55772 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

its terms. The contractor will not have 

a right to a hearing or judicial review 

regarding CMS’s renewal or nonrenewal decision. 

§ 455.238 Conflict of Interest. 

(a) Offerors for Medicaid integrity 

audit program contracts, and Medicaid 

integrity audit program contractors, are 

subject to the following requirements: 

(1) The conflict of interest standards 

and requirements of the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation organizational 

conflict of interest guidance, found 

under 48 CFR subpart 9.5. 

(2) The standards and requirements 

that are contained in each individual 

contract awarded to perform activities 

described under section 1936 of the Act. 

(b) Post-award conflicts of interest: 

CMS considers that a post-award 

conflict of interest has developed if, 

during the term of the contract, one of 

the following occurs: 

(1) The contractor or any of its 

employees, agents, or subcontractors 

received, solicited, or arranged to 

receive any fee, compensation, gift 

(defined at 5 CFR 2635.203(b)), payment 

of expenses, offer of employment, or any 

other thing of value from any entity that 

is reviewed, audited, investigated, or 

contacted during the normal course of 

performing activities under the 

Medicaid integrity audit program 

contract. 

(2) CMS determines that the 

contractor’s activities are creating a 

conflict of interest. 

(c) If CMS determines that a conflict 

of interest exists during the term of the 

contract, among other actions, CMS 

may: 

(1) Not renew the contract for an 

additional term. 

(2) Modify the contract. 

(3) Terminate the contract. 

§ 435.240 Conflict of Interest Resolution. 

(a) Review Board: CMS may establish 

a Conflicts of Interest Review Board to 

assist in resolving organizational 

conflicts of interest. 

(b) Resolution: Resolution of an 

organizational conflict of interest is a 

determination by the contracting officer 

that: 

(1) The conflict is mitigated. 

(2) The conflict precludes award of a 

contract to the offeror. 

(3) The conflict requires that CMS 

modify an existing contract. 

(4) The conflict requires that CMS 

terminate an existing contract. 

(5) It is in the best interest of the 

government to contract with the offeror 

or contractor even though the conflict of 

interest exists and a request for waiver 

is approved in accordance with 48 CFR 

9.503. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance 

Program) 

Dated: June 18, 2008. 

Kerry Weems, 

Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services. 

Approved: July 29, 2008. 

Michael O. Leavitt, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–22693 Filed 9–25–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Office of the Secretary 

45 CFR Part 5b 

[CMS–0029–F] 

RIN 0938–A069 

Exemption of Certain Systems of 

Records Under the Privacy Act 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule exempts four 

systems of records (SORs) from 

subsections (c)(3), (d)(1) through (d)(4), 

(e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) of the Privacy 

Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2): The 

Automated Survey Processing 

Environment (ASPEN) Complaint/ 

Incidents Tracking System (ACTS), 

HHS/CMS, System No. 09–70–0565; the 

Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act (HIPAA) Information 

Tracking System (HITS), HHS/CMS, 

System No. 09–70–0544; the Organ 

Procurement Organizations System 

(OPOS), HHS/CMS, System No. 09–70– 

0575; and the Fraud Investigation 

Database (FID), HHS/CMS, System No. 

09–70–0527. 

DATES: Effective Date: These regulations 

are effective on October 27, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Walter Stone, (410) 786–5357. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The four systems of records (SORs) 

that are the subject of this final rule and 

the May 25, 2007 proposed rule are as 

follows: 

A. The Automated Survey Processing 

Environment Complaints/Incidents 

Tracking System (ACTS), HHS/CMS, 

System No. 09–70–0565 

In the August 22, 2003 Federal 

Register (68 FR 50795), we published a 

notice announcing a new SOR titled 

Automated Survey Processing 

Environment (ASPEN) Complaint/ 

Incidents Tracking System (ACTS), 

HHS/CMS, System No. 09–70–0565. 

In the May 23, 2006 Federal Register 

(71 FR 29643) we published a notice 

that modified the ACTS SOR. This 

notice included all modifications and 

the full text of this system of records. 

ACTS is a Windows-based program 

whose primary purpose is to track and 

process complaints and incidents 

reported against health care facilities 

regulated by CMS and State agencies. 

These facilities include Clinical 

Laboratory Improvement Amendment 

(CLIA)-certified laboratories, skilled 

nursing facilities (SNFs), nursing 

facilities, hospitals, home health 

agencies (HHAs), end stage renal disease 

(ESRD) facilities, hospices, rural health 

clinics (RHCs), comprehensive 

outpatient rehabilitation facilities 

(CORFs), outpatient physical therapy 

services, community mental health 

centers (CMHCs), ambulatory surgical 

centers (ASCs), suppliers of portable 

x-ray services, and intermediate care 

facilities for persons with mental 

retardation (ICF/MRs). ACTS contains 

identifiable information on individuals, 

who are complainants, residents, 

patients, clients, contacts or witnesses. 

It also may include alleged perpetrators, 

survey team members, laboratory 

directors, laboratory owners, and 

employees and directors of the health 

care facilities noted previously. ACTS is 

designed to manage all operations 

associated with complaint and incident 

tracking and processing, from initial 

intake and investigation through the 

final disposition. 

B. The Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act (HIPAA) Information 

Tracking System (HITS), HHS/CMS, 

System No. 09–70–0544. 

In the July 6, 2005 Federal Register 

(70 FR 38944), we published a notice 

announcing a new SOR titled Health 

Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act (HIPAA) Information 

Tracking System (HITS), HHS/CMS, 

System No. 09–70–0544 

In general, HITS consists of an 

electronic repository of information, 

documents, and supplementary paper 

document files resulting from 

investigations of alleged violations of 

the transactions and code sets, security, 

and unique identifier provisions of 

HIPAA. HITS’ purpose is to support 

investigations of complainants, 

determinations as to whether there were 

violations as charged in the original 

complaint, referral of violations to law 

enforcement entities as necessary, and 

maintenance and retrieval of records 

that contain the results of the complaint 

investigations. The system of records 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 55773 

covers individuals who have submitted 

complaints alleging violations of the 

provisions of HIPAA. Investigative files 

maintained in HITS are received either 

as electronic documents or as paper 

records that are compiled for law 

enforcement purposes. 

C. The Organ Procurement 

Organizations System (OPOS), HHS/ 

CMS, System No. 09–70–0575 

In the May 22, 2006 Federal Register 

(71 FR 29336), we published a notice 

announcing a new SOR titled Organ 

Procurement Organizations System 

(OPOS), HHS/CMS, System No. 09–70– 

0575. OPOS is a Windows based 

program whose purpose is to track and 

process complaints and incidents 

reported against Organ Procurement 

Organizations. Section 701 of the Organ 

Procurement Organization System 

Certification Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106– 

505) gave the Department the authority 

to collect and maintain individually 

identifiable information pertaining to 

allegations filed by a complainant, 

beneficiary, or provider of services 

against Organ Procurement 

Organizations. This information 

includes information gathered during all 

aspects of an investigation, including 

initial complaints, findings, results, 

disposition, and relevant 

correspondence. 

D. The Fraud Investigation Database 

(FID), HHS/CMS, System No. 09–70– 

0527 

In the October 28, 2002 Federal 

Register (70 FR 65795), we published a 

notice that modified, among other 

things, the name of a SOR entitled 

‘‘CMS Utilization Review Investigatory 

Files, System No. 09–70–0527’’ to ‘‘CMS 

Fraud Investigation Database (FID).’’ 

The notice included the full text of the 

FID system of records. The FID system 

of records contains the name, work 

address, work phone number, social 

security number, Unique Provider 

Identification Number (UPIN), and other 

identifying demographics of individuals 

alleged to have violated provisions of 

the Social Security Act (the Act) related 

to Medicare, Medicaid, HMO/Managed 

Care, and the Children’s Health 

Insurance Program. The FID system of 

records also contains the contact 

information and other identifying 

demographics of individuals alleged to 

have violated other criminal or civil 

statutes connected with the Act and the 

Act’s programs. Here, individuals are 

persons alleged to have abused the Act’s 

programs. (For example, an individual 

could be a person alleged to have 

rendered unnecessary services to 

Medicare beneficiaries or Medicaid 

recipients, over-used services, or 

engaged in improper billing.) They are 

persons whose activities have provided 

a substantial basis for criminal or civil 

prosecution, or who are identified as 

defendants in criminal prosecution 

cases. 

II. Provisions of the Proposed Rule 

In the May 25, 2007 Federal Register 

(72 FR 29289) we published a proposed 

rule that would exempt the ACTS, 

HITS, OPOS, and FID systems of records 

from subsection (c)(3), (d)(1) through 

(d)(4), (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) of the 

Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(2). These exemptions would 

apply only to the extent that 

information in a record is subject to 

exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(2). We proposed that the ACTS, 

HITS, OPOS, and FID systems of records 

would be exempted from the following 

subsections for the reasons set forth 

below: 

• Subsection (c)(3). Release of an 

accounting of disclosures to an 

individual who is the subject of an 

investigation could reveal the nature 

and scope of the investigation and could 

result in the altering or destruction of 

evidence, improper influencing of 

witnesses, and other evasive actions that 

could impede or compromise the 

investigation. 

• Subsection (d)(1). Release of 

investigative records to an individual 

who is the subject of an investigation 

could interfere with pending or 

prospective law enforcement 

proceedings, constitute an unwarranted 

invasion of the personal privacy of third 

parties, reveal the identity of 

confidential sources, or reveal sensitive 

investigative techniques and 

procedures. 

• Subsections (d)(2) through (d)(4). 

Amendment or correction of 

investigative records could interfere 

with pending or prospective law 

enforcement proceedings, or could 

impose an impossible administrative 

and investigative burden by requiring us 

to continuously retrograde our 

investigations in an attempt to resolve 

questions of accuracy, relevance, 

timeliness, and completeness. 

• Subsection (e)(4)(G) and (H). 

Notifying an individual who is the 

subject of an investigation or a witness 

that a system of records contains 

information about him or her could 

reveal the nature and scope of the 

investigation and could result in the 

altering or destruction of evidence, 

improper influencing of witnesses, and 

other evasive actions that could impede 

or compromise the investigation. 

• Subsection (f). Establishing 

procedures for notification, inspection 

or amendment of records, or appeals of 

denials of access to records would 

interfere with pending or prospective 

law enforcement proceedings, constitute 

an unwarranted invasion of the personal 

privacy of third parties, reveal the 

identity of confidential sources, or 

reveal sensitive investigative 

techniques. Furthermore, these actions 

could impose an impossible 

administrative and investigative burden 

by requiring us to continuously 

retrograde our investigations in an 

attempt to resolve questions of accuracy, 

relevance, timeliness, and 

completeness. 

Accordingly, we proposed to amend 

45 CFR 5b.11(b)(2)(ii) of the Privacy Act 

regulations by adding the following: 

• A new paragraph (H) that exempts 

investigative materials compiled for law 

enforcement purposes from ACTS. 

• A new paragraph (I) that exempts 

investigative materials compiled for law 

enforcement purposes from HITS. 

• A new paragraph (J) that exempts 

investigative materials compiled for law 

enforcement purposes from OPOS. 

• A new paragraph (K) that exempts 

investigative materials compiled for law 

enforcement purposes from FID. 

III. Analysis of and Responses to Public 

Comments 

We solicited and received two timely 

public comments on the May 25, 2007 

proposed rule. The following is a 

summary of the comments and our 

responses. 

Comment: One commenter believed 

that 45 CFR 5b.11(d) seems to allow the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services to disclose identities of sources 

who furnished information under an 

express promise of confidentiality. 

Response: We do not disclose 

information that would reveal the 

identities of sources who furnish 

information under an express promise 

of confidentiality because the promise 

of confidentiality made to a witness is 

an agreement with that individual, and 

such disclosure would be both a 

violation of that agreement and 

counterproductive to law enforcement 

efforts, as it would discourage 

individuals from coming forward to 

supply information about alleged 

misconduct. 45 CFR 5b.11(b) gives the 

responsible Department official 

discretion to grant notification of access 

to a record in a system of records which 

is exempt under 45 CFR 5b.11(b), unless 

disclosure to the general public is 

otherwise prohibited by law. The 

department does not intend to exercise 

its discretion to disclose identifying 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
55774 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

information about sources who furnish 

information under an express promise 

of confidentiality. 

Comment: Commenters requested that 

the exemptions be narrowed or clarified 

by defining the terms ‘‘investigative 

materials’’ and ‘‘law enforcement 

purposes,’’ including differentiating 

among kinds of records within each 

system that constitute ‘‘investigatory 

materials,’’ as well as describing agency 

uses that are not consistent with ‘‘law 

enforcement purposes.’’ A commenter 

suggested that CMS implement 

regulatory definitions, criteria, 

guidelines or other means to effectuate 

a confidentiality promise to an 

informant and to recognize whether or 

not one has been effectuated for 

purposes of compliance with subsection 

(k)(2) of the Privacy Act. 

Response: We believe that with 

respect to clarifying what constitutes a 

confidentiality promise, we continue to 

rely upon the following language in 

subsection (k)(2) of the Privacy Act (5 

U.S.C 552a), which permits exemptions 

from certain subsections of the Privacy 

Act: 

[I]nvestigatory material compiled for law 

enforcement purposes, other than material 

within the scope of subsection (j)(2) of this 

section [the Privacy Act]: Provided, however, 

That if any individual is denied any right, 

privilege, or benefit that he would otherwise 

be entitled by Federal law, or for which he 

would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the 

maintenance of such material, such material 

shall be provided to such individual, except 

to the extent that the disclosure of such 

material would reveal the identity of a source 

who furnished information to the 

Government under an express promise that 

the identity of the source would be held in 

confidence, or, prior to the effective date of 

this section, [September 27, 1975] under an 

implied promise that the identity of the 

source would be held in confidence; 

The (k)(2) exemption covers: (1) 

Material compiled for criminal 

investigative law enforcement purposes 

by an entity that does not have as its 

principal function the enforcement of 

criminal law and (2) investigative 

material compiled for law enforcement 

purposes that does not fall into the 

scope of the exemption under 5 U.S.C. 

552(j)(2). The material must be 

investigative and compiled for some 

‘‘law enforcement’’ purpose, such as a 

civil investigation, or a criminal 

investigation by an agency that does not 

perform as its principal function the 

enforcement of criminal law. 

Further, since the information in the 

SORs at issue was collected on or after 

September 27, 1975, we believe that, 

with respect to investigative material 

that would reveal the identity of a 

confidential source, only express 

promises to a source that his or her 

identity would not be revealed will be 

implicated here. An example of an 

express promise could occur when a 

source expressly requests that his or her 

identity not be revealed as a condition 

of furnishing the information, and CMS 

agrees to that condition and documents 

that promise in writing. 

The four SORs at issue were 

established after September 27, 1975, 

the effective date of the Privacy Act, as 

follows: 

• The CMS Fraud Investigation 

Database (FID) was published under its 

previous name, ‘‘HCFA Utilization 

Review Investigatory Files,’’ on 

December 29, 1988 (53 FR 52792) and 

republished under its current name on 

October 28, 2002 (67 FR 65795 ). 

• The Automated Survey Processing 

Environment (ASPEN). Complaints/ 

Incidents Tracking System (ACTS) was 

first established on August 22, 2003 (68 

FR 50795). 

• The Health Insurance Portability 

and Accountability Act(HIPAA) 

Information Tracking System (HITS) 

was first established on July 6, 2005 (70 

FR 38944). 

• The Organ Procurement 

Organizations System (OPOS) was first 

established on May 22, 2006 (71 FR 

29336). 

Further information about this 

exemption can be found in the Office of 

Management and Budget’s Privacy Act 

Guidelines, (see the July 9, 1975 Federal 

Register (40 FR 28972 through 28973)). 

IV. Provisions of the Final Rule 

After review of the public comments, 

we are finalizing the provisions of the 

proposed rule with minor technical 

changes. We are revising the paragraphs 

in § 5b.11(b)(2)(ii) so that the SORs are 

listed in chronological order by the date 

established. 

V. Collection of Information 

Requirements 

This final rule does not impose 

information collection and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Consequently, it need not be reviewed 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget under the authority of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 35). 

VI. Regulatory Impact Statement 

We have examined the impact of this 

rule as required by Executive Order 

12866 (September 1993, Regulatory 

Planning and Review), the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 

1980, Pub. L. 96–354), section 1102(b) of 

the Social Security Act (the Act), the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4), and Executive Order 

13132. 

Executive Order 12866 directs 

agencies to assess all costs and benefits 

of available regulatory alternatives and, 

if regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety effects, distributive impacts, 

and equity). A regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA) must be prepared for 

regulating actions with economically 

significant effects ($100 million or more 

in any one year or other substantial 

adverse economic effects) known as 

‘‘major rules’’. This rule does not meet 

the ‘‘major rule’’ criteria therefore we 

are not preparing an RIA. 

The RFA requires agencies to analyze 

options for regulatory relief of small 

businesses. For purposes of the RFA, 

small entities include small businesses, 

nonprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. Most 

hospitals and most other providers and 

suppliers are small entities, either by 

nonprofit status or by having revenues 

of $6 million to $29 million in any one 

year. Individuals and States are not 

included in the definition of a small 

entity. We are not preparing an analysis 

for the RFA because we have 

determined that this rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act 

requires us to prepare a regulatory 

impact analysis if a rule may have a 

significant impact on the operations of 

a substantial number of small rural 

hospitals. This analysis must conform to 

the provisions of section 604 of the 

RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of 

the Act, we define a small rural hospital 

as a hospital that is located outside of 

a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has 

fewer than 100 beds. We are not 

preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) 

of the Act because we have determined 

that this rule will not have a significant 

impact on the operations of a substantial 

number of small rural hospitals. 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also 

requires that agencies assess anticipated 

costs and benefits before issuing any 

rule whose mandates require spending 

in any one year of $100 million in 1995 

dollars, updated annually for inflation. 

That threshold level is currently 

approximately $120 million. This final 

rule will have no consequential effect 

on State, local, or tribal governments or 

on the private sector. 

Executive Order 13132 establishes 

certain requirements that an agency 

must meet when it promulgates a 

proposed rule (and subsequent final 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 55775 

rule) that imposes substantial direct 

requirement costs on State and local 

governments, preempts State law, or 

otherwise has Federalism implications. 

Since this regulation does not impose 

any costs on State or local governments, 

the requirements of Executive Order 

13132 are not applicable. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Executive Order 12866, this regulation 

was reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

List of Subjects for 45 CFR Part 5b 

Privacy. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department of Health and 

Human Services amends 45 CFR part 5b 

as set forth below: 

PART 5b—PRIVACY ACT 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 5b 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 5 U.S.C. 552a. 

■ 2. Section 5b.11 is revised by adding 

paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(H), (I), (J), and (K) 

to read as follows: 

§ 5b.11 Exempt Systems 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(H) Investigative materials compiled 

for law enforcement purposes from the 

CMS Fraud Investigation Database (FID), 

HHS/CMS. 

(I) Investigative materials compiled 

for law enforcement purposes from the 

Automated Survey Processing 

Environment (ASPEN) Complaints/ 

Incidents Tracking System (ACTS), 

HHS/CMS. 

(J) Investigative materials compiled 

for law enforcement purposes from the 

Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act (HIPAA) Information 

Tracking System (HITS), HHS/CMS. 

(K) Investigative materials compiled 

for law enforcement purposes from the 

Organ Procurement Organizations 

System (OPOS), HHS/CMS. 

* * * * * 

Dated: November 20, 2007. 

Kerry Weems, 

Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services. 

Approved: June 13, 2008. 

Michael O. Leavitt, 

Secretary. 

Editorial Note: This document was 

received at the Office of the Federal Register 

on September 16, 2008. 

[FR Doc. E8–21909 Filed 9–25–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 101 

[WT Docket No. 00–19; RM–9418; FCC 02– 

218] 

Streamline Processing of Microwave 

Applications in the Wireless 

Telecommunications Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Correcting amendment. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission corrects 

an inadvertent error that occurred when 

the Commission adopted final rules 

pertaining to Streamline Processing of 

Microwave Applications in the Wireless 

Telecommunications Services and 

Telecommunications Industry 

Association Petition for Rulemaking. 

These rules were published in the 

Federal Register on Friday, January 31, 

2003 (68 FR 4953). Specifically, the 

error occurred in a table to the rules 

concerning directional antennas and 

compliance with antenna standards. As 

a result of this correction, the table will 

be amended as intended by the 

Commission. 

DATES: Effective September 26, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Schauble at 202–418–0797. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

correction to a summary of the 

Commission’s Report and Order in WT 

Docket No. 00–19, FCC 02–218, adopted 

on July 18, 2002 and released on July 

31, 2002. The Report and Order 

streamlined, clarified and updated part 

101 rules. These actions were to provide 

increased flexibility to licensees, ensure 

greater and more efficient use of 

spectrum bands regulated under part 

101, and ensure that our Rules are 

consistent with international 

agreements. 

Need for Correction 

As published, the final rules contain 

an error in § 101.115 Directional 

Antennas, Antenna Standards Table. 

The Commission did not request that 

the listed entry to the Antenna 

Standards Table for the frequency of 

10,550 to 10,680 5,7 MHz be omitted. 

This correction removes the listing that 

should have been omitted. The entry for 

10,550 to 10,6807, which was adopted in 

that proceeding, will remain. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 101 

Communications equipment, Marine 

safety, Radio, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

■ Accordingly, 47 CFR part 101 is 

amended by making the following 

correcting amendments: 

PART 101—FIXED MICROWAVE 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 101 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303 unless 

otherwise noted. 

§ 101.115 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 101.115 is amended by 

removing the entry ‘‘10,550 to 

10,680 5,7’’ for both Category A and B in 

the table following paragraph (b)(2). 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–22721 Filed 9–25–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES