48352 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

use for Soda Creek, which changed from 

‘‘NONE’’ to undesignated. As described 

in the undesignated surface waters 

provision of Idaho’s Water Quality 

Standards (IDAPA 58.01.02.101.01a), 

the Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality (IDEQ) applies cold water 

aquatic life criteria to undesignated 

waters because it is presumed that most 

waters in the State will support cold 

water aquatic life. Thus, cold water 

aquatic life criteria now apply to Soda 

Creek and the segment of the Blackfoot 

River. EPA approved Idaho’s revised 

water quality standards for segments of 

Canyon Creek and South Fork Coeur 

d’Alene River on June 24, 2005, and for 

Soda Creek on August 15, 2006. EPA 

approved Idaho’s revised water quality 

standards for the segment of the 

Blackfoot River, except for any portion 

in Indian country, on August 22, 2006. 

Thus, the Federal water quality 

standards designating Soda Creek and 

portions of Canyon Creek, South Fork 

Coeur d’Alene River, and Blackfoot 

River for cold water biota use (40 CFR 

131.33(b)) is no longer necessary, and 

EPA is withdrawing it with this action. 

EPA is also withdrawing the water 

quality standards variance provision 

applicable to these uses (40 CFR 

131.33(d)), because this provision is no 

longer necessary with the withdrawal of 

the Federal water quality standards 

designating these uses. 

For further information, including the 

regulatory text and various statutes and 

executive orders that require findings 

for rulemakings, please see the 

information provided in the direct final 

rule titled, ‘‘Withdrawal of the Federal 

Water Quality Standards Use 

Designations for Soda Creek and 

Portions of Canyon Creek, South Fork 

Coeur d’Alene River, and Blackfoot 

River in Idaho’’ located in the ‘‘Rules 

and Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register publication. 

I. Why EPA Is Issuing This Proposed 

Rule 

This document proposes to withdraw 

the Federal water quality standards 

designating cold water biota uses for 

Soda Creek and portions of Canyon 

Creek, Blackfoot River, and South Fork 

Coeur d’Alene River in Idaho. We have 

published a direct final rule 

withdrawing the Federal water quality 

standards designating the cold water 

biota uses in the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register because we view this as a 

noncontroversial action and anticipate 

no adverse comment. We have 

explained our reasons for this action in 

the preamble to the direct final rule. 

If we receive no adverse comment, we 

will not take further action on this 

proposed rule. If we receive adverse 

comment, we will withdraw the direct 

final rule and it will not take effect. We 

would address all public comments in 

any subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. 

We do not intend to institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. For further 

information, please see the information 

provided in the ADDRESSES section of 

this document. 

II. What Entities May Be Affected by 

This Action? 

Citizens concerned with water quality 

in Idaho may be interested in this 

rulemaking. Entities discharging 

pollutants to Soda Creek, Canyon Creek, 

South Fork Coeur d’Alene, and 

Blackfoot River in Idaho could be 

indirectly affected by this rulemaking 

because water quality standards are 

used in determining National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit limits. Because this action 

withdraws the Federal water quality 

standards designating cold water biota 

uses that are no longer necessary since 

EPA approved Idaho’s adopted uses that 

result in protection for cold water biota, 

the effect of this rulemaking may only 

occur when entities seek variances to 

water quality standards. Entities seeking 

variances from use designations on 

these waters will now apply to the state, 

and EPA will act on the state’s decision 

to grant the variance. 

Categories and entities that may 

ultimately be affected include: 

Category Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ............................... Industries discharging pollutants to Soda Creek, Canyon Creek, South Fork Coeur d’Alene River, and Blackfoot 

River in Idaho. 

Municipalities ...................... Publicly owned treatment works discharging pollutants to Soda Creek, Canyon Creek, South Fork Coeur d’Alene 

River, and Blackfoot River in Idaho. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding NPDES regulated 

entities likely to be affected by this 

action. This table lists the types of 

entities that EPA is now aware could 

potentially be affected by this action. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131 

Environmental protection, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Water 

pollution control, Water quality 

standards. 

Dated: August 13, 2008. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–19199 Filed 8–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[CC Docket No. 02–6; FCC 08–173] 

Schools and Libraries Universal 

Service Support Mechanism 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

certain services should be designated as 

eligible for funding under the schools 

and libraries universal service support 

mechanism, also known as the E-rate 

program. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether to retain 

interconnected Voice over Internet 

Protocol (interconnected VoIP) as an 

eligible service for future funding years. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

September 18, 2008. Reply comments 

are due on or before October 3, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by CC Docket No. 02–6, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov, and include 

the following words in the body of the 

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

directions will be sent in response. 

Include the docket number in the 

subject line of the message. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules 48353 

• Mail: Secretary, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

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

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY 202–

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Bachtell or Cara Voth, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, 202–418–7400 or TTY 202–

418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 

02–6, FCC 08–173, adopted July 25, 

2008, and released July 31, 2008. The 

complete text of this document is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. The 

document may also be purchased from 

the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 800–

378–3160 or 202–863–2893, facsimile 

202–863–2898, or via e-mail at 

http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.fcc.gov. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

This document does not contain 

proposed information collection(s) 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified ‘‘information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

Introduction 

1. In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), we seek comment 

on whether certain services should be 

designated as eligible for funding under 

the schools and libraries universal 

service support mechanism, also known 

as the E-rate program. We seek comment 

on whether, beginning in Funding Year 

2009, the Eligible Services List (ESL) 

should include filtering software, a 

broader classification of basic telephone 

service, dark fiber, text messaging, 

firewall service, anti-virus/anti-spam 

software, scheduling services, telephone 

broadcast messaging, and certain 

wireless Internet access applications. In 

addition, we seek comment on whether 

to retain interconnected Voice over 

Internet Protocol (interconnected VoIP) 

as an eligible service for future funding 

years. During the pleading cycles 

established for the Funding Years 2007 

and 2008 ESLs, numerous parties 

commented on the need to make these 

services eligible for E-rate program 

discounts. We now seek comment on 

whether these services may be 

supported and whether support for 

these services will encourage access to 

advanced telecommunications and 

information services for public and nonprofit elementary and secondary school 

classrooms and libraries. 

Background 

2. Under the E-rate program, eligible 

schools, libraries, and consortia that 

include eligible schools and libraries 

may receive discounts for eligible 

telecommunications services, Internet 

access, and internal connections. 

Section 254 of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended (the Act), gives the 

Commission the authority to designate 

‘‘telecommunications services’’ and 

certain additional services eligible for 

support under the E-rate program. The 

Commission has also determined that it 

has the authority to designate services 

eligible for schools and libraries support 

as part of its authority to enhance, to the 

extent technically feasible and 

economically reasonable, access to 

advanced telecommunications and 

information services for all public and 

non-profit elementary and secondary 

school classrooms and libraries. 

3. Since the initial implementation of 

the E-rate program in 1998, the 

Universal Service Administrative 

Company (USAC) has developed 

various procedures and guidelines, 

consistent with the Commission’s rules 

and requirements, for applicants to 

ensure that funding is provided only for 

eligible services. The ESL indicates 

whether specific products or services 

are eligible to receive discounts under 

the E-rate program. The ESL is divided 

into several categories—

telecommunications service, Internet 

access, internal connections, basic 

maintenance of internal connections, 

and miscellaneous. 

4. On December 23, 2003, the 

Commission adopted § 54.522 of its 

rules, formalizing the process for 

updating the ESL for the E-rate program. 

Specifically, § 54.522 requires the 

Commission to seek comment on 

USAC’s proposed ESL and to issue a 

Public Notice attaching the final ESL for 

the upcoming funding year at least 60 

days prior to the opening of the funding 

window for the E-rate program. 

5. Pursuant to the Commission’s rules, 

the Commission released Public Notices 

seeking comment on USAC’s proposed 

ESL for Funding Years 2007 and 2008. 

In revising the 2007 and 2008 ESLs, we 

noted that the proceedings were limited 

to determining what services are eligible 

under the Commission’s current rules 

and were not intended to be a vehicle 

for changing eligibility rules. Therefore, 

we indicated that those comments not 

addressed in the ESLs may be more 

appropriately filed for the Commission’s 

consideration in the general docket for 

the E-rate program. 

Discussion 

6. In this NPRM, we seek comment on 

a number of issues raised by the 

commenters that may not have been 

addressed as part of the ESL process for 

Funding Year 2008 or prior years. 

Specifically, we seek comment on 

whether to include interconnected VoIP 

service, filtering, dark fiber, and other 

services in the ESL, in future funding 

years. We also seek comment on which 

rules, if any, would need to be amended 

to effectuate any changes made as a 

result of this NPRM. For instance, 

§§ 54.502 and 54.503 describe services 

that can be provided by 

telecommunications carriers while 

§ 54.517 describes what services can be 

provided by non-telecommunications 

carriers. Should we reorganize or 

restructure the rules relating to the 

eligible services and the ESL to better 

inform applicants of which services are 

supported? 

Interconnected VoIP Service 

7. Interconnected VoIP service is 

defined as a service that: (1) Enables 

real-time, two-way voice 

communications; (2) requires a 

broadband connection from the user’s 

location; (3) requires Internet protocolcompatible customer premises 

equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users 

generally to receive calls that originate 

on the public switched telephone 

network and to terminate calls to the 

public switched telephone network. 

8. The Commission has addressed 

interconnected VoIP services in various 

contexts other than E-rate eligible 

services in recent years. In June 2006, 

the Commission established universal 

service obligations for providers of 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
48354 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

interconnected VoIP service. The 

Commission required providers of 

interconnected VoIP services to 

contribute to the Universal Service 

Fund (USF) on an interim basis in order 

to sustain the USF, but the Commission 

did not classify interconnected VoIP 

service as either a telecommunications 

service or an information service. It did, 

however, for purposes of finding 

permissive authority under section 

254(d) of the Act, find that 

interconnected VoIP providers are 

providers of interstate 

telecommunications. In 2007, the 

Commission also extended local number 

portability obligations to interconnected 

VoIP providers and extended the 

disability access requirements that 

currently apply to telecommunications 

service providers and equipment 

manufacturers to interconnected VoIP 

providers. 

