46698 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 155 / Monday, August 11, 2008 / Notices 

13 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

No. SR–NASDAQ–2008–063 on the 

subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NASDAQ–2008–063. This 

file number should be included on the 

subject line if e-mail is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for inspection and copying in 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, 

DC 20549, on official business days 

between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. 

Copies of such filing also will be 

available for inspection and copying at 

the principal office of NASDAQ. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change; the Commission does 

not edit personal identifying 

information from submissions. You 

should submit only information that 

you wish to make available publicly. All 

submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NASDAQ–2008–063 and 

should be submitted on or before 

September 2, 2008. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.13

Florence E. Harmon, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–18459 Filed 8–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[Disaster Declaration #11353 and #11354] 

Texas Disaster #TX–00297 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the 

Presidential declaration of a major 

disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA–

1780–DR), dated 07/31/2008. 

Incident: Hurricane Dolly. 

Incident Period: 07/22/2008 and 

continuing. 

DATES: Effective Date: 07/31/2008. 

Physical Loan Application Deadline 

Date: 09/30/2008. 

Economic Injury (Eidl) Loan 

Application Deadline Date: 05/01/2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan 

applications to: U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Processing and 

Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 

Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M. 

Mitravich, Office of Disaster Assistance, 

U.S. Small Business Administration, 

409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, 

Washington, DC 20416. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that as a result of the 

President’s major disaster declaration on 

07/31/2008, applications for disaster 

loans may be filed at the address listed 

above or other locally announced 

locations. 

The following areas have been 

determined to be adversely affected by 

the disaster: 

Primary Counties (Physical Damage and 

Economic Injury Loans): 

Cameron, Hidalgo, Willacy. 

Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury 

Loans Only): 

Texas: Brooks, Starr, Kenedy. 

The Interest Rates are: 

Percent 

For Physical Damage: 

Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere ...................... 5.375 

Homeowners Without Credit 

Available Elsewhere .............. 2.687 

Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere ...................... 8.000 

Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit 

Available Elsewhere .............. 5.250 

Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit 

Available Elsewhere .............. 4.000 

For Economic Injury: 

Businesses & Small Agricultural 

Cooperatives Without Credit 

Available Elsewhere .............. 4.000 

The number assigned to this disaster 

for physical damage is 113538 and for 

economic injury is 113540. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers 59002 and 59008) 

Herbert L. Mitchell, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–18443 Filed 8–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

HUBZone Program 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

ACTION: Notice of methodology for 

measuring the economic impact of the 

HUBZone Program. 

SUMMARY: In June 2008, the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) issued its 

findings on the U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) Historically 

Underutilized Business Zone 

(HUBZone) Program. One of GAO’s 

findings is that the SBA does not assess 

the Program’s economic impact. The 

GAO noted the importance of this given 

that the HUBZone Program is primarily 

defined by economic factors (household 

income, unemployment rate, and 

poverty rate). 

On June 6, 2008, the SBA responded 

to GAO’s findings, and provided several 

steps to address them. One of these 

steps is to develop a methodology for 

assessing the Program’s economic 

impact. 

This paper outlines the anticipated 

methodology for this assessment. The 

paper will provide a brief description of 

the different methodological options 

currently available for undertaking an 

impact assessment. It will then provide 

a basic description of the HUBZone 

Program. Finally, it will detail the 

specific methodology chosen for 

measuring the Program’s economic 

impact. 

The complexity of assessing the 

Program’s economic impact lies in that 

there are multiple government agencies 

using three relevant procurement 

mechanisms, and five classes of 

HUBZones. In addition, the required 

data for this assessment will be derived 

from four different databases. This 

multiple database feature, as well as 

other documented data issues of the 

HUBZone Program, increases the 

difficulty of correctly identifying the 

assessment’s relevant data elements. 

This methodology assumes that these 

data issues will be addressed. 

This methodology will trace Federal 

contract dollars as they flow to the 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 155 / Monday, August 11, 2008 / Notices 46699 

1U.S. GAO. June 2008. Additional Actions Are 

Needed to Certify and Monitor HUBZone 

Businesses and Assess Program Results. 

Washington. Draft GAO–08–643. 

2 ‘‘The Government-wide goal for participation by 

qualified HUBZone small business concerns shall 

be established at not less than 1 percent of the total 

value of all prime contract awards for fiscal year 

1999, not less than 1.5 percent of the total value of 

all prime contract awards for fiscal year 2000, not 

less than 2 percent of the total value of all prime 

contract awards for fiscal year 2001, not less than 

2.5 percent of the total value of all prime contract 

awards for fiscal year 2002, and not less than 3 

percent of the total value of all prime contract 

awards for fiscal year 2003 and each fiscal year 

thereafter.’’ 15 U.S.C. 644(g)(1). 

