28936 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

PART 438—MANAGED CARE 

1. The authority citation for part 438 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security 

Act (42 U.S.C. 1302). 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

§ 438.6 [Amended] 

2. Section 438.6 is amended by 

removing paragraph (c)(5)(v). 

Subpart B—State Responsibilities 

3. Section 438.60 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 438.60 Limit on payment to other 

providers. 

The State agency must ensure that no 

payment is made to a provider other 

than the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP for 

services available under the contract 

between the State and the MCO, PIHP, 

or PAHP, except when these payments 

are provided for in title XIX of the Act 

or in 42 CFR. 

PART 447—PAYMENTS FOR 

SERVICES 

4. The authority citation for part 447 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security 

Act (42 U.S.C. 1302). 

Subpart B—Payment Methods: General 

Provisions 

5. Section 447.201 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (c) to read as 

set forth below. 

§ 447.201 State plan requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) The plan must not include 

payments for graduate medical 

education to any provider or institution 

or include costs of graduate medical 

education as an allowable cost under 

any cost-based payment system 

(including costs or payments claimed as 

administrative costs). 

Subpart C—Payment for Inpatient 

Hospital and Long-Term Care Facility 

Services 

6. Section 447.257 is amended by: 

A. Designating the existing paragraph 

as paragraph (a). 

B. Adding a new paragraph (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 447.257 FFP: Conditions relating to 

institutional reimbursement. 

* * * * * 

(b) FFP is not available in 

expenditures for graduate medical 

education in hospitals and long-term 

care facilities. 

7. Section 447.272 is amended by 

republishing the heading to paragraph 

(b) and revising paragraph (b)(1) to read 

as follows: 

§ 447.272 Inpatient services: Application 

of upper payment limits. 

* * * * * 

(b) General rules. (1) ‘‘Upper payment 

limit’’ refers to a reasonable estimate of 

the amount that would be paid for the 

services furnished by the groups of 

facilities under Medicare payment 

principles in subchapter B of this 

chapter. For purposes of the Medicaid 

upper payment limit calculation, direct 

graduate medical education payments 

are not an allowable component of a 

Medicare payment and must be 

excluded from the calculation. 

* * * * * 

Subpart F—Payment Methods for 

Other Institutional and NonInstitutional Services 

8. Section 447.304 is amended by: 

A. Revising paragraph (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 447.304 Adherence to upper limits; FFP. 

* * * * * 

(b) FFP is not available in 

expenditures for graduate medical 

education. 

* * * * * 

9. Section 447.321 is amended by 

republishing the heading to paragraph 

(b) and revising paragraph (b)(1) to read 

as follows: 

§ 447.321 Outpatient hospital and clinical 

services: Application of upper payment 

limits. 

* * * * * 

(b) General rules. (1) ‘‘Upper payment 

limit’’ refers to a reasonable estimate of 

the amount that would be paid for the 

services furnished by the groups of 

facilities under Medicare payment 

principles in subchapter B of this 

chapter. For purposes of the Medicaid 

upper payment limit calculation, direct 

graduate medical education payments 

are not an allowable component of a 

Medicare payment and must be 

excluded from the calculation. 

* * * * * 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance 

Program) 

Dated: May 11, 2007. 

Leslie V. Norwalk, 

Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services. 

Approved: May 17, 2007. 

Michael O. Leavitt, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 07–2576 Filed 5–18–07; 4:38 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 05–337, CC Docket No. 96–

45, FCC 07–88] 

High-Cost Universal Service Support; 

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal 

Service 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal 

Service’s recommendation that the 

Commission adopt an interim cap on 

support for competitive Eligible 

Telecommunications Carriers. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

June 6, 2007. Reply Comments are due 

on or before June 13, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 05–337 

and CC Docket No. 96–45, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted 

Burmeister, Attorney, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, (202) 418–7400, TTY (202) 

418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 28937 

Proposed Rulemaking, in WC Docket 

No. 05–337 and CC Docket No. 96–45, 

released May 14, 2007. The full text of 

this document is available for public 

inspection during regular business 

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 

Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

I. Introduction 

In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), we seek comment 

on the recommendation of the FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service 

(Joint Board) that the Commission takes 

immediate action to rein in the 

explosive growth in high-cost universal 

service support disbursements. 

Specifically, we seek comment on the 

Joint Board’s recommendation that the 

Commission impose an interim, 

emergency cap on the amount of highcost support that competitive eligible 

telecommunications carriers (ETCs) may 

receive. The Joint Board also 

recommended that both it and the 

Commission further explore 

comprehensive high-cost distribution 

reform, and sought comment on various 

reform proposals in a Public Notice 

released on the same day as the 

Recommended Decision, in WC Docket 

No. 05–337, CC Docket No. 96–45 

released on May 1, 2007. 

II. Procedural Matters 

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

1. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), see 5 U.S.C. 603, 

the Commission has prepared this 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) of the possible significant 

economic impact on small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in the 

NPRM. Written public comments are 

requested on this IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments on the NPRM provided in 

paragraph 9 of the item. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). See 5 

U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the NPRM 

and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

a. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

2. Section 254(a)(2) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (the Act), requires that the 

Commission implement within one year 

recommendations from the Joint Board 

based on the universal service 

requirements provided in section 254 of 

the Act, which establishes a number of 

principles for the preservation and 

advancement of universal service in a 

competitive telecommunications 

environment. On May 1, 2007, the Joint 

Board recommended that the 

Commission adopt an interim cap on 

high-cost universal service support for 

competitive ETCs to rein in the 

explosive growth in universal service. In 

this NPRM, the Commission seeks 

comment on the Joint Board 

recommendation that the Commission 

cap competitive ETC support at the 

amount of support received by 

competitive ETCs in 2006. The objective 

of the NPRM is to explore whether the 

Commission should take action to cap 

the high-cost universal service support 

in the manner that the Joint Board 

recommends, and whether there are 

other issues related to the interim cap 

that should be considered. 

b. Legal Basis 

3. The legal basis for any action that 

may be taken pursuant to the NPRM is 

contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 

202, 205, 214, 254, 403 and 410 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)–(j), 

201, 202, 205, 254, 410 and sections 1.1, 

1.411, 1.412, 1.415, 1.419, and 1.1200–

1.1216, of the Commission’s rules, 47 

C.F.R. 1.1, 1.411, 1.412, 1.415, 1.419, 

1.1200–1.1216. 

c. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which 

Rules Will Apply 

4. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 604(b)(3). 

The RFA generally defines the term 

‘‘small entity,’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(6), as 

having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(3), 

‘‘small organization,’’ 5 U.S.C 601(4), 

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’

5 U.S.C. 601(5). In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’

under the Small Business Act, unless 

the Commission has developed one or 

more definitions that are U.S.C. 601(3). 

Under the Small Business Act, a ‘‘small 

business concern’’ is one that: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) meets any additional criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 15 U.S.C. 632. 

Nationwide, there are a total of 

approximately 22.4 million small 

businesses, according to SBA data. A 

small organization is generally ‘‘any notfor-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field.’’

Nationwide, as of 2002, there were 

approximately 1.6 million small 

organizations. 

5. The most reliable source of 

information regarding the total numbers 

of certain common carrier and related 

providers nationwide, as well as the 

number of commercial wireless entities, 

is the data that the Commission 

publishes in its Trends in Telephone 

Service report. The SBA has developed 

small business size standards for 

wireline and wireless small businesses 

within the three commercial census 

categories of Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, Paging, 

and Cellular and Other Wireless 

Telecommunications. Under these 

categories, a business is small if it has 

1,500 or fewer employees. Below, using 

the above size standards and others, we 

discuss the total estimated numbers of 

small businesses that might be affected 

by our actions. 

d. Wireline Carriers and Service 

Providers 

6. We have included small incumbent 

local exchange carriers (LECs) in this 

present RFA analysis. As noted above, 

a ‘‘small business’’ under the RFA is one 

that, inter alia, meets the pertinent 

small business size standard (e.g., a 

telephone communications business 

having 1,500 or fewer employees), and 

‘‘is not dominant in its field of 

operation.’’ The SBA’s Office of 

Advocacy contends that, for RFA 

purposes, small incumbent LECs are not 

dominant in their field of operation 

because any such dominance is not 

‘‘national’’ in scope. We have therefore 

included small incumbent LECs in this 

RFA analysis, although we emphasize 

that this RFA action has no effect on 

Commission analyses and 

determinations in other, non-RFA 

contexts. 

7. Incumbent LECs. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a size standard for small businesses 

specifically applicable to incumbent 

LECs. The closest applicable size 

standard under SBA rules is for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers. Under 

that size standard, such a business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to Commission data, 1,307 

carriers reported that they were engaged 

in the provision of local exchange 

services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an 

estimated 1,019 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees, and 288 have more than 

1,500 employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of incumbent local exchange 

service are small businesses that may be 

affected by our action. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
28938 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

8. Competitive LECs, Competitive 

Access Providers (CAPs), ‘‘SharedTenant Service Providers,’’ and ‘‘Other 

Local Service Providers.’’ Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for these service providers. 

The appropriate size standard under 

SBA rules is for the category Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers. Under 

that size standard, such a business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to Commission data, 859 

carriers reported that they were engaged 

in the provision of either competitive 

LEC or CAP services. Of these 859 

carriers, an estimated 741 have 1,500 or 

fewer employees, and 118 have more 

than 1,500 employees. In addition, 16 

carriers have reported that they are 

‘‘Shared-Tenant Service Providers,’’ and 

all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or 

fewer employees. In addition, 44 

carriers have reported that they are 

‘‘Other Local Service Providers.’’ Of the 

44, an estimated 43 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees, and one has more than 1,500 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

competitive LECs, CAPs, ‘‘SharedTenant Service Providers,’’ and ‘‘Other 

Local Service Providers’’ are small 

entities that may be affected by our 

action. 

e. Wireless Carriers and Service 

Providers 

9. 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 categories, the SBA deems 

a wireless business to be small if it has 

1,500 or fewer employees. For the 

census category of Paging, Census 

Bureau data for 2002 show that there 

were 807 firms in this category that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 804 firms had employment of 999 

or fewer employees, and three firms had 

employment of 1,000 employees or 

more. Thus, under this category and 

associated small business size standard, 

the majority of firms can be considered 

small. For the census category of 

Cellular and Other Wireless 

Telecommunications, Census Bureau 

data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 

firms in this category that operated for 

the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms 

had employment of 999 or fewer 

employees, and 19 firms had 

employment of 1,000 employees or 

more. Thus, under this second category 

and size standard, the majority of firms 

can, again, be considered small. 

10. 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. We have 

estimated that 221 of these are small 

under the SBA small business size 

standard. 

f. Satellite Service Providers 

11. Satellite Telecommunications and 

Other Telecommunications. There is no 

small business size standard developed 

specifically for providers of 

international service. The appropriate 

size standards under SBA rules are for 

the two broad census categories of 

‘‘Satellite Telecommunications’’ and 

‘‘Other Telecommunications.’’ Under 

both categories, such a business is small 

if it has $13.5 million or less in average 

annual receipts. 

12. The first category of Satellite 

Telecommunications ‘‘comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing point-to-point 

telecommunications services to other 

establishments in the 

telecommunications and broadcasting 

industries by forwarding and receiving 

communications signals via a system of 

satellites or reselling satellite 

telecommunications.’’ For this category, 

Census Bureau data for 2002 show that 

there were a total of 371 firms that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 307 firms had annual receipts of 

under $10 million, and 26 firms had 

receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. 

Consequently, we estimate that the 

majority of Satellite 

Telecommunications firms are small 

entities that might be affected by our 

action. 

13. The second category of Other 

Telecommunications ‘‘comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in (1) 

Providing specialized 

telecommunications applications, such 

as satellite tracking, communications 

telemetry, and radar station operations; 

or (2) providing satellite terminal 

stations and associated facilities 

operationally connected with one or 

more terrestrial communications 

systems and capable of transmitting 

telecommunications to or receiving 

telecommunications from satellite 

systems.’’ For this category, Census 

Bureau data for 2002 show that there 

were a total of 332 firms that operated 

for the entire year. Of this total, 259 

firms had annual receipts of under $10 

million and 15 firms had annual 

receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. 

Consequently, we estimate that the 

majority of Other Telecommunications 

firms are small entities that might be 

affected by our action. 

2. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

14. The specific proposals under 

consideration in the NPRM would not, 

if adopted, result in additional 

recordkeeping requirements for small 

businesses. 

3. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

15. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance and reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or part thereof, for 

small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603(c). 

16. This IRFA seeks comment on how 

the Joint Board’s recommendation could 

be implemented in a manner that 

reduces the potential burden and cost of 

compliance for small entities. We also 

seek comment on the potential impact 

of the proposed recommendations 

related to the interim cap proposal on 

high-cost universal support for 

competitive ETCs. In the NPRM, the 

Commission has offered several 

alternatives and that might avoid or 

mitigate reductions in the amount of 

high-cost support flowing to 

competitive ETCs, some of which might 

be small entities. For instance, the 

Commission inquires into other 

methods, besides a cap, to control the 

growth of high-cost support; asks about 

the length of time the interim cap 

should be in place; seeks comment on 

the level that the cap should be set at; 

and asks whether other operational, 

administrative, or implementation 

issues might have an impact on 

implementing an interim cap. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 28939 

4. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

17. None. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 

18. This NPRM does not contain 

proposed information collections 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified ‘‘information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198. See 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

C. Ex Parte Presentations 

19. These matters shall be treated as 

a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one or two 

sentence description of the views and 

arguments presented is generally 

required. Other requirements pertaining 

to oral and written presentations are set 

forth in section 1.1206(b) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

D. Comment Filing Procedures 

20. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on or before June 6, 2007, 

and reply comments June 13, 2007. 

Comments may be filed using: (1) The 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal 

Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3) 

by filing paper copies. See Electronic 

Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 

Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Filers should follow the instructions 

provided on the Web site for submitting 

comments. 

• For ECFS filers, if multiple docket 

or rulemaking numbers appear in the 

caption of this proceeding, filers must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing 

instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. Filings 

can be sent by hand or messenger 

delivery, by commercial overnight 

courier, or by first-class or overnight 

U.S. Postal Service mail (although we 

continue to experience delays in 

receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• The Commission’s contractor will 

receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–

418–0432 (tty). In addition, one copy of 

each pleading must be sent to each of 

the following: 

(1) The Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554; Web site: 

http://www.bcpiweb.com; phone: 1–

800–378–3160; 

(2) Antoinette Stevens, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room 5–B540, 

Washington, DC 20554; e-mail: 

Antoinette.Stevens@fcc.gov. 

21. For further information regarding 

this proceeding, contact Ted Burmeister, 

Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications 

Access Policy Division, Wireline 

Competition Bureau at (202) 418–7389, 

or theodore.burmeister@fcc.gov, or Katie 

King, Telecommunications Access 

Policy Division, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, (202) 418–7491, or 

katie.king@fcc.gov. 

III. Ordering Clauses 

22. Pursuant to the authority 

contained in sections 1, 4(i), 201–205, 

214, 254, and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201–

205, 214, 254, and 403, this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is adopted. 

23. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–9837 Filed 5–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2003–15227] 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Hydraulic and Electric 

Brake Systems, Air Brake Systems 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Denial of petition for 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This document responds to a 

petition for reconsideration of our 2003 

final rule establishing a braking-in-acurve performance requirement for 

single unit trucks and buses. The 

braking-in-a-curve requirement has 

applied to air-braked truck tractors since 

1997 and we determined that the 

requirement should also apply to singleunit trucks and buses. The requirement 

ensures that a vehicle’s antilock brake 

system (ABS) maintains adequate 

stability and control during a hard stop 

on a curved, slippery road surface. A 

petition for reconsideration was 

received from the National Truck 

Equipment Association (NTEA), which 

seeks to exclude vehicles built in two or 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS