The Direct Final Rule Procedure

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule. The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in theFederal Registerindicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in theFederal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments may be submitted and reviewed viahttp://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page athttp://www.faa.govor the Federal Register's web page athttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the captionADDRESSESabove or you may comment through the Web site. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-0279; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-19.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E5 airspace at Franklin, PA, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new Copter Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) 089 Point in Space (PinS) approach developed to facilitate helicopter arrival and departures at the Northwest Medical Center in Franklin. Although Class E airspace exists near the area, it is insufficient for the protection for this approach which will serve medical flights. Controlledairspace, known as Class E5 airspace, extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is required to encompass all Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs) to the extent practical and for general Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations. The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify existing Class E5 airspace by adding a 6-mile radius around the Point in Space Coordinates that serve the Northwest Medical Center in Franklin, PA. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

In 1994, Venango County changed the name of the airport from Chess-Lamberton Airport to Venango Regional Airport and this rule provides for that technical correction for the existing Class E2 airspace and this amended Class E5 airspace.

The regulations adopted herein 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 various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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, in non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (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 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 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 amends controlled airspace at Franklin, PA near the Northwest Medical Center.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule. The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in theFederal Registerindicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in theFederal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments may be submitted and reviewed athttp://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page athttp://www.faa.gov. or the Federal Register's web page athttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the captionADDRESSESabove or through the Web site. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0064; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-95.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Bridgton, ME providing the controlled airspace required to support the new Copter Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) 051 Point in Space (PinS) approach developed for the Bridgton Hospital. In today's environment where speed of treatment for medical injuries is imperative, landing sites have been developed for helicopter medical Lifeguard flights or Lifeflights at the local hospitals; this is one of those sites. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is required for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations and to encompass all Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs) to the extent practical, therefore, the FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish a 6-mile radius Class E5 airspace at Bridgton, ME. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007 effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The regulations adopted herein 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 various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (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 anticipant impact is so minimal. Since this 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 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 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 near the Bridgton Hospital in Bridgton, ME.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule. The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in theFederal Registerindicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in theFederal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments may be submitted and reviewed athttp://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page athttp://www.faa.govor the Federal Register's web page athttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the captionADDRESSESabove or through the Web site. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules docket for examination by interested persons. Those wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0067; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-98.” The postcardwill be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Rockport, ME providing the controlled airspace required to support the new Copter Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) 287 Point in Space (PinS) approach developed for the Penobscot Bay Medical Center. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is required for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations and to encompass all Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs) to the extent practical, therefore, the FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish a 6-mile radius Class E5 airspace at Rockport, ME. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007 effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The regulations adopted herein 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 various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (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 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 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 near the Penobscot Bay Medical Center in Rockport, ME.

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule. The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in theFederal Registerindicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in theFederal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments may be submitted and reviewed viahttp://www.regulations.gov.Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page athttp://www.faa.govor the Federal Register's web page athttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the captionADDRESSESabove or you may comment through the Web site. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-0310; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-21.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E5 airspace at Bradford, PA, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new Copter Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) 226 Point in Space (PinS) approach developed to facilitate helicopter arrival and departures at the University of Pittsburgh in Bradford. Although Class E airspace exists near the area, it is insufficient for the protection for this approach that will serve medical flights. Controlled airspace, known as Class E5 airspace, extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is required to encompass all Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs) to the extent practical and for general Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations. The FAA is amending part 71 Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 71) , by establishing a 6-mile radius Class E5 airspace area around the Point in Space Missed Approach Point (MAP), HIVIT Waypoint, that serves the University of Pittsburgh in Bradford, PA. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The regulations adopted herein will not have 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 various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (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 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 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 amends controlled airspace at Bradford, PA near the University of Pittsburgh.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule. The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in theFederal Registerindicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in theFederal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. The direct final rule is used in this case to facilitate the timing of the charting schedule and enhance the operation at the airport, while still allowing and requesting public comment on this rulemaking action. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted throughhttp://www.regulations.gov.Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the captionADDRESSESabove or through the website. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and thisrule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page athttp://www.faa.govor the Federal Register's Web page athttp://www.gpoacess.gov/fr/index.html.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0130; Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-11.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace at Wilkes-Barre, PA, providing the controlled airspace required to support new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) that were developed for both the Community Medical Center and the Fire Station Helipad at Mercy Hospital. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is required to encompass all SIAPs to the extent practical. The current E5 airspace in the area is insufficient for these approaches, so additional controlled airspace must be developed. The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify Class E5 airspace at Wilkes-Barre by adding a 6-mile radius area around each of the Point in Space Waypoints associated with the Missed Approach Point of the Instrument Approach Procedures at the two different locations.

Additionally, on November 23, 2006, the FAA published in theFederal Register(71 FR 60814) an amendment to Class E5 airspace at Wilkes-Barre adding airspace that was required to support Special Instrument Approach Procedures that were developed for the Wyoming Valley Medical Center. In that publication, the legal description of the new airspace should have been added to the existing airspace as published in FAA Order 7400.9P dated September 01, 2006. However, only the text of the newly designated E5 airspace was included and the description of the older existing airspace was omitted. The original airspace was never revoked, just omitted in the documentation, thus this technical amendment restores that description. The Point in Space associated with the Wyoming Valley Medical Center will also be replaced with its appropriate name, ZIGAL Waypoint. Designations for Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007 effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The regulations adopted herein 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 various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (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 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 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 modifies controlled airspace at Wilkes-Barre, PA.

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule. The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in theFederal Registerindicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in theFederal Register, and notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, view, or arguments as they may desire. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments may be submitted and reviewed athttp://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page athttp://www.faa.govor the Federal Register's Web page athttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the captionADDRESSESabove or through the website. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0065; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-96.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Carrabassett, ME providing the controlled airspace required to support the new Copter Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) 272 Point in Space (PinS) approach developed for the Sugarloaf Regional Airport. Controlled airspace, known as Class E5 airspace, extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is required for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations and to encompass all Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs) to the extent practical, therefore, the FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish a 6-mile radius Class E5 airspace at Carrabassett, ME. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007 effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The regulations adopted herein 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 various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (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 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 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 near the Sugarloaf Regional Airport in Carrabassett, ME.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule. The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse nor negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA willpublish a document in theFederal Registerindicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final will be published in theFederal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking my be published with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments may be submitted and reviewed athttp://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web site page athttp://www.faa.gov, or the Federal Register's Web page athttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the captionADDRESSESabove or through the Web site. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0066; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-97.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Dover-Foxcroft, ME, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new Copter Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) 120 Point in Space (PinS) approach developed for the Mayo Regional Hospital. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is required for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations and to encompass all Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs) to the extent practical, therefore, the FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish a 6-mile radius Class E5 airspace at Dover-Foxcroft, ME. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The regulations adopted herein 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 various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (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 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 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 near the Mayo Regional Hospital in Dover-Foxcroft, ME.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule. The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in theFederal Registerindicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in theFederal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments may be submitted and reviewed athttp://www.regulations.gov.Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page athttp://www.faa.gov.or the Federal Register's Web page athttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the captionADDRESSESabove or through the website. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0062; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-93.'' The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Stonington, ME providing the controlled airspace required to support the new Copter Area Navigation RNAV Global Positioning System (GPS) 070 Point in Space (PinS) approach developed for Stonington Municipal Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is required for Instrument flight Rules (IFR) operations and to encompass all Instrument Approach Procedures (iaps) to the extent practical, therefore, the FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish a 6-mile radius Class E5 airspace at Stonington, ME Designations for Class E airspace areas extendding upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007 effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The regulations adopted herein 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 various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' underExecutive 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 cetified 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 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 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 near Stonington Municipal Airport in Stonington, ME.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comments, and therefore, issues it as a direct final rule. The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specific above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in theFederal Registerindicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in theFederal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments may be submitted and reviewed athttp://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page athttp://www.faa.govor the Federal Register's Web page athttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the captionADDRESSESabove or through the Web site. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0059; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-90.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Fort Kent, ME providing the controlled airspace required to support the new Copter Area Navigation RNAV Global Positioning System (GPS) 011 Point in Space (PinS) approach developed for the Northern Maine Medical Center. In today's environment where speed of treatment for medical injuries is imperative, landing sites have been developed for helicopter medical Lifeguard flights or Lifeflights at the local hospitals. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is required for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations and to encompass all Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs) to the extent practical, therefore, the FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish a 6-mile radius Class E5 airspace at Fort Kent, ME. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007 effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The regulations adopted herein 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 various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (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 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 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 near the Northern Maine Medical Center in Fort Kent, ME.

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule. Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in theFederal Registerindicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date of the rule. If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written comment notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in theFederal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are invited to comment on this rule 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 direct final rule. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the direct final rule. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this rule must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0025, Airspace Docket No. 08-AGL-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the captionADDRESSESabove or through the Web site. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace at La Pointe, WI providing the airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) RWY 4/22 approach developed for IFR landings at Madeline Island Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is required to encompass all SIAPs and for the safety of IFR operations at Madeline Island Airport. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth are published in the FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007 and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The regulations adopted herein 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 various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implication under Executive Order 13132.

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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44FR 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 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 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 Class E airspace at La Pointe, WI.

On January 22, 2008, a direct final rule for Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-3, FAA Docket No. FAA-2008-027, was published in theFederal Register(73 FR 3625), establishing Class E airspace at Maverick County Memorial International Airport, Eagle Pass, TX. The geographic coordinates of the legal description for the airport were incorrect. The coordinates should read lat. 28°51′26″ N., long. 100°30′48″ W. This action corrects that error, and also removes the sentences referencing Notice to Airmen effective date and times.

A final rule published in theFederal RegisterOctober 30, 2007, established additional controlled airspace at Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport (72 FR 61297). In that rule, additional airspace was established to serve the Williamsport Hospital. After publication, an error was found in the geographic coordinates of the Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport, Williamsport, PA. This action corrects that error.

Intervet, Inc., P.O. Box 318, 29160 Intervet Lane, Millsboro, DE 19966, filed a supplement to NADA 131-310 for REGU-MATE (altrenogest), an oral solution administered to mares for suppression of estrus. The supplemental application provides for a revised warning statement on product labeling. The supplemental NADA is approved as of January 18, 2008, and 21 CFR 520.48 is amended to reflect the approval.

Approval of this supplemental NADA did not require review of additional safety or effectiveness data or information. Therefore, a freedom of information summary is not required.

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

IVX Animal Health, Inc., 3915 South 48th Street Ter., St. Joseph, MO 64503, filed a supplement to ANADA 200-202 for PHOENECTIN (ivermectin) Liquid for Horses. The supplemental application provides for the addition of indications for use and minor revisions to product labeling that conform to the pioneer product labeling. The supplemental ANADA is approved as of January 24, 2008, and 21 CFR 520.1195 is amended to reflect the approval.

In addition, the regulation is being amended to add the drug labeler code for another approved generic product (69 FR 24958, May 5, 2004), which was removed in error in theFederal Registerof September 24, 2004 (69 FR 57173). This action is being taken to improve the accuracy of the regulations.

In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect onthe human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

The proposed rule was published in theFederal Registeron July 12, 2007 (72 FR 10436-10438). No comments were received.

It has been determined that 32 CFR part 903 is not a significant regulatory action. This rule does not:

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

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

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

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.

It has been certified the 32 CFR part 903 does not contain a Federal Mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.

It has been determined that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

It has been certified that 32 CFR part 903 does not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

It has been certified that 32 CFR part 903 does not have federalism implications, as set forth in Executive Order 13132. This rule does not have substantial direct effects on:

(1) The States;

(2) The relationship between the National Government and the States; or

(3) The distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

On April 27, 2005, the State of Maine submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of amendments to Maine's Chapter 102 Open Burning Rule, which address all concerns that EPA had expressed to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP) about previous amendments and proposed amendments to the rule.

Maine's Chapter 102 Open Burning Rule was first adopted in January 1972 to minimize environmental impacts from open burning in Maine. EPA New England approved this rule into the Maine SIP on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842). Following adoption by ME DEP of an amended version of the rule in December 2002, EPA was especially concerned about language in the rule that could be interpreted to allow outdoor burning of any type construction and demolition debris, including plastics, rubber, styrofoam, metals, food wastes, or chemicals.

In 2003, the state legislature amended 12 MRSA section 9324 to change language in the statute from “out-of-door burning of wood wastes * * * and construction and demolition debris” to “out-of-door burning of wood wastes * * * from construction and demolition debris,” thus addressing EPA's concern about burning of inappropriate, non-wood materials.

Subsequently, ME DEP amended Chapter 102 to be consistent with the revised legislation and with other EPA comments, including adding a reference to reasonable precautions required by 38 MRSA section 1296 to prevent the introduction of lead into the environment from lead-based paint. ME DEP adopted these amendments in March 2005, and submitted them to EPA for inclusion in the Maine SIP on April 27, 2005.

The revised Chapter 102 prohibits “open burning” in all areas of the State, except for the types of open burning expressly described within the chapter. The revised Chapter 102 uses the terms “outdoor burning” and “out-of-door burning” synonymously with the term “open burning,” which ME DEP defined in Chapter 100. ME DEP confirmed with EPA that the state interprets these terms to be synonymous, and EPA is basing its approval of this regulation on that interpretation.

The revised Chapter 102 rule has a number of changes that make it more stringent than the original 1972 rule (37 FR 10842). The most significant of these changes include added restrictions to open burning of construction and demolition debris, and to open burning for training, research, and recreational purposes. Previously, open burning was permitted for “all debris” from demolition of any building and for certain types of land clearing (e.g., building highways, power lines, commercial, and industrial buildings). The revised rule specifies that the only type of construction and demolition debris that can be burned on site is “for the disposal of wood wastes and painted and unpainted wood from construction and demolition debris.” Both previous and current versions of the rule require a permit for the burning of construction and demolition debris.

The 1972 rule contains an exemption that allows (with a permit) “open burning for training, research and recreational purposes except that fires for recreational purposes on a person's own property are not required to obtain a permit.” The revised rule adds further restrictions to these activities. Specifically, recreational campfires kindled when the ground is not covered by snow require a permit, as do fires in conjunction with holiday and festive celebrations. Burning for “training” is now more strictly defined as being limited to “bona fide instruction and training of municipal or volunteer firefighters pursuant to Maine Revised Statutes Title 26, section 2102 and industrial fire fighters in methods of fighting fires when conducted under the direct control and supervision of qualified instructors and with a written objective for the training.” In addition, “structures burned for instructional purposes must first be emptied of waste materials that are not part of the training objective.”

The revised rule also strengthens the 1972 rule by defining open burning “recreational” activities that do not require a permit; these activities are now limited to: (1) Residential use of outdoor grills and fireplaces for recreational purposes; (2) recreational campfires kindled when the ground is covered by snow or on frozen bodies of water; and (3) the use of outdoor grills and fireplaces for recreational purposes at commercial campgrounds that are located in organized towns and licensed by the Department of Human Services. The rule also eliminates provisions that allowed permits to be issued for open burning of rubbish where no rubbish collection is available or “reasonably located” and where “there is no other suitable method for disposal.” Additionally, in response to EPA comments, ME DEP has added a note tothe rule referencing reasonable precautions required by Maine statute 38 MRSA section 1296 to prevent the introduction of lead into the environment from lead-based paint.

EPA is approving amendments to the Maine Chapter 102 Open Burning Rule, and incorporating the revised rule into the Maine SIP.

EPA has determined that the revised Maine Chapter 102 Open Burning Rule addresses all concerns expressed by EPA, is significantly more stringent and detailed than the existing EPA-approved rule, and will have a beneficial effect on air quality by reducing emissions of particulate matter, air toxics, and other pollutants, especially from the burning of lead-painted wood, plastics, metals, and other non-wood materials. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of thisFederal Registerpublication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision. This rule will be effective April 21, 2008, without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by March 24, 2008.

If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on April 21, 2008, and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801,et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in theFederal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in theFederal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 21, 2008. Interested parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the comment period allowed for in the proposal. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

This is a summary of the Commission's non-docketedOrder, FCC 08-27, adopted January 28, 2008 and released on January 30, 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. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, 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 atFCC@BCPIWEB.COM. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by sending an e-mail toFCC504@fcc.govor calling the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530, TTY (202) 418-0432. This document is also available on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.fcc.gov.

1. In theOrder, the Commission amends its rules to delegate authority to the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) to administer part 4 of the Commission's rules, which pertain to disruptions to communications.

2. On March 17, 2006, the Commission established the Bureau in order to promote a more efficient, effective and responsive organizational structure and to better promote and address public safety, homeland security, national security, emergency management and preparedness, disaster management, and related issues. Establishment of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,Order, 21 FCC Rcd 13655 (2006). The delegation of authority to the Bureau to administer the part 4 rules is consistent with the purpose and functions of the Bureau.

3. The delegation of this authority to the Bureau comports with § 0.191(g) of the Commission's rules, which provides, in pertinent part, that the Bureau “[c]onducts studies of public safety, homeland security, national security, emergency management and preparedness, disaster management, and related issues. Develops and administers recordkeeping and reporting requirements for communications companies pertaining to these issues. Administers any Commission information collection requirements pertaining to public safety, homeland security, national security, emergency management and preparedness, disaster management, and related issues.” 47 CFR 0.191(g). The delegation of this authority to the Bureau is also consistent with § 0.392 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.392, which gives the Bureau delegatedauthority to perform all functions of the Bureau described in § 0.191 of the Commission's rules. Further, the action we take in this Order is consistent with § 4.11 of the Commission's rules, which states that when outage reports cannot be submitted electronically using the Commission-approved Web-based system, written reports should be filed and all hand-delivered outage reports should be addressed to the Federal Communications Commission, The Office of Secretary, Attention: Chief, Public Safety Homeland Security Bureau. 47 CFR 4.11.

4. Authority for the adoption of the foregoing revisions is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 5(b), 5(c), 201(b) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155(b), 155(c), 201(b) and 303(r).

5. The adopted amendments pertain to agency organization, procedure and practice. Consequently, the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are inapplicable.

6. Accordingly, the Commission ordered that part 0 of the Commission Rules, set forth in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, be amended to delegate authority to the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to administer part 4 of the Commission's rules, which pertain to disruptions to communications.

In this Order, the Commission undertakes several steps to help ensure that consumers and competition benefit from local number portability (LNP) as intended by the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) and Commission precedent. First, the Commission extends LNP obligations and numbering administration support obligations to encompass interconnected VoIP services. Second, the Commission issues a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in response to the D.C. Circuit's stay of the Commission'sIntermodal Number Portability Order. The Commission finds that wireline carriers qualifying as small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) should be required to port to wireless carriers where the requesting wireless carrier's “coverage area” overlaps the geographic location in which the customer's wireline number is provisioned, provided that the porting-in carrier maintains the number's original rate center designation following the port.

The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order and Order on Remand in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,see5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

This document does not contain new or modified information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,see44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

1. On March 10, 2004, the Commission initiated a proceeding to examine issues relating to Internet Protocol (IP)-enabled services—services and applications making use of IP, including, but not limited to, VoIP services. In theIP-Enabled Services Notice(69 FR 16193, Mar. 29, 2004), the Commission sought comment on, among other things, whether to extend the obligation to provide LNP to any class of IP-enabled service provider. The Commission also sought comment on whether the Commission should take any action to facilitate the growth of IP-enabled services, while at the same time maximizing the use and life of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) numbering resources.

2. The Commission finds that the customers of interconnected VoIP services should receive the benefits of LNP. Such action is fundamentally important for the protection of consumers and is consistent with the authority granted to the Commission under section 251(e) and sections 1 and 2 of the Act. Moreover, as described below, by requiring interconnected VoIP providers and their numbering partners to ensure that users of interconnected VoIP services have the ability to port their telephone numbers when changing service providers to or from an interconnected VoIP provider, the Commission benefits not only customers but the interconnected VoIP providers themselves. (By “numbering partner,” the Commission means the carrier from which an interconnected VoIP provider obtains numbering resources.) Specifically, the ability of end users to retain their NANP telephone numbers when changing service providers gives customers flexibility in the quality, price, and variety of services they can choose to purchase. Allowing customers to respond to price and service changes without changing their telephone numbers will enhance competition, a fundamental goal of section 251 of the Act, while helping to fulfill the Act's goal of facilitating “a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service.” Additionally, the Commisison extends to interconnected VoIP providers the obligation to contribute to shared numbering administration costs. The Commission believes that the steps the Commission takes today to ensure regulatory parity among providers of similar services will minimize marketplace distortions arising from regulatory advantage.

3. Consistent with the Commission's previous decisions in theIP-Enabled Servicesproceeding, the Commission limits its decision to interconnected VoIP providers, in part because, unlike certain other IP-enabled services, the Commission continues to believe that interconnected VoIP service “is increasingly used to replace analog voice service,” including, in some cases, local exchange service. Indeed, as interconnected VoIP service improves and proliferates, consumers' expectations for these services trend toward their expectations for other telephone services. Thus, consumers reasonably expect interconnected VoIP services to include regulatory protections such as emergency 911 service and LNP.

4. These characteristics of interconnected VoIP service support a finding that it is appropriate to extend LNP obligations to include such services, in light of the statute and Commission precedent. Congress expressly directed the Commission to prescribe requirements that all local exchange carriers (LECs) must meet to satisfy their statutory LNP obligations. In doing so, the Commission has required service providers that have not been found to be LECs but that are expected to compete against LECs to comply with the LNP obligations set forth in section 251(b)(2). In extending LNP rules to such providers, the Commission concluded, among other things, that imposing such obligations would “promote competition between providers of local telephone services and thereby promote competition between providers of interstate access services.” Specifically, the Commission found that the availability of LNP would “eliminat[e] one major disincentive to switch carriers,” and thus would facilitate “the successful entrance of new service providers” covered by the LNP rules. Indeed, the Commission determined that LNP not only would facilitate competition between such new service providers and wireline telecommunications carriers, but also would facilitate competition among the new service providers themselves. The Commission anticipated that the enhanced competition resulting from LNP would “stimulate the development of new services and technologies, and create incentives for carriers to lower prices and costs.” The Commission further concluded that implementation of long-term LNP by these providers would help ensure “efficient use and uniform administration” of numbering resources. For these same policy reasons, the Commission extends the LNP obligations to interconnected VoIP providers.

5. To effectuate this policy, the Commission must address both the obligations of interconnected VoIP providers as well as the obligations of telecommunications carriers that serve interconnected VoIP providers as their numbering partners. Thus, the Commission takes this opportunity to reaffirm that only carriers, absent a Commission waiver, may access numbering resources directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) or the Pooling Administrator (PA). Section 52.15(g)(2) of the Commission's rules limits access to the NANP numbering resources to those applicants that are: (1) “authorized to provide service in the area for which the numbering resources are being requested”; and (2) “[are] or will be capable of providing service within sixty (60) days of the numbering resources activation date.” It is well established that the Commission's rules allow only carriers direct access to NANP numbering resources to ensure that the numbers are used efficiently and to avoid number exhaust. Thus, many interconnected VoIP providers may not obtain numbering resources directly from the NANPA because they will not have obtained a license or a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the relevant states. Interconnected VoIP providers that have not obtained a license or certificate of public convenience and necessity from the relevant states or otherwise are not eligible to receive numbers directly from the administrators may make numbers available to their customers through commercial arrangements with carriers (i.e., numbering partners). The Commission emphasizes that ensuring compliance with the Commission's numbering rules, including LNP requirements, in such cases remains the responsibility of the carrier that obtains the numbering resource from the numbering administrator as well as the responsibility of the interconnected VoIP provider. Additionally, with thisOrder, the Commission clarifies that LECs and CMRS providers have an obligation to port numbers to interconnected VoIP providers and their numbering partners subject to a valid port request.

6. In this Order, the Commission concludes that the Commission has ample authority to extend LNP obligations and numbering administration support obligations to interconnected VoIP providers. Specifically, the Commission concludes that it has authority to extend LNP obligations and numbering administration support obligations to interconnected VoIP providers and their numbering partners under the Commission's plenary numbering authority pursuant to section 251(e) of the Act. The Commission further finds authority in section 251(b)(2) of the Act for the obligations it extends to numbering partners that serve interconnected VoIP providers. Separately, the Commission analyzes the extension of the Commission's rules to interconnected VoIP providers under the Commission's Title I ancillary jurisdiction.

7.Plenary Numbering Authority.Consistent with Commission precedent, the Commission finds that the plenary numbering authority that Congress granted this Commission under section 251(e)(1) provides ample authority to extend the LNP requirements set out in this Order to interconnected VoIP providers and their numbering partners. Specifically, in section 251(e)(1) of the Act, Congress expressly assigned to the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over that portion of the NANP that pertains to the United States. The Commission retained its “authority to set policy with respect to all facets of numbering administration in the United States.” To the extent that an interconnected VoIP provider provides services that offer its customers NANP telephone numbers, both the interconnected VoIP provider and the telecommunications carrier that secures the numbering resource from the numbering administrator subject themselves to the Commission's plenary authority under section 251(e)(1) with respect to those numbers.

8.Section 251(b)(2) Authority over Telecommunications Carriers.The Commission finds that section 251(b)(2) provides an additional source of authority to impose LNP obligations on the LEC numbering partners of interconnected VoIP providers. Section 251(b)(2) states that all LECs have a “duty to provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Commission.” The Commission has long held that it has “authority to require that number portability be implemented ‘to the extent technically feasible’ and that the Commission's authority under section 251(b)(2) encompasses all forms of number portability.” The Commission's application of this authority is informed by the Act's focus on protecting consumers through number portability. Section 3 of the Act defines “number portability” as “the ability ofusersof telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications carrier to another.” (emphasis added) In this Order, the Commission prescribes requirements that expand number portability to include ports to and from interconnected VoIP providers, and therefore find that section 251(b)(2) grants the Commission authority to impose obligations on the interconnected VoIP providers' LEC numbering partners to effectuate those requirements. By holding the LEC numbering partner responsible for ensuring a porting request is honored to the extent technically feasible, the Commission thus abides by this statutory mandate. The Commission interprets section 251(b)(2) to include a number porting obligation even when the switching of “carriers” occurs at the wholesale rather than retail level. Given Congress's imposition of the number portability obligations on all such carriers and the broad terms of the obligation itself, the Commission believes that its interpretation is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. To find otherwise would permit carriers to avoid numbering obligations simply by creating an interconnected VoIP provider affiliate and assigning the number to such affiliate. Further, to ensure that consumers retain this benefit as technology evolves, the Commission continues to believe that Congress's intent is that number portability be a “dynamic concept” that accommodates such changes. The Commission previously has found that it has the authority to alter the scope of porting obligations due to technological changes in how numbers are ported. Similarly, the Act provides ample authority for the logical extension of porting obligations due to technological changes in how telephone service is provided to end-user customers. The Commission exercises its authority under the Act to ensure that consumers' interests in their existing telephone numbers are adequately protected whether the customer is using a telephone number obtained from a LEC directly or indirectly via an interconnected VoIP provider. In either case, the LEC or LEC numbering partner must comply with the Commission's LNP rules.

9.Ancillary Jurisdiction over Interconnected VoIP Services.The Commission further concludes that the Commission has a separate additional source of authority under Title I of the Act to impose LNP obligations and numbering administration support obligations on interconnected VoIP providers. 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.

10. First, as the Commission concluded in previous orders, interconnected VoIP services fall within the subject matter jurisdiction granted to the Commission in the Act. Section 1 of the Act, moreover, charges the Commission with responsibility for making available “a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service.” Thus, section 1, in conjunction with section 251, creates a significant federal interest in the efficient use of numbering resources. Second, the Commission finds that requiring interconnected VoIP providers to comply with LNP rules and cost recovery mechanisms is reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of the Commission's fundamental responsibilities. As noted above, section 251(b)(2) of the Act requires LECs to provide number portability in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Commission to the extent technically feasible. Further, section 251(e)(2) requires all carriers to bear the costs of numbering administration and number portability on a competitively neutral basis as defined by the Commission, and thereby seeks to prevent those costs from undermining competition. The Commission has interpreted section 251(e)(2) broadly to extend to all carriers that utilize NANP telephone numbers and benefit from number portability. In addition, as discussed above, section 1 of the Act charges the Commission with responsibility for making available “a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service.” Becauseinterconnected VoIP service operates through the use of NANP telephone numbers and benefits from NANP administration and because this service is “increasingly used to replace analog voice service”—a trend that the Commission expects to continue—it is important that the Commission take steps to ensure that interconnected VoIP service use of NANP numbers does not disrupt national policies adopted pursuant to section 251. As the Commission previously has stated, the Commission “believe[s] it is important that [the Commission] adopt uniform national rules regarding number portability implementation and deployment to ensure efficient and consistent use of number portability methods and numbering resources on a nationwide basis. Implementation of number portability, and its effect on numbering resources, will have an impact on interstate, as well as local, telecommunications services.” Additionally, the Commission has found that those providers that benefit from number resources should also bear the costs.

11. Extending LNP obligations to interconnected VoIP providers is “reasonably ancillary” to the performance of the Commission's obligations under section 251 and section 1 of the Act. If the Commission failed to do so, American consumers might not benefit from new technologies because they would be unable to transfer their NANP telephone numbers between service providers and thus would be less likely to want to use a new provider. As a result, the purposes and effectiveness of section 251, as well as section 1, would be greatly undermined. The ability of end users to retain their NANP telephone numbers when changing service providers gives customers flexibility in the quality, price, and variety of services they can choose to purchase. Allowing customers to respond to price and service changes without changing their telephone numbers will enhance competition, a fundamental goal of section 251 of the Act, while helping to fulfill the Act's goal of facilitating “a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service.”

12. Further, if the Commission failed to exercise its ancillary jurisdiction, interconnected VoIP providers would sustain a competitive advantage against telecommunications carriers through the use and porting of NANP telephone numbers without bearing their share of the costs of LNP and NANP administration, thus defeating the critical requirement under section 251(e) that carriers bear such costs on a competitively neutral basis. Additionally, the Commission extends the LNP obligations to interconnected VoIP providers because doing so will have a positive impact on the efficient use of the Commission's limited numbering resources. The Commission avoids number waste by preventing an interconnected VoIP provider from porting-in a number from a carrier (often through its numbering partner) and then later refusing to port-out at the customer's request by arguing that no such porting obligation exists. Failure to extend LNP obligations to interconnected VoIP providers and their numbering partners would thwart the effective and efficient administration of the Commission's numbering administration responsibilities under section 251 of the Act. Therefore, extending the LNP and numbering administration support obligations to interconnected VoIP providers is “reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of the Commission's * * * responsibilities” under sections 251 and 1 of the Act and “will ‘further the achievement of long-established regulatory goals” ’ to make available an efficient and competitive communication service.

13. The Commission believes that the language in section 251(e)(2), which phrases the obligation to contribute to the costs of numbering administration as applicable to “all telecommunications carriers,” reflects Congress's intent to ensure that no telecommunications carriers were omitted from the contribution obligation, and does not preclude the Commission from exercising its ancillary authority to require other providers of comparable services to make such contributions. Thus, the language does not circumscribe the class of carriers that may be required to support numbering administration. The legislative history of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) supports this view and indicates that Congress desired that such costs be borne by “all providers.” Because interconnected VoIP services are increasingly being used as a substitute for traditional telephone service, the Commission finds that its exercise of ancillary authority to require contributions from interconnected VoIP providers is consistent with this statutory language and Congressional intent. The statutory construction maxim of expressio unius est exclusio alterius—the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another—does not require a different result. This maxim is non-binding and “is often misused.” “The maxim's force in particular situations depends entirely on context, whether or not the draftsmen's mention of one thing, like a grant of authority, does really necessarily, or at least reasonably, imply the preclusion of alternatives.” Here, the Commission believes that the relevant language in section 251(e)(2) was designed to ensure that no telecommunications carriers were omitted from the contribution obligation, and not to preclude the Commission from exercising its ancillary authority to require others to make such contributions. Absent any affirmative evidence that Congress intended to limit the Commission's judicially recognized ancillary jurisdiction in this area, the Commission finds that the expressio unius maxim “is simply too thin a reed to support the conclusion that Congress has clearly resolved [the] issue.”

14. The Commission also notes that its actions here are consistent with other provisions of the Act. For example, the Commission is guided by section 706 of the 1996 Act, which, among other things, directs the Commission to encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans by using measures that “promote competition in the local telecommunications market.” The extension of the LNP obligations to interconnected VoIP providers may spur consumer demand for their service, in turn driving demand for broadband connections, and consequently encouraging more broadband investment and deployment consistent with the goals of section 706.

15. As the Commission discusses in detail above, imposing LNP and numbering administration support requirements on interconnected VoIP providers and their numbering partners is consistent with both the language of the Act and the Commission's policies implementing the LNP obligations. To ensure that consumers enjoy the full benefits of LNP and to maintain competitively neutral funding of numbering administration, the Commission imposes specific requirements to effectuate this policy.

16.Porting Obligations of an Interconnected VoIP Provider and its Numbering Partner.As discussed above, section 3 of the Act defines local “number portability” as “the ability ofusersof telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from onetelecommunications carrier to another.” The Commission finds that the “user” in this context is the end-user customer that subscribes to the interconnected VoIP service and not the interconnected VoIP provider. To find otherwise would contravene the LNP goals of “allowing customers to respond to price and service changes without changing their telephone numbers.” Thus, it is the end-user customer that retains the right to port-in the number to an interconnected VoIP service or to port-out the number from an interconnected VoIP service.

17. As discussed above, both an interconnected VoIP provider and its numbering partner must facilitate a customer's porting request to or from an interconnected VoIP provider. By “facilitate,” the Commission means that the interconnected VoIP provider has an affirmative legal obligation to take all steps necessary to initiate or allow a port-in or port-out itself or through its numbering partner on behalf of the interconnected VoIP customer (i.e., the “user”), subject to a valid port request, without unreasonable delay or unreasonable procedures that have the effect of delaying or denying porting of the number. The Commission recognizes that when an interconnected VoIP provider obtains NANP telephone numbers and LNP capability through a numbering partner, the interconnected VoIP provider does not itself execute the port of the number from a technical perspective. In such situations, the interconnected VoIP provider must take any steps necessary to facilitate its numbering partner's technical execution of the port.

18. The Commission also finds that interconnected VoIP providers and their numbering partners may not enter into agreements that would prohibit or unreasonably delay an interconnected VoIP service end user from porting between interconnected VoIP providers, or to or from a wireline carrier or a covered CMRS provider. Because LNP promotes competition and consumer choice, the Commission finds that any agreement by interconnected VoIP providers or their numbering partners that prohibits or unreasonably delays porting could undermine the benefits of LNP to consumers. Additionally, because the Commission determines that the carrier that obtains the number from the NANPA is also responsible for ensuring compliance with these obligations, such porting-related restrictions would contravene that carrier's section 251(b)(2) obligation. To the extent that carriers with direct access to numbers do not have an LNP obligation, that exemption from LNP only extends to the exempt service and not to that carrier's activities as a numbering partner for an interconnected VoIP provider. If an interconnected VoIP provider or its numbering partner attempts to thwart an end user's valid porting request, that provider or carrier will be subject to Commission enforcement action for a violation of the Act and the Commission's LNP rules. Further, no interconnected VoIP provider may contract with its customer to prevent or hinder the rights of that customer to port its number because doing so would violate the LNP obligations placed on interconnected VoIP providers in this Order. To the extent that interconnected VoIP providers have existing contractual provisions that have the effect of unreasonably delaying or denying porting, such provisions do not supersede or otherwise affect the porting obligations established in this Order.

19.Scope of Porting Obligations.The Commission's porting obligations vary depending on whether a service is provided by a wireline carrier or a covered CMRS provider. As described above, interconnected VoIP providers generally obtain NANP telephone numbers through commercial arrangements with one or more traditional telecommunications carriers. As a result, the porting obligations to or from an interconnected VoIP service stem from the status of the interconnected VoIP provider's numbering partner and the status of the provider to or from which the NANP telephone number is ported. For example, subject to a valid port request on behalf of the user, an interconnected VoIP provider that partners with a wireline carrier for numbering resources must, in conjunction with its numbering partner, port-out a NANP telephone number to: (1) A wireless carrier whose coverage area overlaps with the geographic location of the porting-out numbering partner's rate center; (2) a wireline carrier with facilities or numbering resources in the same rate center; or (3) another interconnected VoIP provider whose numbering partner meets the requirements of (1) or (2). Similarly, subject to a valid port request on behalf of the user, an interconnected VoIP provider that partners with a covered CMRS provider for numbering resources must, in conjunction with its numbering partner, port-out a NANP telephone number to: (1) Another wireless carrier; (2) a wireline carrier within the telephone number's originating rate center; or (3) another interconnected VoIP provider whose numbering partner meets the requirements of (1) or (2).

20. The Commission notes that because interconnected VoIP providers offer telephone numbers not necessarily based on the geographic location of their customers—many times at their customers' requests—there may be limits to number porting between providers. The Act only provides for service provider portability and does not address service or location portability.See First Number Portability Order,11 FCC Rcd at 8447, para. 181. Thus, for example, if an interconnected VoIP service customer selects a number outside his current rate center, or if the interconnected VoIP service customer selects a number within his geographic rate center and moves out of that rate center, and then requests porting to a wireline carrier in his new rate center, the customer would not be able to port the number.See47 CFR 52.26(a). The Commission expects interconnected VoIP providers to fully inform their customers about these limitations, particularly limitations that result from the portable nature of, and use of non-geographic numbers by, certain interconnected VoIP services.

21. The Commission also clarifies that carriers have an obligation under the Commission's rules to port-out NANP telephone numbers, upon valid request, for a user that is porting that number for use with an interconnected VoIP service. For example, subject to a valid port request on behalf of the user, a wireline carrier must port-out a NANP telephone number to: (1) An interconnected VoIP provider that partners with a wireless carrier for numbering resources, where the partnering wireless carrier's coverage area overlaps with the geographic location of the porting-out wireline carrier's rate center; or (2) an interconnected VoIP provider that partners with a wireline carrier for numbering resources, where the partnering wireline carrier has facilities or numbering resources in the same rate center as the porting-out wireline carrier. Similarly, subject to a valid port request on behalf of the user, a wireless carrier must port-out a NANP telephone number to: (1) An interconnected VoIP provider that partners with a wireless carrier; or (2) an interconnected VoIP provider that partners with a wireline carrier for numbering resources, where the partnering wireline carrier is within the number's originating rate center. The Commission clarifies that carriers must port-out NANP telephone numbers upon valid requests from an interconnected VoIP provider (or from its associated numbering partner). Tothe extent that an interconnected VoIP provider is certificated or licensed as a carrier, then the Title II LNP obligations to port-in or port-out to the carrier are already determined by existing law.See, e.g., 47 CFR 52.26(a).

22. The Commission declines to adopt new porting intervals that apply specifically to ports between interconnected VoIP providers and other providers through a numbering partner. The intervals that would be applicable to ports between the numbering partner and the other provider, if the port were not related to an interconnected VoIP service, will apply to the port of the NANP telephone number between the numbering partner and the other provider (or the other provider's numbering partner) when the end user with porting rights is a customer of the interconnected VoIP provider.

23. The Commission takes seriously its responsibilities to safeguard the Commission's scarce numbering resources and to implement LNP obligations for the benefit of consumers. Consumers, carriers, or interconnected VoIP providers may file complaints with the Commission if they experience unreasonable delay or denial of number porting to or from an interconnected VoIP provider in violation of the Commission's LNP rules. The Commission will not hesitate to enforce its LNP rules to ensure that consumers are free to choose among service providers, subject to its LNP rules, without fear of losing their telephone numbers.

24.Allocation of LNP Costs.Section 251(e)(2) provides that “[t]he cost of establishing telecommunications numbering administration arrangements and number portability shall be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as determined by the Commission.” Because interconnected VoIP providers benefit from LNP, the Commission finds that they should contribute to meet the shared LNP costs. Further, similar to the Commission's finding in itsCost Recovery Reconsideration Order,the Commission also believes that interconnected VoIP providers may find it costly and administratively burdensome to develop region-specific attribution systems for all of their end-user services, and thus the Commission allows these providers to use a proxy based on the percentage of subscribers a provider serves in a particular region for reaching an estimate for allocating their end-user revenues to the appropriate regional LNPA. Providers that submit an attestation certifying that they are unable to divide their traffic and resulting end-user revenue among the seven LNPA regions precisely will be allowed to divide their end-user revenue among these regions based on the percentage of subscribers served in each region. Providers may use their billing databases to identify subscriber location.

25. Although interconnected VoIP providers do not have any specific numbering administration requirements (e.g., pooling requirements), they do require the use of NANP numbering resources to provide an interconnected VoIP service, and thereby benefit from and impose costs related to numbering administration. Thus, the Commission requires interconnected VoIP providers to contribute to meet the shared numbering administration costs on a competitively neutral basis.

26. The LNP obligations adopted in this Order for interconnected VoIP providers and their numbering partners become effective 30 days afterFederal Registerpublication. The reporting requirements for determining interconnected VoIP providers' contribution to the shared costs of numbering administration and LNP require interconnected VoIP providers to file an annual FCC Form 499-A. To ensure that interconnected VoIP providers' contributions for numbering administration and LNP are allocated properly, interconnected VoIP providers should include in their annual FCC Form 499-A filing historical revenue information for the relevant year, including all information necessary to allocate revenues across the seven LNPA regions (e.g., January 2007 through December 2007 revenue information for the April 2008 filing). The Commission will revise FCC Form 499-A at a later date, consistent with the rules and policies outlined in this Order. Interconnected VoIP providers, however, should familiarize themselves with the FCC Form 499-A and the accompanying instructions in preparation for this filing. Based on these filings, the appropriate administrators will calculate the funding base and individual contributions for each support mechanism, and provide an invoice to each interconnected VoIP provider for its contribution to the shared costs of the respective support mechanism. The Commission finds that USAC should be prepared to collect this information with the next annual filing, and that the LNPA and the NANP billing and collection agent should be prepared to include interconnected VoIP provider revenues in their calculations for the 2008 funding year based on the next annual FCC Form 499-A filings.

27. In its 2003Intermodal Number Portability Order(68 FR 68831, Dec. 10, 2003), the Commission clarified that porting from a wireline carrier to a wireless carrier is required where the requesting wireless carrier's coverage area overlaps the geographic location in which the wireline number is provisioned, provided that the porting-in carrier maintains the number's original rate center designation following the port. On March 11, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded theIntermodal Number Portability Orderto the Commission. The court determined that theIntermodal Number Portability Orderresulted in a legislative rule, and that the Commission had failed to prepare a FRFA regarding the impact of that rule on small entities, as required by the RFA. The court accordingly directed the Commission to prepare the required FRFA, and stayed future enforcement of theIntermodal Number Portability Order“as applied to carriers that qualify as small entities under the RFA” until the agency prepared and published that analysis. On April 22, 2005, the Commission issued a Public Notice seeking comment on an IRFA of theIntermodal Number Portability Order(70 FR 41655, July 20, 2005).

28. In accordance with the requirements of the RFA, the Commission has considered the potential economic impact of the intermodal porting rules on small entities and concludes that wireline carriers qualifying as small entities under the RFA will be required to provide wireline-to-wireless intermodal porting where the requesting wireless carrier's “coverage area” overlaps the geographic location in which the customer's wireline number is provisioned, provided that the porting-in carrier maintains the number's original rate center designation following the port. The Commission has prepared a FRFA as directed by the court, which is the second of two FRFAs set forth below.

1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the IP-Enabled Services Noticein WC Docket No. 04-36 (69 FR 16193, Mar. 29, 2004). The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the notice, including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received comments specifically directed toward the IRFA from three commenters in WC Docket No. 04-36. These comments are discussed below. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

2. This Report and Order extends LNP obligations to interconnected voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers to ensure that customers of such VoIP providers may port their North American Numbering Plan (NANP) telephone numbers when changing providers. Consumers will now be able to take advantage of new telephone services without losing their telephone numbers, which should in turn facilitate greater competition among telephony providers by allowing customers to respond to price and service changes. Additionally, this Report and Order extends to interconnected VoIP providers the obligation to contribute to shared numbering administration and number portability costs. The Commission believes these steps it takes to ensure regulatory parity among providers of similar services will minimize marketplace distortions arising from regulatory advantage.

3. In this section, the Commission responds to comments filed in response to the IRFA. To the extent the Commission received comments raising general small business concerns during this proceeding, those comments are discussed throughout the Report and Order.

4. The Small Business Administration (SBA) comments that the Commission's Notice does not contain concrete proposals and is more akin to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking or a notice of inquiry. The Commission disagrees with the SBA and Menard that the Commission should postpone acting in this proceeding—thereby postponing extending the application of the LNP and numbering administration support obligations to interconnected VoIP services—and instead should reevaluate the economic impact and the compliance burdens on small entities and issue a further notice of proposed rulemaking in conjunction with a supplemental IRFA identifying and analyzing the economic impacts on small entities and less burdensome alternatives. The Commission believes these additional steps suggested by SBA and Menard are unnecessary because small entities already have received sufficient notice of the issues addressed in today's Report and Order, and because the Commission has considered the economic impact on small entities and what ways are feasible to minimize the burdens imposed on those entities, and, to the extent feasible, has implemented those less burdensome alternatives. TheIP-Enabled Services Noticespecifically sought comment on whether numbering obligations are appropriate in the context of IP-enabled services and whether action relating to numbering resources is desirable to facilitate the growth of IP-enabled services, while at the same time continuing to maximize the use and life of numbering resources in the North American Numbering Plan. The Commission published a summary of that notice in theFederal Register.See Regulatory Requirements for IP-Enabled Services,WC Docket No. 04-36, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 69 FR 16193 (Mar. 29, 2004). The Commission notes that a number of small entities submitted comments in this proceeding.

5. 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 SBA.

6.Small Businesses.Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses according to SBA data.

7.Small Organizations.Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 million small organizations.

8.Small Governmental Jurisdictions.The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. The Commission estimates that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, the Commission estimates that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

9. 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 the Commission emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

10.Incumbent LECs.Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent LECs. 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, 1,303 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 283 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 the Commission's action.

11.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 have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services orcompetitive LEC 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.

12.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 the Commission's action.

13.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 the Commission's action.

14.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 the Commission's action.

15.Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of interexchange services. 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, 330 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of interexchange service. Of these, 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 IXCs are small entities that may be affected by the Commission's action.

16.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 the Commission's action.

17.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, 102 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that all or the majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may be affected by the Commission's action.

18. 800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers.These toll-free services fall within the broad economic census category of Telecommunications Resellers. This category “comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,646 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,642 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and four firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered small. Additionally, it may be helpful to know the total numbers of telephone numbers assigned in these services. Commission data show that, as of June 2006, the total number of 800 numbers assigned was 7,647,941, the total number of 888 numbers assigned was 5,318,667, the total number of 877 numbers assigned was 4,431,162, and the total number of 866 numbers assigned was 6,008,976.

19. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of international service. The appropriate size standards under SBA rules are for the two broad census categories of “Satellite Telecommunications” and “Other Telecommunications.” Under both categories, such a business is small if it has $13.5 million or less in average annual receipts.

20. 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 the Commission's action.

21. The second category of Other Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in (1) providing specialized telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking, communicationstelemetry, and radar station operations; or (2) providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or receiving telecommunications from satellite systems.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 332 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 259 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by the Commission's action.

22. 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.

23. Wireless Service Providers.The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic census categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” Under both SBA categories, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the census category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small.

24.Cellular Licensees.The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census category “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 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 category and size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. Also, according to Commission data, 437 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 has estimated that 260 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard.

25.Paging.The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the broad economic census category of “Paging.” Under this category, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 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. In addition, according to Commission data, 365 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of “Paging and Messaging Service.” Of this total, the Commission estimates that 360 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and five have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, in this category the majority of firms can be considered small.

26. The Commission also notes that, in thePaging Second Report and Order(62 FR 11616, Mar. 12, 1997), the Commission adopted a size standard for “small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. In this context, 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. The SBA has approved this definition. An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area (MEA) licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won 440 licenses. An auction of MEA and Economic Area (EA) licenses commenced on October 30, 2001, and closed on December 5, 2001. Of the 15,514 licenses auctioned, 5,323 were sold. One hundred thirty-two companies claiming small business status purchased 3,724 licenses. A third auction, consisting of 8,874 licenses in each of 175 EAs and 1,328 licenses in all but three of the 51 MEAs commenced on May 13, 2003, and closed on May 28, 2003. Seventy-seven bidders claiming small or very small business status won 2,093 licenses. The Commission also notes that, currently, there are approximately 74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses.

27.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 or less for each of the three preceding years, and a “very small business” is an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million or less 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, there were seven winning bidders that qualified as “very small business” entities, and one that qualified as a “small business” entity.

28.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.

29.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.

30.Narrowband Personal Communications Services.The Commission held an auction for Narrowband PCS licenses that commenced on July 25, 1994, and closed on July 29, 1994. A second auction commenced on October 26, 1994 and closed on November 8, 1994. For purposes of the first two Narrowband PCS auctions, “small businesses” were entities with average gross revenues for the prior three calendar years of $40 million or less. Through these auctions, the Commission awarded a total of 41 licenses, 11 of which were obtained by four small businesses. To ensure meaningful participation by small business entities in future auctions, the Commission adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in theNarrowband PCS Second Report and Order(65 FR 35875, Jun. 6, 2000). 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. A third auction commenced on October 3, 2001 and closed on October 16, 2001. Here, five bidders won 317 (Metropolitan Trading Areas and nationwide) licenses. Three of these claimed status as a small or very small entity and won 311 licenses.

31.220 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. This category provides that a small business is a wireless company employing no more than 1,500 persons. For the census category Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 977 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 12 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. Assuming this general ratio continues in the context of Phase I 220 MHz licensees, the Commission estimates that nearly all such licensees are small businesses under the SBA's small business size standard. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of cellular and other wireless telecommunications carriers increased approximately 321 percent from 1997 to 2002.

32.220 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 the220 MHz Third Report and Order(62 FR 16004, Apr. 3, 1997), 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.

33.800 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.

34.700 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 controllingprincipals, 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.

35.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.

36.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.

37.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 the Commission's 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, had 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, had 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.

38.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.

39.39 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 the rules and polices adopted herein.

40.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.

41. 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 smallbusiness 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.

42. 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.

43. 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.

44.Local Multipoint Distribution Service.Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) is a fixed broadband point-to-multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way video telecommunications. The auction of the 1,030 LMDS licenses began on February 18, 1998 and closed on March 25, 1998. The Commission established a small business size standard for LMDS licensees as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. An additional small business size standard for “very small business” was added as an entity that, together with its 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 in the context of LMDS auctions. There were 93 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the LMDS auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 277 A Block licenses and 387 B Block licenses. On March 27, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 161 licenses; there were 40 winning bidders. Based on this information, the Commission concludes that the number of small LMDS licenses consists of 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.

45.218-219 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 the218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order(64 FR 59656, Nov. 3, 2999), 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. The Commission cannot estimate, however, the number of licenses that will be won by entities qualifying as small or very small businesses under the Commission's rules in future auctions of 218-219 MHz spectrum.

46.24 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. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 977 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this size standard, the great majority of firms can be considered small. These broader census data notwithstanding, 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.

47.24 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.

48.Cable Television Distribution Services.Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for these cable services the Commission must, however, use current census data that are based on the previous category of Cable and Other Program Distribution and its associated size standard; that size standard was: 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 previous 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, the majority of these 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 the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore the Commission is unable to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this size standard.

51.Open Video Systems (OVS).In 1996, Congress established the open video system (OVS) framework, one of four statutorily recognized options for the provision of video programming services by local exchange carriers (LECs). The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA small business size standard of Cable and Other Program Distribution Services, which consists of such entities having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified 25 OVS operators, with some now providing service. Broadband service providers (BSPs) are currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises. As of June, 2005, BSPs served approximately 1.4 million subscribers, representing 1.5 percent of all MVPD households. Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN), which serves about 371,000 subscribers as of June, 2005, is currently the largest BSP and 14th largest MVPD. RCN received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, DC and other areas. The Commission does not have financial information regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. The Commission thus believes that at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities.

52.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 the Commission's action.

53.Web Search Portals.The Commission's action pertains to 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 the Commission's action.

54.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 the Commission's action.

55.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 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 the Commission's action.

56.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 thecontent 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 the Commission's action.

57.Software Publishers.These companies may design, develop or publish software and may provide other support services to software purchasers, such as providing documentation or assisting in installation. The companies may also design software to meet the needs of specific users. The SBA has developed a small business size standard of $23 million or less in average annual receipts for all of the following pertinent categories: Software Publishers, Custom Computer Programming Services, and Other Computer Related Services. For Software Publishers, Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 6,155 firms in the category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 7,633 had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 403 firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24, 999,999. For providers of Custom Computer Programming Services, the Census Bureau data indicate that there were 32,269 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these, 31,416 had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 565 firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999. For providers of Other Computer Related Services, the Census Bureau data indicate that there were 6,357 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these, 6,187 had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 101 firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of the firms in each of these three categories are small entities that may be affected by the Commission's action.

58. SBA small business size standards are given in terms of “firms.” Census Bureau data concerning computer manufacturers, on the other hand, are given in terms of “establishments.” The Commission notes that the number of “establishments” is a less helpful indicator of small business prevalence in this context than would be the number of “firms” or “companies,” because the latter take into account the concept of common ownership or control. Any single physical location for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be owned by a different establishment. Thus, the census numbers provided below may reflect inflated numbers of businesses in the given category, including the numbers of small businesses.

59.Electronic Computer Manufacturing.This category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing and/or assembling electronic computers, such as mainframes, personal computers, workstations, laptops, and computer servers.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 1,000 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 485 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002. Of these, 476 had employment of under 1,000, and an additional four establishments had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these establishments are small entities.

60.Computer Storage Device Manufacturing.These establishments manufacture “computer storage devices that allow the storage and retrieval of data from a phase change, magnetic, optical, or magnetic/optical media.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 1,000 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 170 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002. Of these, 164 had employment of under 500, and five establishments had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these establishments are small entities

61.Computer Terminal Manufacturing.“Computer terminals are input/output devices that connect with a central computer for processing.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 1,000 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 71 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002, and all of the establishments had employment of under 1,000. Consequently, the Commission estimates that all of these establishments are small entities.

62.Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing.Examples of peripheral equipment in this category include keyboards, mouse devices, monitors, and scanners. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 1,000 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 860 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002. Of these, 851 had employment of under 1,000, and an additional five establishments had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these establishments are small entities.

63.Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing.These establishments manufacture “electronic audio and video equipment for home entertainment, motor vehicle, public address and musical instrument amplifications.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 571 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002. Of these, 560 had employment of under 500, and ten establishments had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these establishments are small entities.

64.Electron Tube Manufacturing.These establishments are “primarily engaged in manufacturing electron tubes and parts (except glass blanks).” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 102 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002. Of these, 97 had employment of under 500, and one establishment had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these establishments are small entities.

65.Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing.These establishments are “primarily engaged in manufacturing bare (i.e., rigid or flexible) printed circuit boards without mounted electronic components.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 936 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002. Of these, 922 had employment of under 500, and 12 establishments had employment of 500 to 999.Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these establishments are small entities.

66.Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing.Examples of manufactured devices in this category include “integrated circuits, memory chips, microprocessors, diodes, transistors, solar cells and other optoelectronic devices.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 1,032 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002. Of these, 950 had employment of under 500, and 42 establishments had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these establishments are small entities.

67.Electronic Capacitor Manufacturing.These establishments manufacture “electronic fixed and variable capacitors and condensers.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 104 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002. Of these, 101 had employment of under 500, and two establishments had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these establishments are small entities.

68.Electronic Resistor Manufacturing.These establishments manufacture “electronic resistors, such as fixed and variable resistors, resistor networks, thermistors, and varistors.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 79 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002. All of these establishments had employment of under 500. Consequently, the Commission estimates that all of these establishments are small entities.

69.Electronic Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor Manufacturing.These establishments manufacture “electronic inductors, such as coils and transformers.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 365 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002. All of these establishments had employment of under 500. Consequently, the Commission estimates that all of these establishments are small entities.

70.Electronic Connector Manufacturing.These establishments manufacture “electronic connectors, such as coaxial, cylindrical, rack and panel, pin and sleeve, printed circuit and fiber optic.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 321 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002. Of these, 315 had employment of under 500, and three establishments had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these establishments are small entities.

71.Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing.These are establishments “primarily engaged in loading components onto printed circuit boards or who manufacture and ship loaded printed circuit boards.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 868 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002. Of these, 839 had employment of under 500, and 18 establishments had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these establishments are small entities.

72.Other Electronic Component Manufacturing.The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 1,627 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002. Of these, 1,616 had employment of under 500, and eight establishments had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these establishments are small entities.

73.Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing.These establishments manufacture “insulated fiber-optic cable from purchased fiber-optic strand.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 1,000 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 96 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002. Of these, 95 had employment of under 1,000, and one establishment had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority or all of these establishments are small entities.

74.Other Communication and Energy Wire Manufacturing.These establishments manufacture “insulated wire and cable of nonferrous metals from purchased wire.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 1,000 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data, there were 356 establishments in this category that operated with payroll during 2002. Of these, 353 had employment of under 1,000, and three establishments had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority or all of these establishments are small entities.

75. In this Report and Order, the Commission is requiring telecommunications carriers and providers of interconnected VoIP service to collect certain information and take other actions to comply with LNP and other numbering administration obligations. Specifically, the Commission is requiring both traditional telecommunications carriers as well as interconnected VoIP providers and their numbering partners to facilitate a customer's porting request to or from an interconnected VoIP provider. This means, for example, that interconnected VoIP providers have an affirmative legal obligation to take all steps necessary to initiate or allow a port-in or port-out itself or through its numbering partner on behalf of the interconnected VoIP customer, subject to a valid port request, without unreasonable delay or unreasonable procedures that have the effect of delaying or denying porting of the number. The Commission also prohibits interconnected VoIP providers and their numbering partners from entering into agreements that would prohibit or unreasonably delay an interconnected VoIP service end user from porting between interconnected VoIP providers, or to or from a wireline carrier or a covered CMRS provider. Further, the Commission expects interconnected VoIP providers to fully inform their customers about limitations on porting between providers, particularly limitations that result from the portable nature of, and use of non-geographic numbers by, certain interconnected VoIP services.

76. The Commission is also requiring interconnected VoIP providers to contribute to meet shared numbering administration and LNP costs. The reporting requirements for determining interconnected VoIP providers' contribution to the shared cost of numbering administration and LNP require interconnected VoIP providers to file an annual FCC Form 499-A. The Commission requires interconnected VoIP providers to include in their annual FCC Form 499-A filing historical revenue information for the relevant year, including all information necessary to allocate revenues across the seven LNPA regions. To alleviate the burdens of attributing costs among the seven LNPA regions, the Commission allows these providers to use a proxy based on the percentage of subscribers a provider serves in a particular region for reaching an estimate for allocating their end-user revenues to the appropriate regional LNPA.

77. 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.

78.The IP-Enabled Services Noticesought comment on whether numbering obligations should be extended to IP-enabled services, and invited comment on the effect various proposals would have on small entities, as well as the effect alternative rules would have on these entities. However, the Commission must assess the interests of small businesses in light of the overriding public interest in ensuring that all consumers benefit from local number portability. In the Report and Order, the Commission found that allowing customers of interconnected VoIP services to receive the benefits of LNP is fundamentally important for the protection of consumers and benefits not only customers, but the interconnected VoIP providers themselves. Specifically, the Commission found that the ability of end users to retain their NANP telephone numbers when changing service providers gives customers flexibility in the quality, price, and variety of services they can choose to purchase. Allowing customers to respond to price and service changes without changing their telephone numbers will enhance competition, a fundamental goal of section 251 of the Act. In addition, the Commission found that failure to extend LNP obligations to interconnected VoIP providers and their numbering partners would thwart the effective and efficient administration of the Commission's number administration responsibilities under section 251 of the Act.

79. The Commission concluded that because interconnected VoIP providers, including small businesses, benefit from LNP, all interconnected VoIP providers, including small businesses, should contribute to meet shared LNP costs. However, to alleviate costs involved in the attribution systems for all of their end-user services, when filing FCC Form 499-A, the Commission allowed interconnected VoIP providers, including small businesses, to use a proxy based on the percentage of subscribers a provider serves in a particular region for allocating their end-user revenues to the appropriate regional LNPA.

80. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in theFederal Register.

1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was published for theIntermodal Number Portability Order(70 FR 41655, July 20, 2005). The Commission sought written public comment on the IRFA. The Commission received comments specifically directed toward the IRFA, which are discussed below. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

2. Section 251(b) of the Communications Act requires local exchange carriers to provide number portability, to the extent technically feasible, in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Commission. In theIntermodal Number Portability Order(68 FR 68831, Dec. 10, 2003), the Commission found that porting from a wireline carrier to a wireless carrier is required where the requesting wireless carrier's coverage area overlaps the geographic location in which the customer's wireline number is provisioned, provided that the porting-in carrier maintains the number's original rate center designation following the port. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia remanded theIntermodal Number Portability Orderto the Commission to prepare the required FRFA on the impact of the order on carriers that qualify as small entities under the RFA. After considering information received from commenters in response to the IRFA, the Commission concludes that wireline carriers qualifying as small entities under the RFA will be required to provide wireline-to-wireless intermodal porting where the requesting wireless carrier's coverage area overlaps the geographic location in which the customer's wireline number is provisioned, provided that the porting-in carrier maintains the number's original rate center designation following the port.

3. In this section, the Commission responds to comments filed in response to the IRFA. To the extent the Commission received comments raising general small business concerns during this proceeding, those comments are discussed throughout theIntermodal Number Portability Order.

4. As an initial matter, the Commission rejects arguments that carriers that qualify as “small entities” should not have to comply with the intermodal porting requirements until the Commission addresses issues pertaining to rating and routing that are pending in the intercarrier compensation proceeding. The issues that have been raised in this proceeding with respect to transporting calls to ported numbers are also before the Commission in the context of all numbers (without distinguishing between ported or non-ported numbers) in the intercarrier compensation proceeding. Further, as the Commission found in theIntermodal Number Portability Order, the issue of transport costs associated with calls to ported numbers is outside the scope of this proceeding and not relevant to the application of the LNP obligations under the Act.

5. The Commission also rejects recommendations that the Commissioncreate a partial or blanket exemption for small carriers from the wireline-to-wireless intermodal porting requirements based on the high costs of implementation. The Commission finds that small carriers have not demonstrated such significant costs associated with implementation of LNP to warrant an exemption. Several small carriers claim that they may face a variety of costs associated with wireline-to-wireless intermodal porting, which would be excessive in light of their small customer bases. However, other commenters point out that the cost information these carriers present shows a large range of cost estimates, and in fact, even when the estimates are taken at face value, they indicate that the cost of wireline-to-wireless intermodal LNP does not impose a significant economic burden on small entities. In addition, the Commission is not persuaded based on this record that the costs of implementing LNP are as large as the commenters suggest, given the scant support they provide for their estimates and their failure to demonstrate that all the estimated costs are of the sort that the Commission would allow to be attributed to the LNP end-user charge. For example, some commenters cite their estimated costs associated with transporting calls to ported numbers. However, as discussed above, the Commission previously declined to consider these as LNP-related costs, rather than costs of interconnection more generally, and the commenters here do not demonstrate that the Commission should reverse that conclusion.

6. Further, in response to small carrier concerns about LNP implementation costs, the Commission notes that wireline carriers generally only are required to provide LNP upon receipt of a specific request for the provision of LNP by another carrier. Thus, many of the small carriers may not be required to implement LNP immediately because there is no request to do so. Indeed, as the Commission found in theFirst Number Portability Order on Reconsideration(62 FR 18280, Apr. 15, 1997), these rights effectively constitute steps that minimize the economic impact of LNP on small entities. Further, carriers have the ability to petition the Commission for a waiver of their obligation to port numbers to wireless carriers if they can provide substantial, credible evidence that there are special circumstances that warrant a departure from existing rules. In addition, under section 251(f)(2), a LEC with fewer than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide may petition the appropriate state commission for suspension or modification of the requirements of section 251(b). The Commission finds these existing safeguards further address commenters' concerns regarding the costs on small entities to implement LNP.

7. 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. 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 section 3 of the Small Business Act. 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) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

8.Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireline firms within the broad economic census category, “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.” Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 2,432 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,395 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 37 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.

9.Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. The Commission has included small incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) in this RFA analysis. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 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 the Commission emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on the Commission's analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent 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 entities.

10.Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, 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 have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive LEC 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.

11. There are no significant reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements imposed on small entities by theIntermodal Number Portability Order.

12. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

13. The Commission invited comment on the intermodal porting rules with respect to their application to small entities in light of the RFA requirements. In accordance with the requirements of the RFA, the Commission has considered the potential economic impact of the intermodal porting rules on small entities and conclude that wireline carriers qualifying as small entities under the RFA will be required to provide wireline-to-wireless intermodal porting where the requesting wireless carrier's coverage area overlaps the geographic location in which the customer's wireline number is provisioned, provided that the porting-in carrier maintains the number's original rate center designation following the port. The Commission finds that this approach best balances the impact of the costs that may be associated with the wireline-to-wireless intermodal porting rules for small carriers and the public interest benefits of those requirements.

14. Specifically, in theIntermodal Number Portability Order, the Commission considered limiting the scope of intermodal porting based on the small carrier concern that requiring porting to a wireless carrier that does not have a physical point of interconnection or numbering resources in the rate center associated with the ported number would give wireless carriers an unfair competitive advantage. The Commission found, however, that these considerations did not justify denying wireline consumers the benefit of being able to port their numbers to wireless carriers. In addition, the order noted that each type of service offers its own advantages and disadvantage and that consumers would consider these attributes in determining whether or not to port their numbers. The order also considered the concern expressed by small carriers that requiring porting beyond wireline rate center boundaries would lead to increased transport costs. The Commission concluded that such concerns were outside the scope of the number portability proceeding and noted that the rating and routing issues raised by the rural wireline carriers were also implicated in the context of non-ported numbers and were before the Commission in other proceedings.

15. Further, if there is a particular case where a carrier faces extraordinary costs, other regulatory avenues for relief are available. Specifically, a carrier may petition the Commission for additional time or waiver of the intermodal porting requirements if it can provide substantial, credible evidence that there are special circumstances that warrant departure from existing rules. In addition, under section 251(f)(2), a LEC with fewer than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide may petition the appropriate state commission for suspension or modification of the requirements of section 251(b). Although some commenters have complained about the time and expense associated with the section 251(f)(2) mechanism, several others have indicated that the 251(f)(2) mechanism has been an effective method of addressing the potential burdens on small carriers. Further, in response to small carriers' concerns about LNP implementation costs, the Commission notes that wireline carriers generally only are required to provide LNP upon receipt of a specific request for the provision of LNP by another carrier. Thus, many of the small carriers may not be required to implement LNP immediately because there is no request to do so. Indeed, as the Commission found in theFirst Number Portability Order on Reconsideration, these rights effectively constitute steps that minimize the economic impact of LNP on small entities. The Commission finds these existing safeguards further address commenters' concerns regarding the costs on small entities to implement LNP.

16. While the Commission recognizes that wireline carriers will still incur implementation and recurrent costs, the Commission concludes that the benefits to the public of requiring wireline-to-wireless intermodal LNP outweigh the economic burden imposed on these carriers. Creating a partial or blanket exemption from the wireline-to-wireless intermodal porting requirements for small entities would harm consumers in small and rural areas across the country by preventing them from being able to port on a permanent basis. It might also discourage further growth of competition between wireless and wireline carriers in smaller markets across the country. The Commission continues to believe that the intermodal LNP requirements are important for promoting competition between the wireless and wireline industries and generating innovative service offerings and lower prices for consumers. Wireless number porting activity since the advent of porting has been significant and evidence shows that the implementation of LNP has, in fact, yielded important benefits for consumers, such as improved customer retention efforts by carriers. By reinstating, immediately, the wireline-to-wireless intermodal porting requirement, this approach ensures that more consumers in small and rural communities will be able to port and experience the competitive benefits of LNP.

17. The Commission will send a copy of this FRFA in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. A copy of the FRFA (or a summary thereof) will also be published in theFederal Register.

This document does not contain new or modified information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,see44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order on Remand 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).

29. Accordingly,it is orderedthat pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j), 251, 303(r), the Report and Order in WC Docket No. 04-36 and CC Docket Nos. 95-116 and 99-200is adopted, and that Part 52 of theCommission's Rules, 47 CFR parts 52, is amended as set forth in Appendix B. The Report and Order shall become effective 30 days after publication in theFederal Register.

30.It is further orderedthat pursuant to section 1, 4(i), 4(j), 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j), 251, 303(r), the Order on Remand in CC Docket No. 95-116 is adopted. The Order on Remand shall become effective 30 days after publication in theFederal Register.

31.It is further orderedthat the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, Order on Remand, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the two Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission'sReport and Order and Order on Reconsiderationin MB Docket Nos. 06-121; 02-277; 01-235; 01-317; 00-244; 04-228; 99-360, FCC 07-216, adopted December 18, 2007, and released February 4, 2008. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs). The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording and Braille), send an e-mail tofcc504@fcc.govor call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice)(202) 418-0432 (TTY).

1. ThisOrderwas adopted to address the issues raised by the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit inPrometheus Radio Projectv.FCC,and pursuant to Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“1996 Act”), which requires the Commission to review its ownership rules (except the national television ownership limit) every four years and “determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.”

2. TheReport and Ordereliminates the 32-year old prohibition on newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership. TheReport and Orderrevises the Commission's rules to presumptively permit cross ownership only in the largest markets and only where there exists competition and numerous voices. Under the new approach, the Commission presumes a proposed newspaper-broadcast transaction is not inconsistent with the public interest if it meets the following test: (1) The market at issue is one of the 20 largest Nielsen Designated Market Areas (“DMAs”); (2) the transaction involves the combination of only one major daily newspaper and only one television or radio station; (3) if the transaction involves a television station, at least eight independently owned and operating major media voices (defined to include major newspapers and full-power TV stations) would remain in the DMA following the transaction; and (4) if the transaction involves a television station, that station is not among the top four ranked stations in the DMA.

3. All other proposed newspaper-broadcast transactions generally would continue to be presumed not to be in the public interest. TheReport and Orderidentifies two limited circumstances in which this negative presumption would be reversed:

• First, the negative presumption will be reversed if the newspaper-broadcast combination involves a “failing” or “failed” newspaper or station. TheReport and Orderadapts the Commission's longstanding approach concerning failed or failing station waivers of the local television ownership limit to newspaper-broadcast combinations, using the same criteria to define whether an outlet is “failing” or has “failed” in the newspaper-broadcast context. To be deemed “failed,” the newspaper or broadcast station would have to have ceased publication or gone dark at least four months before the filing of an application, or be in bankruptcy proceedings. To be treated as “failing,” the applicant must show that (a) the broadcast station has had an all-day audience share of 4 percent or lower, (b) the newspaper or broadcast station has had a negative cash flow for the previous three years, and (c) the combination will produce public interest benefits. In addition, the applicant must show that the in-market buyer is the only reasonably available candidate willing and able to acquire and operate the newspaper or station.

• Second, the negative presumption against a newspaper-broadcast combination will be reversed when a proposed transaction results in a new source of local news in a market—to be specific, when a combination would initiate at least seven hours of new local news programming per week on a broadcast station that previously has not aired local newscasts.

4. Under the new rule, parties seeking to overcome a negative presumption will face high hurdles. In particular, applicants attempting to overcome a negative presumption about a major newspaper-television combination will need to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that post-merger, the merged entity will increase the diversity of independent news outlets (e.g., separate editorial and news coverage decisions) and increase competition among independent news sources in the relevant market. The Commission will use the following factors to inform its evaluation: (1) Whether the combined entity will significantly increase the amount of local news in the market; (2) whether the newspaper and the broadcast outlets each will continue to employ its own staff and each will exercise its own independent news judgment; (3) the level of concentration in the DMA; and (4) the financial condition of the newspaper or broadcast station, and if the newspaper or broadcast station is in financial distress, the proposed owner's commitment to invest significantly in newsroom operations.

5. This approach will permit the Commission to balance the needs of the public for media and viewpoint diversity with its concerns about the financial health and viability of traditional media outlets and to do so in the context of each particular transaction.

6. In reaching these decisions, the item reaffirms the Commission's previous decision to eliminate the blanket ban on newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership and replace it with a presumption that waivers of the ban are in the public interest in certain limited circumstances. TheReport and Orderobserves that thePrometheuscourt agreed that the ban is not necessary to promote competition, diversity, or localism. It concludes that the record contains ample evidence that marketplace conditions have indeed changed since 1975, when the ban was established, and thus justifies a recalibration at this time. In particular, it cites evidence that the largest markets contain a robust number of diverse media sources and the diversity of viewpoints would not be jeopardized by certain newspaper-broadcast combinations, and that newspaper-broadcast combinations can create synergies that result in more newscoverage for consumers. Because the modified rule generally presumes that waivers are in the public interest only for combinations of a single broadcast outlet and a daily newspaper in the largest markets, the item reasons that the modified rule will ensure that such synergies can be captured without impairing diversity.

7. The item explains that newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership in the 20 largest DMAs in the country generally raises fewer diversity concerns because such media markets are more vibrant and have more media outlets. The Commission found notable differences between the top 20 markets and all other DMAs, both in terms of voices and in terms of television households.

8. The item defines major media voices as full-power commercial and noncommercial television stations and major newspapers. It acknowledges that other types of outlets contribute to diversity, but concludes that other voices are not major sources of local news or information and, therefore, should not be included as major media voices in determining whether eight independently owned voices will remain if a combination is allowed. It explains that the Commission selected the number eight for the major media voice count because it is comfortable that at least eight major media voices in the top-20 markets—along with the other unquantified media outlets that are present in those markets—will assure that these markets continue to enjoy an adequate diversity of local news and information sources. The item further explains that the top-four prohibition is included because the Commission considers daily newspapers and the top-four stations to be the most influential providers of local news in markets. Thus, such combinations are likely to cause a greater harm to diversity in a market.

9. With regard to non-top 20 markets, the item establishes a general presumption that it is inconsistent with the public interest for an entity to own, operate or control a combination in such markets in order to protect competition and media diversity, as these markets cannot match the robustness in media and outlet diversity found in the top 20 markets. Nevertheless, the item recognizes the need to consider factors particular to each market and proposed transaction. Thus, applicants in markets below DMA 20 may overcome the presumption that a merger would not be in the public interest by showing countervailing benefits of the proposed transaction. While the Commission expects such cases to be rare, it acknowledges that a particular market may have unique attributes or that the proposed transaction may present unique advantages. The item explains that the two situations in which the negative presumption may be reversed—when a newspaper or station has failed or is failing and when a proposed combination results in a new source of a significant amount of local news in a market—are grounded in the Commission's longstanding application of a failed/failing station model in evaluating local TV waiver criteria for over 25 years, as well as its recognition of the unique and particular importance of local news and public affairs programming.

10. The Order does not require divestiture of the combinations grandfathered in the Commission's 1975 decision implementing a ban on common ownership of a daily newspaper and a full-power broadcast station; rather these combinations remain grandfathered. Similarly, all permanent waivers from the prior rule that previously have been granted will continue in effect under the new rule.

11. The Order grants five permanent waivers of the rule for the following: Gannett's combination in Phoenix; Media General's combinations in Myrtle Beach-Florence, South Carolina; Columbus, Georgia; Panama City, Florida, and the Tri-Cities, Tennessee/Virginia DMA.

12. Where a pending waiver request involves an existing combination consisting of more than one newspaper and/or more than one broadcast station or an entity has been granted a waiver to hold such a combination pending the completion of this rulemaking, we will afford the licensee 90 days after the effective date of this order to either amend its waiver/renewal request or file a request for permanent waiver. Such requests will be examined on a case-by-case basis. Pending waiver requests and renewal applications will be held in abeyance until the Commission receives an appropriate amendment. Current temporary waivers that have been granted pending the completion of the rulemaking proceeding will be temporarily extended pending our action on requests for permanent waivers. In order to ensure adequate public notice of pending waiver requests, the Order indicates that the Commission will flag applications for proposed newspaper/broadcast combinations in its public notices as seeking waiver of the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule pursuant to Section 73.3555(d) of the Commission's rules.

13. With respect to the remaining broadcast ownership rules under review, including the local television ownership rule, the radio-tv cross-ownership rule, the local radio ownership rule, and the dual network rule, the Commission determined that any further relaxation of ownership rules in the radio or television broadcast markets should not be allowed and retains the media ownership rules that are currently in effect. Thus, it retains the changes to the local radio ownership rule adopted in the 2002 Biennial Review Order, including use of Arbitron markets to define the relevant radio market and including noncommercial stations in determining the size of the radio market. The Order also reaffirms the decision in the 2002 Biennial Review Order to attribute certain same-market radio Joint Sales Agreements. These rules reaffirm the Commission's core competition and diversity goals, while harmonizing these goals with marketplace realities. Finally, the Order concludes that the Commission is foreclosed from addressing the issue of the UHF discount in this proceeding by the 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act. Accordingly, these rules remain necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.

14. TheReport and Orderalso reinstates the failed station solicitation rule, which required an applicant for a waiver of the local TV ownership rule to provide notice of the sale of a failed, failing or unbuilt station to potential out-of-market buyers before it could sell that station to an in-market buyer. The Order states that it is necessary to ensure that out-of-market buyers, including qualified minority broadcasters, have notice of, and an opportunity to bid for, a station before it is combined with an in-market station. A waiver of the rule should only be permitted when no out-of-market buyer is willing to purchase the station at a reasonable price.

15. ThisReport and Ordercontains both new and modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. 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 or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, PublicLaw 107-198,see44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we have considered how the Commission might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” We find that the modified requirements must apply fully to small entities (as well as to others) to protect consumers and further other goals, as described in theOrder.

16. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of the Commission's broadcast ownership rules, as amended, and find that the effect on businesses with fewer than 25 employees will be minimal.

17. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in MB Docket No. 02-277. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in theNPRMincluding comment on the IRFA (FCC 02-249, 67 FR 65751, October 28, 2002). The Commission also prepared a Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the proposals in theFurther Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM)(FCC 06-93, 71 FR 45511, August 9, 2006; 71 FR 54253, September 14, 2006). The Commission sought written public comment on theFNPRM,including comment on the Supplemental IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

18. TheOrderconcludes the Commission's 2006 Quadrennial Review of the broadcast ownership rules. This review encompasses the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule, the radio-television cross-ownership rule, the local television multiple ownership rule, the local radio ownership rule, and the dual network rule. The rules are reviewed under Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“1996 Act”), which requires the Commission to review its ownership rules (except the national television ownership limit) every four years and “determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.” Under Section 202(h), the Commission “shall repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no longer in the public interest.” The Commission modifies the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule and retains the other broadcast ownership rules currently in effect.

19. The Commission's approach in thisOrderis a cautious approach that balances the concerns of many commenters that it not permit excessive consolidation, with concerns of other commenters that it afford some relief to assure continued diversity and investment in local news programming by a modest loosening of the 32 year-old prohibition on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership. The Commission believes that the decisions it adopts in theOrderserve our public interest goals, appropriately take account of the current media marketplace, and comply with our statutory responsibilities.

20. ThisOrderis adopted pursuant to Sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 303, 307, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 303, 307, 309, and 310, and Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

21. The Commission received no comments in direct response to the IRFA and the Supplemental IRFA. However, the Commission received comments that discuss issues of interest to small entities. These comments are discussed in the section of this FRFA discussing the steps taken to minimize significant impact on small entities, and the significant alternatives considered.

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 proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental entity” under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. 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 SBA.

23.Television Broadcasting.In this context, the application of the statutory definition to television stations is of concern. The Small Business Administration defines a television broadcasting station that has no more than $13 million in annual receipts as a small business. Business concerns included in this industry are those “primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.” According to Commission staff review of the BIA Financial Network, Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database as of December 7, 2007, about 825 (66 percent) of the 1,250 commercial television stations in the United States have revenues of $13 million or less. However, in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by any changes to the ownership rules, because the revenue figures on which this estimate is based do not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.

24. An element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time and in this context to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its market of operation. Accordingly, the foregoing estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any television stations from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent. An additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. It is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and our estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.

25.Radio Broadcasting.The Small Business Administration defines a radio broadcasting entity that has $6.5 million or less in annual receipts as a small business. Business concerns included in this industry are those “primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.” According to Commission staff review of the BIA Financial Network, Inc. Media Access Radio Analyzer Database as of December 7, 2007, about 10,500 (95 percent) of 11,050 commercial radio stations in the United States have revenues of $6.5 million or less. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by any changes to the ownership rules, because the revenue figures on which this estimate is based do not include oraggregate revenues from affiliated companies.

26. In this context, the application of the statutory definition to radio stations is of concern. An element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time and in this context to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the foregoing estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent. An additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. We note that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and our estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.

27.Daily Newspapers.The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the census category of Newspaper Publishers; that size standard is 500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 5,159 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 5,065 firms had employment of 499 or fewer employees, and an additional 42 firms had employment of 500 to 999 employees. Therefore, we estimate that the majority of Newspaper Publishers are small entities that might be affected by our action.

28. Broadcasters whose newspaper/broadcast combination is approved under the presumption that a proposed newspaper broadcast combination is consistent with the public interest when it initiates the programming of local newscasts of at least seven hours per week on a broadcast outlet that otherwise was not offering local newscasts prior to the combined operations must report to the Commission annually regarding how they have followed through on their commitment to initiate at least seven hours a week of local news. TheOrdermodestly revises the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule and otherwise retains the broadcast ownership rules currently in effect. With the exception of the foregoing reporting requirement, theOrderimposes no increased reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements.

29. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others):

(1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

30. TheOrdermodestly revises the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule. Under the new rule, the Commission presumes a proposed newspaper/broadcast transaction is not inconsistent with the public interest if it meets the following test: (1) The market at issue is one of the 20 largest Nielsen Designated Market Areas (“DMAs”); (2) the transaction involves the combination of only one major daily newspaper and only one television or radio station; (3) if the transaction involves a television station, at least eight independently owned and operating major media voices (defined to include major newspapers and full-power TV stations) would remain in the DMA following the transaction; and (4) if the transaction involves a television station, that station is not among the top four ranked stations in the DMA. All other proposed newspaper/broadcast transactions would continue to be presumed not in the public interest.

31. Under the new rule, the negative presumption will be reversed in two circumstances. First, the newspaper or broadcast station would have to be considered “failed” or “failing.” To be deemed “failed,” the newspaper or broadcast station would have to have ceased publication or gone dark at least four months before the filing of an application, or be in bankruptcy proceedings. To be treated as “failing,” the applicant must show that (a) the broadcast station has had an all-day audience share of 4 percent or lower, (b) the newspaper or broadcast station has had a negative cash flow for the previous three years, (c) the combination will produce public interest benefits, and (d) the in-market buyer is the only reasonably available candidate willing and able to acquire and operate the newspaper or station. Second, the negative presumption will be reversed when the combination is with a broadcast station that was not offering local newscasts prior to the combination, and the station will initiate at least seven hours per week of local news programming after the combination. Under the new rule, the Commission would consider a negative presumption as establishing a high hurdle as it reviews the transactions on a case-by-case basis. In particular, applicants attempting to overcome a negative presumption about a newspaper television combination will need to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that post-merger the merged entity will increase the diversity of independent news outlets (e.g., separate editorial and news coverage decisions) and increase competition among independent news sources in the relevant market. The Commission will use the following factors to inform its evaluation: (1) The extent to which cross-ownership will serve to increase the amount of local news disseminated through the affected media outlets in the combination; (2) whether each affected media outlet in the combination will exercise its own independent news judgment; (3) the level of concentration in the Nielsen DMA; and (4) the financial condition of the newspaper or broadcast station, and if the newspaper or broadcast station is in financial distress, the owner's commitment to invest significantly in newsroom operations. This approach will permit the Commission to balance the needs of the public for media and viewpoint diversity with its concerns about the financial health of traditional media outlets in the context of each particular transaction.

32. The Commission considered other alternatives, but theOrderretains the other media ownership rules currently in effect. The Commission believes that the decisions it adopts in theOrderserve our public interest goals, appropriately take account of the current media marketplace, and comply with our statutory responsibilities. It retains the radio/television cross-ownership rule currently in effect to provide protection for diversity goals in local markets and thereby serve the public interest.

33. TheOrderfinds that restrictions on common ownership of television stations in local markets continue to be necessary in the public interest to protect competition for viewers and in local television advertising markets. The Commission concludes that, in order to preserve adequate levels of competition within local television markets, the local TV ownership rule as it iscurrently in effect should be retained. Accordingly, an entity may own two television stations in the same DMA if: (1) The Grade B contours of the stations do not overlap; or (2) at least one of the stations in the combination is not ranked among the top four stations in terms of audience share, and at least eight independently owned and operating commercial or non-commercial full-power broadcast television stations would remain in the DMA after the combination. To determine the number of voices remaining after the merger, the Commission counts those broadcast television stations whose Grade B signal contours overlap with the Grade B signal contour of at least one of the stations that would be commonly owned. With respect to the waiver standard for the local TV ownership rule, we will reinstate our requirement that a waiver applicant demonstrate that there is no buyer outside the market willing to purchase the station at a reasonable price. Reinstating this requirement will promote the market entry of small businesses, including minority- and women-owned businesses, because it will increase the likelihood that they will learn of purchasing opportunities.

34. The Commission does not revise its decision that DMAs are the more precise geographic markets. Nonetheless, in the instantOrder, unlike in the2002 Biennial Review Order,we are not relaxing the local television ownership rule, and, accordingly, to avoid disruption to settled expectations, we retain the Grade B overlap provision. Furthermore, we believe that maintaining the Grade B provision will promote television service in rural areas by continuing to enable station owners to build or purchase an additional station in a remote corner of the DMA, beyond the reach of their Grade B signal, without regard to the top four/eight voices restriction.

35. TheOrderconcludes that the current local radio ownership rule remains “necessary in the public interest” to protect competition in local radio markets. As directed by thePrometheuscourt, the Commission also provides a reasoned justification for our decision to retain the existing numerical limits on local radio ownership and the AM subcaps. In addition, we deny or dismiss a number of pending petitions for reconsideration of the Commission's action concerning the local radio ownership rule in the2002 Biennial Review Order.Accordingly, an entity may own, operate, or control (1) up to eight commercial radio stations, not more than five of which are in the same service (i.e., AM or FM), in a radio market with 45 or more full-power, commercial and noncommercial radio stations; (2) up to seven commercial radio stations, not more than four of which are in the same service, in a radio market with between 30 and 44 (inclusive) full-power, commercial and noncommercial radio stations; (3) up to six commercial radio stations, not more than four of which are in the same service, in a radio market with between 15 and 29 (inclusive) full-power, commercial and noncommercial radio stations; and (4) up to five commercial radio stations, not more than three of which are in the same service, in a radio market with 14 or fewer full-power, commercial and noncommercial radio stations, except that an entity may not own, operate, or control more than 50 percent of the stations in such a market. Retaining the AM subcap serves the public interest because the relative affordability of radio compared to other mass media makes it a likely avenue for new entry into the media business, particularly by small businesses.

36. For the same reasons recited by the Commission in 2002, we continue to believe that the dual network rule is necessary in the public interest to promote competition and localism. Accordingly, theOrderretains the dual network rule in its current form. No petitions were filed asking the Commission to reconsider its decision to retain the rule, and no challenges were filed inPrometheus.The Commission sought comment in theFNPRMon whether the dual network rule remains necessary in the public interest to promote the Commission's policy goals. Almost all of the few parties commenting on the rule in this proceeding support retaining the rule in its current form. Other parties argue that relaxing or eliminating the rule would increase concentration to the detriment of competition, diversity, and localism. No specific changes to the dual network rule were proposed, and only two parties—Fox and CBS—oppose retaining the rule in any form. Neither of these parties has provided evidence convincing us that a departure from our 2002 decision to retain the rule in its current form is warranted.

37. TheOrderfinds that the Commission is foreclosed from addressing the issue of the UHF discount in this proceeding by the 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act. Although the Appropriations Act did not specifically mention the UHF discount, thePrometheuscourt observed that the statutory 39 percent national cap would be altered if the UHF discount were modified. The court observed that the Appropriations Act amended Section 202(h) to exclude “any rules relating to” the 39 percent national cap, and determined that the UHF discount was a rule “relating to” the national TV cap. The Third Circuit concluded that Congress “apparently intended to insulate the UHF discount from periodic review,” but left open the possibility that the Commission may consider the discount in a rulemaking “outside the context of Section 202(h).” Accordingly, theOrderconcludes that the UHF discount is insulated from review under Section 202(h).

38. TheOrdernotes that in the pending proceeding entitledPublic Interest Obligations of TV Broadcast Licenseescommenters ask the Commission to impose additional “public interest” obligations on television broadcasters. TheOrderexplains that some of the issues raised in that proceeding have already been resolved by the Commission. With respect to other ideas raised in this proceeding such as whether the agency should establish more specific minimum public interest requirements for licensees and how broadcasters could improve political candidates' access to television, the Commission declines to take any further action at this time. Nevertheless, to the extent that circumstances change, the Commission agrees to revisit this decision and initiate proceedings as appropriate.

39. The Commission will send a copy of thisReport and Orderin 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).

40. Accordingly,It is ordered,that pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2(a), 4(i,), 303, 307, 309 and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 303, 307, 309 and 310, and Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, thisReport and Order and Order on Reconsiderationand the rule modifications attached hereto as Appendix A are adopted, effective thirty (30) days after publication of the text or summary thereof in theFederal Register, except for those rules and requirements involving Paperwork Reduction Act burdens, which shall become effective immediately upon announcement in theFederal Registerof OMB approval. It is our intention inadopting these rule changes that, if any of the rules that we retain, modify or adopt today, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, are held to be unlawful, the remaining portions of the rules not deemed unlawful, and the application of such rules to other persons or circumstances, shall remain in effect to the fullest extent permitted by law. Thus, for example, if one of the ownership rules is held to be unlawful, the other ownership rules shall remain in effect to the fullest extent permitted by law, each being severable from the others.

41.It is further ordered,that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc., Black Citizens for a Fair Media, Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force, and Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press; and the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, Counsel for Diversity and Competition Supporters filed in MB Docket No. 02-277 are granted to the extent set forth in thisOrder,and otherwise are denied. The Petitions for Reconsideration filed in MB Docket No. 02-277 by National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters, Inc. and The Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, Inc.; WTCM Radio, Inc.; WJZD, Inc.; Cumulus Media, Inc.; Galaxy Communications, L.P.; Mt. Wilson FM Broadcasters; Entercom Communications Corp.; Great Scott Broadcasting; Treasure and Space Coast Radio; Saga Communications, Inc.; Future of Music Coalition; National Organization for Women; Mid-West Family Broadcasting; Monterey Licenses, LLC; LIN Television Corporation and Raycom Media Inc.; Duff, Ackerman Goodrich, LLC; Center for the Creative Community and Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers; Robert W. McChesney and Josh Silver of Free Press; Nexstar Broadcasting Group, LLC; Saga Communications, Inc.; Consumers Federation of America and Consumers Union; Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc.; Bennco, Inc.; The Amherst Alliance and the Virginia Center for the Public Press are dismissed or denied as discussed in thisOrder.

42.It is further ordered,that as enumerated in paragraph 76 of theReport and Order and Order on Reconsideration,the grandfathering or waivers granted in the 1975 newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership decision,Amendment of Sections 73.34, 73.240, and 73.636 of the Commission's Rules Relating to Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM, and Television Broadcast Stations,Docket No. 18110, 50 FCC 2d 1046 (1975) are continued, and all permanent waivers for the prior newspaper-broadcast cross ownership rule that have previously been granted are continued.

43.It is further ordered,that as enumerated in paragraph 77 of theReport and Order and Order on Reconsideration,waivers are granted to Gannett Co. Inc.'s combination in Phoenix (The Arizona Republic and KPNX-TV), Media General Inc.'s combination in Myrtle Beach-Florence, South Carolina (WBTW(TV) and the Morning News), Media General, Inc.'s combination in Columbus, Georgia (WRBL(TV) and the Opelika-Auburn News), Media General, Inc.'s combination in Panama City, Florida (WMBB(TV) and the Jackson County Floridan), and Media General's combination in the Tri-Cities, Tennessee/Virginia DMA (WJHL-TV and the Bristol (Virginia Tennessee) Herald Courier).

44.It is further ordered,that as enumerated in paragraph 78 of theReport and Order and Order on Reconsideration,licensees with a pending waiver request that involves an existing station combination consisting of more than one newspaper and/or more than one broadcast station will have 90 days after the effective date of theReport and Order and Order on Reconsiderationto either amend their renewal or waiver requests or file a request for a permanent waiver.

45.It is further ordered,that as enumerated in paragraph 78 of theReport and Order and Order on Reconsideration,entities that have been granted a temporary waiver of the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule pending the completion of this rulemaking will have 90 days after the effective date of the Report and Order to either amend their renewal or waiver requests or file a request for a permanent waiver.

46.It is further ordered,that the proceedings in MB Docket No. 06-121, MB Docket No. 02-277, MM Docket No. 01-235, MM Docket No. 01-317, MM Docket No. 00-244, and MM Docket No. 99-360 are terminated.

47.It is further ordered,that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of thisReport and Order and Order on Reconsideration,including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

This is a synopsis of the Commission'sReport and Order,MB Docket No. 07-164, adopted January 30, 2008, and released February 1, 2008. The full text of this Commission decision 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 complete text of this decision also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (800) 378-3160, or via the company's Web site,http://www.bcpiweb.com.The Commission will send a copy of thisReport and Orderin a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,see5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

This is a synopsis of theMemorandum Opinion and Orderin MB Docket No. 05-150, adopted January 31, 2008, and released February 1, 2008. The full text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 orwww.BCPIWEB.com.On March 14, 2008, the Media Bureau's Consolidated Database System will reflect as the reserved assignment for Station WJCD, Channel 299A at Norfolk, Virginia in lieu of Windsor, Virginia, and thereserved assignment for Station WKUS, Channel 287B at Windsor, Virginia in lieu of Norfolk, Virginia. The Commission will not send a copy of thisMemorandum Opinion and Orderpursuant to the Congressional Review Act,see5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the adopted rules are rules of particular applicability.

Beginning in 1995, fishing for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) and sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) with fixed gear in the IFQ regulatory areas defined in § 679.2 has been managed under the IFQ Program. The IFQ Program is a regulatory regime designed to promote the conservation and management of these fisheries and to further the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act. Persons holding quota share receive an annual allocation of IFQ. Persons receiving an annual allocation of IFQ are authorized to harvest IFQ species within specified limitations. Further information on the implementation of the IFQ Program, and the rationale supporting it, are contained in the preamble to the final rule implementing the IFQ Program published in theFederal Register, November 9, 1993 (58 FR 59375) and subsequent amendments.

This announcement is consistent with § 679.23(g)(1), which requires that the directed fishing season for sablefish managed under the IFQ Program be specified by the Administrator, Alaska Region, and announced by publication in theFederal Register. This method of season announcement was selected to facilitate coordination between the sablefish season, chosen by the Administrator, Alaska Region, and the halibut season, chosen by the IPHC. The directed fishing season for sablefish with fixed gear managed under the IFQ Program will open 1200 hrs, A.l.t., March 8, 2008, and will close 1200 hrs, A.l.t., November 15, 2008. This period runs concurrently with the IFQ season for Pacific halibut announced by the IPHC. The IFQ halibut season will be specified by a separate publication in theFederal Registerof annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of the sablefish fishery thereby increasing bycatch and regulatory discards between the sablefish fishery and the halibut fishery, and preventing the accomplishment of the management objective for simultaneous opening of these two fisheries. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 13, 2008.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.23 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.