3Henry Beale, (May 2008), The HUBZone 

Program, U.S. SBA Advocacy, Washington, DC. 4While the proliferation of methodologies for 

impact studies has grown over the years, the 

difference among them is primarily based on 

terminology and focus. Indeed, most methodologies 

for impact study can be traced to two theoretical 

economic approaches. The first is the General 

Equilibrium approach, and the other is the Static 

Input-Output Model. These two theoretical 

approaches have their common origins in the 1930’s 

work of R. F. Kahn and John Maynard Keynes, and 

the 1940’s–1950’s work of Wassily W. Leontief. For 

more details see, R. F. Kahn. (June 1931). The 

Relation of Home Investment to Employment. The 

Economic Journal, Vol. 41. pp. 173–198. John 

Maynard Keynes. (1936). The General Theory of 

Employment, Interest and Money, Macmillan 

Cambridge University Press, for Royal Economic 

Society, Wassily W. Leontief. (1951). The Structure 

of American Economy 1919–1939. 2d ed. Oxford 

University Press, Fair Lawn, NJ. Ultimately these 

works trace their origins to the 16th century French 

economist Franc ̧is Quesnay. See Le Tableau 

Economique, 1758. 

various HUBZone areas. It will then 

estimate the impact of these contract 

dollars on the HUBZone areas’

employment and household income. To 

isolate the impact of the HUBZone 

Program, the methodology differentiates 

Federal contract dollar-flows in three 

ways: (1) Via the HUBZone Direct 

Mechanism, where Federal contract 

dollar-flows are directly attributable to 

the HUBZone Program; (2) Via the NonHUBZone SBA Contract Mechanisms, 

where Federal contract dollar-flows are 

directly attributable to SBA programs, 

but exclude the HUBZone Program; (3) 

Via the Non-SBA Federal Contract 

Mechanisms, where Federal contract 

dollar-flows are not associated with any 

SBA program. 

This differentiation addresses GAO’s 

recommendation to develop measures 

that take into account factors such as (1) 

the economic characteristics of the 

HUBZone areas and (2) Federal 

contracts being counted under multiple 

socioeconomic subcategories. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 10, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by Mail, Hand Delivery/Courier: 

Giuseppe Gramigna, Office of Policy 

and Strategic Planning, U.S. Small 

Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20416. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Giuseppe Gramigna, Office of Policy 

and Strategic Planning, U.S. Small 

Business Administration, 409 Third 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416; 

Telephone (202) 401–3227; 

giuseppe.gramigna@sba.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

In June 2008, the GAO issued its 

findings on the SBA HUBZone 

Program.1 One of GAO’s findings is that 

the SBA does not assess the economic 

impact of the HUBZone Program. The 

GAO noted the importance of this given 

that the HUBZone Program is primarily 

defined by economic factors (household 

income, unemployment rate, and 

poverty rate). 

On June 6, 2008, SBA responded to 

GAO’s findings, and detailed several 

reforms to address them. One of these 

steps is to develop a methodology for 

assessing the Program’s economic 

impact. To a great extent, this 

methodology will be restricted to 

measuring the economic impact of the 

HUBZone Program, and not judging the 

significance of the impact. The primary 

reason for this restriction is that 

Congress only provided a contracting 

goal for the HUBZone Program: That as 

of fiscal year 2003, 3 percent of all 

Federal prime contract dollars should go 

to small firms located in HUBZone 

areas.2 However, this goal provides no 

guidance on how to assess the 

significance of the economic impact of 

this 3 percent Federal contracting goal. 

Lacking this guidance, the assessment 

can only provide a measurement of the 

Program’s economic impact. 

This paper outlines the anticipated 

methodology for this assessment. The 

paper will provide a brief description of 

the different methodological options 

currently available for undertaking an 

impact assessment. It will then provide 

a basic description of the HUBZone 

Program. Finally, it will detail the 

specific methodology chosen for 

measuring the Program’s economic 

impact. 

This methodology will trace Federal 

contract dollars as they flow to the 

various HUBZone areas. It will then 

estimate the impact of these contract 

dollars on the HUBZone areas’

employment and household income. To 

isolate the impact of the HUBZone 

Program, the methodology differentiates 

Federal contract dollar flows in three 

ways: (1) Via the HUBZone Direct 

Mechanism, where Federal contract 

dollar flows are directly attributable to 

the HUBZone Program. (2) Via the NonHUBZone SBA Contract Mechanisms, 

where Federal contract dollar flows are 

directly attributable to SBA Programs, 

but excluding the HUBZone Program. 

(3) Via the Non-SBA Federal Contract 

Mechanisms, where Federal contract 

dollar flows are not associated with any 

SBA programs. 

This differentiation addresses GAO’s 

recommendation to develop measures 

that take into account factors such as (1) 

the economic characteristics of the 

HUBZone areas and (2) Federal 

contracts being counted under multiple 

socioeconomic subcategories. 

The complexity of assessing the 

economic impact of the HUBZone 

Program lies in that there are multiple 

government agencies, each using three 

relevant procurement mechanisms, and 

five classes of HUBZones. In addition, 

the required data for this assessment 

will be derived from four different 

databases. This multiple database 

feature of the HUBZone Program 

increases the difficulty of correctly 

identifying the relevant data elements. 

Finally, the GAO report as well as an 

SBA Advocacy report found additional 

data identification issues.3 Both reports 

indicate that the various databases 

provide inconsistent data on HUBZone 

firms and HUBZone areas. These data 

inconsistencies can lead to 

misidentification of the contract dollarflows to HUBZone areas, and can thus 

introduce errors in the assessment. 

This methodology assumes that data 

inconsistencies will be addressed. The 

assessment will need to account for any 

inconsistencies remaining in the data. 

The criteria for this adjustment process 

have not yet been developed, as they 

will most likely be derived from a data 

analysis of the HUBZone Program. 

Currently Available Impact Assessment 

Models 

There are several theoretical models 

for assessing the economic impact of a 

particular Federal government 

expenditures program at the national 

level. However, when it comes to 

assessing the economic impact of 

Federal expenditures on a specific 

geographic region—a state or a county 

for example—the options quickly 

narrow-down to a few variations of a 

singular theoretical approach: The 

Leontief Input-Output Model.4 The SBA 

found that the specific aspects of the 

HUBZone Program allow for a 

successful implementation of this 

methodological approach. Specifically, 

the HUBZone Program eligibility is 

largely defined by the economic 

concepts of employment and income. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
46700 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 155 / Monday, August 11, 2008 / Notices 

5Please note that the original HUBZone 

designations were based upon the 1990 census. As 

a result of the 2000 census and OMB change in 

definition of metropolitan areas some HUBZone 

areas lost their eligibility. Consequently, Congress 

passed legislation to restore the eligibility of these 

areas, now referred to as Redesignated Areas. 

6The definition for Qualified Census Tract is 

based on the Internal Revenue Service provision for 

the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program that 

is developed in conjunction with the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD). The HUD Secretary designates Qualified 

Census Tracts by public notice in the Federal 

Register. Public Law 105–135, the HUBZone Act of 

1997, was signed on Dec. 2, 1997 and is the source 

for using this designation. 

7NOTE: By virtue of legislation, signed into law 

on August 10, 2005, the application of the DDA 

status for HUBZone consideration only applies to 

non-metropolitan counties in Alaska, Hawaii, and 

the U.S. territories and possessions, but not to the 

48 contiguous states. The Secretary of HUD 

designates Difficult Development Areas by public 

notice in the Federal Register. Public Law 109–59, 

the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act of the Department of 

Transportation Reauthorization for 2005, was 

signed on Aug. 10, 2005, and is the source for using 

this designation. 

8Public Law 105–135, the HUBZone Act of 1997, 

was signed on Dec. 2, 1997, and is the source for 

using this designation. 

9Both Public Law 105–135, the HUBZone Act of 

1997, signed on Dec. 2, 1997, and Public Law 106–

554, the HUBZone Act of 2000, signed on Dec. 12, 

2000, are the sources for using this designation. 

10Public Law 108–447, the HUBZone Act of 2004, 

was signed on Dec. 8, 2004 and is the source for 

using this designation. 

11Both the GAO and the Advocacy report 

indicate that there are a certain number of 

HUBZone contracts that have more than one 

preference mechanism designation. Indeed, the 

legislation defining these mechanisms is rather 

complex. The current model does not account for 

this additional contract mechanism. Addressing for 

the existence of multiple contract mechanisms is 

largely data driven. If the data indicate that the 

Fortunately, nearly all commercially 

available Input-Output models provide 

employment and income data at very 

detailed geographic and industry levels. 

The SBA identified three sources that 

provide software and data for the 

practical application of this approach. A 

cursory analysis of these models 

indicates that, because they use the 

same basic methodology and data, the 

differences among them are not 

significant enough to materially alter the 

outcome of a particular assessment. 

Hence, the SBA will base the final 

choice among these applications on cost 

and ease of usability. 

These models include RIMS II 

(developed by the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis), IMPLAN (developed by the 

Minnesota Implan Group, MIG Inc, in 

Minnesota), and REMI (developed by 

Regional Economic Models, Inc. in 

Amherst, Massachusetts). 

A Basic Description of the HUBZone 

Program 

The HUBZone Act of 1997 provides 

for a new Federal program designed to 

stimulate job creation and capital 

investment in distressed urban, rural 

and Native American areas. Through 

this Act, Congress provided a 

contracting goal for the HUBZone 

Program: That as of fiscal year 2003, 3 

percent of all Federal prime contract 

dollars should go to small firms located 

in HUBZone areas. 

HUBZone Areas 

Currently, there are five different 

definitions of HUBZone areas: 5

1. Qualified Census Tract (QCT): The 

Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) define a Qualified 

Census Tract as having either 50 percent 

or more of their households with 

income below 60 percent of the median 

gross income, or have a poverty rate of 

at least 25 percent. There is a maximum 

cap specifying that the population of all 

of the census tracts that meet one or 

both of these criteria cannot exceed 20 

percent of the area population; 6

2. Difficult Development Area (DDA): 

The definition of Difficult Development 

Area is similar to Qualified Census 

Tract in that it is based on an Internal 

Revenue Service provision for the Low 

Income Housing Tax Credit Program 

developed in conjunction with HUD. A 

characteristic of a DDA is that the locale 

has high construction, land and utility 

costs relative to the area median 

income; 7

3. Qualified County: The definition 

for qualified county is any county that, 

based on the most recent data available 

from the U.S. Census Bureau, is not 

located in a metropolitan statistical area, 

and in which the median household 

income is less than 80 percent of the 

median household income for the entire 

non-metropolitan area of its respective 

state. Alternatively, a qualified county is 

any non-metropolitan county that, based 

on the most recent data available from 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), has 

an unemployment rate that is not less 

than 140 percent of the state average 

unemployment rate or the national 

average unemployment rate; 8

4. Qualified Indian Reservation: The 

definitions for qualified Indian 

reservations, which include lands 

covered by the phrase ‘‘Indian 

Country,’’ are those established and 

used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. A 

more precise listing of properties 

included in this classification, besides 

reservations, is Indian trust lands (on 

and off the reservation), Indian 

dependant lands, and Indian service 

areas. In the state of Oklahoma, the 

HUBZone Program uses a determination 

arrived at by the Internal Revenue 

Service as the property is legally 

classified as a ‘‘former Indian 

reservations in Oklahoma’’; 9

5. Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC): A military base closed under 

the Defense Base Realignment and 

Closure Act of 1990 (BRAC). Congress 

determined that former military bases 

closed because of BRAC qualify for 

HUBZone status for a five-year period 

from the date of formal closure. For 

those locations closed as of the date the 

legislation was signed into law, the fiveyear period began on the date the law 

became effective, Dec. 8, 2004.10

The selection criteria for each 

HUBZone classification varies 

somewhat, to account for the different 

economic characteristic of the various 

HUBZone classes. However, for this 

specific methodological purpose, it is 

sufficient to state that six elements go 

into the criteria: 

1. Household income level; 

2. Unemployment rate; 

3. Poverty rate; 

4. BRAC; 

5. DDA; 

6. Classification as ‘‘Indian Country’’. 

HUBZone Firms 

The SBA HUBZone Program qualifies 

and periodically recertifies firms 

wishing to obtain or retain HUBZone 

status. The qualifying criteria for a 

HUBZone firm are based on having a 

specific level of operational activities 

within the geographic area of a 

HUBZone. Specifically, the firm must 

have its principal office located in a 

HUBZone Area, and at least 35% of its 

labor force must reside within a 

HUBZone Area. 

Federal Contract Mechanisms Federal 

Contracting Officers have quite a few 

mechanisms to channel funds to a 

HUBZone Area. For example, some 

Federal contracting mechanisms are 

based on socioeconomic status such as 

service disabled veteran, while others 

are simply based on full and open 

competition. Some of these mechanisms 

are related to the HUBZone Program and 

some are not. Understanding and tracing 

the dollar flows of these specific 

mechanisms will be crucial for assessing 

the economic impact of the HUBZone 

Program. To effectively trace these 

contracting dollars, the model 

differentiates among the following 

contracting mechanisms: 

1. HUBZone Direct Mechanism: 

Federal contract mechanisms based on 

HUBZone Program mechanisms (i.e., 

HUBZone set-aside, HUBZone sole 

source, and HUBZone price preference 

in a full and open competition); 11


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 155 / Monday, August 11, 2008 / Notices 46701 

occurrences of multiple mechanisms designation 

are insignificant, then it is reasonable to included 

them in the HUBZone Direct Mechanism. However, 

if there are significant occurrences of multiple 

mechanisms contracts, then the model will expand 

to explicitly include this additional contract 

mechanism, and will thus have four contract 

mechanisms. 

12This section draws on the work of Henry Beale, 

(May 2008), The HUBZone Program, U.S. SBA 

Advocacy, Washington, DC. 

13These multipliers will be provided by the 

specific Input-Output software chosen. 

14We expect that the ‘‘appropriate analytical 

level’’ will capture the economic impact at the 

HUBZone Area category. However, it may also 

prove informative to analyze the HUBZone Program 

economic impact at a more granular level. For 

example, it may be useful to analyze the data at the 

individual HUBZone Area level. This granularity, 

for example, might shed light on how and why 

some HUBZone areas are more successful than 

others at attracting Federal contracts. Indeed, the 

Advocacy report does this. See SBA Advocacy 

(2000). Op. Cit. It may also be revealing to analyze 

the data at the firm type level to see what 

differentiates successful HUBZone contractors from 

other HUBZone firms. Whether it is feasible to 

analyze the data at this level of granularity will 

largely be a question of resources and privacy 

issues. 

2. Non-HUBZone SBA Contract 

Mechanisms: SBA contract mechanisms 

solely based on Non-HUBZone 

mechanisms (e.g., small business setaside, service disabled veteran-owned 

small business set aside, 8(a) sole source 

award, 8(a) set aside); 

3. Non-SBA Federal Contract 

Mechanisms: Competitive Federal 

procurement mechanisms based on full 

and open competition, and other 

contracting mechanisms available to 

small and ‘other than small’ firms. 

These differentiations allow for the 

incremental measurement of all Federal 

contract dollars flowing to HUBZones 

via the various kinds of Federal 

procurement mechanisms. Specifically: 

• Mechanism 1 measures the dollar 

flow attributable the HUBZone Program; 

• Mechanism 2 measures the dollar 

flow attributable to Non-HUBZone SBA 

programs on the HUBZone areas; 

• Mechanism 3 measures the dollar 

flow attributable to Non-SBA Federal 

procurement contracts to HUBZone 

areas; 

• The summation of mechanisms 1, 

and 2, allows for the measurement of all 

the SBA’s procurement contracts 

towards HUBZone areas; 

• The summation of mechanisms 1 

through 3 allows for the measurement of 

all Federal contracts toward HUBZone 

areas. 

Statistical Characteristics of the 

Economic Impact Assessment Model 

It is commonly the case that the final 

analysis will include aspects not 

anticipated in the original methodology 

outline. This is a natural outcome of 

going through the entire exercise, and 

being able to identify subtleties not 

perceivable from the onset of the study. 

Hence, it may very well be the case that 

the actual assessment may include 

statistical and data elements not 

mentioned in this methodology. 

However, we anticipate using the 

following statistical and data elements 

to provide a quantitative description of 

the HUBZone Program.12

1. The five HUBZone areas and their 

HUBZone participation (i.e., the number 

of HUBZone Business, Vendors, and 

Contract Dollars); 

2. The flow of contract dollars via the 

various HUBZone mechanisms over 

time; 

3. Industry concentration of HUBZone 

contracts (i.e., the number and dollar 

value of HUBZone contracts by NAICS 

industry); 

4. HUBZone participation by state 

(i.e., the number of HUBZone 

Businesses, Contractors, and Contract 

Dollars); 

5. Employment Level; 

6. Unemployment Rate; 

7. Median Household Income. 

In addition, we anticipate utilizing 

the following statistical and data 

elements for each HUBZone Area: 

A. The number of sub-areas (mostly 

counties) in the HUBZone Area; 

B. The number of HUBZone Firms in 

the HUBZone Area; 

C. The number of HUBZone 

Contractors in the HUBZone Area; 

D. The number of HUBZone Contracts 

flowing into the HUBZone Area; 

E. HUBZone Contract Dollars flowing 

into HUBZone Area; 

F. Population in the HUBZone Area. 

• Ratio 1: The number of HUBZone 

Firms divided by HUBZone Area 

• Ratio 2: The number of HUBZone 

Firms divided by HUBZone Area 

Population 

• Ratio 3: The number of HUBZone 

Contractors divided by HUBZone Area 

• Ratio 4: The number of HUBZone 

Contractors divided by HUBZone Area 

Population 

• Ratio 5: The number of HUBZone 

Contracts divided by HUBZone Area 

• Ratio 6: The number of HUBZone 

Contracts divided by HUBZone Area 

Population 

• Ratio 7: HUBZone Contract Dollars 

divided by HUBZone Area 

• Ratio 8: HUBZone Contract Dollars 

divided by HUBZone Area Population. 

Data elements B through E measure 

the level of participation of a specific 

HUBZone Area. Ratios 1, 3, 5, and 7 

measure the comparative rate of 

participation of a particular HUBZone 

Area. In addition, the population ratios 

(ratios 2, 4, 6, and 8) measure the 

comparative rate of participation on a 

per capita basis. 

These statistics and data elements 

will provide the basis for measuring the 

absolute level and the comparative rate 

of participation in each HUBZone Area. 

For example, they will provide contract 

data (i.e., the number of contracts, the 

dollar value of these contracts, and the 

types of mechanisms used to obtain 

these contracts) for a specific HUBZone 

Area. In addition, by dividing these 

contract data, say by population in a 

specific HUBZone Area, they provide a 

comparative measure of the importance 

of these contracts with respect to 

population. 

Other statistical analysis of the above 

data should provide additional 

quantitative understanding of the 

HUBZone Program. For example, it may 

be useful to derive some commonly 

used central tendency measures (i.e., 

mean, median, mode.) as well as some 

commonly used distribution measures 

(e.g., quartile, decile, standard 

deviation, etc.). 

Estimating the Incremental and Total 

Economic Impact of the HUBZone 

Program 

Having provided a sufficient 

statistical description of the HUBZone 

Program, the model will then estimate 

the economic impact of the contract 

dollar flows attributable to the three 

contracting mechanisms. Specifically, 

the model will provide the following 

estimates: 

1. The economic impact directly 

attributable to the HUBZone Program; 

2. The economic impact of the NonHUBZone SBA programs on HUBZone 

areas; 

3. The economic impact of other 

related Federal procurement programs 

affecting HUBZone areas. 

Economic impact will be measured by 

the estimated growth in median 

household income and employment (or 

a reduction in unemployment) in a 

specific HUBZone Area. 

The model will use a two-step process 

to arrive at these estimated growth rates. 

First it will apply a specific multiplier 

to the contract dollars flowing to a 

specific HUBZone Area via the three 

contract mechanisms.13 In a second 

step, the model will aggregate the 

results to the appropriate analytical 

level to measure the economic impact of 

the various dollar flows.14

In order to accomplish these two 

steps, the model will employ the 

following types of equation: 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
46702 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 155 / Monday, August 11, 2008 / Notices 

15All the multipliers in this analysis are Final 

Demand multipliers. 

16The Census decennial population survey is the 

only source that provides socioeconomic data at the 

level required for this impact study. 

17The extent that expenditures timing differ from 

allocation timing will increase model’s error rate. 

The Employment Impact Equations 

1. HUBZone Direct Employment 

Impact = f (dollar flow to a HUBZone 

Area via the HUBZone Direct 

Mechanism multiplied by Employment 

Multiplier) 15

2. Non-HUBZone SBA Employment 

Impact = f (dollar flow to a HUBZone 

Area via Other SBA Mechanisms 

multiplied by the Employment 

Multiplier) 

3. Non-SBA Federal Employment 

Impact = f (dollar flow to a HUBZone 

Area via Non-SBA Federal contract 

Mechanisms multiplied by the 

Employment Multiplier) 

The Income Impact Equations 

4. HUBZone Direct Income Impact = 

f (dollar flow to a HUBZone Area via the 

HUBZone Direct Mechanism multiplied 

by the Income Multiplier) 

5. Non-HUBZone SBA Income Impact 

= f (dollar flow to a HUBZone Area via 

Other SBA Mechanisms multiplied by 

the Income Multiplier) 

6. Non-SBA Federal Income Impact = 

f (dollar flow to a HUBZone Area via 

Non-SBA federal contract Mechanisms 

multiplied by the Income Multiplier) 

Equations 1 and 4 measure the 

economic impact directly attributable to 

the HUBZone Program. Equations 2 and 

5 measure the economic impact 

attributable to the Non-HUBZone 

related SBA Federal procurement 

programs. Finally, equations 3 and 6 

measure the Non-HUBZone and NonSBA Federal procurement program on a 

HUBZone Area. 

Hence, the first set of equations (1 and 

4) measure the economic impact of the 

HUBZone Program. The second set of 

equation (2 and 5) measure the 

economic impact of the Non-HUBZone 

related SBA procurement programs. The 

third set of equations (3 and 6) measure 

the economic impact of the NonHUBZone and Non SBA Federal 

procurement program on a specific 

HUBZone Area. Summing the result of 

equations 1 through 6 will provide for 

a measurement of the entire Federal 

procurement program on a specific 

HUBZone Area. 

A comparison of these set of 

equations can place the economic 

impact of the HUBZone Program into 

perspective. For example, comparing 

the results of the first set of equations 

(1 and 4) to the results of the second set 

of equations (2 and 5) will compare the 

economic impact of HUBZone Program 

to the economic impact of the NonHUBZone SBA programs. Likewise, 

comparing the results of the first set of 

equations (1 and 4) to the results of the 

third set of equations (3 and 6) will 

compare the economic impact of 

HUBZone Program to the economic 

impact of the Non-SBA Federal 

procurement programs. 

Databases 

Based on our understanding, there are 

four databases necessary for the 

resolution of the model. Following is a 

basic description of each of these 

databases: 

HUBZone Certification Tracking System 

(HCTS) 

This database is maintained by the 

SBA HUBZone Program. The data 

contained in this database is generated 

from the application, recertification and 

program examination processes of the 

HUBZone Program. The following 

relevant data elements can be found in 

this database: 

• Firm Identification Elements (e.g., 

name, address, SBA Customer Number, 

HUBZone Application Number); 

• Firm Operational Elements (e.g., 

Employment, Revenue Size). 

Central Contractor Registration (CCR) 

The Central Contractor Registration 

(CCR) is the primary registrant 

procurement database for the U.S. 

Federal Government. CCR collects, 

validates, stores and disseminates data 

in support of agency acquisition 

missions. It is federally mandated that 

anyone who wishes to do business with 

the Federal government under a FARbased contract must be registered in 

CCR before being awarded the contract. 

The Federal Procurement Data System 

(FPDS) 

The Federal Procurement Data 

System-Next Generation (FPDS–NG) is 

maintained by the General Services 

Administration under the direction of 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

This database contains key data on all 

Federal appropriated procurement 

actions. The following relevant data 

elements can be found in this database: 

• Contract Identification (e.g., 

contract value, and selection 

mechanism) 

• Firm Identification (e.g., DUNS 

Number, socioeconomic status 

[HUBZone, 8a, Open Competition]) 

Census 2000 

While the HUBZone Program was 

established by congress in 1997, it 

became operational in 1999. Hence for 

simplicity purposes, we anticipate using 

the 2000 Census data.16 The 2000 

Census data provides the following data 

elements: 

• Population; 

• Labor Force; 

• Unemployment Rate; 

• Poverty Rate; 

• Household Income. 

Defining the Data Elements 

So far we have identified the 

following data elements: 

1. Contracting Federal Agencies; 

2. Contracting Mechanisms; 

3. HUBZone Areas; 

4. HUBZone Firms; 

5. HUBZone Contractors. 

The next data element to be defined 

is ‘‘Contract Value’’. To a certain extent 

our choice is limited by the availability 

of data found in FPDS. This database 

only records obligated funds. However, 

we have no information at which point 

in time these obligated funds were 

actually expended. Faced with this 

restriction, we assume that all the funds 

are spent in the year that they are 

obligated.17

Given the above restrictions, we 

deduce the final data element required 

by our model: 

6. Contract Value is defined as prime, 

obligated dollars via any one of the 

three contract mechanisms. 

The final data elements to be 

specified in this model are the type of 

multipliers used for estimating 

incremental and total economic impact. 

As indicated in our basic description of 

the I–O Model, this decision is 

primarily based on the available data 

elements. Hence, given the abovedescribed data elements, we anticipate 

using the final demand multiplier for 

output, income, and employment. 

Hence, we have the following additional 

data elements: 

7. Final Demand Output Multiplier; 

8. Final Demand Employment 

Multiplier; 

9. Final Demand Income Multiplier. 

A common aspect of all I–O models 

is that they provide final demand 

multipliers for many industries. For 

example, the RIMS II model provides 

final demand multipliers for 386 

industries. Hence, we expect that it will 

be necessary to reduce the number of 

industry-specific multipliers. There are 

several options for narrowing this 

choice. For example, one could take a 

weighted average of the relevant 

multipliers, or one could simply choose 

a representative sample (say the largest 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 155 / Monday, August 11, 2008 / Notices 46703 

two or three) multipliers. This decision 

will be based on weighing the effort 

versus the additional accuracy gained 

from employing additional multipliers. 