9. Consistent with these recent 

Commission actions, interconnected 

VoIP service was included as an eligible 

service in the 2007 and 2008 ESLs. The 

Commission has not yet determined if 

interconnected VoIP services are 

telecommunications services or 

information services. Consequently, the 

2007 and 2008 ESLs listed 

interconnected VoIP services under the 

‘‘Miscellaneous’’ category. 

10. As established by section 254(c)(3) 

of the Act, the Commission may 

designate additional services for 

universal service support. Furthermore, 

the Act also authorizes the Commission 

to establish competitively neutral rules 

to enhance access to advanced 

telecommunications and information 

services. We tentatively conclude that 

interconnected VoIP service should be 

designated as a supported service for the 

E-rate program in future funding years. 

Because the Commission required 

interconnected VoIP service providers 

to contribute to the USF, the policy of 

competitive neutrality would support a 

finding that providers of interconnected 

VoIP services should also be able to 

participate in the universal service Erate program and, consequently, that 

interconnected VoIP service be included 

in the ESL. We also agree with 

commenters that the inclusion of 

interconnected VoIP service as an 

eligible service enhances the options 

available to schools and libraries to 

effectuate meaningful communications 

among parents, teachers, and school and 

library administrators. 

11. We tentatively conclude that it is 

administratively and operationally 

appropriate for interconnected VoIP 

service requests to be processed as a 

Priority 1 service. We seek comment on 

this tentative conclusion. If 

interconnected VoIP service is deemed 

an eligible service, we also seek 

comment on how USAC would 

implement this tentative conclusion. 

For example, is it appropriate for 

applicants to label interconnected VoIP 

service as an Internet access service 

when applying for E-rate program 

funding? If so, should we require 

applicants requesting funding for 

interconnected VoIP services to certify 

to Children’s Internet Protection Act 

(CIPA) requirements? All schools and 

libraries seeking funding for Internet 

access or internal connections under the 

E-rate program must have technology 

that blocks or filters Internet access to 

obscenity, pornography, and material 

deemed harmful to minors under the 

CIPA. Applicants seeking funding only 

for telecommunications services do not 

have to comply with CIPA. Should we 

require applicants requesting funding 

for interconnected VoIP services to 

comply with CIPA if the applicant does 

not also receive E-rate funds for Internet 

access, Internet service, or internal 

connections? As noted earlier, the 2008 

ESL identifies interconnected VoIP 

service under the miscellaneous 

category. As the Commission explained 

in the VoIP 911 Order, customers who 

purchase interconnected VoIP service 

receive a service that ‘‘enables a 

customer to do everything (or nearly 

everything) the customer could do using 

an analog telephone.’’ We therefore seek 

comment on whether ‘‘Miscellaneous’’

is the appropriate category for 

interconnected VoIP services or if 

another category would be more 

appropriate. If a commenter believes 

that another category is more 

appropriate, we ask that the commenter 

identify the appropriate category and 

explain why such category is more 

appropriate. Finally, we seek comment 

on the effect, if any, that the removal of 

interconnected VoIP service from the 

2009 ESL would have on the E-rate 

program or upon applicants that rely on 

this service. 

Filtering Software 

12. We seek comment on whether 

stand-alone filtering software should be 

funded under the E-rate program. 

Filtering software protects users from 

inappropriate content by selectively 

blocking certain words or Internet sites. 

In 2001, the Commission determined 

that CIPA prohibited the use of E-rate 

funding for filtering software. Section 

1721(g) of CIPA states that funds from 

the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 or the Library 

Services and Technology Act may be 

used to purchase filtering technology 

necessary to meet the requirements of 

CIPA, but ‘‘[n]o other sources of funds 

for the purchase or acquisition of such 

measures are authorized by this title, or 

the amendments made by this title.’’

The Commission interpreted this 

passage to mean that no sources of 

funds other than those explicitly listed 

in CIPA, which did not include E-rate 

program funds, could be used for the 

purchase of filtering software to comply 

with CIPA. 

13. We seek comment on the 

Commission’s prior interpretation of 

section 1721(g) of CIPA and whether it 

should be reconsidered. Specifically, 

parties are asked to comment on 

whether this provision explicitly 

prohibits E-rate program funding from 

being used for filtering software or 

whether the statute can be interpreted 

so that the Commission is not precluded 

from funding filtering software through 

the E-rate program. We also seek 

comment on whether schools and 

libraries have an additional need for 

subsidized filtering services because 

Congress requires content filtering for 

the receipt of E-rate funding. We further 

seek comment on whether making 

filtering eligible may help streamline 

the application review process by 

reducing the administrative effort and 

costs associated with determining 

whether a school or library is seeking Erate funding for costs associated with 

stand-alone filtering services. We also 

seek comment on whether classifying 

stand-alone filtering services as eligible 

for E-rate support would also reduce 

confusion for applicants. 

Basic Telephone Service 

14. We seek comment on whether the 

definition of ‘‘basic’’ telephone service 

should be expanded to include 

additional services under the E-rate 

program. The Commission requires 

participating schools and libraries to 

base their requests for discounts on an 

approved technology plan, unless they 

are seeking discounts on ‘‘basic local, 

cellular, PCS, and/or long distance 

telephone service and/or voicemail 

only.’’ We seek comment on whether 

the classification of basic telephone 

service should include services such as 

a Private Branch eXchange (PBX), key 

systems, T1 lines, and interconnected 

VoIP and Primary Rate Interface (PRI) 

trunk lines connecting a PBX to the 

Public Switched Telephone Network 

(PSTN), for the purpose of also 

exempting these services from the 

technology plan requirement. We seek 

comment on whether applicants will 

continue to sufficiently align their 

funding requests with their service 

needs if we classify these services as 

‘‘basic’’ telephone service for purposes 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules 48355 

of eliminating the technology plan 

requirement. We seek comment on 

whether it is appropriate to expand the 

definition to classify certain Priority 2 

services as ‘‘basic’’ telephone service, a 

Priority 1 service. Commenters should 

discuss how any changes to the 

definition of ‘‘basic’’ telephone service 

to include certain Priority 2 services 

affect the Commission’s determination 

that facilities located on an applicant’s 

premises are presumed to be Priority 2 

internal connections. 

Dark Fiber 

15. We seek comment on whether 

unlit (dark) fiber should be eligible for 

discounts under the E-rate program. 

Dark fiber was conditionally eligible for 

E-rate discounts prior to Funding Year 

2004. In the Schools and Libraries Third 

Report and Order, FCC 03–323, released 

in 2003, however, the Commission 

found that dark fiber was not eligible for 

discounts and sought comment on 

whether dark fiber should be funded 

under the E-rate program. We now 

incorporate that record into this 

proceeding and ask commenters to 

refresh the record on whether dark fiber 

should be included as an eligible 

service. While the statutory 

classification of dark fiber remains an 

open issue, we note that if dark fiber 

were eligible for E-rate discounts, the 

service could be supported under the 

Act as an ‘‘additional’’ service, rather 

than as a ‘‘telecommunications service.’’

As such, we seek comment on whether 

dark fiber should be classified under the 

miscellaneous category or some other 

category of service. We also seek 

comment on technological or other 

changes that have occurred since we last 

sought comment on this issue in 2003. 

Commenters should address whether 

these changes alter the Commission’s 

prior conclusion that only a functioning 

(lit) fiber optic service provided by a 

telecommunications service provider or 

Internet access provider should be 

eligible for E-rate support. 

Other Services 

16. We seek comment on whether 

several individual services—text 

messaging, firewall, anti-virus/antispam software, scheduling services and 

telephone broadcast messaging—should 

be eligible for the E-rate program under 

section 254(c)(3) of the Act. We seek 

comment on whether funding these 

services through E-rate will encourage 

access to advanced telecommunications 

and information services for public and 

non-profit elementary and secondary 

school classrooms and libraries. We also 

seek comment on how schools and 

libraries would use these services and 

whether the use would be for 

‘‘educational purposes,’’ as required by 

our rules. For the services discussed in 

this section, we seek comment on how 

each service, if it is added to the ESL, 

should be categorized. Specifically, 

commenters should indicate whether 

the service should be categorized as a 

telecommunications service, Internet 

access service, and/or listed in the 

miscellaneous category. Should we 

require applicants requesting funding 

for the services discussed in this section 

to certify to CIPA requirements? As 

discussed above, we note that all 

schools and libraries seeking funding for 

Internet access or internal connections 

under the E-rate program must have 

technology that blocks or filters Internet 

access to obscenity, pornography, and 

material deemed harmful to minors 

under the CIPA. Applicants seeking 

funding only for telecommunications 

services do not have to comply with 

CIPA. Should we require applicants 

requesting funding for the services 

discussed in this section to comply with 

CIPA if the applicant does not also 

receive E-rate funds for Internet access, 

Internet service, or internal 

connections? 

17. Text Messaging. We seek comment 

on whether text messaging should be an 

eligible service. Text messaging, known 

as short message service or SMS, is a 

service that allows short messages, 

typically up to 160 characters, to be sent 

to and from handheld wireless devices. 

We specifically seek comment on the 

extent to which SMS is functionally 

equivalent to e-mail and paging and 

how the current eligibility of these two 

messaging services should affect our 

treatment of text messaging as an 

eligible service. Because text messaging 

is often bundled with other eligible 

telecommunications services, we seek 

comment on whether including text 

messaging as an eligible service would 

reduce the burden and administrative 

costs for applicants, service providers 

and USAC. 

18. Firewall. We seek comment on 

whether separately priced firewall 

services should be eligible under the Erate program, as recommended by a 

number of commenters. Firewall service 

is described as ‘‘a hardware and 

software combination that sits at the 

boundary between an organization’s 

network and the outside world, and 

protects the network against 

unauthorized access or intrusions.’’ In 

the 2007 ESL, the Commission clarified 

that only basic firewall services that are 

provided as a standard component of a 

vendor’s Internet access service are 

eligible for E-rate program discounts. 

We seek comment on whether a new 

definition of eligible firewall services 

should be adopted and whether it 

should include such technology as 

intrusion prevention devices, network 

access control, firewall traversal, and 

deep packet inspection devices. 

Commenters should also identify any 

technologies other than these that 

should be considered for funding. We 

ask commenters to provide a proposed 

definition and to explain why such 

definition is appropriate. 

19. Anti-Virus/Anti-Spam Software. 

We seek comment on whether we 

should extend E-rate program eligibility 

to anti-virus and anti-spam software. 

Currently, only network operating 

system software and server-based e-mail 

and voice mail software are eligible for 

E-rate funds. Software that protects 

computer components from viruses and 

spam e-mails is ineligible for E-rate 

support. Thus, we seek comment on 

whether the increased prevalence of 

viruses and spam justifies including as 

an eligible service software that protects 

equipment at schools and libraries from 

these threats. 

20. Scheduling Services. We seek 

comment on whether to allow 

scheduling services to be eligible for Erate support. Scheduling software 

allows schools and libraries more 

efficiently to use video teleconferencing 

for distance learning by controlling the 

video linkage between the classrooms 

and the originating video feed, 

sometimes coordinating between 

hundreds of locations. Scheduling 

services were explicitly made ineligible 

in Funding Year 2006. Many 

commenters, however, have noted that 

scheduling software is a necessary 

component of distance learning, which 

is eligible as a digital transmission 

service in the telecommunications 

services category. Thus, we seek 

comment on whether video and voice 

conferencing services, which are eligible 

services, require scheduling software as 

an essential component of the services. 

We seek comment on how scheduling 

software is similar or different from 

other telecommunications components 

that are eligible. 

21. Telephone Broadcast Messaging. 

We seek comment on whether telephone 

broadcast messaging should be eligible 

for E-rate support. Telephone broadcast 

messaging allows pre-recorded messages 

to be sent over phone lines to 

individuals concerning school delays or 

closures, reported absences, upcoming 

activities and events, and emergencies. 

22. Wireless Internet Access 

Applications. We seek comment on 

whether certain wireless Internet access 

applications should be eligible for E-rate 

support. Currently, wireless Internet 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
48356 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

access service that is used for an 

educational purpose is eligible in the 

same manner that wired Internet access 

is eligible. The Commission has 

determined that, to qualify as an 

educational purpose under the E-rate 

program, an activity must be integral, 

immediate, and proximate to the 

education of students in the case of 

schools, or integral, immediate, and 

proximate to the provision of library 

services to library patrons in the case of 

libraries. Activities that occur on library 

or school property are presumed to be 

integral, immediate, and proximate to 

the education of students or the 

provision of library services to patrons. 

Although the Commission has 

previously found that wireless services 

used on library or classroom property 

are presumed to be eligible, we seek 

comment on various technologies that 

are used away from the library or school 

property. Commenters should discuss 

how other wireless Internet access 

applications are similar or different 

from other currently eligible services 

which are used off-site for educational 

purposes. 

Procedural Matters 

23. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on or before September 18, 

2008 and reply comments are due on or 

before October 20, 2008. Comments may 

be filed using: (1) The Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s 

eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing 

paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

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

cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking 

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

Filers should follow the instructions 

provided on the Web site for submitting 

comments. 

• For ECFS filers, if multiple docket 

or rulemaking numbers appear in the 

caption of this proceeding, filers must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing 

instructions, filers should send an 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). 

Ex Parte Requirements 

24. These matters shall be treated as 

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

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 through 

1.1216. Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one or two 

sentence description of the views and 

arguments presented is generally 

required. 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2). Other 

requirements pertaining to oral and 

written presentations are set forth in 

§ 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules. 

47 CFR 1.1206(b). 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

25. As required by the Regulatory 

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

Commission has prepared this Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on small entities by the policies 

and rules proposed in the NPRM. 

Written public comments are requested 

on this IRFA. Comments must be 

identified as responses to the IRFA and 

must be filed on or before September 18, 

2008. The Commission will send a copy 

of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 5 

U.S.C. 603(a). 

Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

26. The Commission is required by 

section 254 of the Act to promulgate 

rules to implement the universal service 

provisions of section 254. On May 8, 

1997, the Commission adopted rules to 

reform its system of universal service 

support mechanisms so that universal 

service is preserved and advanced as 

markets move toward competition. 

Specifically, under the schools and 

libraries universal service support 

mechanism, also known as the E-rate 

program, eligible schools, libraries, and 

consortia that include eligible schools 

and libraries may receive discounts for 

eligible telecommunications services, 

Internet access, and internal 

connections. Since the initial 

implementation of the E-rate program, 

USAC has developed various 

procedures and guidelines, consistent 

with the Commission’s rules and 

requirements, for applicants to ensure 

that funding is provided only for 

eligible services. 

27. Pursuant to the Commission’s 

rules, the Commission released Public 

Notices seeking comment on USAC’s 

proposed ESL for Funding Years 2007 

and 2008. The ESL indicates whether 

specific products or services may be 

able to receive discounts under the Erate program. The final 2007 and 2008 

ESLs and accompanying Public Notices 

were released on October 19, 2006 and 

October 19, 2007, respectively. In 

revising the 2007 and 2008 ESLs, we 

noted that the proceedings were limited 

to determining what services are eligible 

under the Commission’s current rules 

and were not intended to be a vehicle 

for changing eligibility rules. Therefore, 

we indicated that those comments not 

addressed in the ESLs may be more 

appropriately filed for the Commission’s 

consideration in the general docket for 

the E-rate program. In this NPRM, we 

seek comment on the eligibility of 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules 48357 

certain services under the E-rate 

program raised by the commenters that 

may not have been addressed as part of 

the 2008 or prior ESLs. Specifically, we 

seek comment on whether to include 

filtering software, an expanded 

classification of basic telephone service, 

dark fiber, text messaging, firewall 

service, anti-virus/anti-spam software, 

scheduling services, telephone 

broadcast messaging, and certain 

wireless Internet access applications in 

the ESL beginning in Funding Year 

2009. We also seek comment on 

whether to retain interconnected Voice 

over Internet Protocol (interconnected 

VoIP) as an eligible service for future 

funding years. 

Legal Basis 

28. The legal basis for this NPRM is 

contained in sections 1 through 4, 201 

through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended by the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 154, 

201 through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403, 

and § 1.411 of the Commission’s rules, 

47 CFR 1.411. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which Rules Will 

Apply 

29. 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 

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 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 SBA. Nationwide, 

there are a total of approximately 22.4 

million small businesses, according to 

SBA data. A small organization is 

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field.’’ Nationwide, as of 2002, there 

were approximately 1.6 million small 

organizations. ‘‘Small governmental 

jurisdiction’’ generally means 

‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts, with a population of 

less than 50,000.’’ Census Bureau data 

for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 

local governmental jurisdictions in the 

United States. We estimate that, of this 

total, 84,377 entities were ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ Thus, we 

estimate that most governmental 

jurisdictions are small. 

30. Small entities potentially affected 

by the proposals herein include eligible 

schools and libraries and the eligible 

service providers offering them 

discounted services, including 

telecommunications service providers, 

Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and 

vendors of the services and equipment 

used for internal connections. 

Schools and Libraries 

31. Under the E-rate program, which 

provides universal service support for 

elementary and secondary schools and 

libraries, an elementary school is ‘‘a 

non-profit institutional day or 

residential school that provides 

elementary education, as determined 

under state law.’’ A secondary school is 

defined as ‘‘a non-profit institutional 

day or residential school that provides 

secondary education, as determined 

under state law,’’ and not offering 

education beyond grade 12. For-profit 

schools and libraries, and schools and 

libraries with endowments in excess of 

$50 million are not eligible to receive 

discounts under the program, nor are 

libraries whose budgets are not 

completely separate from any schools. 

Certain other statutory definitions apply 

as well. The SBA has defined as small 

entities elementary and secondary 

schools and libraries having $6.5 

million or less in annual receipts. In 

funding year 2005 (July 1, 2005 to June 

30, 2006) approximately 15,050 school 

districts, 6,547 individual schools, 3,641 

library and library consortiums, and 449 

school and library consortiums received 

funding under the E-rate program. 

Although we are unable to estimate with 

precision the number of these entities 

that would qualify as small entities 

under SBA’s definition, we estimate that 

fewer than 15,050 school districts, 6,547 

individual schools, 3,641 library and 

library consortiums, and 449 school and 

library consortiums would be affected 

annually by the rules proposed in this 

NPRM, under current operation of the 

program. 

Telecommunications Service Providers 

32. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission 

nor the SBA has developed a size 

standard for small incumbent local 

exchange services. The closest 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, 1,303 

incumbent carriers reported that they 

were engaged in the provision of 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 rules and policies 

adopted herein. 

33. We have included small 

incumbent local exchange carriers in 

this RFA analysis. 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 

local exchange carriers are not dominant 

in their field of operation because any 

such dominance is not ‘‘national’’ in 

scope. We have therefore included small 

incumbent carriers in this RFA analysis, 

although we emphasize that this RFA 

action has no effect on the 

Commission’s analyses and 

determinations in other, non-RFA 

contexts. 

34. Interexchange Carriers. Neither 

the Commission nor the SBA has 

developed a definition of small entities 

specifically applicable to providers of 

interexchange services (IXCs). The 

closest applicable definition under the 

SBA rules is for wired 

telecommunications carriers. This 

provides that a wired 

telecommunications carrier is a small 

entity if it employs no more than 1,500 

employees. According to the 

Commission’s 2005 Trends Report, 316 

companies reported that they were 

engaged in the provision of 

interexchange services. Of these 316 

IXCs, an estimated 292 have 1,500 or 

fewer employees and 24 have more than 

1,500 employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of interexchange services are 

small businesses that may be affected by 

the rules and policies adopted herein. 

35. Competitive Access Providers. 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a definition of small 

entities specifically applicable to 

competitive access services providers 

(CAPs). The closest applicable 

definition under the SBA rules is for 

wired telecommunications carriers. This 

provides that a wired 

telecommunications carrier is a small 

entity if it employs no more than 1,500 

employees. According to the 2005 

Trends Report, 769 CAPs and 

competitive local exchange carriers 

(competitive LECs) reported that they 

were engaged in the provision of 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
48358 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

competitive local exchange services. Of 

these 769 CAPs and competitive LECs, 

an estimated 676 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and 93 have more than 1,500 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of competitive exchange 

services are small businesses that may 

be affected by the rules and policies 

adopted herein. 

36. Cellular and Wireless Providers. 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a definition of small 

entities specifically for wireless 

telephony. The closest definition is the 

SBA definition for cellular and other 

wireless telecommunications. Under 

this definition, a cellular licensee is a 

small entity if it employs no more than 

1,500 employees. According to the 2005 

Trends Report, 437 providers classified 

themselves as providers of wireless 

telephony, including cellular 

telecommunications, Personal 

Communications Service, and 

Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 

Telephony Carriers. Of these 437 

wireless telephony providers, an 

estimated 260 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and 177 have more than 

1,500 employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that more than 

half of the providers of wireless 

telephony services are small businesses 

that may be affected by the rules and 

policies adopted herein. 

37. Other Wireless Services. Neither 

the Commission nor the SBA has 

developed a definition of small entities 

specifically applicable to wireless 

services other than wireless telephony. 

The closest applicable definition under 

the SBA rules is again that of cellular 

and other wireless telecommunications, 

under which a service provider is a 

small entity if it employs no more than 

1,500 employees. According to the 2005 

Trends Report, 33 providers classified 

themselves as wireless data carriers or 

other mobile service providers. Of these 

33 providers, an estimated 32 have 

1,500 or fewer employees and 1 has 

more than 1,500 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that most providers of 

wireless services other than wireless 

telephony are small businesses that may 

be affected by the rules and policies 

adopted herein. 

38. Private and Common Carrier 

Paging. In the Paging Third Report and 

Order, we developed a small business 

size standard for ‘‘small businesses’’ and 

‘‘very small businesses’’ for purposes of 

determining their eligibility for special 

provisions such as bidding credits and 

installment payments. A ‘‘small 

business’’ is an entity that, together with 

its affiliates and controlling principals, 

has average gross revenues not 

exceeding $15 million for the preceding 

three years. Additionally, a ‘‘very small 

business’’ is an entity that, together with 

its affiliates and controlling principals, 

has average gross revenues that are not 

more than $3 million for the preceding 

three years. An auction of Metropolitan 

Economic Area licenses commenced on 

February 24, 2000, and closed on March 

2, 2000. Of the 985 licenses auctioned, 

440 were sold. Fifty-seven companies 

claiming small business status won. At 

present, there are approximately 24,000 

Private-Paging site-specific licenses and 

74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses. 

According to Commission data, 408 

carriers reported that they were engaged 

in the provision of either paging and 

messaging services or other mobile 

services. Of those, the Commission 

estimates that 402 are small, under the 

SBA approved small business size 

standard. 

39. Internet Service Providers. Under 

the category of Internet service provider, 

a small business is one having annual 

receipts of $23 million or less. 

According to SBA’s most recent data, 

there are a total of 2,829 firms with 

annual receipts of less than $10 million, 

and an additional 111 firms with annual 

receipts of $10 million or more. Thus, 

the number of On-line Information 

Services firms that are small under the 

SBA’s $18 million size standard is 

between 2,829 and 2,940. Further, some 

of these Internet Service Providers 

(ISPs) might not be independently 

owned and operated. Consequently, we 

estimate that there are fewer than 2,940 

small entity ISPs that may be affected by 

the decisions and rules of the present 

action. 

Vendors of Internal Connections 

40. Communications Equipment 

Manufacturers. The Commission has not 

developed a definition of small entities 

applicable to the manufacturers of 

internal network connections. The most 

applicable definitions of a small entity 

are the definitions under the SBA rules 

applicable to manufacturers of ‘‘Radio 

and Television Broadcasting and 

Wireless Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing’’ and ‘‘Other 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing.’’ According to the SBA’s 

regulations, manufacturers of these 

types of communications equipment 

must have 750 or fewer employees in 

order to qualify as a small business. The 

most recent available Census Bureau 

data indicates that there are 1,187 

companies with fewer than 1,000 

employees in the United States that 

manufacture radio and television 

broadcasting and communications 

equipment, and 271 companies with 

less than 1,000 employees that 

manufacture other communications 

equipment. Some of these 

manufacturers might not be 

independently owned and operated. 

Consequently, we estimate that there are 

fewer than 1,458 small entity internal 

connections manufacturers that may be 

affected by the decisions and rules of 

the present action. 

41. Wireless Communications 

Equipment Manufacturers. The SBA has 

established a small business size 

standard for radio and television 

broadcasting and wireless 

communications equipment 

manufacturing. Under this standard, 

firms are considered small if they have 

750 or fewer employees. Census Bureau 

data for 1997 indicate that, for that year, 

there were a total of 1,215 

establishments in this category. Of 

those, there were 1,150 that had 

employment under 500, and an 

additional 37 that had employment of 

500 to 999. The percentage of wireless 

equipment manufacturers in this 

category is approximately 61 percent, so 

the Commission estimates that the 

number of wireless equipment 

manufacturers with employment under 

500 was actually closer to 706, with an 

additional 23 establishments having 

employment of between 500 and 999. 

Given the above, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of wireless 

communications equipment 

manufacturers are small businesses. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

42. The specific proposals under 

consideration in the NPRM would not, 

if adopted, result in additional 

recordkeeping requirements for small 

businesses. 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

43. 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. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules 48359 

44. In this NPRM, we seek comment 

on a number of issues raised by the 

commenters that may not have been 

addressed as part of the ESL 

proceedings. Specifically, we seek 

comment on whether to include 

interconnected VoIP service, filtering 

software, dark fiber, and other services 

in future funding years. We tentatively 

conclude that interconnected VoIP 

service should be eligible for discounts 

under the E-rate program. We 

tentatively conclude that it is 

administratively and operationally 

appropriate for interconnected VoIP 

service requests to be processed as a 

Priority 1 service. We seek comment on 

this tentative conclusion. If 

interconnected VoIP service is deemed 

an eligible service, we also seek 

comment on how USAC would 

implement this tentative conclusion. We 

believe that the inclusion of 

interconnected VoIP service will not 

have an adverse impact on small 

entities. We welcome, however, 

comments from parties that have 

opinions different from those reached in 

this analysis. 

45. We also seek comment on whether 

several individual services—filtering 

software, an expanded classification of 

basic telephone service, dark fiber, text 

messaging, firewall service, anti-virus/ 

anti-spam software, scheduling services, 

telephone broadcast messaging, and 

certain wireless Internet access 

applications—should be eligible for Erate program eligibility. We believe that, 

if eligible, the benefits conferred by 

making these services eligible will not 

have an adverse impact on small 

entities. We welcome, however, 

comments from parties that have 

opinions different from those reached in 

this analysis. 

46. We believe our proposals and 

tentative conclusions will have a similar 

impact on both small and large schools 

and libraries, because both small and 

large schools and libraries will benefit 

equally from the possible addition of 

eligible services available under the Erate program. Because this NPRM does 

not propose additional regulation for 

service providers and equipment 

vendors, these small entities will also 

experience no additional burden. We 

believe that small schools and libraries, 

as well as small service providers and 

equipment vendors, will benefit if we 

add more services to the eligible 

services list because it will open up 

more opportunities for small businesses 

to participate in the E-rate program. 

Therefore, we do not discuss any 

alternatives to the proposals contained 

in this NPRM. We invite commenters, in 

responding to the questions posed and 

tentative conclusions in the NPRM, to 

discuss any economic impact that such 

changes may have on small entities. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

47. None. 

Ordering Clauses 

48. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1 through 4, 201 through 205, 

254, 303(r), and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended by the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 154, 

201 through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403, 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 

adopted. 

49. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–19178 Filed 8–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R9–IA–2008–0092; 96100–1671–

0000–B6] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Northern 

Snakehead Fish (Channa argus) Under 

the Endangered Species Act 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce our 

90-day finding on a petition to list the 

northern snakehead fish (Channa argus) 

as endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

We find that the petition does not 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing this species under the Act may be 

warranted. We will not initiate a status 

review in response to this petition and, 

consequently, will not consider the 

designation of critical habitat as 

petitioned. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on August 19, 

2008. New information concerning this 

species may be submitted for our 

consideration at any time. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of 

Scientific Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax 

Drive, Room 110, Arlington, VA 22203; 

telephone, 703–358–1708; fax, 703–

358–2276. Please submit any new 

information, materials, comments, or 

questions concerning this finding to the 

above address or via electronic mail (email) at Scientificauthority@fws.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marie T. Maltese, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Scientific 

Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 

110, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone, 

703–358–1708; fax, 703–358–2276; or 

by e-mail, Scientificauthority@fws.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4 (b)(3)(A) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. We 

are to base this finding on information 

provided in the petition, supporting 

information submitted with the petition, 

and information otherwise available in 

our files at the time we make the 

determination. To the maximum extent 

practicable, we are to make this finding 

within 90 days of our receipt of the 

petition, and publish our notice of this 

finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. Our standard for substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

with regard to a 90-day petition finding 

is ‘‘that amount of information that 

would lead a reasonable person to 

believe that the measure proposed in the 

petition may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 

424.14(b)). If we find that substantial 

information was presented, we are 

required to promptly commence a 

review of the status of the species. 

We base this finding on information 

provided by the petitioners that we 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS