universal service mandate. *Alenco Communications, Inc.* v. *FCC* , 201 F.3d 608, 620-21 (5th Cir. 2000) (“[t]he agency's broad discretion to provide sufficient universal service funding includes the decision to impose cost controls to avoid excessive expenditures that will detract from universal service”). 9. Similarly, our action today applies interim cost controls to the aspect that most directly threatens the specificity, predictability, and sustainability of the fund: the rapid growth of competitive ETC support. *See* 47 U.S.C. 254(b)(5). A primary consequence of the existing competitive ETC support rules has been to promote the sale of multiple supported wireless handsets in given households. *See Petition of Qwest Communications International Inc. for Forbearance from Enforcement of the Commission's Dominant Carrier Rules As They Apply After Section 272 Sunsets* , WC Docket No. 05-333, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 5207, 5218, para. 17

(2007)(stating that a majority of presubscribed interexchange customers also subscribe to mobile wireless service); *Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Commercial Mobile Services* , WT Docket No. 07-71, Twelfth Report, 23 FCC Rcd 2241, at para. 246

(2008)(citing survey reporting that only approximately 11. 8 percent of U.S. households relied exclusively on wireless phones in 2006) ( *2007 Commercial Mobile Services Report* ). We do not today make a final determination regarding the level of support to competitive ETCs that is sufficient, but not excessive, for achieving the Act's universal service goals because we expect to take further action to enact fundamental reform. *See Alenco* , 201 F.3d at 619 (“excessive funding may itself violate the sufficiency requirements of the Act”). Instead, today we take the reasonable, interim step of capping annual competitive ETC support for each state at the amount competitive ETCs in that state were eligible to receive during March 2008 on an annualized basis. Doing so will provide a necessary constraint on the growth of support until comprehensive reform is adopted. 10. We do not find it necessary to adopt additional caps on support provided to incumbent LECs at this time because, as the Joint Board noted in its *Recommended Decision* , high-cost support to incumbent LECs has been flat and is therefore exerting less pressure on the universal service fund. *Recommended Decision* , 22 FCC Rcd at 9001, para. 5. Moreover, incumbent LEC high-cost loop support is already capped, and incumbent LEC interstate access support is subject to a targeted limit. *See* 47 CFR 36.603, 54.801(a). Incumbent LEC disbursements from other support mechanisms, like local switching support and interstate common line support, have been stable in recent years. Further, although high-cost model support has no actual cap, it does have built-in restraints on growth, which derive from the fact that support is based on stable statewide average estimated costs. Accordingly, we limit the interim cap we adopt today to high-cost support provided to competitive ETCs. 11. Some parties argue that inefficiencies in high-cost support for incumbent LECs are the root cause of the high-cost support growth, and that the Commission must address these inefficiencies to stabilize the fund. Although addressing inefficiencies in incumbent LEC support may be necessary for comprehensive reform, we disagree that such review of incumbent LEC support is necessary immediately to rein in the growth of high-cost support for an interim period. First, as we have noted, total incumbent LEC support has not grown in recent years and does not have the same potential for rapid explosive growth competitive ETC support does. Second, although increases in incumbent LEC high-cost support may contribute indirectly to growth in high-cost support for competitive ETCs, the interim cap on competitive ETC support we adopt today will eliminate that growth potential. To the extent that there may be inefficiencies in incumbent LEC high-cost support, we anticipate addressing those in the context of comprehensive universal service reform. An Interim Cap on Competitive ETC Support Is Consistent With the Act 12. We disagree with arguments that capping support for competitive ETCs violates the Act. As a general matter, the Commission's discretion to establish caps on high-cost support has been upheld. *See Alenco* , 201 F.3d at 620. Moreover, as we discuss further below, we find no merit in the arguments raised by commenters in this proceeding that this particular cap violates the Act. 13. We disagree with comments that this cap violates the Act's statutory principles. CTIA argues that the cap would violate the Act's requirements that rates in rural areas should be reasonably comparable to those in urban areas. CTIA, however, fails to provide any data demonstrating that, or analysis explaining why the cap would result in rural rates that are not comparable with those in urban areas. Instead, it merely asserts that “[t]he proposed cap will deny customers access to reasonably equivalent rates, and to reasonably equivalent services.” There simply is no support in the record for this contention. To the contrary, many wireless carriers that do not receive high-cost support compete against wireless competitive ETCs that do receive support, and many wireless competitive ETCs served high-cost territories before they were designated as eligible to receive support. 14. CTIA, along with Dobson, also contends that the cap violates the universal service principle of sufficiency. Neither commenter, however, provides any support for its contentions. To the contrary, as we explain above, we believe that the statutory principle of sufficiency is not inconsistent with the interim “cost controls” we adopt herein. We find that the interim cap we adopt is consistent with the principle of sufficiency as defined by the court in *Alenco* because it seeks to eliminate support in excess of that necessary to ensure the Act's universal service goals. *See Alenco* , 201 F.3d at 619. Further, because competitive ETC support is based on the incumbent LEC's costs, rather than on the competitive ETC's own costs, there is no reason to believe—and no record data showing—that support subject to an interim cap would necessarily result in insufficient support levels. Dobson also argues that the cap will violate the universal service principle of predictability because the effects of the cap “will be driven by factors that are not at all 'predictable'.” Adoption of the interim cap, however, makes competitive ETC support more predictable, in that it sets an upper, definitive bound on the amount of support available in a state. Moreover, Dobson ignores the fact that, as the court concluded in *Alenco* , the Act's requirement of predictability requires only that the rules governing distribution, not the resulting funding amounts, must be predictable. *Alenco* , 201 F.3d at 623. 15. We are not persuaded by CTIA's argument, citing *Alenco* , that the Act requires the promotion of competition in high-cost areas through the provision of equal per-line support amounts to all carriers. Rather than requiring the use of universal service support to subsidize competition, the court in *Alenco* was concerned with the sustainability of universal service in a competitive environment. Specifically, the court found that “[t]he Commission therefore is responsible for making the changes necessary to its universal service program to ensure that it survives in the new world of competition.” *Alenco* , 201 F.3d at 615 (citing *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service* , CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order, 62 FR 32861, paras. 1-4, 20

(1997)( *Universal Service First Report and Order* ) (stating that the Commission, through its work with the Joint Board, “ensure[s] that this system is sustainable in a competitive marketplace, thus ensuring that universal service is available at rates that are ‘just, unreasonable [sic], and affordable' for all Americans”)). The court stated that the Commission “must see to it that *both* universal service and competition are realized; one cannot be sacrificed in favor of the other.” *See Alenco* , 201 F.3d at 615. We therefore find that our action today is not only consistent with, but is supported by, the court's holding in *Alenco* . 16. Similarly, we are not persuaded by Alltel's argument that competitive ETCs and incumbent LECs must receive the same amount of support on a per-line basis. Although Alltel correctly notes that, in upholding the cap on high-cost loop support, the court in *Alenco* “rejected the premise that [incumbent LEC] revenue flows must be protected at all costs, and thus that any reductions in disbursements needed to prevent undue fund growth must be borne by [competitive ETCs] rather than [incumbent LECs],” Alltel fails to explain why the court's holding requires equal per-line support for all competitors. Put simply, while the court rejected the idea that any reductions in disbursements necessary to curtail fund growth had to be borne by competitive ETCs and not incumbent LECs, the court did not prohibit the Commission from imposing reductions or limits on competitive ETC disbursements. 17. CTIA argues that adoption of the interim cap would not comport with the court's statement in *Alenco* that “the program must treat all market participants equally * * * so that the market, and not local or federal government regulators, determines who shall compete for and deliver service to customers.” The cited language, however, does not require the Commission to continue to provide identical levels of support to all carriers. It merely requires that all ETCs must be eligible to receive support, an unremarkable conclusion given the plain text of the statute. 18. Alltel and CTIA both ignore key aspects of *Alenco* , in which the court expressly found that the Commission must ensure that all *customers* be able to receive affordable basic telecommunications services. Competition necessarily brings the risk that some telephone service providers will be unable to compete. The Act only promises universal service, and that is a goal that requires sufficient funding of *customers* , not *providers* . So long as there is sufficient and competitively-neutral funding to enable all customers to receive basic telecommunications services, the FCC has satisfied the Act and is not further required to ensure sufficient funding of every local telephone provider as well. Moreover, excessive funding may itself violate the sufficiency requirements of the Act. *Alenco* , 201 F.3d at 620. Nowhere in the court's decision did it require that all *providers* must receive equal per-line support amounts. 19. In arguing that the interim cap would not comport with the identical support rule because it would disburse unequal support per line, Alltel also cites various Commission precedents related to the establishment and implementation of the identical support rule, which, at the time, the Commission found to be consistent with its principle of competitive neutrality. 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. *See Universal Service First Report and Order* , 62 FR 32861, paras. 287, 311; *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service* , Recommended Decision, 61 FR 63778, para. 296 (Fed-State Jt. Bd. 1996). The predictions of the Joint Board and the Commission have proven inaccurate, however. 20. 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. *See 2007 Commercial Mobile Services Report* , 23 FCC Rcd 2241, at para. 246 (citing survey reporting that only approximately 11. 8 percent of U.S. households relied exclusively on wireless phones in 2006). 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. 21. This has created a number of serious problems for the high-cost fund, and calls into question the rationale for the identical support rule. 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, *see Petition of Qwest Communications International Inc. for Forbearance from Enforcement of the Commission's Dominant Carrier Rules As They Apply After Section 272 Sunsets* , WC Docket No. 05-333, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 5207, 5218, para. 17

(2007)(stating that a majority of presubscribed interexchange customers also subscribe to mobile wireless service); *Commercial Mobile Services Report* , 23 FCC Rcd 2241, at para. 246

(2008)(citing survey reporting that approximately 11. 8 percent of U.S. households relied exclusively on wireless phones in 2006), 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. *See* 47 U.S.C. 254(b)(3). 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 network. The Commission is currently considering eliminating the identical support rule. *Identical Support Rule NPRM* , 73 FR 11580. 22. We also find that the Commission's universal service principle of competitive neutrality does not preclude us from adopting an interim, limited cap under existing circumstances. *Universal Service First Report and Order* , 62 FR 32861, paras. 46-52 (subsequent history omitted) (“[W]e define this principle, in the context of determining universal service support, as: COMPETITIVE NEUTRALITY—Universal service support mechanisms and rules should be competitively neutral. In this context, competitive neutrality means that universal service support mechanisms and rules neither unfairly advantage nor disadvantage one provider over another, and neither unfairly favor nor disfavor one technology over another.”). As discussed above, high-cost support has increased by $1. 7 billion—more than 65 percent—from 2001 to 2007. Continued growth at this rate would render the amount of high-cost support unsustainable and could cripple the universal service fund. To avert this crisis, it is necessary to place some temporary restraints on the fastest-growing portion of high-cost support, i.e., competitive ETC support. Moreover, as discussed above, it is not clear that identical support has, in reality, resulted in competitive neutrality. We therefore find that, rather than departing from the principle of competitive neutrality, as a matter of policy, we instead are temporarily prioritizing the immediate need to stabilize high-cost universal service support and ensure a specific, predictable, and sufficient fund. *See* 47 U.S.C. 254(b)(5), (d). 23. Finally, we reject arguments that the cap should not be adopted because it will not be truly interim in nature. The interim cap will remain in place only until the Commission adopts comprehensive, high-cost universal service reform. Thus, we are satisfied that the interim cap's life will be of limited duration. Cap on Competitive ETC Support Would Not Inhibit Broadband Deployment in Rural America 24. Several commenters argue that the interim cap on competitive ETC support will inhibit the deployment of broadband services. With the exception of GCI, these commenters provide only anecdotal evidence of the possible effect of the interim cap on particular deployments, and do not systematically analyze the effect of the interim cap on broadband deployment. Moreover, although high-cost support for rural incumbent LECs has been capped for many years, that does not appear to have inhibited the deployment of broadband service to areas served by rural incumbent LECs. Indeed, high-cost universal service support may be used to invest in facilities to provide broadband service if those facilities are also necessary to provide voice grade access. *See Rural Task Force Order* , 66 FR 30080, paras. 199-201. 25. In light of the foregoing, we decline to adopt specific requirements for competitive ETCs regarding the provision of broadband Internet access services. Rather, we find that the role of high-cost support mechanisms in promoting broadband deployment is better addressed in a rulemaking of general applicability. In fact, the Commission currently is considering proposals to provide high-cost support for broadband service. Design and Implementation of the Cap Operation of the Cap 26. We adopt a cap on competitive ETC support for each state, as recommended by the Joint Board, subject to two limited exceptions described below. A competitive ETC cap applied at a state level will effectively curb growth, but, given a state's role in designating ETCs, will allow a state the flexibility to direct competitive ETC support to the areas in the state that it determines are most in need of such support. An interim, state-based cap on competitive ETC support also will avoid creating an incentive for each state to designate as many new ETCs as possible for the sole purpose of increasing support to that state at the expense of other states, which could occur had we adopted a single, nationwide cap. A state-based cap will require newly-designated competitive ETCs to share funding with other competitive ETCs within the state. 27. Under the state-based cap, support will be calculated using a two-step approach. First, on a quarterly basis, the Universal Service Administrative Company

(USAC)will calculate the support each competitive ETC would have received under the existing (uncapped) per-line identical support rule, *see* 47 CFR 54.307, and sum these amounts by state. Second, USAC will calculate a state reduction factor to reduce this amount to the competitive ETC cap amount. Specifically, USAC will compare the total amount of uncapped support to the cap amount for each state. Where the total state uncapped support is greater than the available state cap support amount, USAC will divide the state cap support amount by the total state uncapped amount to yield the state reduction factor. USAC will then apply the state-specific reduction factor to the uncapped amount for each competitive ETC within the state to arrive at the capped level of high-cost support. Where the state uncapped support is less than the available state capped support amount, no reduction will be required. 28. For example, if, in State A, the capped amount is $90 million, and the total uncapped support is $130 million, the reduction factor would be 69.2 percent ($90/$130). In State A, each competitive ETC's uncapped support would be multiplied by 69.2 percent to reduce support to the capped amount. If, in State B, however, the capped amount is $100 million, and the total uncapped support is $95 million, there would be no reduction factor because the uncapped amount is less than the capped amount. Finally, if, in State C the base period capped amount is $0 (i.e., there were no competitive ETCs eligible to receive support in State C in March 2008), then no competitive ETCs would be eligible to receive support in that state during the interim cap. Each quarter, for the duration of the cap, a new reduction factor would be calculated for each state. 29. Some commenters argue that, in states where there currently are no competitive ETCs designated, subsequently designated competitive ETCs will receive no high-cost support while the interim cap remains in place. The Act does not, however, require that all ETCs must receive support, but rather only that carriers meeting certain requirements be *eligible* for support. 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(1); 254(e) (emphasis added). Section 214(e)(1) of the Act states, “A common carrier designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier * * * shall be *eligible* to receive universal service support in accordance with section 254[.]” 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(1) (emphasis added). Likewise, section 254(e) of the Act states, “[O]nly an eligible telecommunications carrier designated under section 214(e) shall be *eligible* to receive specific Federal universal service support.” 47 U.S.C. 254(e) (emphasis added). This language indicates that designation as an ETC does not automatically entitle a carrier to receive universal service support. *See Universal Service First Report and Order* , 62 FR 32861, para. 137 (“Indeed, the language of section 254(e), which states that ‘only an eligible telecommunications carrier designated under section 214(e) shall be eligible to receive' universal service support, suggests that a carrier is not automatically entitled to receive universal service support once designated as eligible.”); *Alenco* , 201 F.3d at 620 (“The Act only promises universal service, and that is a goal that requires sufficient funding of *customers* , not *providers* .”). Moreover, in section 254 of the Act, Congress distinguished between those who are merely “eligible” to receive support and those who are “entitled” to receive benefits. *Compare* 47 U.S.C. 254(e) *with* 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(1)(A) (providing that carriers offering certain services to rural health care providers “shall be entitled” to have the difference between the rates charged to health care providers and those charged to other customers in comparable rural areas treated as an offset to any universal service contribution obligation); *see also Transbrasil S.A. Linhas Aereas* v. *Dep't of Transp.* , 791 F.2d 202, 205 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (“[W]here different terms are used in a single piece of legislation, the Court must presume that Congress intended the terms have different meanings.”). We find that Congress's careful delineation demonstrates an intention to ascribe different statutory rights. Accordingly, even if imposition of the interim cap results in no support for some competitive ETCs, this result is not inconsistent with the Act. 30. Moreover, there are advantages to obtaining and maintaining an ETC designation regardless of whether a competitive ETC receives high-cost support. In particular, the ability of competitive ETCs to receive low-income universal service support shows value in obtaining and maintaining ETC designation separate and apart from high-cost support. Indeed, TracFone Wireless, Inc. (TracFone) sought forbearance from section 214(e)(1) of the Act so that it could seek designation as an ETC eligible only to receive universal service Lifeline support. TracFone took this step because “offering prepaid plans which make wireless service available to low income users * * * has been a critical component of TracFone's business strategy since the company's inception.” Other ETCs may have similar business strategies. Further, by offering Lifeline and Link Up service, a competitive ETC may attract new subscribers that may not otherwise have taken telephone service. This would increase a competitive ETC's base of subscribers and, consequently, lower its average cost of serving all of its subscribers. Moreover, competitive ETCs may be eligible for separate universal service support at the state level. *See, e.g.* , Kan. Stat. Ann. 66-2008

(2006)(providing for the creation of a Kansas universal service fund

(KUSF)and requiring that carriers be designated as an ETC pursuant to section 214(e)(1) of the Act to receive support from the KUSF). 31. We adopt two limited exceptions to the operation of the interim cap. First, consistent with the *ALLTEL-Atlantis Order* and the *AT&T-Dobson Order* , we find it in the public interest to adopt a limited exception to the interim cap if a competitive ETC submits its own costs. *See ALLTEL-Atlantis Order* , 22 FCC Rcd at 19521, paras 9-10; *AT&T-Dobson Order* , 22 FCC Rcd at 20329-30, paras. 70-72. Specifically, a competitive ETC will not be subject to the interim cap to the extent that it files cost data demonstrating that its costs meet the support threshold in the same manner as the incumbent LEC. 32. Second, we also adopt a limited exception to the interim cap for competitive ETCs that serve tribal lands or Alaska Native regions (the Covered Locations). We permit competitive ETCs serving Covered Locations to continue to receive uncapped high-cost support for lines served in those Covered Locations. Because many tribal lands have low penetration rates for basic telephone service, we do not believe that competitive ETCs are merely providing complementary services in most tribal lands, as they do generally. *See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Promoting Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular Areas* , CC Docket No. 96-45, Twelfth Report and Order, Memorandum Report and Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 65 FR 47883, para. 2

(2000)(concluding that “existing universal service support mechanisms are not adequate to sustain telephone subscribership on tribal lands.”). 33. Participation in this limited exception to the interim cap is voluntary and will be elected by the competitive ETC on a study area by study area basis. Therefore, any competitive ETC that does not or cannot opt into the limited exception, or that does not or cannot opt into the limited exception for a particular Covered Location, will remain subject to the interim cap as described herein. Support for competitive ETCs that do opt into the limited exception will continue to be provided pursuant to § 54.307 of the Commission's rules, except that the uncapped per line support is limited to one payment per each residential account. 47 CFR 54.307. If a competitive ETC serves lines in both Covered Locations and non-Covered Locations (or only Covered Locations), the universal service administrator shall determine the amount of additional support—after application of the interim cap—necessary to ensure that a competitive ETC receives the same per-line support amount as the incumbent LEC for the lines qualifying for the exception. 34. Finally compliance with the terms of this limited exception will be verified through certification and reporting requirements. Specifically, a competitive ETC seeking to receive high-cost support pursuant to this limited exception must certify the number of lines that meet the limited exception requirements. The competitive ETC also must provide a specific description of how it confirmed that it had met the certification threshold. 35. Even with the total amount of support provided to competitive ETCs being capped, continued growth in competitive ETC lines would have the effect of reducing the amount of interstate access support

(IAS)received by incumbent LECs, due to the operation of the formula for calculating IAS. *See* 47 CFR 54.800-54.808. To prevent the implementation of the interim cap on competitive ETC support from having this unintended consequence on incumbent LEC support, we find it necessary to adjust the calculation of IAS for both incumbent LECs and competitive ETCs. Accordingly, we divide IAS into separate pools for incumbent LECs and competitive ETCs and separately cap the amount of IAS support for both types of carriers. The annual amount of IAS available for incumbent LECs shall be set at the amount of IAS that incumbent LECs were eligible to receive in March 2008 on an annual basis. This amount shall be indexed annually for line growth or loss by price cap incumbent LECs. The annual amount of IAS available for competitive ETCs shall be set at the amount of IAS that competitive ETCs were eligible to receive in March 2008 on an annual basis. Subject to these constraints, we direct USAC to calculate and distribute IAS for each pool to eligible carriers consistent with the existing IAS rules. Length of Time 36. In light of the harm to the sustainability of the universal service fund posed by the dramatic growth of support to competitive ETCs, we find that the cap we adopt today should become effective as soon as possible. The cap will, therefore, commence as of the effective date of this Order. 37. We emphasize that the cap on competitive ETC support that we adopt here is only an interim measure to slow the current explosion of high-cost universal service support while the Commission considers further reform. We remain committed to comprehensive reform of the high-cost universal service support mechanisms. The Commission has three outstanding rulemaking proceedings that consider comprehensive reform of high-cost universal service support. The Commission plans to move forward on adopting comprehensive reform measures in an expeditious manner. The Commission commits to completing a final order on comprehensive reform as quickly as feasible after the comment cycle is completed on the pending *Reform Notices.* We therefore do not believe that a fixed sunset date, as proposed by some commenters, is necessary or provides additional benefit. Base Period for the Cap 38. Although we adopt the Joint Board's recommendation that the cap on competitive ETC support be set at the level of competitive ETC support actually distributed in each state, rather than set such a cap at the level of support actually distributed in 2006, we find it is more appropriate to set such a cap at the level of support competitive ETCs were eligible to receive during March 2008 on an annualized basis. Specifically, for each state, the annual interim cap shall be set at twelve times the level of support that all competitive ETCs were eligible to receive in that state for the month of March 2008. Using March 2008 data allows use of more recent actual support amounts than 2006. Use of March 2008 as the base period, moreover, will ensure that funding levels will not undermine the expectations underlying competitive ETC investment decisions or result in immediate funding reductions. Further, consistent with our decision to cap competitive ETC support on an interim basis, we find it inappropriate and counterproductive to index the cap to a growth factor. 39. Although the interim cap that we adopt today applies only to the amount of support available to competitive ETCs, it does not restrict the number of competitive ETCs that may receive support. In fact, as part of this Order, we grant, to the extent described in Appendix B, numerous applications for ETC designation currently pending before the Commission. As described in more detail in Appendix B, we find that the applicants have met the Commission's requirements for designation. We also amend an ETC designation as described in Appendix C. These designations, however, do not affect the amount of support available to competitive ETCs, which is limited by the interim cap we adopt in this Order. Procedural Matters Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 40. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), *See* 5 U.S.C. 603, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)was incorporated in the *Notice.* *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 72 FR 28936

(2007)( *Notice* ). The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the *Notice,* including comment on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(FRFA)conforms to the RFA. *See* 5 U.S.C. 604. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 41. On May 1, 2007, the Joint Board recommended that the Commission adopt an interim cap on high-cost universal service support for competitive ETCs to rein in the explosive growth in universal service. *Recommended Decision,* 22 FCC Rcd 8998 (Appendix A). We agree with the Joint Board's assessment that the rapid growth in high-cost support places the federal universal service fund in dire jeopardy. 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 average 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. We find that the continued growth of the fund at this rate is not sustainable and would require excessive (and ever growing) contributions from consumers to pay for this fund growth. 42. We conclude that immediate action must be taken to stem the dramatic growth in high-cost support. Therefore, we immediately impose an interim cap on high-cost support provided to competitive ETCs until fundamental comprehensive reforms are adopted to address issues related to the distribution of support and to ensure that the universal service fund will be sustainable for future years. The interim cap that we adopt herein limits the amount of high-cost support that competitive ETCs can receive in the interim period to the amount they were eligible to receive in March 2008 on an annualized basis. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 43. None. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules Will Apply 44. 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(5). 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) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in 5 U.S.C. 632). 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. *See* SBA, Programs and Services, SBA Pamphlet No. CO-0028, at 40 (July 2002). 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. 45. 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. FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Trends in Telephone Service, Table 5.3, page 5-5 (February 2007) (Trends in Telephone Service). The SBA has developed small business size standards for wireline and wireless small businesses within the three commercial census categories of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, 13 CFR 121. 201, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 517110, Paging, 13 CFR 121. 201, NAICS code 517211 (This category will be changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to “Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite),” NAICS code 517210.), and Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications. 13 CFR 21. 201, NAICS code 517212 (This category will be changed for purposes of the 2007 Census to “Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite),” NAICS code 517210.). 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 46. 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. 47. *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. 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. 48. *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. 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 49. *Wireless Service Providers.* The appropriate size standard for wireless service providers is the category of “Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).” Under that standard, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. The data necessary to estimate the number of entities in this category has not been gathered since it was adopted in November 2007. Therefore, we will use the earlier, now-superceded categories—“Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications”—to estimate the number of entities. 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. 50. *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 “Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).” Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. The data necessary to estimate the number of entities in this category has not been gathered since it was adopted in November 2007. Therefore, we will use the earlier, now-superceded categories of “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” to estimate the number of entities. 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 51. *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 “All Other Telecommunications.” 52. 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.” Under this category, the SBA size standard is $13. 5 million or less in aveage annual receipts. 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. 53. The second category of “All Other Telecommunications” “comprises establishments primarily engaged in

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

(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). 56. In adopting the interim cap, the Commission considered several alternatives to minimize the cap's effect on small entites. We adopt an exception to the rule for carriers providing services to tribal lands. We also note that the Commission is examining ways to comprehensively reform federal high-cost universal service. The interim cap that the Commission adopts today is an interim measure that will be replaced by comprehensive reforms which will be developed in the future and which will minimize any economically adverse effect of the cap on small businesses. Report to Congress 57. The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the SBREFA. *See* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Order and the FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the **Federal Register** . *See* 5 U.S.C. 604(b). Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 58. This document contains new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat. 163 (1995). It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other federal agencies are invited to comment on the new information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 116 Stat. 729 (2002); 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 59. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of demonstrating compliance with the exception to the interim cap, and find that there may be an increased administrative burden on businesses with fewer than 25 employees. We have taken steps to minimize the information collection burden for small business concerns, including those with fewer than 25 employees. First, we note that compliance with the exception is voluntary—small business concerns are not required to comply with the information collection. In addition, compliance with the exception will be elected by carriers on a study area by study area basis. Carriers need only provide additional information on the study areas for which they elect to rely on the exception to the interim cap. Congressional Review Act 60. The Commission will send a copy of this Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. *See* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). Ordering Clauses 61. Accordingly, *it is ordered,* pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4, 201-205, 214, 218-220, 254, 303(r), 403, 405, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201-205, 214, 218-220, 254, 303(r), 403, 405, and 410, that this Order in CC Docket No. 96-45 and WC Docket No. 05-337 is adopted. 62. *It is further ordered* that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(6), the petitions for eligible telecommunications carrier designation as set forth in Appendix B *are granted, denied, or dismissed without prejudice* to the extent described therein and, pursuant to § 1. 103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1. 103(a), *shall be* effective thirty days after publication in the **Federal Register** , except where redefined service areas require the agreement of a state commission as described therein. 63. *It is further ordered* that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 214(e)(5) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(5), and §§ 54.207(d) and

(e)of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 54.207(d) and (e), the requests to redefine the service areas of the rural telephone companies described in Appendix B, *are granted, denied,* or *granted in part and denied in part* to the extent described therein and subject to the agreement of the relevant state commissions with the Commission's redefinition of the relevant service areas, if not previously redefined as described therein. 64. *It is further ordered* that a copy of this order *shall be* transmitted by the Office of the Secretary to the relevant state commissions and the Universal Service Administrative Company. 65. *It is further ordered* that the petitioners set forth in Appendix B shall submit additional information pursuant to § 54.202(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 54.202(a). 66. *It is further ordered* that NEP Cellcorp, Inc.'s Motion to Strike is dismissed as moot as described in Appendix B to the Order. 67. *It is further ordered* that, pursuant to the authority contained in section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(6), RCC Minnesota, Inc. and RCC Atlantic, Inc.'s ETC designation in New Hampshire is amended as set forth in Appendix C to the Order. 68. *It is further ordered* that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, *shall send* a copy of this Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 69. *It is further ordered* , that this Order *shall be effective* thirty days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-14897 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P 73 128 Wednesday, July 2, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 94 [Docket No. APHIS-2008-0032] RIN 0579-AC80 Importation of Cooked Pork Skins AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations to allow for the importation of cooked pork skins from regions affected with foot-and-mouth disease, swine vesicular disease, African swine fever, and classical swine fever under certain conditions. We are taking this action after preparing a risk assessment that concluded that the cooking methods examined are sufficient to inactivate the pathogens of concern. This action would relieve restrictions on the importation of cooked pork skins while continuing to protect against the introduction of those diseases of concern. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 2, 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&-0032* 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-2008-0032, 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-2008-0032. *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: Dr. Karen A. James-Preston, Director, Technical Trade Services—Products, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;

(301)734-8172. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of certain animals and animal products into the United States to prevent the introduction of communicable diseases of livestock and poultry. The regulations in §§ 94.4, 94.8, 94.9, and 94.12 contain requirements for the importation of cured or cooked meat and pork and pork products from regions where rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), African swine fever (ASF), classical swine fever (CSF), and swine vesicular disease

(SVD)exist. Currently, the regulations provide that pork and pork products may be imported into the United States from regions where these diseases exist only if they have been cooked or cured as specified in our regulations. Acceptable cooking or curing methods include curing and drying so that the product does not require refrigeration, cooking in a hermetically sealed container so that the final product is shelf-stable, cooking in tubes so the internal temperature of the meat reaches 175 °F (79.4 °C), or, in the case of perishable canned hams, cooking by method other than flash heating to an internal temperature of 156 °F (69 °C). These cooking and curing processes protect the United States against an introduction of the diseases of concern by inactivating the viruses which cause them. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has received a request from a United States importer for permission to import cooked pork skins (pork rinds) from Brazil, a region affected with FMD, SVD, ASF, and CSF. Such imports are not permitted under our current regulations. However, a risk assessment 1 performed by the Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health of APHIS' Veterinary Services program indicates that pork skins cooked in the manner described by the requester are not a potential pathway for entry of foreign animal disease agents into the United States. This is because the cooking process is sufficient to deactivate the pathogens in question. 1 The risk assessment, titled “Risk Assessment of Pork Rinds from Brazil,” can be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov) or in our reading room. A copy may also be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Two methods of cooking pork skins were examined. The first method is a one-step cooking process, during which the pork skins are held in cooking oil that is maintained at a temperature of 237-240 °F (114-116 °C) for at least 80 minutes. Including heating and cooling times, the cooking time for the one-step process is about 2.5 hours. The second is a two-step process in which the pork rinds are dry cooked at 500-750 °F (260-399 °C) for approximately 210 minutes after which they are cooked in hot oil at 220-250 °F (104-121 °C) for an additional 150 minutes. The total cooking time in the two-step process is about 6 hours. Both these cooking processes exceed the heat inactivation requirement commonly cited in the literature for the four viruses of concern. They also exceed the requirements for cooked meat described in the regulations. We are, therefore, proposing to amend the regulations in part 94 to allow for the importation of cooked pork skins from regions with FMD, SVD, ASF, and CSF under the conditions described in this proposed rule. Specifically, we would amend the FMD-related provisions in § 94.4, the ASF-related provisions in § 94.8, the CSF-related provisions in § 94.9, and the SVD-related provisions in § 94.12 by adding a new paragraph to each section that authorizes the importation of pork skins if they have been cooked using one of the methods described above. Each of those sections also contains additional requirements that must be met in order for pork or pork products to be imported into the United States from regions where these diseases exist. These additional requirements include provisions that the pork or pork products be processed at an approved facility which is eligible to have its products imported into the United States under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) and the regulations in 9 CFR part 327, and that shipments of cooked pork or pork products must be accompanied by a certificate issued by an official of the National Government of the region of origin who is authorized to issue the foreign meat inspection certificate required under 9 CFR part 327. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. We are proposing to amend the regulations to allow for the importation of cooked pork skins from regions affected with FMD, SVD, ASF, and CSF under certain conditions. We are taking this action after preparing a risk assessment that concluded that the cooking methods examined are sufficient to inactivate the pathogens of concern. This action would relieve restrictions on the importation of cooked pork skins while continuing to protect against the introduction of those diseases of concern. Pork rinds are a snack food that is made from deep-fried or microwavable pork rind pellets (cooked pig skins). The size of the pork rind snack manufacturing industry is considered to be relatively small. Available Economic Census data do not provide specific information on the pork rind snack industry. The Census categorizes the pork rind industry with certain other snack foods (excluding potato chips, corn chips, and related products) under “other snack food manufacturing,” and the product classification code is 3119197. 2 As table 1 shows, the industry is composed of a relatively small number of establishments. On average, these establishments employ fewer than 100 employees and therefore most, if not all, of the establishments can be considered to be small entities. 3 2 The products included within this code are other chips, sticks, hard pretzels, bacon rinds, popcorn (except candied), etc., excluding crackers, soft pretzels, and nuts. 3 The U.S. Small Business Administration

(SBA)defines establishments engaged in other snack food manufacturing (North American Industry Classification System code 311919) as small if their employees number no more than 500. Table 1.—Snack Food Manufacturing, Excluding Potato Chips, Corn Chips, and Related Products, 2002 Number of establishments Number of employees Payroll ($ million) Total cost of materials ($ million) Total value of shipments ($ million) 47 4,284 $131 $365 $959 Source: 2002 Economic Census ( *http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0231i311919.pdf* ). Although no clear-cut method exists to disaggregate the pork-rind snack manufacturers from the other snack manufacturers in the Census data, we can use available sales information for pork-rind snack food to approximate the size of this segment of the industry. Currently two trade associations keep track of pork-rind snack sales: The Snack Food Association of Alexandria, VA, reported sales $562 million (−21.6 percent) 4 and Information Resources, Inc. of Chicago, IL, reported sales of $98 million (−16.8 percent). 5 4 Sales in 2005, which includes all distribution channels. Percentage shows the change from previous year. 5 Total supermarket, drug store, and mass merchandising sales for the 52 weeks ending May 21, 2006, excluding Wal-Mart. Percentage shows the change from previous year. Comparing these trade association data to the $959 million shipment value reported in the Census data for “other snack food manufacturing,” sales by the pork-rind snack manufacturers may represent as much as one-half of sales for this product category. In terms of the sales trend, it is notable that both trade associations reported about 20 percent declines in sales from the previous year. The slowdown in sales may at least partially reflect a shift in consumers' orientation away from the high-protein/low-carbohydrate diet that seems to have peaked in 2004. Pork Rind Pellet Manufacturers Pork rind pellets are made from cooked pork skins and are the main material used in making pork rind snacks. The number and size of the pork rind pellet manufacturers (including manufacturers of pork cracklings 6 ) are relatively small. Only 17 establishments comprise this industry, and they had a total shipment value in 2002 of $196 million, as shown in table 2. 6 Cracklings are produced from pellets—cooked pork skins—that are thicker and meatier than rinds. Table 2.—Pork Rind Pellet Manufacturers, 2002 Product code Product description Number of companies with shipments of $100,000 or more Shipment value ($ million) Estimated shipment volume 1 311611R121 Pork rind pellets, including pork cracklings, made in slaughtering plants 5 $45 155.9 million pounds (70,715 metric tons). 311612A441 Pork rind pellets, including pork cracklings, made from purchased carcasses 12 151 56 million pounds (91,580 metric tons). 1 Although shipment volumes for pork rind pellets are not available in the 2002 Census data, the 1997 Census data indicate that 123.7 million pounds were shipped for product code 311612A441, with a total shipment value of $130 million. The 2002 figures are calculated based on this information. Source: 2002 Economic Census. U.S. Import and Export of Pork Rind Products Trade data 7 specific to pork rinds are not available; instead, three harmonized tariff schedule

(HTS)data for the edible offal of swine are examined and summarized. 8 9 Tables 3 and 4 summarize the import and export trend for these three HTS codes. 10 7 Source: U.S. International Trade Commission Interactive Tariff and Trade Dataweb. 8 HTS 020649—Edible offal of swine, frozen: Other; HTS 0206490050—Edible offal of swine, frozen, pork rind (Note: This classification is no longer available in the 2007 HTS); HTS 1602494000—Other prepared or preserved meat, meat offal, or blood of swine: Other, not containing cereals or vegetables, other. 9 Of those, only one HTS is specifically for pork rind (frozen). The other two include other edible offal of frozen, prepared, or preserved swine. 10 “Landed Duty-Paid Value,” which is the sum of the cost, insurance, and freight

(CIF)value plus calculated duties, is used for the trade data. The United States has imported a relatively small volume of edible offal of swine, including pork rinds, at an average of 7,000 metric tons annually with a value of $12 million over the past 5 years. Although the import of swine offal peaked in 2005 and has declined since, U.S. exports are relatively stable. The United States exported, on an average, about 24,000 metric tons with an average value of $24 million, and the United States has been a consistent net exporter of the edible offal of swine over the past 5 years. Table 3.—U.S. Imports of Edible Offal of Swine, Frozen, Prepared, or Preserved Country 2002 Million dollars Metric tons 2003 Million dollars Metric tons 2004 Million dollars Metric tons 2005 Million dollars Metric tons 2006 Million dollars Metric tons Canada $2.9 2,901 $4.3 3,553 $10.5 4,481 $7.0 6,635 $5.7 6,274 Denmark 8.1 2,183 6.8 2,281 7.5 1,893 2.1 2,247 2.1 1,127 Mexico 0.0 0 1.1 0 0.6 108 0.0 79 0.0 0 Others 0.3 177 0.6 144 0.6 102 0.4 174 0.0 27 Total 11.3 5,261 12.8 5,978 19.2 6,584 9.5 9,135 7.8 7,428 Source: U.S. International Trade Commission, HTS 0206490000, 0206490050, 1602494000. Table 4.—U.S. Exports of Edible Offal of Swine, Frozen, Prepared, or Preserved Country 2002 Million dollars Metric tons 2003 Million dollars Metric tons 2004 Million dollars Metric tons 2005 Million dollars Metric tons 2006 Million dollars Metric tons Mexico $10.1 15, 405 $11.0 16, 747 $19.4 24,325 $18.3 21,235 $16.5 22,078 Japan 9.4 3,102 3.3 1,410 0.9 272 1.4 435 4.4 1,494 Korea 0.5 358 1.6 776 1.8 848 2.2 1,029 3.0 1,330 Hong Kong 2.3 1,097 1.4 679 1.2 353 1.1 261 1.5 330 Others 3.8 2,518 2.3 2,720 1.1 1,584 1.1 853 0.8 695 Total 26.1 22,120 19.6 22,332 24.4 27,382 24.1 23,813 26.2 25,927 Source: U.S. International Trade Commission. Export of Pork Rind Products From Brazil Two HTS categories that include pork skins are used to examine the status of Brazilian exports of pork rinds: 160249 (Meat, Meat Offal or Mixtures of Swine, Prepared or Preserved, Nesoi 11 ) and 020649 (Offal of Swine Except Livers, Edible, Frozen). 11 Not elsewhere specified or indicated. Table 5.—Export of Swine Offal From Brazil Country 2003 Million dollars Metric tons Per metric ton 2004 Million dollars Metric tons Per metric ton 2005 Million dollars Metric tons Per metric ton % share of volume Hong Kong $7.2 9.199 781.9 $9.5 10.347 916.9 $15.2 14,537 1,046.9 65.2 Russia 3.4 4,621 725.3 2.2 2,897 750.1 4.1 4,689 876.8 21.0 Others 2.3 3,882 602.7 3.3 3,493 942.7 3.0 3,064 960.1 13.7 World Total 12.9 17,702 727.8 15.0 16,737 893.4 22.3 22,290 999.2 100 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, as reported by Global Trade Information Services, Inc. Brazil exports a relatively small amount of swine offal products. On an average, it exports about 19,000 metric tons annually with a total value of $17 million. Hong Kong is by far the largest buyer of Brazilian swine offal, accounting for almost two-thirds of total exports. Russia is the second largest buyer; however, its imports are limited to frozen swine offal (HTS 0206491). In terms of the aggregate world export of swine offal products, Brazil is ranked around tenth in both HTS categories with its share accounting for about 1 percent of world trade. 12 12 Top exporters of HTS 020649 in 2005 were the United States (18 percent share), Germany (16 percent), Canada (13 percent), and Denmark (11 percent). For HTS 160249, top exporters were China (25 percent), Denmark (14 percent), Germany (12 percent), and the United States (8 percent). Expected Economic Impact The expected impact of the proposed rule on the U.S. economy is illustrated under two scenarios: 3 million pounds (1,361 metric tons) and 4 million pounds (1,814 metric tons) of pork rind pellets imported from Brazil. 13 These scenarios reflect the initial plan of the U.S. importer who requested the proposed rule. 13 We used a nonspatial, partial equilibrium welfare model to quantify the economic effects of the proposed rule. In addition to the importer's plan to import 3 to 4 million pounds, the price and quantity data explained in previous sections are used as inputs. Table 6 summarizes the estimated price effects and impacts for U.S. producers and consumers under these two scenarios, using a nonspatial, partial equilibrium welfare model. The changes are minor; the model estimates that the net welfare benefit would be about $19,000 under the first scenario (3 million pounds imported) and $30,000 under the second scenario (4 million pounds imported). These welfare measures reflect a reduction in domestic production that would be more than offset by an increase in consumption. The changes in domestic production and consumption would be less than 1 percent. It is, therefore, safely assumed that the proposed regulation would not have a significant economic impact on small entities in the pork rind industry. APHIS welcomes information that the public may provide on the status of the pork rind manufacturing industry and other related information that could be used to further evaluate the impact of the proposed rule. Table 6.—Estimated Impact on the U.S. Economy of Pork Offal Imports From Brazil Pork rind pellets imported from Brazil 1,361 metric tons (3 million pounds) 1,814 metric tons (4 million pounds) Change in U.S. consumption, metric ton 680.8 840.8 Change in U.S. production, metric ton −730.2 −973.2 Change in price of pork rind pellets, dollars per metric ton −$17.08 −$22.76 Change in consumer welfare, thousand dollars $1,577 $2,104 Change in annual net welfare, thousand dollars $19 $30 Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted:

(1)All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted;

(2)no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and

(3)administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94 Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR part 94 as follows: PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, CLASSICAL SWINE FEVER, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 94 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 2. Section 94.4 is amended as follows: a. In paragraph (b)(7), by removing the citation “§ 94.4(b)(4) or (b)(5)” and adding the words “paragraph (b)(4) or (b)(5) of this section” in its place. b. By redesignating paragraphs (b)(8) and (b)(9) as paragraphs (b)(9) and (b)(10), respectively, and adding a new paragraph (b)(8) to read as set forth below. c. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(9)(ii), by removing the citation “(b)(8)(i)” and adding the citation “(b)(9)(i)” in its place. § 94.4 Cured or cooked meat from regions where rinderpest or foot-and-mouth disease exists.

(b)* * *

(8)*Pork rind pellets (pork skins).* Pork rind pellets (pork skins) must be cooked in one of the following ways:

(i)*One-step process.* The pork skins must be cooked in oil for at least 80 minutes when oil temperature is consistently maintained at a minimum of 114 °C.

(ii)*Two-step process.* The pork skins must be dry-cooked at 260 °C for approximately 210 minutes after which they must be cooked in hot oil (deep-fried) at 104 °C for an additional 150 minutes. 3. Section 94.8 is amended as follows: a. By redesignating paragraph (a)(4) as paragraph (a)(5), and by adding a new paragraph (a)(4) to read as set forth below. b. In paragraph (a)(3)(i), by removing the citation “(a)(4)” and adding the words “(a)(5) of this section” in its place. § 94.8 Pork and pork product from regions where African swine fever exists or is reasonably believed to exist. (a)* * *

(4)The pork product is pork rind pellets (pork skins) that were cooked in one of the following ways in an establishment that meets the requirements in paragraph (a)(5) of this section:

(i)*One-step process.* The pork skins must be cooked in oil for at least 80 minutes when oil temperature is consistently maintained at a minimum of 114 °C.

(ii)*Two-step process.* The pork skins must be dry-cooked at a minimum of 260 °C for approximately 210 minutes after which they must be cooked in hot oil (deep-fried) at a minimum of 104 °C for an additional 150 minutes. 4. Section 94.9 is amended as follows: a. By adding a new paragraph (c)(1)(iv) to read as set forth below. b. In paragraph (c)(2), by removing the citation “(c)(1)(ii) or (iii)” and adding the citation “(c)(1)(ii), (iii), or (iv)” in its place. c. In paragraph (c)(3), by removing the citation “(c)(1)(ii) or (iii)” both places it occurs and adding the words “(c)(1)(ii), (iii), or

(iv)of this section” in its place. § 94.9 Pork and pork products from regions where classical swine fever exists. (c)* * * (1)* * *

(iv)Pork rind pellets (pork skins) originating in regions where classical swine fever is known to exist may be imported into the United States provided they have been cooked in one of the following ways:

(A)*One-step process.* The pork skins must be cooked in oil for at least 80 minutes when oil temperature is consistently maintained at a minimum of 114 °C.

(B)*Two-step process.* The pork skins must be dry-cooked at a minimum of 260 °C for approximately 210 minutes after which they must be cooked in hot oil (deep-fried) at a minimum of 104 °C for an additional 150 minutes. 5. In § 94.12, a new paragraph (b)(1)(vi) is added to read as follows: § 94.12 Pork and pork products from regions where swine vesicular disease exists.

(b)* * *

(1)* * *

(vi)Pork rind pellets (pork skins) must be cooked in one of the following ways:

(A)*One-step process.* The pork skins must be cooked in oil for at least 80 minutes when oil temperature is consistently maintained at a minimum of 114 °C.

(B)*Two-step process.* The pork skins must be dry-cooked at a minimum of 260 °C for approximately 210 minutes after which they must be cooked in hot oil (deep-fried) at a minimum of 104 °C for an additional 150 minutes. Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of June 2008. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E8-15014 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0730; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-055-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-401, and DHC-8-402 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: All DHC-8 Series 400 aircraft have had a spoiler fuselage cable disconnect sensing system installed in production. Subsequently it was discovered that, in the event of a spoiler fuselage cable disconnect, only the ROLL SPLR INBD HYD caution light will be illuminated until the aircraft speed decreases below 165 kts [knots], at which time the ROLL SPLR OUTBD HYD caution light will also be illuminated. In the event of a spoiler fuselage cable disconnect in association with the existing indications described above, the reduction in roll authority could result in increased pilot workload during approach and landing. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Parrillo, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7305; fax

(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0730; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-055-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-13, dated February 14, 2008 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: All DHC-8 Series 400 aircraft have had a spoiler fuselage cable disconnect sensing system installed in production. Subsequently it was discovered that, in the event of a spoiler fuselage cable disconnect, only the ROLL SPLR INBD HYD caution light will be illuminated until the aircraft speed decreases below 165 kts [knots], at which time the ROLL SPLR OUTBD HYD caution light will also be illuminated. In the event of a spoiler fuselage cable disconnect in association with the existing indications described above, the reduction in roll authority could result in increased pilot workload during approach and landing. Modsums 4-110066 and 4-126356 (each applicable to a different batch of aircraft serial numbers) have been issued to rework the sensing circuit caution light indication to ensure that it is consistent for spoiler fuselage cable disconnects above and below 165 kts. Modsum 4-126356 has been installed in production on aircraft serial numbers 4130 and subsequent. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-27-33, dated June 6, 2007; and Service Bulletin 84-27-28, Revision B, dated September 25, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 20 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $2,339 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $62,780, or $3,139 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0730; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-055-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by August 1, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-401 and DHC-8-402 airplanes, serial numbers 4003, 4004, 4006, and 4008 through 4129, certificated in any category. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 27: Flight Controls. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: All DHC-8 Series 400 aircraft have had a spoiler fuselage cable disconnect sensing system installed in production. Subsequently it was discovered that, in the event of a spoiler fuselage cable disconnect, only the ROLL SPLR INBD HYD caution light will be illuminated until the aircraft speed decreases below 165 kts [knots], at which time the ROLL SPLR OUTBD HYD caution light will also be illuminated. In the event of a spoiler fuselage cable disconnect in association with the existing indications described above, the reduction in roll authority could result in increased pilot workload during approach and landing. Modsums 4-110066 and 4-126356 (each applicable to a different batch of aircraft serial numbers) have been issued to rework the sensing circuit caution light indication to ensure that it is consistent for spoiler fuselage cable disconnects above and below 165 kts. Modsum 4-126356 has been installed in production on aircraft serial numbers 4130 and subsequent. Actions and Compliance

(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)For airplanes with serial numbers 4003, 4004, 4006, and 4008 through 4094: Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, modify the spoiler cable disconnect sensing circuit by incorporating Modsum 4-110066 in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-33, dated June 6, 2007.

(2)For airplanes with serial numbers 4095 through 4129: Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, modify the spoiler cable disconnect sensing circuit by incorporating Modsum 4-126356 in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-28, Revision B, dated September 25, 2007.

(3)Installations of Modsum 4-126356 accomplished before the effective date of this AD according to Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-28, dated October 2, 2006; or Revision A, dated April 30, 2007; are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in this AD. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Dan Parrillo, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7305; fax

(516)794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-13, dated February 14, 2008; and Bombardier Service Bulletins 84-27-33, dated June 6, 2007; and 84-27-28, Revision B, dated September 25, 2007; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 24, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14964 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0676; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-280-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Service experience has shown that heavy MLG (main landing gear) shimmy vibration can occur due to faulty/empty dampers or due to excessive free play in the T/L (torque link) apex joint. In several cases this shimmy vibration resulted in a MLG main fitting failure * * * finally resulting in a collapse of the MLG causing extensive damage to the wingtip, aileron and flaps. * * * The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M- 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1137; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0676; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-280-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Civil Aviation Authority—The Netherlands (CAA-NL), which is the aviation authority for the Netherlands, has issued Dutch Airworthiness Directive NL-2007-001, dated February 26, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Service experience has shown that heavy MLG (main landing gear) shimmy vibration can occur due to faulty/empty dampers or due to excessive free play in the T/L (torque link) apex joint. In several cases this shimmy vibration resulted in a MLG main fitting failure. In those cases where only the upper torque link attachment lug failed the damage to the aircraft was limited. In all other cases the MLG main fitting cracked, finally resulting in a collapse of the MLG causing extensive damage to the wingtip, aileron and flaps. To prevent the collapse of the MLG, Messier-Dowty has designed an upper torque link fuse pin with a static strength lower than the demonstrated strength of the MLG main fitting. In case of a heavy shimmy vibration the upper torque link fuse pin will fail before the main fitting. Therefore the installation of an upper torque link fuse pin will protect the LH and RH (left- and right-hand) MLG main fitting against extreme shimmy loads and thus against a MLG main fitting failure and a MLG collapse. Since an unsafe condition has been identified that may exist or develop on aircraft of the same type design this Airworthiness Directive requires the modification of the MLG by replacing the upper torque link pin with a new fuse pin. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Fokker Services B.V. has issued Service Bulletin SBF100-32-148, Revision 1, dated February 26, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 2 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 15 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,400, or $1,200 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Fokker Services B.V.:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0676; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-280-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by August 1, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and F.28 Mark 0100, serial numbers 11244 thru 11585, certificated in any category, equipped with Messier-Dowty main landing gears. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 32: Landing Gear. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: Service experience has shown that heavy MLG (main landing gear) shimmy vibration can occur due to faulty/empty dampers or due to excessive free play in the T/L (torque link) apex joint. In several cases this shimmy vibration resulted in a MLG main fitting failure. In those cases where only the upper torque link attachment lug failed the damage to the aircraft was limited. In all other cases the MLG main fitting cracked, finally resulting in a collapse of the MLG causing extensive damage to the wingtip, aileron and flaps. To prevent the collapse of the MLG, Messier-Dowty has designed an upper torque link fuse pin with a static strength lower than the demonstrated strength of the MLG main fitting. In case of a heavy shimmy vibration the upper torque link fuse pin will fail before the main fitting. Therefore the installation of an upper torque link fuse pin will protect the LH and RH (left- and right-hand) MLG main fitting against extreme shimmy loads and thus against a MLG main fitting failure and a MLG collapse. Since an unsafe condition has been identified that may exist or develop on aircraft of the same type design this Airworthiness Directive requires the modification of the MLG by replacing the upper torque link pin with a new fuse pin. Actions and Compliance

(f)Within the applicable compliance time specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)For Messier-Dowty MLG in a pre-mod Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100-32-050 configuration: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the upper torque link pin with a new fuse pin in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-148, Revision 1, dated February 26, 2007.

(2)For Messier-Dowty MLG in a post-mod Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100-32-050 configuration: Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the upper torque link pin with a new fuse pin in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-148, Revision 1, dated February 26, 2007. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: The MCAI references the original version of the service bulletin or a later approved version. The original version of the service bulletin specifies to use an incorrect part number. This AD refers to Revision 1 of the service bulletin. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(425)227-1137; fax

(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to MCAI Dutch Airworthiness Directive NL-2007-001, dated February 26, 2007, and Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-148, Revision 1, dated February 26, 2007, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 24, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14969 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0731; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-058-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)that applies to all Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires repetitive detailed inspections of the aft pressure bulkhead for indications of “oil cans” and previous oil can repairs, and corrective actions, if necessary. An oil can is an area on a pressure dome web that moves when pushed from the forward side. This proposed AD would reduce the compliance time for the initial detailed inspection and clarify the applicability. This proposed AD results from a report that cracks in oil-canned areas were found during an inspection of the aft pressure bulkhead. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct the propagation of fatigue cracks in the vicinity of oil cans on the web of the aft pressure bulkhead, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane and overpressurization of the tail section, and consequent loss of control of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6437; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0731; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-058-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion On July 30, 2004, we issued AD 2004-16-09, amendment 39-13765 (69 FR 48133, August 9, 2004), for all Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive detailed inspections of the aft pressure bulkhead for indications of “oil cans” and previous oil can repairs, and corrective actions, if necessary. An oil can is an area on a pressure dome web that moves when pushed from the forward side. That AD resulted from a report indicating that a 2.1-inch long crack in the web of the aft pressure bulkhead at the perimeter of an “oil can” was found on a Model 747SR series airplane. We issued that AD to detect and correct the propagation of fatigue cracks in the vicinity of oil cans on the web of the aft pressure bulkhead, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane and overpressurization of the tail section, and consequent loss of control of the airplane. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2004-16-09, we received a report that 9 cracks (up to 0.4-inch long in 2 oil-canned areas) were found during an inspection on the aft pressure bulkhead of a Model 747-200F series airplane with about 21,000 total flight cycles. Boeing recommends reducing the initial inspection threshold (required in paragraph

(b)of AD 2004-16-09) from 30,000 total flight cycles to 20,000 total flight cycles. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2008. The service bulletin describes procedures that are the same as in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, dated October 3, 2002, except for a reduction in a compliance time and some editorial changes. Revision 1 of the service bulletin also specifies contacting Boeing for repair data if any crack is found during a detailed inspection of any previous “oil can” repair. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would supersede AD 2004-16-09 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously at a reduced threshold, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and Revision 1 of the Service Bulletin.” Differences Between the Proposed AD and Revision 1 of the Service Bulletin The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways: • Using a method that we approve; or • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings. We have revised paragraph

(g)of AD 2004-16-09 to allow repairs in accordance with data that conforms to an airplane's type certificate and that are approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make such findings. Change to Existing AD This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2004-16-09. Since AD 2004-16-09 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table: Revised Paragraph Identifiers Requirement in AD 2004-16-09 Corresponding requirement in this proposed AD paragraph

(a)paragraph (f). paragraph

(b)paragraph (g). paragraph

(c)paragraph (h). paragraph

(d)paragraph (i). paragraph

(e)paragraph (j). paragraph

(f)paragraph (k). paragraph

(g)paragraph (l). The cost information specified in AD 2004-16-09 inadvertently contained information on on-condition inspections. The cost information, below, has been revised to state only the work hours necessary for the initial and repetitive inspections specified in paragraph

(g)of this proposed AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 917 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 165 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions that are required by AD 2004-16-09 and retained in this proposed AD take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions to the U.S. operators is $26,400, or $160 per airplane, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-13765 (69 FR 48133, August 9, 2004) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0731; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-058-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 18, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2004-16-09. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report that cracks in oil-canned areas were found during an inspection of the aft pressure bulkhead. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct the propagation of fatigue cracks in the vicinity of oil cans on the web of the aft pressure bulkhead, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane and overpressurization of the tail section, and consequent loss of control of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Note 1: This AD refers to certain portions of a Boeing service bulletin for inspections and repair information. In addition, this AD specifies requirements beyond those included in the service bulletin. Where the AD and the service bulletin differ, the AD prevails. Service Bulletin References

(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, dated October 3, 2002; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2008. After the effective date of this AD, Revision 1 must be used. Requirements of AD 2004-16-09, With Reduced Threshold Initial and Repetitive Inspections

(g)At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, perform a detailed inspection of the aft pressure bulkhead for indications of oil cans and previous oil can repairs, in accordance with the service bulletin.

(1)Prior to the accumulation of 30,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after September 13, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-16-09), whichever is later.

(2)Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is “an intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirrors, magnifying lenses, etc. may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.”

(h)If no indication of an oil can is found and no indication of a previous oil can repair is found during the detailed inspection required by paragraph

(g)of this AD, repeat the detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles. Indication of Oil Can

(i)If any indication of an oil can is found during the detailed inspection required by paragraph

(g)or

(h)of this AD, before further flight, perform an eddy current inspection of the web around the periphery of the oil can indication for cracks, as shown in Figure 3 of the service bulletin.

(j)If no crack is found during the eddy current inspection required by paragraph

(i)of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

(1)For the oil can that meets the allowable limits specified in the service bulletin: Repeat the eddy current inspection specified in paragraph

(i)of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight cycles. As an option, repair the oil can in accordance with paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.

(2)For the oil can that does not meet the allowable limits specified in the service bulletin: Before further flight, repair the oil can in accordance with the service bulletin. If the repair eliminates the oil can, accomplishment of this repair constitutes terminating action for the repetitive eddy current inspection requirements of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD for that location only. However, the repetitive detailed inspection required by paragraph

(h)of this AD is still required. If any oil can remains after the repair, repeat the eddy current inspection specified in paragraph

(i)of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight cycles. Indication of Previous Oil Can Repairs

(k)If any previous oil can repair is found during the detailed inspection required by paragraph

(g)or

(h)of this AD, before further flight, do a detailed inspection of the web for cracks and oil cans, as shown in Figure 4 or Figure 5 of the service bulletin, as applicable.

(1)If no crack and no oil can are found, repeat the detailed inspection in accordance with paragraph

(h)of this AD.

(2)If any oil can is found, before further flight, do the eddy current inspection for cracks, as shown in Figure 3 of the service bulletin. If no crack is found during the eddy current inspection required by this paragraph, do the actions specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable, at the time specified in the applicable paragraph. Repair of Cracks

(l)If any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD, before further flight, repair in accordance with the service bulletin. If any crack or damage exceeds limits specified in the service bulletin and the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair per a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or per data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings; or using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(n)of this AD. For a repair method to be approved, the approval must specifically reference this AD. New Requirements of This AD

(m)As of the effective date of this AD, if any crack or damage is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2482, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2008, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action (repair data): Before further flight, repair the crack or damage using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(n)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (n)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(4)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2004-16-09 are not approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph

(g)of this AD. They are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), and

(m)of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 24, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14974 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0675; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-192-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and Mark 0100 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)that applies to certain Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The existing AD currently requires a one-time inspection of the main landing gear

(MLG)main fitting for cracks, and repair if necessary. The existing AD also currently requires installing a placard and revising the airplane flight manual to include procedures to prohibit the application of brakes during backward movement of the airplane. This proposed AD would require repetitive eddy current inspections of the MLG main fitting and rework before further flight as applicable. This proposed AD results from reports that a final solution eliminating the cause of the crack initiation mechanism is not yet available and that repetitive inspections are necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the MLG main fitting, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the MLG main fitting. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1137; fax

(MLG)main fitting for cracks, and repairing if necessary. That AD also requires installing a placard and revising the airplane flight manual to include procedures to prohibit the application of brakes during backward movement of the airplane. That AD resulted from a report that an MLG main fitting failed on an airplane that was braking while moving backward. We issued that AD to detect and correct cracks in the MLG main fitting, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the MLG main fitting. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2006-06-07, we received reports from The Civil Aviation Authority—The Netherlands (CAA-NL), which is the airworthiness authority for the Netherlands, that a final solution eliminating the cause of the crack initiation mechanism is not yet available. Therefore, the inspection required by AD 2006-06-07 must now be done repetitively, until a final solution is developed to adequately address the identified unsafe condition of this AD. Relevant Service Information Messier-Dowty has issued Service Bulletin F100-32-111, dated December 20, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing a repetitive eddy current inspection of the MLG main fitting for cracks, and reworking the MLG main fitting as applicable. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The CAA-NL mandated the service information and issued airworthiness directive NL-2006-003, dated February 7, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the Netherlands. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplanes are manufactured in the Netherlands and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA-NL has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the CAA-NL's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2006-06-07 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin.” Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin Operators should note that, unlike the procedures described in the referenced Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100-32-111, dated December 20, 2005, the proposed AD would not permit further flight with any cracks in the MLG main fitting. Due to the safety implications and consequences of such cracking operators must repair all cracked MGL main fittings before further flight. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection (required by AD 2006-06-07) 2 $80 None $160 11 $1,760 AFM Revision and Placard Installation (required by AD 2006-06-07) 1 80 None 80 11 880 Inspection (new proposed action) 6 80 $540 ($270 per fitting) 1,020 12 12,240 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14516 (71 FR 14363, March 22, 2006) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Fokker:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0675; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-192-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 1, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-06-07. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and Mark 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with Messier-Dowty main landing gears (MLGs). Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports that a final solution eliminating the cause of the crack initiation mechanism is not yet available. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the main landing gear

(MLG)main fitting, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the MLG main fitting. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2006-06-07 Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM)Revision and Placard Installation

(f)Within 14 days after April 26, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-06-07), amend the Limitations section of the Fokker F.28 AFM to prohibit application of brakes during backward movement of the airplane. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM. Note 1: When a statement to prohibit application of brakes during backward movement of the airplane has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM.

(g)Within 14 days after April 26, 2006, affix a placard on the pedestal, next to the parking brake handle, having the following wording: “APPLICATION OF BRAKES DURING BACKWARD MOVEMENT IS PROHIBITED.” Inspection and Corrective Action

(h)At the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD: Do an eddy current inspection of the MLG main fittings and repair before further flight as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100-32-106, including Appendices A through C and excluding Appendix D, dated February 18, 2005, except as provided by paragraphs

(i)and

(j)of this AD.

(1)For airplanes on which an inspection has not been done in accordance with Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100-32-104, Revision 2, dated October 30, 2003: Within 3 months after April 26, 2006.

(2)For airplanes on which an inspection has been done in accordance with Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100-32-104, Revision 2, dated October 30, 2003: Within 2,000 flight cycles since the last inspection done in accordance with the service bulletin or within 3 months after April 26, 2006, whichever occurs later. Exceptions to the Service Bulletin

(i)Where Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100-32-106, including Appendices A through C and excluding Appendix D, dated February 18, 2005, specifies contacting the manufacturer for repair: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the Civil Aviation Authority—The Netherlands (CAA-NL) (or its delegated agent).

(j)Although Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100-32-106, including Appendices A through C and excluding Appendix D, dated February 18, 2005, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Parts Installation

(k)As of April 26, 2006, and until the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a Messier-Dowty MLG, unless it has been inspected/repaired according to paragraph

(h)of this AD. New Requirements of This AD Inspection and Repair

(l)At the applicable times specified in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3) of this AD: Do an eddy current inspection of the MLG main fitting for cracks, and rework the MLG main fitting if applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100-32-111, including Appendices A through C and excluding Appendix D, dated December 20, 2005; except as provided by paragraph

(m)of this AD. The rework must be done before further flight.

(1)For all MLG main fittings, except those units identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD: Inspect within the next 2,000 flight cycles since the last inspection required by paragraph

(h)of this AD, or within 4 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(2)For new MLG main fittings and MLG main fittings on which both bores have been repaired (reworked) in accordance with paragraph

(h)of this AD: Inspect within 4,000 flight cycles since new (installation) or repaired (rework) in accordance with paragraph

(h)of this AD, as applicable.

(3)For all MLGs: Repeat the eddy current inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles. Exception to Service Bulletin F100-32-111

(m)Although Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100-32-111, including Appendices A through C and excluding Appendix D, dated December 20, 2005, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Parts Installation

(n)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a Messier-Dowty MLG, unless it has been inspected and reworked in accordance with paragraph

(l)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(o)The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1137; fax

(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information

(p)The Civil Aviation Authority—The Netherlands airworthiness directive NL-2006-003, dated February 7, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 24, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 11 [FR Doc. E8-14976 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0716; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-9] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Establishment of Low Altitude Area Navigation Route (T-Route); Houston, TX AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish a low altitude Area Navigation

(RNAV)route, designated T-254, in the Houston, TX, terminal area. T-routes are low altitude Air Traffic Service routes, based on RNAV, for use by aircraft that have instrument flight rules

(IFR)approved Global Positioning System (GPS)/Global Navigation Satellite System

(GNSS)equipment. This action would enhance safety and improve the efficient use of the navigable airspace in the Houston, TX, terminal area. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; telephone:

(202)366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2008-0716 and Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-9 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Rohring, Airspace and Rules Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:

(202)267-8783. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2008-0716 and Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-9) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2008-0716 and Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-9.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRMs An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov,* or the **Federal Register** 's Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,

(202)267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish a low altitude RNAV route in the Houston, TX, terminal area. The route, designated as T-254, would be depicted on the appropriate IFR En Route Low Altitude charts. This T-route is only intended for use by GPS/GNSS equipped aircraft and is being proposed to enhance safety and to facilitate the more flexible and efficient use of the navigable airspace for en route IFR operations transitioning through and around the Houston Class B airspace area. Low altitude RNAV routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.9R signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The low altitude RNAV routes listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation

(DOT)Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes a low altitude Area Navigation route (T-route) at Houston, Texas. Environmental Review The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a, 311b, and 311k. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2006 and effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6011 Area Navigation Routes. **T-254 Centex, TX to Lake Charles, LA [New]** Centex, TX

(CWK)VORTAC (Lat. 30°22′43″ N., long. 97°31′47″ W.) College Station, TX

(CLL)VORTAC (Lat. 30°36′18″ N., long. 96°25′14″ W.) EAKES, TX WP (Lat. 30°33′18″ N., long. 95°18′29″ W.) CREPO, TX WP (Lat. 30°16′54″ N., long. 94°14′43″ W.) Lake Charles, LA

(LCH)VORTAC (Lat. 30°08′28″ N., long. 93°06′18″ W.) Issued in Washington, DC, on June 25, 2008. Paul Gallant, Acting Manager, Airspace and Rules Group. [FR Doc. E8-15018 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs 25 CFR Part 293 RIN 1076-AE99 Class III Tribal State Gaming Compact Process AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA)proposes to establish procedures for Indian tribes and States to submit Tribal-State compacts and compact amendments, governing the conduct of class III gaming activities on the tribe's Indian lands located within that State, for review and approval by the Secretary of the Interior. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the rule, identified by the number 1076-AE99, by any of the following methods: • *Federal rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-273-3153. • *Mail:* Ms. Paula Hart, Acting Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, 1849 C Street, NW, Mail Stop 3657-MIB, Washington, DC 20240. • *Hand delivery:* Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, 1849 C Street, NW., Room 3657-MIB, Washington, DC, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Note that requests for comments on the rule and the information collection are separate. Comments on the information collection requirements should be sent to: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior, by e-mail at *http://www.OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov* or, by facsimile at

(202)395-6566. Please also send a copy of your comments on information collection requirements to the Office of Indian Gaming at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Hart, Acting Director, Office of Indian Gaming,

(202)219-4066. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The authority to issue this document is vested in the Secretary of the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301 and 25 U.S.C. 2, 9, and 2710. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by part 209 of the Departmental Manual. Background The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. 2701-2721, was signed into law on October 17, 1988. IGRA, 25 U.S.C. 2710, authorizes class III gaming activities on Indian lands when authorized by an approved ordinance, located in a State that permits such gaming and conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State compact. IGRA, 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(8)(A),

(B)and (C), authorizes the Secretary to approve, disapprove or consider approved a Tribal-State compact or compact amendment and publish notice of that approval or considered approval in the **Federal Register** . The submission process for the Tribal-State compact or compact amendment is not clear. Therefore this proposed rule establishes procedures for submitting Tribal-State compacts and compact amendments. Procedural Requirements Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866) In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this rule is not a significant regulatory action and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

(a)This rule will not have an economic effect of $100 million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government.

(b)This rule will not create serious inconsistencies or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Federal agency. BIA is the only governmental agency that approves Tribal-State compacts and compact amendments.

(c)This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. This rule sets out the procedures for the submission of Tribal-State compacts and compact amendments.

(d)This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Indian tribes are not considered to be small entities for the purposes of this Act. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. 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. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or tribal government or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) is not required. Takings Implication Assessment (Executive Order 12630) In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Department has determined that this rule does not have significant takings implications. The rule does not pertain to the “taking” of private property interests, nor does it impact private property. A takings implication assessment is not required. Federalism (Executive Order 13132) In accordance with Executive Order 13121, the Department has determined that this rule does not have significant Federalism implications because it does not substantially and directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State governments and does not impose costs on States or localities. A Federalism Assessment is not required. Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988) In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. The rule contains no drafting errors or ambiguity and is written to minimize litigation, provides clear standards, simplify procedures, reduces burden, and are clearly written. The rule does not preempt any statute. National Environmental Policy Act The Department has determined that this rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , prohibits a Federal agency from conducting or sponsoring a collection of information that requires OMB approval, unless such approval has been obtained and the collection requires displays a currently valid OMB control number. Nor is any person required to respond to an information collection request that has not complied with the PRA. This regulation requires an information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1955 at § 293.9. The information is submitted to fulfill requirements for approval of a Tribal-State compact or compact amendment and it is used by the Bureau to determine whether the tribe has met the criteria required by 25 CFR part 293. All information is collected in the tribe's submission of a Tribal-State compact or compact amendment. It is estimated that a tribe's application will need 360 hours to complete. The tribe will maintain the records as would any business; the Bureau maintains official files. In accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), BIA has submitted the information and recordkeeping requirements of this proposed rule to OMB for review and approval. The Bureau invites comments on the information collection requirements of this proposed rule. You may submit comments to the Desk Officer for the Department of Interior by e-mail at *OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov* or by facsimile at

(202)365-6566. Please send a copy of your comments to BIA at the location specified under the heading ADDRESSES . You can receive a copy of BIA's submission to OMB by contacting the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, or by requesting the information from the BIA Information Collection Clearance Officer, 625 Herndon Parkway, Herndon, VA 20970. Comments should address:

(1)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Program, including the practical utility of the information to the BIA;

(2)the accuracy of the BIA's burden estimates;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Organizations and individuals who submit comments on the information collection requirements should be aware that the Department keeps such comments available for public inspection during regular business hours. If you wish to have your name and address withheld from public inspection, you must state this prominently at the beginning of any comments you make. The Department will honor your request to the extent allowable by law. We may withhold the information for other reasons. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (Executive Order 13175) In accordance with the President's memorandum of May 14, 1988, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (63 FR 27655), and Executive Order 13175, we have conducted consultation sessions with tribal governments on the development of proposed regulations to establish procedures for submitting Tribal-State compacts and compact amendments. Consultation sessions with tribal governments were conducted on the following dates and at the following locations: April 9, 2008 in Albuquerque, New Mexico and on April 23, 2008 in San Diego, California. The draft regulation was modified to reflect comments received during the consultation, as well as written comments received from Indian tribes. Effects on the Nation's Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211) This rule does not have a significant effect on the nation's energy supply, distribution, or use as defined by Executive Order 13211. Clarity of This Rule Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:

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

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

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

(4)Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” appears in bold type and is preceded by the symbol “§ and a numbered heading; for example, § 293.8 Who can submit a compact or amendment?)

(5)Is the description of the rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule?

(6)What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand? Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. Public Comment Solicitation If you wish to comment on the rule, please see the different methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comments—including your personal identifying information—may be publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 293 Indians—business and finance, Indians—gaming. Dated: May 22, 2008. Carl J. Artman, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. For reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Indian Affairs proposes to amend 25 CFR chapter I by adding part 293, to read as follows: PART 293—CLASS III TRIBAL STATE GAMING COMPACT PROCESS Sec. 293.1 What is the purpose of this part? 293.2 How are key terms defined in this part? 293.3 What is a compact? 293.4 What authority does the Secretary have to approve or disapprove compacts and amendments? 293.5 When should the Indian tribe or State submit a compact or a compact amendment for review and approval? 293.6 Are technical amendments subject to review and approval? 293.7 Are extensions of compacts and amendments subject to review and approval? 293.8 Who can submit a compact or amendment? 293.9 What documents must be submitted with a compact or amendment? 293.10 Where should a compact or amendment be submitted for review and approval? 293.11 How long will the Secretary take to review a compact or amendment? 293.12 When will the 45-day timeline be triggered? 293.13 What happens if the Secretary does not act on the compact or amendment within the 45-day review period? 293.14 Who can withdraw a compact or amendment after it has been received by the Secretary? 293.15 When may the Secretary disapprove a compact or amendment? 293.16 When does an approved or considered-to-have-been-approved compact or amendment take effect? 293.17 How does the Paperwork Reduction Act affect this part? Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 25 U.S.C. 2, 9, 2710. § 293.1 What is the purpose of this part? This part contains:

(a)Procedures that Indian tribes and States must use when submitting Tribal-State compacts and compact amendments to the Department of the Interior; and

(b)Criteria that the Secretary will use for approval or disapproval of such Tribal-State compacts or compact amendments. § 293.2 How are key terms defined in this part?

(a)For purposes of this part, all terms have the same meaning as set forth in the definitional section of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, 25 U.S.C. 2703 and any amendments thereto.

(b)As used in this part:

(1)Compact means a class III Tribal-State gaming compact, and

(2)Amendment means an amendment to a class III Tribal-State gaming compact. § 293.3 What is a compact? A compact is an agreement negotiated between an Indian tribe and a State governing the conduct of class III gaming activities on the tribe's Indian lands located within that State. § 293.4 What authority does the Secretary have to approve or disapprove compacts and amendments? The Secretary has the authority to approve compacts or amendments “entered into” by an Indian tribe and a State, as evidenced by the appropriate signature of both parties. § 293.5 When should the Indian tribe or State submit a compact or a compact amendment for review and approval? The Indian tribe or State should submit the compact or amendment after it has been legally entered into by both parties. § 293.6 Are technical amendments subject to review and approval? No. Technical, non-substantive amendments can be agreed upon by the parties without requiring Secretarial approval under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. However, substantive amendments of the terms of the compact must be approved by the Secretary. A substantive amendment is one that potentially implicates any of the three statutory reasons available to the Secretary to disapprove a compact listed in § 293.15. § 293.7 Are extensions of compacts and amendments subject to review and approval? Yes. Extensions to compacts or amendments are subject to review and approval. § 293.8 Who can submit a compact or amendment? Either party (Indian tribe or State) to a compact or amendment can submit the compact or amendment to the Secretary for review and approval. § 293.9 What documents must be submitted with a compact or amendment?

(a)Documentation submitted with a compact or amendment must include:

(1)At least one original compact or amendment executed by both the tribe and the State; and

(2)A tribal resolution or other document, including the date and place of adoption and the result of any vote taken, that certifies that the tribe has adopted the compact or amendment in accordance with applicable tribal law;

(b)The Secretary may request any other documentation necessary to determine whether to approve or disapprove the compact or amendment. § 293.10 Where should a compact or amendment be submitted for review and approval? Compacts and amendments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Indian Gaming, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Mail Stop 3657, Main Interior Building, Washington, DC 20240. § 293.11 How long will the Secretary take to review a compact or amendment?

(a)The Secretary must approve or disapprove a compact or amendment within 45 consecutive calendar days after receiving the compact or amendment.

(b)The Indian tribe and the State will be notified in writing of the Secretary's decision to approve or disapprove a compact or amendment. § 293.12 When will the 45-day timeline be triggered? The 45-day timeline will be triggered when a compact or amendment is received and date stamped in the Office of Indian Gaming at the address listed in § 293.10. § 293.13 What happens if the Secretary does not act on the compact or amendment within the 45-day review period? If the Secretary neither affirmatively approves nor disapproves a compact or amendment within the 45-day review period, the compact or amendment is considered to have been approved, but only to the extent it complies with the provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. § 293.14 Who can withdraw a compact or amendment after it has been received by the Secretary? To withdraw a compact or amendment after it has been received by the Secretary, the Indian tribe and State must submit a written request to the Director, Office of Indian Gaming at the address listed in § 293.10. § 293.15 When may the Secretary disapprove a compact or amendment? The Secretary may disapprove a compact or amendment only if it violates:

(a)Any provision of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act;

(b)Any other provision of Federal law that does not relate to jurisdiction over gaming on Indian lands; or

(c)The trust obligations of the United States to Indians. § 293.16 When does an approved or considered-to-have-been-approved compact or amendment take effect?

(a)An approved or considered-to-have-been-approved compact or amendment takes effect on the date that notice of its approval is published in the **Federal Register** .

(b)The notice of approval must be published in the **Federal Register** within 90 days from the date the compact or amendment is received by the Office of Indian Gaming. § 293.17 How does the Paperwork Reduction Act affect this part? The information collection requirements contained in § 293.9 have been approved by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), and assigned control number 01XX. A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. [FR Doc. E8-14951 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-02-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-151135-07] RIN 1545-BH39 Multiemployer Plan Funding Guidance; Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to a notice of a public hearing on proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to a notice of public hearing on a notice of proposed rulemaking that was published in the **Federal Register** on Friday, June 27, 2008 (73 FR 36476) providing additional rules for certain multiemployer defined benefit plans that are in effect on July 16, 2006. These proposed regulations affect sponsors and administrators of, and participants in multiemployer plans that are in either endangered or critical status. These regulations are necessary to implement the new rules set forth in section 432 that are effective for plan years beginning after 2007. The proposed regulations reflect changes made by the Pension Protection Act of 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Perlin,

(202)622-6090 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The correction notice that is the subject of this document is under section 432 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, a notice of a public hearing on proposed rulemaking (REG-151135-07) contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication of a notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking (REG-151135-07), which was the subject of FR Doc. E8-14563, is corrected as follows: On page 36477, column 1, under the caption SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION , line 5, the language **Federal Register** on Tuesday, March 8,” is corrected to read **Federal Register** on Tuesday, March 18,”. LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E8-15043 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 26 and 301 [REG-121698-08] RIN 1545-BI00 Amendments to the Section 7216 Regulations—Disclosure or Use of Information by Preparers of Returns AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and notice of public hearing. SUMMARY: In the Procedure and Administration section of this issue of the **Federal Register** , the IRS is issuing temporary regulations that provide updated guidance affecting tax return preparers regarding the disclosure of a taxpayer's social security number to a tax return preparer located outside of the United States in order to provide an exception allowing such disclosure with the taxpayer's consent in limited circumstances. The text of those temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. This document invites comments from the public on these regulations, and provides notice of a public hearing on these proposed regulations. DATES: Written or electronic comments must be received by September 30, 2008. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for October 6, 2008 at 10 a.m. must be received by September 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-121698-08), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-121698-08), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *www.regulations.gov* (IRS REG-121698-08). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations, Lawrence E. Mack,

(202)622-4940; concerning the submissions of comments and requests for hearing, Fumni Taylor,

(202)622-7180 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Explanation of Provisions This document contains proposed amendments to 26 CFR part 301 under section 7216 to provide modified rules relating to the ability of a tax return preparer located within the United States to disclose a taxpayer's social security number (“SSN”) constituting tax return information with the taxpayer's consent to a tax return preparer located outside of the United States. Simultaneously with the publication of this notice of proposed rulemaking, temporary regulations are published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** amending 26 CFR part 301. Those regulations provide a limited exception to the general rule prohibiting a return preparer from obtaining a taxpayer's consent to disclose the taxpayer's SSN to a tax return preparer located outside of the United States. The limited exception provides that a tax return preparer within the United States may disclose an SSN with the taxpayer's consent to a tax return preparer located outside of the United States when both the tax return preparer located within the United States and the tax return preparer located outside of the United States maintain an “adequate data protection safeguard” and the tax return preparer located within the United States verifies the maintenance of the adequate data protection safeguards in the request for the taxpayer's consent. Those regulations also clarify that the general prohibition regarding disclosure of SSNs applies only to those taxpayers filing a return in the Form 1040 Series, for example, Form 1040, Form 1040NR, Form 1040A, or Form 1040EZ. The text of those regulations also serves as the text of these regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the temporary regulations and these proposed regulations. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulation does not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Comments and Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original and eight

(8)copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department request comments on the clarity of the proposed rules, how they can be made easier to understand, and the administrability of the rules in the proposed regulations, as well as the accompanying guidance published in Revenue Procedure 2008-35. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing has been scheduled for October 6, 2008, beginning at 10 a.m. in the NYU Room (room 2615) of the Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 15 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit written comments on September 30, 2008 and an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic (signed original and eight

(8)copies) by September 15, 2008. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the schedule of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing. Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Lawrence E. Mack, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administration). List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301 Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION **Par. 1.** The authority citation for part 301 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *. **Par. 2.** Section 301.7216-3 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: § 301.7216-3 Disclosure or use permitted only with the taxpayer's consent.

(b)* * *

(4)[ *The text of proposed § 301.7216-3(b)(4) is the same as the text for § 301.7216-3T(b)(4), published elsewhere in this issue of the* **Federal Register** .] Linda E. Stiff, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E8-15047 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1 and 43 [WC Docket No. 07-38; FCC 08-89] 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

(VoIP)Subscribership AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on modifications to the FCC Form 477 data collection to collect additional data on broadband service subscriptions. These changes will greatly improve the ability of the Commission to understand the extent of broadband deployment, and will enable the Commission to continue to develop and maintain appropriate broadband policies, in particular to carry out its obligation under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” DATES: Comments on Broadband Availability Mapping are due on or before July 17, 2008. Reply comments on Broadband Availability Mapping are due on or before August 1, 2008. Comments on all other issues are due on or before August 1, 2008. Reply comments on all other issues are due on or before September 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 07-38, 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. • *Mail:* Parties choosing to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing in WC Docket No. 07-38. 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). If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. The Commission's mail contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • *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: Alan Feldman, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division,

(202)418-0940. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 07-38, adopted on March 19, 2008, and released on June 12, 2008. The complete text of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available for public inspection Monday through Thursday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. in the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is available also on the Commission's Internet site at *www.fcc.gov.* Alternative formats are available for persons with disabilities by contacting the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at

(202)418-0531, TTY

(202)488-5300, facsimile

(202)488-5563, TTY

(202)488-5562, or e-mail at *fcc@bcpiweb.com.* Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice), the Commission seeks comment on modifications to the FCC Form 477 data collection to collect additional data on broadband service subscriptions. These proposed changes will enable the Commission to continue to develop and maintain appropriate broadband policies, in particular to carry out its obligation under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” 2. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on developing a nationwide broadband availability mapping program. The Commission seeks comment on ways in which it might effectively capture information about actual, delivered speeds of broadband Internet access services, and about prices of broadband services. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether to require Form 477 filers to report the number of voice telephone service connections at the ZIP Code or Census Tract level. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on methodologies for consumer broadband surveys, and on methods for preserving confidentiality when sharing the information collected on Form 477. Reporting Number of Lines and Channels 3. Currently, local exchange carriers that file Form 477 are required to report the total number of voice-grade equivalent lines and wireless channels provided to end users. This information is provided on a state-by-state basis. In this Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on whether to require Form 477 filers to report the number of voice telephone service connections, and the percentage of these that are residential, at the 5-digit ZIP Code or Census Tract level. This increased granularity of data would enable the Commission to better assess adoption of particular technologies and competition using particular technologies in localized areas. The Commission seeks comment on the benefits and burdens associated with this additional reporting requirement. Broadband Availability Mapping 4. In the Data Gathering Notice, the Commission sought comment on methods to better use the data collected by Form 477. The Commission acknowledged the success of the ConnectKentucky initiative and its interactive mapping program. The Commission notes that the ConnectKentucky program, along with other efforts at the state level, has facilitated identification of areas without broadband service, and that this identification has resulted in public and private resources being focused to provide service to unserved areas. In order to provide an information resource that will facilitate similar focus nationwide, the Commission seeks comment on the adoption of a national broadband mapping program with the objective of creating a highly detailed map of broadband availability nationwide. The Commission seeks comment on ways such a program can provide useful information to other broadband initiatives undertaken by federal and state agencies and public-private partnerships, such as ConnectKentucky. The Commission seeks comment on whether and to what extent it might work with the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service in developing and using this mapping program, so as to combine the expertise of the Commission and its staff with that of the RUS in supporting rural infrastructure deployment. 5. The Commission tentatively concludes that the Commission should collect information that providers use to respond to prospective customers to determine on an address-by-address basis whether service is available. The Commission seeks comment on this conclusion, and on what standardized formats could be used to collect the information. The Commission seeks comment on whether and how a nationwide broadband mapping program can incorporate the data collected on Form 477, including information on broadband service subscriptions by Census Tract and by speed tier. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are other sources of data it should collect to improve the output of the broadband service availability mapping program. The Commission seeks comment on how to maintain the confidentiality of broadband service information while still providing a rich resource for use by other federal agencies, states, localities, and public-private partnerships in focusing resources on expanding broadband availability in a manner, similar to the focusing of resources enabled by the ConnectKentucky project. The Commission will apply an expedited comment cycle on this issue, and it intends to issue a responsive Order within 4 months. Delivered Speed Information Gathering 6. In the Data Gathering Notice the Commission sought comment on whether to require reporting of actual broadband connection speeds experienced by customers rather than the theoretical maximum that a given network can support or the particular service configuration allows. The record indicates that factors beyond the control of service providers may compromise the ability of service providers to report actual speeds experienced by consumers. Also, comments in the record point to the existence of other methods of collecting this information. In this Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on how it might require service providers to report this information, and any alternative means, in addition to or other than requiring such service provider reporting, for effectively capturing meaningful information about actual speeds of Internet access services experienced by consumers. Broadband Price Information 7. In the Data Gathering Notice, the Commission sought comment on whether and how it could collect price information for broadband services. Among other questions, the Commission asked how to compare price information in introductory offers and bundled services. In the record in this proceeding, commenters note that such price information is helpful in understanding broadband uptake, particularly when viewed across regions and in comparison to demographic information. Comments from state entities also emphasized the value of gathering price information, particularly for low-cost broadband services, to assist the state entities with ensuring availability of broadband service and monitoring competition. Commenters note, however, that price information is complex due to promotions, bundling discounts, contract terms, multi-part tariffs, and other contextual information, and that price fluctuations can be frequent and have the potential to render data gathering meaningless or even misleading. Some commenters suggest collecting pricing information on a price-per-bit basis to simplify reporting and comparison. Others question the need for or utility of collecting this information on Form 477 at all and note that other entities are already gathering pricing information on broadband services. One commenter suggests that any meaningful standards or comparisons need to somehow account for non-speed differences in service features. Another states that the lack of low-cost, standalone broadband service itself may be indicative of a lack of competition. 8. The Commission seeks to supplement and enrich the record on broadband price information. The Commission seeks comment on requiring providers to report, for each state or each Census Tract in which they offer service, the monthly price the provider charges for standalone broadband service in each of the speed tiers used for Form 477 reporting, not including any temporary promotional price discounts or any discounts for bundled services. If a provider offers multiple broadband services with different service characteristics within a speed tier ( *e.g.,* services that include either a static or a dynamic IP address), or charges different prices for a service for customers in different portions of a state or Census Tract, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should require the provider to report the lowest and the highest prices available to consumers within the state or Census Tract, in order to identify the range of prices that a consumer may have to pay. In the alternative, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should require providers to report the lowest price for standalone service available to consumers within the state or Census Tract within each speed tier. If a provider has only national pricing for a service, the Commission seeks comment on permitting the provider to report the monthly national price for such a service, in lieu of individual state reports. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are any methods to derive a standalone price for broadband service when only bundled services are offered by a provider. Specifically, if a provider does not offer standalone service, but does offer bundled service, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should require the provider to report the total monthly price of the least expensive bundle of services that includes the broadband service. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should also require providers to report the Average Revenue Per User, or ARPU, for their services. The Commission seeks comment on any additional metrics or standards that it may adopt to collect meaningful comparative broadband price information in the presence of widespread service bundling, promotional pricing, flux and variability in broadband service prices, and the variety of optional features associated with services. And finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether and in what form the Commission should use the reported service price information. Preserving Confidentiality 9. In the Further Notice above, the Commission seeks comment on a national broadband availability mapping program, and on how it can provide information gathered by that program to other broadband initiatives undertaken by federal and state agencies and by public-private partnerships. Comments in the record indicate concern for the confidentiality of reported data. The Commission seeks comment on ways in which it can preserve confidentiality when sharing the information collected on Form 477, the voluntary registry, and other sources with agencies such as the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service and with public-private partnerships such as ConnectKentucky and similar ventures, for example by sharing the data in a less granular or aggregated form than the level at which it is collected. Broadband Customer Surveys 10. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should conduct and publish periodic surveys of broadband customers to obtain information about the price, technology, and speed of their connections and to obtain information about the applications and services that they use over the connections. The Commission asks commenters to provide information on the appropriate methodology for conducting such surveys. Ex Parte Presentations 11. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's *ex parte* rules. Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the 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. Other rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules as well. Comment Filing Procedures 12. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. All filings related to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking should refer to WC Docket No. 07-38. Comments may be filed using:

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

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

(3)by filing paper copies. *See* Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24,121 (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 dockets 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 the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. ○ The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. ○ Commercial 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. 13. Comments and reply comments and any other filed documents in this matter may be obtained from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., in person at 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, via telephone at

(202)488-5300, via facsimile at

(202)488-5563, or via e-mail at *FCC@BCPIWEB.COM.* The pleadings will also be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, and through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System

(ECFS)accessible on the Commission's Web site, *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs.* 14. 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). 15. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments and reply comments also must comply with section 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the Commission's rules. All parties are encouraged to utilize a table of contents, and to include the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their submission. The Commission also strongly encourages that parties track the organization set forth in this Further Notice in order to facilitate its internal review process. 16. Commenters who file information that they believe should be withheld from public inspection may request confidential treatment pursuant to Section 0.459 of the Commission's rules. Commenters should file both their original comments for which they request confidentiality and redacted comments, along with their request for confidential treatment. Commenters should not file proprietary information electronically. Even if the Commission grants confidential treatment, information that does not fall within a specific exemption pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)must be publicly disclosed pursuant to an appropriate request. *See* 47 CFR 0.461; 5 U.S.C. 552. The Commission may grant requests for confidential treatment either conditionally or unconditionally. As such, the Commission has the discretion to release information on public interest grounds that does fall within the scope of a FOIA exemption. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 17. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains proposed new and modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. A copy of any Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)comments on the information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to *PRA@fcc.gov* , and to Nicholas Fraser, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), via e-mail to *Nicholas_A._Fraser@ omb.eop.gov* or via fax at 202-395-5167. 18. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” Legal Basis 19. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the FNPRM is contained in sections 1 through 5, 10, 11, 201 through 205, 215, 218 through 220, 251 through 271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 155, 160, 161, 201 through 205, 215, 218 through 220, 251 through 271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 20. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared the present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on small entities that might result from today's Further Notice. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Further Notice provided above. The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the **Federal Register** . Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 21. In the Further Notice, In the Further Notice, the Commission considers how to best implement certain reporting requirements and whether there are additional reporting requirements it should adopt to improve the ability of the Commission to understand the extent of deployment of broadband and related services. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether to require local exchanges carriers and interconnected VoIP service providers to report the number of voice telephone service connections, and the percentage of these that are residential, at the 5-digit ZIP Code or Census Tract level. The Commission seeks comment on whether to create a broadband mapping program, and on information that can be collected and included in the program. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should require reporting of information on price of broadband services, and information on actual, delivered broadband speeds, and the Commission seeks comment on standards and methodologies appropriate for the collection of this data. Finally, the Commission seeks general comments on ways to maintain the privacy of the currently reported data as well as the new data collections proposed in the Further Notice, and on appropriate methodologies for the creation of broadband consumer surveys to acquire additional information. For each of these issues, the Commission also seeks comment on the burdens, including those placed on small carriers, associated with corresponding Commission rules related to each issue and whether there are alternative rules that might lessen any burden. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules May Apply 22. 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 adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which:

(1)Is independently owned and operated;

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

(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Wireline Carriers and Service Providers 23. *Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to incumbent local exchange services. 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. 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 its action. 24. *Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), 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. According to Commission data, 859 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange carrier or competitive access provider 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 providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers” are small entities that may be affected by its action. 25. The Commission has 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.” 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. The Commission has therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although it emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. 26. *Local Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 184 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, an estimated 181 have 1,500 or fewer employees and three have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local resellers are small entities that may be affected by its action. 27. *Toll Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of these, an estimated 853 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 28 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small entities that may be affected by its action. 28. *Payphone Service Providers (PSPs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for payphone services 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. According to Commission data, 657 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of payphone services. Of these, an estimated 653 have 1,500 or fewer employees and four have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of payphone service providers are small entities that may be affected by its action. 29. *Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to interexchange services. 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. According to Commission data, 330 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange services. Of these 330 companies, an estimated 309 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 21 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange service providers are small entities that may be affected by its action. 30. *Operator Service Providers (OSPs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for operator 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. According to Commission data, 23 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these, an estimated 22 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities that may be affected by its action. 31. *Prepaid Calling Card Providers.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 104 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these, an estimated 102 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may be affected by its action. 32. *800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 800 and 800-like service (“toll free”) subscribers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of these service subscribers appears to be data the Commission collects on the 800, 888, 877, and 866 numbers in use. According to the Commission's data, at the beginning of July 2006, the number of 800 numbers assigned was 7,647,941; the number of 888 numbers assigned was 5,318,667; the number of 877 numbers assigned was 4,431,162; and the number of 866 numbers assigned was 6,008,976. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these subscribers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of toll free subscribers that would qualify as small businesses under the SBA size standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are 7,647,941 or fewer small entity 800 subscribers; 5,318,667 or fewer small entity 888 subscribers; 4,431,162 or fewer small entity 877 subscribers; and 5,318,667 or fewer small entity 866 subscribers. Wireless Carriers and Service Providers 33. Below, for those services subject to auctions, the Commission notes that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. 34. *Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).* Since 2007, the SBA has recognized wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category. Prior to that time, the SBA had developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the now-superseded census categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Because Census Bureau data are not yet available for the new category, the Commission will estimate small business prevalence using the prior categories and associated data. For the first category of Paging, data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms 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. For the second category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms 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, using the prior categories and the available data, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small. According to Commission data, 432 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), or Specialized Mobile Radio

(SMR)Telephony services, which are placed together in the data. The Commission estimates that 221 of these are small, under the SBA small business size standard. Thus, under this category and size standard, about half of firms can be considered small. 35. *Common Carrier Paging.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Paging, under which a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 365 carriers have reported that they are engaged in Paging or Messaging Service. Of these, an estimated 360 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 5 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of paging providers are small entities that may be affected by its action. In addition, in the Paging Third Report and Order, the Commission developed a small business size standard for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. A “small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a “very small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 985 licenses auctioned, 440 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won. 36. *Wireless Communications Services.* This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission established small business size standards for the wireless communications services

(WCS)auction. A “small business” is an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a “very small business” is an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. The Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, held in April 1997, there were seven winning bidders that qualified as “very small business” entities, and one that qualified as a “small business” entity. 37. *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. 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. The Commission has estimated that 221 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard. 38. *Broadband Personal Communications Service.* The broadband Personal Communications Service

(PCS)spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined “small entity” for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an additional classification for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years.” These standards defining “small entity” in the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses, within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. On March 23, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses. There were 48 small business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as “small” or “very small” businesses. Subsequent events, concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant. 39. *Narrowband Personal Communications Services.* To date, two auctions of narrowband personal communications services

(MTAs)and 408 response channel licenses. There is also one megahertz of narrowband PCS spectrum that has been held in reserve and that the Commission has not yet decided to release for licensing. The Commission cannot predict accurately the number of licenses that will be awarded to small entities in future actions. However, four of the 16 winning bidders in the two previous narrowband PCS auctions were small businesses, as that term was defined under the Commission's Rules. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that a large portion of the remaining narrowband PCS licenses will be awarded to small entities. The Commission also assumes that at least some small businesses will acquire narrowband PCS licenses by means of the Commission's partitioning and disaggregation rules. 40. *220 MHz Radio Service—Phase I Licensees.* The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such non-nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard for small entities specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such licensees that are small businesses, the Commission applies the small business size standard under the SBA rules applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” companies. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. The Commission estimates that nearly all such licensees are small businesses under the SBA's small business size standard. 41. *220 MHz Radio Service—Phase II Licensees.* The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The Phase II 220 MHz service is a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission adopted a small business size standard for “small” and “very small” businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. This small business size standard indicates that a “small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. A “very small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998. In the first auction, 908 licenses were auctioned in three different-sized geographic areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group

(EAG)Licenses, and 875 Economic Area

(EA)Licenses. Of the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold. Thirty-nine small businesses won licenses in the first 220 MHz auction. The second auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses. Fourteen companies claiming small business status won 158 licenses. 42. *800 MHz and 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses.* The Commission awards “small entity” and “very small entity” bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio

(SMR)geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the three previous calendar years, or that had revenues of no more than $3 million in each of the previous calendar years, respectively. These bidding credits apply to SMR providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands that either hold geographic area licenses or have obtained extended implementation authorizations. The Commission does not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. The Commission assumes, for purposes here, that all of the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA. The Commission has held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR bands. There were 60 winning bidders that qualified as small or very small entities in the 900 MHz SMR auctions. Of the 1,020 licenses won in the 900 MHz auction, bidders qualifying as small or very small entities won 263 licenses. In the 800 MHz auction, 38 of the 524 licenses won were won by small and very small entities. 43. *700 MHz Guard Band Licensees.* In the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, the Commission adopted a small business size standard for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. A “small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a “very small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. An auction of 52 Major Economic Area

(MEA)licenses commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001 and closed on February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a total of two licenses. 44. *Rural Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted a size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS). The Commission uses the SBA's small business size standard applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,” *i.e.* , an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 45. *Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted a small business size standard specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission will use SBA's small business size standard applicable to “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,” *i.e.* , an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as small under the SBA small business size standard. 46. *Aviation and Marine Radio Services.* Small businesses in the aviation and marine radio services use a very high frequency

(VHF)marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency position-indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency locator transmitter. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to these small businesses. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category “Cellular and Other Telecommunications,” which is 1,500 or fewer employees. Most applicants for recreational licenses are individuals. Approximately 581,000 ship station licensees and 131,000 aircraft station licensees operate domestically and are not subject to the radio carriage requirements of any statute or treaty. For purposes of its evaluations in this analysis, the Commission estimates that there are up to approximately 712,000 licensees that are small businesses (or individuals) under the SBA standard. In addition, between December 3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an auction of 42 VHF Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a “small” business as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million dollars. In addition, a “very small” business is one that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million dollars. There are approximately 10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as “small” businesses under the above special small business size standards. 47. *Fixed Microwave Services.* Fixed microwave services include common carrier, private operational-fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. At present, there are approximately 22,015 common carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services. The Commission has not created a size standard for a small business specifically with respect to fixed microwave services. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category “Cellular and Other Telecommunications,” which is 1,500 or fewer employees. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are up to 22,015 common carrier fixed licensees and up to 61,670 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that may be small and may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. The Commission notes, however, that the common carrier microwave fixed licensee category includes some large entities. 48. *Offshore Radiotelephone Service.* This service operates on several UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this service. The Commission is unable to estimate at this time the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard for “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” services. Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 49. *39 GHz Service.* The Commission created a special small business size standard for 39 GHz licenses—an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years. An additional size standard for “very small business” is: an entity that, together with affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. The auction of the 2,173 39 GHz licenses began on April 12, 2000 and closed on May 8, 2000. The 18 bidders who claimed small business status won 849 licenses. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 18 or fewer 39 GHz licensees are small entities that may be affected by its action. 50. *Wireless Cable Systems.* Wireless cable systems use 2 GHz band frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service (“BRS”), formerly Multipoint Distribution Service (“MDS”), and the Educational Broadband Service (“EBS”), formerly Instructional Television Fixed Service (“ITFS”), to transmit video programming and provide broadband services to residential subscribers. These services were originally designed for the delivery of multichannel video programming, similar to that of traditional cable systems, but over the past several years licensees have focused their operations instead on providing two-way high-speed Internet access services. The Commission estimates that the number of wireless cable subscribers is approximately 100,000, as of March 2005. Local Multipoint Distribution Service (“LMDS”) is a fixed broadband point-to-multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way video telecommunications. As described below, the SBA small business size standard for the broad census category of Cable and Other Program Distribution, which consists of such entities generating $13.5 million or less in annual receipts, appears applicable to MDS, ITFS and LMDS. Other standards also apply, as described. 51. The Commission has defined small MDS (now BRS) and LMDS entities in the context of Commission license auctions. In the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission defined a small business as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. This definition of a small entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the SBA. In the MDS auction, 67 bidders won 493 licenses. Of the 67 auction winners, 61 claimed status as a small business. At this time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business MDS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent MDS licensees that have gross revenues that are not more than $40 million and are thus considered small entities. MDS licensees and wireless cable operators that did not receive their licenses as a result of the MDS auction fall under the SBA small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution. Information available to the Commission indicates that there are approximately 850 of these licensees and operators that do not generate revenue in excess of $13.5 million annually. Therefore, the Commission estimates that there are approximately 850 small entity MDS (or BRS) providers, as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules. 52. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities; however, the Commission has not created a specific small business size standard for ITFS (now EBS). The Commission estimates that there are currently 2,032 ITFS (or EBS) licensees, and all but 100 of the licenses are held by educational institutions. Thus, the Commission estimates that at least 1,932 ITFS licensees are small entities. 53. In the 1998 and 1999 LMDS auctions, the Commission defined a small business as an entity that has annual average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. Moreover, the Commission added an additional classification for a “very small business,” which was defined as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of less than $15 million in the previous three calendar years. These definitions of “small business” and “very small business” in the context of the LMDS auctions have been approved by the SBA. In the first LMDS auction, 104 bidders won 864 licenses. Of the 104 auction winners, 93 claimed status as small or very small businesses. In the LMDS re-auction, 40 bidders won 161 licenses. Based on this information, the Commission believes that the number of small LMDS licenses will include the 93 winning bidders in the first auction and the 40 winning bidders in the re-auction, for a total of 133 small entity LMDS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules. 54. *218-219 MHz Service.* The first auction of 218-219 MHz spectrum resulted in 170 entities winning licenses for 594 Metropolitan Statistical Area

(MSA)licenses. Of the 594 licenses, 557 were won by entities qualifying as a small business. For that auction, the small business size standard was an entity that, together with its affiliates, has no more than a $6 million net worth and, after federal income taxes (excluding any carry over losses), has no more than $2 million in annual profits each year for the previous two years. In the 218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission established a small business size standard for a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an entity and their affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not to exceed $15 million for the preceding three years. A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an entity and its affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not to exceed $3 million for the preceding three years. These size standards will be used in future auctions of 218-219 MHz spectrum. 55. *24 GHz—Incumbent Licensees.* This analysis may affect incumbent licensees who were relocated to the 24 GHz band from the 18 GHz band, and applicants who wish to provide services in the 24 GHz band. The applicable SBA small business size standard is that of “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” companies. This category provides that such a company is small if it employs no more than 1,500 persons. The Commission believes that there are only two licensees in the 24 GHz band that were relocated from the 18 GHz band, Teligent and TRW, Inc. It is the Commission's understanding that Teligent and its related companies have less than 1,500 employees, though this may change in the future. TRW is not a small entity. Thus, only one incumbent licensee in the 24 GHz band is a small business entity. 56. *24 GHz—Future Licensees.* With respect to new applicants in the 24 GHz band, the small business size standard for “small business” is an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not in excess of $15 million. “Very small business” in the 24 GHz band is an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. These size standards will apply to the future auction, if held. Satellite Service Providers 57. *Satellite Telecommunications.* Since 2007, the SBA has recognized satellite firms within this revised category, with a small business size standard of $13.5 million. The most current Census Bureau data, however, are from the

(last)economic census of 2002, and the Commission will use those figures to gauge the prevalence of small businesses in this category. Those size standards are for the two census categories of “Satellite Telecommunications” and “Other Telecommunications.” Under both prior categories, such a business was considered small if it had, as now, $13.5 million or less in average annual receipts. 58. 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, the Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by its action. 59. 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, 303 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by its action. Cable and OVS Operators 60. In 2007, the SBA recognized new census categories for small cable entities. However, there is no census data yet in existence that may be used to calculate the number of small entities that fit these definitions. Therefore, the Commission will use prior definitions of these types of entities in order to estimate numbers of potentially-affected small business entities. In addition to the estimates provided above, the Commission considers certain additional entities that may be affected by the data collection from broadband service providers. Because section 706 requires it to monitor the deployment of broadband regardless of technology or transmission media employed, the Commission anticipates that some broadband service providers will not provide telephone service. Accordingly, the Commission describes below other types of firms that may provide broadband services, including cable companies, MDS providers, and utilities, among others. 61. *Cable and Other Program Distribution.* The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged as third-party distribution systems for broadcast programming. The establishments of this industry deliver visual, aural, or textual programming received from cable networks, local television stations, or radio networks to consumers via cable or direct-to-home satellite systems on a subscription or fee basis. These establishments do not generally originate programming material.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution, which is: all such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. 62. *Cable Companies and Systems.* The Commission has also developed its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are small under this size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Industry data indicate that, of 7,208 systems nationwide, 6,139 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an additional 379 systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers. Thus, under this second size standard, most cable systems are small. 63. *Cable System Operators.* The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard. The Commission notes that it neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore it is unable to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this size standard. 64. *Open Video Services.* Open Video Service

(OVS)systems provide subscription services. As noted above, the SBA has created a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution. This standard provides that a small entity is one with $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified approximately 45 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and some of these are currently providing service. Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc.

(RCN)received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, DC, and other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity. Little financial information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission concludes that up to 44 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution 65. *Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution.* The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry group comprises establishments primarily engaged in generating, transmitting, and/or distributing electric power. Establishments in this industry group may perform one or more of the following activities:

(1)Operate generation facilities that produce electric energy;

(2)operate transmission systems that convey the electricity from the generation facility to the distribution system; and

(3)operate distribution systems that convey electric power received from the generation facility or the transmission system to the final consumer.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for firms in this category: “A firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours.” According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 1,644 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Census data do not track electric output and the Commission has not determined how many of these firms fit the SBA size standard for small, with no more than 4 million megawatt hours of electric output. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 1,644 or fewer firms may be considered small under the SBA small business size standard. Internet Service Providers, Web Portals, and Other Information Services 66. In 2007, the SBA recognized two new small business, economic census categories. They are

(1)Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals, and

(2)All Other Information Services. However, there is no census data yet in existence that may be used to calculate the number of small entities that fit these definitions. Therefore, the Commission will use prior definitions of these types of entities in order to estimate numbers of potentially-affected small business entities. 67. *Internet Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs “provide clients access to the Internet and generally provide related services such as web hosting, web page designing, and hardware or software consulting related to Internet connectivity.” Under the SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has average annual receipts of $23 million or less. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 2,529 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 2,437 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 47 firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by its action. Other Internet-Related Entities 68. *Web Search Portals.* The Commission's action pertains to interconnected VoIP services, which could be provided by entities that provide other services such as e-mail, online gaming, web browsing, video conferencing, instant messaging, and other, similar IP-enabled services. The Commission has not adopted a size standard for entities that create or provide these types of services or applications. However, the Census Bureau has identified firms that “operate Web sites that use a search engine to generate and maintain extensive databases of Internet addresses and content in an easily searchable format. Web search portals often provide additional Internet services, such as e-mail, connections to other Web sites, auctions, news, and other limited content, and serve as a home base for Internet users.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that size standard is $6.5 million or less in average annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 342 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 303 had annual receipts of under $5 million, and an additional 15 firms had receipts of between $5 million and $9,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by its action. 69. *Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services.* Entities in this category “primarily * * * provid[e] infrastructure for hosting or data processing services.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that size standard is $23 million or less in average annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 6,877 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 6,418 had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 251 firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by its action. 70. *All Other Information Services.* “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing other information services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives).” The Commission's action pertains to interconnected VoIP services, which could be provided by entities that provide other services such as e-mail, online gaming, web browsing, video conferencing, instant messaging, and other, similar IP-enabled services. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that size standard is $6.5 million or less in average annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 155 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 138 had annual receipts of under $5 million, and an additional four firms had receipts of between $5 million and $9,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by its action. 71. *Internet Publishing and Broadcasting.* “This industry comprises establishments engaged in publishing and/or broadcasting content on the Internet exclusively. These establishments do not provide traditional (non-Internet) versions of the content that they publish or broadcast.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this census category; that size standard is 500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 1,362 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 1,351 had employment of 499 or fewer employees, and six firms had employment of between 500 and 999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms small entities that may be affected by its action. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements 72. In the Further Notice, the Commission proposes four additional or modified information collections that would impose further reporting and recordkeeping requirements on current Form 477 filers, including small entities. Specifically, the Further Notice invites comment on whether and how Form 477 filers should

(1)report the number of voice telephone service connections, and the percentage of these that are residential, at the 5-digit ZIP Code or Census Tract,

(2)report information to build a map of broadband service availability,

(3)report information on broadband service pricing, and

(4)report information on actual, delivered speeds of broadband services. The Commission invites comments on the merits and methodologies of such information collections to include suggestions and discussions of other alternatives not specifically discussed in the Further Notice that would meet the objectives of the Further Notice but would impose lesser burdens on smaller entities. 73. Based on these questions, the Commission anticipates that a record will be developed concerning actual burden and alternative ways in which the Commission could lessen the burden on small entities of obtaining improved data about broadband deployment and availability throughout the nation. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 74. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include (among others) the following four alternatives:

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

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

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

(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 75. As noted above, the Further Notice invites comment on whether and how current Form 477 filers should

(1)report subscriber counts for voice-grade lines and channels at the 5-Digit Zip Code or Census Tract level,

(2)report information to build a map of broadband service availability,

(3)report information on broadband service pricing, and

(4)report information on actual, delivered speeds of broadband services. The Further Notice seeks comment on possible methods for reporting the proposed information collections, as well as suggestions of methods to maintain and report the information that achieve the purposes of the Further Notice while minimizing the burden on reporting entities, including small entities. This information will assist the Commission in determining whether these various proposed information collections would impose a significant economic impact on small entities. 76. Based on these questions, and the alternatives discussed, the Commission anticipates that the record will be developed concerning alternative ways in which it could lessen the burden on small entities of obtaining improved data about broadband availability throughout the nation. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 77. None. Ordering Clauses 78. Accordingly, *it is ordered* that, pursuant to sections 1 through 5, 11, 201 through 205, 211, 215, 218 through 220, 251 through 271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 155, 161, 201 through 205, 211, 215, 218 through 220, 251 through 271, 303(r), 332, 403, 502, and 503, and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 157 nt, this Further Notice, with all attachments, *is adopted.* 79. *It is further ordered* that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, *shall send* a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 80. *It is further ordered* that pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Broadband Availability Mapping portion of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before July 17, 2008, and reply comments on or before August 1, 2008, and interested parties may file comments on the other portions of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before August 1, 2008, and reply comments on or before September 2, 2008. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-14875 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 523, 531, 533, 534, 536 and 537 [Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0060] Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS)for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Notice of Public Hearing AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of availability of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS); notice of public hearing. SUMMARY: NHTSA has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS)to disclose and analyze the potential environmental impacts of proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy

(CAFE)standards for model year

(MY)2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks, which NHTSA recently proposed pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and a reasonable range of alternative standards. To inform decisionmakers and the public, the DEIS compares the potential environmental impacts of the proposed standards and alternative standards reflecting a full range of stringencies, and it analyzes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts in proportion to their significance. The DEIS provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts on energy resources, air quality, and climate. The DEIS uses climate modeling and NHTSA's own computer model to provide quantitative estimates of potential impacts on air quality, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions, global mean surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level rise. The DEIS provides a qualitative analysis of resources that may be impacted by changes in climate, such as freshwater resources, terrestrial ecosystems, coastal ecosystems, land use, human health, and environmental justice. It examines these impacts on the U.S. and on a global scale. In addition, the DEIS analyzes potential environmental impacts unrelated to climate change. NHTSA invites Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, and the public to submit written comments and participate in a public hearing on the DEIS using the instructions set forth in this notice. As described in the PROCEDURAL MATTERS section of this notice, each speaker should anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes, although we may need to adjust the time for each speaker if there is a large turnout. To facilitate review of the DEIS, NHTSA has posted the DEIS on its Web site, and it will be available in the Docket identified by the docket number at the beginning of this notice. 1 Copies in hard copy or electronic (CD-ROM) form have been mailed to all stakeholders on NHTSA's National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)mailing list for the proposed CAFE standards, and NHTSA will mail a copy of the DEIS or a CD-ROM containing the Appendices to any other interested party who requests one. NHTSA will consider the public comments received on the DEIS in preparing final NEPA documents to support final CAFE standards for MY 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks, which NHTSA plans to issue later this year. The agency's NEPA analysis is informing NHTSA's development of those standards. 1 The DEIS is available at: *http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/* (last visited June 26, 2008). DATES: *Public Hearing:* The public hearing will be held on Monday, August 4, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the National Transportation Safety Board Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20594. NHTSA recommends that all persons attending the hearing arrive at least 45 minutes early in order to facilitate entry into the Conference Center. If you wish to attend or speak at the hearing, you must register in advance no later than Friday, July 25, 2008, by following the instructions in the PROCEDURAL MATTERS section of this notice. NHTSA will consider late registrants to the extent time and space allow, but NHTSA cannot ensure that late registrants will be able to attend or speak at the hearing. *Comments:* NHTSA must receive written comments on the DEIS by Monday, August 18, 2008. NHTSA will try to consider comments received after that date to the extent the NEPA and rulemaking schedules allow, but NHTSA cannot ensure that it will be able to do so. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith, Telephone: 202-366-5206, or Mr. Michael Johnsen, Telephone: 202-366-0258, Fuel Economy Division, Office of International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. E-mail: *nhtsa.nepa@dot.gov* . Information about the CAFE rulemaking and the NEPA process is also available at *http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov.* ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the docket number of this document. You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324. Note that all comments received, including any personal information, will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS)to disclose and analyze the potential environmental impacts of proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy

(CAFE)standards for model year

(MY)2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks and a reasonable range of alternative standards. 2 NHTSA recently proposed the standards pursuant to amendments made by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

(EISA)to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). 3 To inform decisionmakers and the public, the DEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed standards and alternative standards reflecting a range of stringencies, and it analyzes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts in proportion to their significance. The DEIS provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts on energy resources, air quality, and climate. The DEIS uses climate modeling and NHTSA's own computer model to provide quantitative estimates of potential impacts on air quality, CO 2 emissions, global mean surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level rise. The DEIS provides a qualitative analysis of resources that may be impacted by changes in climate, such as freshwater resources, terrestrial ecosystems, coastal ecosystems, land use, human health, and environmental justice. It examines impacts on the U.S. and on a global scale. In addition, the DEIS analyzes potential environmental impacts unrelated to climate change. 2 *See* National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, and implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR Pts. 1500-1508, and NHTSA, 49 CFR Pt. 520. 3 EISA is Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (December 19, 2007). EPCA is codified at 49 U.S.C. 32901 *et seq.* *Background.* EPCA sets forth extensive requirements concerning the rulemaking to establish MY 2011-2015 CAFE standards. It requires the Secretary of Transportation 4 to establish average fuel economy standards at least 18 months before the beginning of each model year and to set them at “the maximum feasible average fuel economy level that the Secretary decides the manufacturers can achieve in that model year.” When setting “maximum feasible” fuel economy standards, the Secretary is required to “consider technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy.” 5 NHTSA construes the statutory factors as including environmental and safety considerations. 6 NHTSA also considers environmental impacts under NEPA when setting CAFE standards. 4 NHTSA is delegated responsibility for implementing the EPCA fuel economy requirements assigned to the Secretary of Transportation. 49 CFR 1.50, 501.2(a)(8). 5 49 U.S.C. 32902(a), 32902(f). 6 *See, e.g., Competitive Enterprise Inst.* v. *NHTSA* , 956 F.2d 321, 322 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citing *Competitive Enterprise Inst.* v. *NHTSA* , 901 F.2d 107, 120 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). As recently amended, EPCA further directs the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of Energy

(DOE)and the EPA Administrator, to establish separate average fuel economy standards for passenger cars and for light trucks manufactured in each model year beginning with model year 2011 “to achieve a combined fuel economy average for model year 2020 of at least 35 miles per gallon for the total fleet of passenger and non-passenger automobiles manufactured for sale in the United States for that model year.” 7 In doing so, the Secretary of Transportation is required to increase average fuel economy standards for MY 2011-2020 vehicles through “annual fuel economy standard increases.” 8 The standards for passenger cars and light trucks must be “based on 1 or more vehicle attributes related to fuel economy.” In any single rulemaking, standards may be established for not more than five model years. 9 EPCA also mandates a minimum standard for domestically manufactured passenger cars. 10 7 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 32902(b)(1), 32902(b)(2)(A). 8 49 U.S.C.A. § 32902(b)(2)(C). 9 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 32902(b)(3)(A), 32902(b)(3)(B). 10 49 U.S.C.A. § 32902(b)(4). Earlier this year, NHTSA initiated the EIS process for MY 2011-2015 CAFE standards, which include light truck standards for one model year previously covered by a 2006 final rule establishing CAFE standards for MY 2008-2011 light trucks (namely, MY 2011). 11 We did so because a standard for MY 2011 must be issued by the end of March 2009 and achieving an industry-wide combined fleet average of at least 35 miles per gallon for MY 2020 depends, in substantial part, upon setting standards well in advance so as to provide the automobile manufacturers with as much lead time as possible to make the extensive necessary changes to their automobiles. 11 *See* Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks Model Years 2008-2011; Final Rule, April 6, 2006. *The Proposed Action and Possible Alternatives:* In its recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA proposed attribute-based (vehicle size) fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks consistent with the “Reformed CAFE” approach NHTSA used to establish standards for MY 2008-2011 light trucks. 12 The NPRM proposes separate standards for MY 2011-2015 passenger cars and separate standards for MY 2011-2015 light trucks. This notice briefly describes the proposed standards and the alternatives, which the NPRM and the DEIS discuss in more detail. 12 Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks; Model Years 2011-2015; Proposed Rule, 73 FR 24352, May 2, 2008. Under the proposed standards, each vehicle manufacturer's required level of CAFE would be based on target levels of average fuel economy set for vehicles of different sizes and on the distribution of that manufacturer's vehicles among those sizes. Size would be defined by vehicle footprint. 13 The level of the performance target for each footprint would reflect the technological and economic capabilities of the industry. The target for each footprint would be the same for all manufacturers, regardless of differences in their overall fleet mix. Compliance would be determined by comparing a manufacturer's harmonically averaged fleet fuel economy levels in a model year with a required fuel economy level calculated using the manufacturer's actual production levels and the targets for each footprint of the vehicles that it produces. 13 A vehicle's “footprint” is generally defined as “the product of track width [the lateral distance between the centerlines of the base tires at ground, including the camber angle] * * * times wheelbase [the longitudinal distance between front and rear wheel centerlines] * * * divided by 144. * * *” 49 CFR 523.2. In developing the proposed standards and the alternatives, NHTSA considered the four EPCA factors underlying maximum feasibility (technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the nation to conserve energy) as well as relevant environmental and safety considerations. NHTSA used a computer model (known as the “Volpe model”) that, for any given model year, applies technologies to a manufacturer's fleet until the manufacturer achieves compliance with the standard under consideration. In light of the EPCA factors, the agency placed monetary values on relevant externalities (both energy security and environmental externalities, including the benefits of reductions in carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions). As discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA also consulted with EPA and DOE regarding a wide variety of matters. After assessing what fuel saving technologies would be available, how effective they are, and how quickly they could be introduced, NHTSA balanced the EPCA factors relevant to standard-setting. The agency used a marginal benefit-cost analysis to set the proposed standards at levels such that, considering the seven largest manufacturers, the cost of the last technology application equaled the benefits of the improvement in fuel economy resulting from that application. That is the level at which net benefits are maximized. Accordingly, NHTSA refers to the proposed standards as “optimized” standards or the “optimized scenario”. In considering further action on the proposed standards and reasonable alternatives, NHTSA also will consider its NEPA analysis. NHTSA projects what the industry-wide average fuel economy level would be for passenger cars and for light trucks if each manufacturer produced its expected mix of automobiles and exactly met its obligations under the proposed “optimized” standards for each model year. For passenger cars, the average fuel economy (in miles per gallon, or mpg) would range from 31.2 mpg in MY 2011 to 35.7 mpg in MY 2015. For light trucks, the average fuel economy would range from 25.0 mpg in MY 2011 to 28.6 mpg in MY 2015. The combined industry-wide average fuel economy for all passenger cars and light trucks would range from 27.8 mpg in MY 2011 to 31.6 mpg in MY 2015, if each manufacturer exactly met its obligations under the standards proposed in the NPRM. 14 14 NHTSA notes that it cannot set out the precise level of CAFE that each manufacturer would be required to meet for each model year under the proposed standards, because the level for each manufacturer would depend on that manufacturer's final production figures and fleet mix for a particular model year. That information will not be available until the end of each model year. Under the proposed standards, the annual average increase during the five-year period from MY 2011-MY 2015 would be approximately 4.5 percent. The annual percentage increases would be greater in the early years due to the uneven distribution of new model introductions during this period and to the fact that significant technological changes can be most readily made in conjunction with those introductions. 15 Pursuant to EISA's mandate, domestically manufactured passenger car fleets also must meet an alternative minimum standard for each model year. The alternative minimum standard would range from 28.7 mpg in MY 2011 to 32.9 mpg in MY 2015 under NHTSA's proposal. 15 With the proposed standards, the combined industry-wide average fuel economy would have to increase by an average of 2.1 percent per year from MY 2016-MY 2020 in order to reach EISA's goal of at least 35 mpg by MY 2020. In addition, the NPRM and the DEIS discuss flexibility mechanisms available to manufacturers to meet their obligations. In addition to the proposed standards, NHTSA has considered several regulatory alternatives for purposes of both Executive Order 12,866 16 and its NEPA analysis, which includes a “no action” alternative as required by NEPA. The alternatives, in order of increasing stringency, are: 16 Exec. Order 12,866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51,735, October 4, 1993, as amended.

(1)A “no action” alternative of maintaining CAFE standards at the MY 2010 levels of 27.5 mpg and 23.5 mpg for passenger cars and light trucks, respectively. 17 NEPA requires agencies to consider a “no action” alternative in their NEPA analyses, although the recent amendments to EPCA direct NHTSA to set new CAFE standards and do not permit the agency to take no action on fuel economy. (NHTSA also refers to this “no action” alternative as a “no increase” or “baseline” alternative.) 17 *See* 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14(d).

(2)An alternative reflecting standards that fall below the optimized scenario by the same absolute amount by which the “25 percent above optimized alternative” (described below) exceeds the optimized scenario. NHTSA refers to this as the “25 percent below optimized alternative”.

(3)An alternative reflecting the “optimized scenario”, the proposed standards based on applying technologies until net benefits are maximized.

(4)An alternative reflecting standards that exceed the optimized scenario by 25 percent of the interval between the optimized scenario and an alternative (described below) based on applying technologies until total costs equal total benefits. NHTSA refers to this alternative as the “25 percent above optimized alternative”.

(5)An alternative reflecting standards that exceed the optimized scenario by 50 percent of the interval between the optimized scenario and the alternative based on applying technologies until total costs equal total benefits. This alternative is known as the “50 percent above optimized alternative”.

(6)An alternative reflecting standards based on applying technologies until total costs equal total benefits (zero net benefits). This is known as the “TC=TB alternative”.

(7)A “technology exhaustion alternative” in which NHTSA applied all feasible technologies without regard to cost by determining the stringency at which a reformed CAFE standard would require every manufacturer to apply every technology estimated to be potentially available for its MY 2011-2015 fleet. Accordingly, the penetration rates for particular technologies would vary on an individual manufacturer basis. NHTSA has presented this alternative in order to explore how the stringency of standards would vary based solely on the potential availability of technologies at the individual manufacturer level without regard to the costs to society. Under NEPA, the purpose of and need for an agency's action inform the range of reasonable alternatives to be considered in its NEPA analysis. 18 NHTSA believes that these alternatives represent a reasonable range of stringencies to consider for purposes of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of proposed CAFE standards under NEPA, because these alternatives represent a wide spectrum of potential impacts ranging from the current standards to standards based on the maximum technology expected to be available over the period necessary to meet the statutory goals of EPCA, as amended by EISA. 19 However, as discussed in the NPRM and in the DEIS, NHTSA's provisional analysis of these alternatives suggests that some of them may not satisfy the four EPCA factors that NHTSA must apply in setting “maximum feasible” CAFE standards ( *i.e.* , technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the nation to conserve energy). 18 40 CFR 1502.13. 19 Given EPCA's mandate that NHTSA consider specific factors in setting CAFE standards and NEPA's instruction that agencies give effect to NEPA's policies “to the fullest extent possible,” NHTSA recognizes that a very large number of alternative CAFE levels are potentially conceivable and that the alternatives described above essentially represent several of many points on a continuum of alternatives. Along the continuum, each alternative represents a different way in which NHTSA conceivably could assign weight to each of the four EPCA factors and NEPA's policies. CEQ guidance instructs that “[w]hen there are potentially a very large number of alternatives, only a reasonable number of examples, covering the *full spectrum* of alternatives, must be analyzed and compared in the EIS.” CEQ, *Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations* , 46 FR 18026, 18027, March 23, 1981 (emphasis original). *The NEPA Process and the DEIS.* In March 2008, NHTSA issued a notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the MY 2011-2015 CAFE standards and opened the NEPA “scoping” process. In that notice, NHTSA described the statutory requirements for the proposed standards, provided initial information about the NEPA process, and initiated scoping by requesting public input on the scope of NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the proposed standards. 20 In April 2008, NHTSA published a supplemental scoping notice providing additional guidance for participating in the scoping process and additional information about the proposed standards and the alternatives NHTSA expected to consider in its NEPA analysis. 21 NHTSA also outlined its plans for its NEPA analysis. 22 NHTSA mailed both **Federal Register** notices to hundreds of stakeholders and developed a mailing list of interested parties, including Federal agencies with environmental expertise, the Governors of every State and U.S. territory or State NEPA contacts they identified, Indian tribes, organizations representing state and local governments and tribes, the automobile industry, environmental organizations, and other stakeholders interested in the CAFE program. NHTSA received 1,748 comment letters in response to its scoping notices. NHTSA received 11 individual letters commenting on the scope of its NEPA analysis from federal and state agencies, automobile trade associations, environmental organizations, and individuals. The remaining comment letters are form letters from individuals. 20 *See* Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 73 FR 16615, March 28, 2008. 21 Supplemental Notice of Public Scoping for an Environmental Impact Statement for New Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 73 FR 22913, April 28, 2008. 22 *Id.* at 22916. In developing the DEIS, NHTSA also consulted with Federal agencies including: CEQ; EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC)of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, both of which submitted scoping comments to NHTSA; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA)within the U.S. Department of Commerce; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service within the U.S. Department of the Interior; and the U.S. Forest Service within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. NHTSA used the scoping process to help determine “the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered” in the DEIS and to identify the most important issues for analysis. 23 The DEIS consists of a Summary and ten chapters:

(1)Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action;

(2)The Proposed Action and Alternatives;

(3)Affected Environment and Consequences;

(4)Cumulative Impacts;

(5)Mitigation;

(6)Unavoidable Adverse Impacts; Short-Term Uses and Long-term Productivity; Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources;

(7)Preparers;

(8)References;

(9)Distribution List; and

(10)Index. Three appendices include sources identified in scoping comments (Appendix A), modeling data for air emissions and climate modeling (Appendix B); and a cost-benefit analysis excerpt from NHTSA's Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (Appendix C). 23 *See* 40 CFR §§ 1500.5(d), 1501.7, 1508.25. The DEIS devotes the most detailed analysis to direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed standards and the alternatives on energy, air quality, and climate. Key findings concerning estimated potential impacts on CO 2 emissions, global mean surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level rise include the following: • *Global CO* 2 *Emissions Reductions* . Over the 2010 to 2100 timeframe, the range of alternatives NHTSA analyzed would reduce global CO 2 emissions (from all sources) by about 18 to 35 billion metric tons of CO 2 (based on global emissions of 4.85 trillion metric tons of CO 2 ). The alternatives would slow the expected increase in greenhouse gas

(GHG)emissions from the transportation sector over this period. • *CO* 2 *Concentration and Global Mean Surface Temperature:* Estimates for CO 2 atmospheric concentrations and global mean surface temperature vary considerably, depending on which global emissions scenario is used as a reference case. Temperature increases are sensitive to climate sensitivity. Yet, projected differences among the CAFE alternatives are small— *i.e.* , CO 2 concentrations as of 2100 are within 1.7 to 3.2 parts per million across alternatives, and temperatures are within 0.0006 to 0.012 °C across alternatives—regardless of reference scenario and climate sensitivity. • *Rainfall:* The CAFE alternatives reduce temperature increases slightly and thus reduce increases in precipitation slightly, compared to the “No Action” alternative. • *Impact on Sea Level Rise:* The impact on sea level rise from the alternatives is at the threshold of the climate model's reporting: The alternatives reduce sea level rise by 0.1 cm. Although the model does not report enough significant figures to distinguish between the effects of the alternatives, it is clear that the more stringent the alternative ( *i.e.* , the lower the emissions), the lower the temperature (as shown above), and the lower the sea level. The DEIS provides a qualitative analysis of resources that may be impacted by changes in climate, such as freshwater resources, terrestrial ecosystems, coastal ecosystems, land use, human health, and environmental justice. It examines impacts on the U.S. and a global scale. In addition, the DEIS qualitatively examines the alternatives' non-climate change related direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on potentially affected resources. Such resources include: Water resources, biological resources, land use, hazardous materials, safety, noise, historic and cultural resources, and environmental justice. Throughout the DEIS, NHTSA's analysis relies extensively on findings of the United National Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC)and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (USCCSP), including those presented in the IPCC's *Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007* and the USCCSP's *Scientific Assessments of the Effects of Global Change on the United States* and Synthesis and Assessment Products. 24 The DEIS also uses applicable CEQ regulations to acknowledge uncertainty and incomplete or unavailable information relevant to NHTSA's NEPA analysis. 25 24 *See generally http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm* (last visited June 25, 2008) and *http://www.climatescience.gov* (last visited June 25, 2008). 25 40 CFR 1502.22; *see* 40 CFR 1502.21. Procedural Matters: The public hearing will be open to the public with advanced registration for seating on a space-available basis. Individuals wishing to register to assure a seat in the public seating area should provide their name, affiliation, phone number, ande-mail address to Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or Mr. Michael Johnsen using the contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at the beginning of this notice no later than Friday, July 25, 2008. Should it be necessary to cancel the hearing due to an emergency or some other reason, NHTSA will take all available means to notify registered participants by e-mail or telephone. The hearing will be held at a site accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations such as sign language interpreters should contact Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or Mr. Michael Johnsen using the contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above no later than Friday, July 25, 2008. Any written materials NHTSA presents at the hearing will be available electronically on the day of the hearing to accommodate the needs of the visually impaired. A transcript of the hearing and information received by NHTSA at the hearing will be placed in the docket for this notice at a later date. How long will I have to speak at the public hearing? Once NHTSA learns how many people have registered to speak at the public hearing, NHTSA will allocate an appropriate amount of time to each participant, allowing time for lunch and necessary breaks throughout the day. For planning purposes, each speaker should anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes, although we may need to adjust the time for each speaker if there is a large turnout. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, NHTSA prefers that speakers not use technological aids ( *e.g.* , audio-visuals, computer slideshows). However, if you plan to do so, you must let Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or Mr. Michael Johnsen know by Friday, July 25, 2008, using the contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. You also must make arrangements to provide your presentation or any other aids to NHTSA in advance of the hearing in order to facilitate set-up. During the week of July 28, NHTSA will post information on its Web site ( *http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov* ) indicating the amount of time allocated for each speaker and each speaker's approximate order on the agenda for the hearing. How can I get a copy of the DEIS? The DEIS is available on NHTSA's Web site at *http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/* (last visited June 26, 2008), and it will be available in the Docket identified by the docket number at the beginning of this notice. To request a hard copy or a CD-ROM of the DEIS, or to request a CD-ROM containing the Appendices, please contact Ms. Carol Hammel-Smith or Mr. Michael Johnsen using the contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. How do I prepare and submit written comments? It is not necessary to attend or to speak at the public hearing to be able to comment on the issues. NHTSA invites the submission of written comments on the DEIS which the agency will consider in preparing the final NEPA documents to support the new CAFE standards for MY 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks. Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number at the beginning of this notice in your comments. Your primary comments cannot exceed 15 pages. 26 However, you may attach additional documents to your primary comments. There is no limit to the length of the attachments. 26 49 CFR 553.21. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** at 65 FR 19477, April 11, 2000, or you may visit *http://www.regulations.gov.* If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail. How do I submit confidential business information? If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512). In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to Docket Management, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, or submit them electronically, in the manner described at the beginning of this notice. Will the agency consider late comments? NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES . To the extent the NEPA and rulemaking schedules allow, NHTSA will try to consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date, but we cannot ensure that we will be able to do so. 27 27 *See* 49 CFR 553.23. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some commenters may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material. In addition, you may wish to check two separate dockets relating to the proposed CAFE standards:

(1)Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0089, which accompanies NHTSA's NPRM; and

(2)Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0069, which accompanies NHTSA's request for manufacturers' product plan information. 28 28 Passenger Car Average Fuel Economy Standards—Model Years 2008—2020 and Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards—Model Years 2008-2020; Request for Product Plan Information, 73 FR 24190, May 2, 2008. Comments and information submitted to these dockets may be relevant to NHTSA's NEPA analysis for the proposed CAFE standards. Issued: June 27, 2008. Ronald Medford, Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety. [FR Doc. 08-1406 Filed 6-30-08; 11:21 am]

Connectionstraces to 72

Traces to 72 documents