Another common aspect of most I–O 

models is that they provide final 

demand multipliers at the county level. 

Given that there are several thousand 

counties, we expect to reduce the 

regional specification of our multipliers. 

Again we will weigh effort versus 

accuracy in making this choice. 

Authority: 13 CFR part 126. 

Fay E. Ott, 

Associate Administrator for Government 

Contracting and Business Development. 

[FR Doc. E8–18441 Filed 8–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 6312] 

30-Day Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection: DS–157, Supplemental 

Nonimmigrant Visa Form, OMB Control 

Number 1405–0134 

ACTION: Notice of request for public 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of State has 

submitted the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

approval in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

• Title of Information Collection: 

Supplemental Nonimmigrant Visa Form 

• OMB Control Number: 1405–0134 

• Type of Request: Extension of a 

Currently Approved Collection 

• Originating Office: Bureau of 

Consular Affairs, Department of State 

(CA/VO) 

• Form Number: DS–157 

• Respondents: Nonimmigrant visa 

applicants legally required to provide 

additional security and background 

information. 

• Estimated Number of Respondents: 

4,000,000 

• Estimated Number of Responses: 

4,000,000 

• Average Hours per Response: 1 

hour 

• Total Estimated Burden: 4,000,000 

• Frequency: Once per respondent 

• Obligation to Respond: Required to 

Obtain or Retain a Benefit 

DATES: Submit comments to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

up to 30 days from August 11, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Direct comments and 

questions to Katherine Astrich, the 

Department of State Desk Officer in the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs at the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), who may be reached at 

202–395–4718. You may submit 

comments by any of the following 

methods: 

• E-mail: kastrich@omb.eop.gov. You 

must include the DS form number, 

information collection title, and OMB 

control number in the subject line of 

your message. 

• Mail (paper, disk, or CD–ROM 

submissions): Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Fax: 202–395–6974 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You 

may obtain copies of the proposed 

information collection and supporting 

documents from David Serna of the 

Office of Visa Services, U.S. Department 

of State, 2401 E. Street, NW., L–603, 

Washington, DC 20522, who may be 

reached at (202) 663–2874. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are 

soliciting public comments to permit 

the Department to: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

information collection is necessary for 

the proper performance of our 

functions. 

• Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection, including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used. 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected. 

• Minimize the reporting burden on 

those who are to respond, including the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of technology. 

Abstract of proposed collection: 

Applicants will use this form to apply 

for a nonimmigrant visa to enter the 

United States. U.S. embassies and 

consulates will use the data provided in 

conjunction with the DS–157 to help 

determine whether aliens are eligible to 

receive nonimmigrant visas. 

Methodology: Applicants may fill out 

the DS–157 online or print the page and 

fill it out by hand, and submit it in 

person at the time of interview. 

Dated: July 31, 2008. 

Stephen A. Edson, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of 

Consular Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. E8–18475 Filed 8–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 6313] 

Culturally Significant Objects Imported 

for Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘Art & 

Empire: Treasures From Assyria in the 

British Museum’’

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the 

following determinations: Pursuant to 

the authority vested in me by the Act of 

October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 

2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 

27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and 

Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 

2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et 

seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of 

October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority 

No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as 

amended, and Delegation of Authority 

No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], 

I hereby determine that the objects in 

the exhibition ‘‘Art & Empire: Treasures 

from Assyria in the British Museum,’’

imported from abroad for temporary 

exhibition within the United States, are 

of cultural significance. The objects are 

imported pursuant to a loan agreement 

with the foreign owner or custodian. I 

also determine that the exhibition or 

display of the exhibit objects at the 

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, MA, from 

on or about September 21, 2008, until 

on or about January 4, 2009, and at 

possible additional exhibitions or 

venues yet to be determined, is in the 

national interest. Public Notice of these 

Determinations is ordered to be 

published in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, including a list of 

the exhibit objects, contact Julie 

Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of 

the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of 

State (telephone: (202–453–8050). The 

address is U.S. Department of State, SA–

44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, 

Washington, DC 20547–0001. 

Dated: August 4, 2008. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department 

of State. 

[FR Doc. E8–18476 Filed 8–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES