Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22103 

remain on-scene to continue to enforce 

the security zone. 

* * * * * 

(e) Notice of security zone. The COTP 

will inform the public of the existence 

or status of the security zones around 

escorted vessels in the regulated area by 

broadcast notices to mariners, normally 

issued at 30-minute intervals while the 

security zones remains in effect. 

Escorted vessels will be identified by 

the presence of Coast Guard assets or 

other Federal, State or local law 

enforcement agency assets. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 27, 2009. 

E.M. Stanton, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the 

Port Mobile. 

[FR Doc. E9–10969 Filed 5–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 3 

RIN 2900–AM98 

Reimbursement for Interment Costs 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document amends the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

adjudication regulations on burial 

benefits to incorporate a change made 

by the Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision 

Equity Act of 2007. Specifically, this 

document eliminates a 2-year time 

limitation for States to file with VA 

claims for reimbursement of interment 

costs. The removal of this time 

limitation is necessary to conform the 

regulations to recent legislation and 

governing statutes. 

DATES: Effective Date: This amendment 

is effective May 12, 2009. 

Applicability Date: In accordance 

with section 202(a)(2) of the Dr. James 

Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act of 

2007, this amendment will apply with 

respect to interments and inurnments of 

unclaimed remains of deceased veterans 

occurring on or after October 1, 2006. 

This amendment will apply to all other 

interments and inurnments occurring on 

or after the date of publication in the 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Kniffen, Chief of Regulations 

Staff (211D), Compensation and Pension 

Service, Veterans Benefits 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461–9725. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3.1604 of title 38, Code of Federal 

Regulations, governs VA burial benefits 

when non-VA sources have paid or 

contributed to burial expenses. Section 

3.1604(d) governs payment of the plot or 

interment allowance to a State or 

political subdivision of a State. Section 

3.1604(d)(2) governs claims for the plot 

or interment allowance, and the second 

sentence in § 3.1604(d)(2) requires that 

such a claim be filed with VA within 2 

years after the permanent burial or 

cremation of the body. Section 202(a) of 

the Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision 

Equity Act of 2007, Public Law 110– 

157, repealed this second sentence as it 

pertains to unclaimed remains of a 

deceased veteran. 

Although the legislation removed the 

2-year time limit only for claims 

regarding the unclaimed remains of a 

deceased veteran, we have decided to 

eliminate the 2-year time limit on all 

claims for plot or interment allowances. 

Currently, 38 U.S.C. 2304 contains the 

only statutory time limitation on the 

filing of an application for burial 

benefits within title 38, United States 

Code. Section 2304 requires that 

applications for payment of the burial 

allowance for non-service-connected 

deaths under 38 U.S.C. 2302 must be 

filed within 2 years after the burial of 

the veteran. However, this time limit 

does not extend to the plot or interment 

allowance authorized by 38 U.S.C. 

2303(b), the benefit § 3.1604(d)(2) 

governs. Therefore, we are removing the 

second and the third sentences of 

current § 3.1604(d)(2), which limit the 

time for filing claims for the plot or 

interment allowance under section 

2303(b). 

Administrative Procedure Act 

This final rule merely conforms VA 

regulations governing burial benefits to 

a recent legislative change and relieves 

a restriction (eliminates a time limit). 

Accordingly, there is good cause for 

dispensing with the notice-andcomment and delayed-effective-date 

procedures otherwise required by 5 

U.S.C. 553 because such procedures are 

impractical, unnecessary, and contrary 

to the public interest. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This document contains no provisions 

constituting a collection of information 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3521). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary hereby certifies that 

this final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities as they are 

defined in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. The Secretary 

does acknowledge that this final rule 

may affect some States and political 

subdivisions of States, including a few 

political subdivisions of States that may 

be considered small entities; however, 

the economic impact is not significant. 

This final rule does not impose any new 

requirements on States or political 

subdivisions of States in order to receive 

the burial benefits governed by 38 CFR 

3.1604. It merely eliminates the time 

restriction on when they may file for 

such benefits. To the extent that small 

entities are affected, the impact of this 

amendment is both minimal and 

entirely beneficial. Therefore, pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is 

exempt from the initial and final 

regulatory flexibility analysis 

requirements of sections 603 and 604. 

Executive Order 12866 

Executive Order 12866 directs 

agencies to assess all costs and benefits 

of available regulatory alternatives and, 

when regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). The 

Executive Order classifies a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ requiring review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), as any regulatory action that is 

likely to result in a rule that may: (1) 

Have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more or adversely 

affect in a material way the economy, a 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

or tribal governments or communities; 

(2) create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. 

The economic, interagency, 

budgetary, legal, and policy 

implications of this final rule have been 

examined, and it has been determined 

not to be a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in the 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
22104 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

1This regulatory fee methodology only applies to 

international submarine cable systems that connect 

the United States with international points, and not 

to submarine cable systems connecting points 

within the United States, such as systems 

connecting the Hawaiian Islands or Alaska to the 

mainland. 

2Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees 

for Fiscal Year 2008, MD Docket No. 08–65, RM– 

11312, Report and Order and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 08–182 (rel. Aug. 8, 

2008) (‘‘FY 2008 Report and Order’’). We use the 

term ‘‘IBC’’ in this proceeding as a general way of 

referring to this regulatory fee category; however, as 

we discuss below, our per cable landing license 

methodology we adopt in this order does not apply 

to terrestrial and satellite facilities. 

Comments cited in this Second Report and Order 

are comments to our FY 2008 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, see Assessment and Collection of 

Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008, MD Docket 

No. 08–65, RM–11312, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 7987 (2008) 

(‘‘FY 2008 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking’’), and 

are listed in Appendix C to the FY 2008 Report and 

Order. 

3See Letter from Kent D. Bressie, Harris, 

Wiltshire, and Grannis, to Marlene H. Dortch, Office 

of the Secretary, FCC, Sept. 23, 2008 (attachment is 

the ‘‘Consensus Proposal’’). The parties to the 

Consensus Proposal are: AT&T, Verizon, Apollo 

Submarine Cable System, Ltd.; Brasil Telecom of 

America, Inc.; Columbus Networks USA, Inc.; 

ARCOS–1 USA, Inc.; A.SUR Net, Inc.; Level 3 

Communications, LLC; Hibernia-Atlantic US LLC; 

Marine Cable Corp.; Pacific Crossing Limited and 

its subsidiary PC Landing Corp.; Reliance 

Globalcom Limited and its indirect subsidiary 

FLAG Network USA Limited; and Tata 

Communications (US) Inc. Qwest Communications 

International, Inc. (‘‘Qwest’’) also supports the 

Consensus Proposal. See Letter from Melissa E. 

Newman, Qwest, to Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the 

Secretary, FCC, Sept. 29, 2008. GU Holdings, Inc., 

an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Google, Inc. 

also supports the Consensus Proposal. See Letter 

from Richard S. Whitt, Google, Inc., to Marlene H. 

Dortch, Office of the Secretary, FCC, Oct. 3, 2008. 

Pacific Crossing Limited and PC Landing Corp. 

contend that the Commission should adopt the 

Consensus Proposal and also further examine the 

regulatory fee methodology in this docket or in the 

FY 2009 regulatory fee proceeding to determine if 

a portion of the regulatory fee burden should be 

directly allocated to international common carriers. 

See Letter from Martin L. Stern, K&L Gates LLP, to 

Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, FCC, 

Sept. 25, 2008. 

4Terrestrial and satellite facilities do not have 

cable landing licenses and will continue to pay 

regulatory fees on a per circuit basis, under our 

historic methodology, as clarified herein. We have 

not received comments or ex partes specifically 

requesting a change in the regulatory fee rules for 

these entities. 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

year. This final rule would have no such 

effect on State, local, and tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers and Titles 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance program numbers and titles 

for this rule are 64.101, Burial Expenses 

Allowance for Veterans; 64.201, 

National Cemeteries; 64.203, State 

Cemetery Grants. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, 

Health care, Pensions, Radioactive 

materials, Veterans, Vietnam. 

Approved: April 9, 2009. 

John R. Gingrich, 

Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 38 CFR part 3 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 3—ADJUDICATION 

Subpart B—Burial Benefits 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 3, 

subpart B continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 105 Stat. 386, 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 

2302–2308, unless otherwise noted. 

§ 3.1604 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 3.1604(d)(2) by removing 

the second and third sentences. 

[FR Doc. E9–10982 Filed 5–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[MD Docket No. 08–65; FCC 09–21] 

Assessment and Collection of 

Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission adopts a new methodology 

for calculating regulatory fees for 

international submarine cable operators. 

Beginning in FY 2009, the Commission 

will calculate regulatory fees for 

international submarine cable operators 

on a per cable landing license basis, 

with higher fees being assessed for 

larger submarine cable systems and 

lower fees for smaller systems. 

However, this change in methodology 

does not amend the licensing rules 

regarding submarine cable systems, nor 

does it change the methodology on how 

the Commission calculates regulatory 

fees for terrestrial and satellite 

facilities—these facilities will continue 

to be assessed on a per 64 kbps circuit 

basis. 

DATES: Effective July 13, 2009, which 

pursuant to section 9(b)(3) of the 

Communications Act, is 90 days from 

date of notification to Congress. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Stone, Office of Managing Director 

at (202) 418–0816. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Adopted: March 17, 2009. 

Released: March 24, 2009. 

By the Commission: Acting Chairman 

Copps and Commissioners Adelstein 

and McDowell issuing separate 

statements. 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Second Report and Order, 

the Commission adopts a new 

methodology for calculating regulatory 

fees from international submarine cable 

operators.1 Beginning with Fiscal Year 

(‘‘FY’’) 2009, the Commission will 

calculate these regulatory fees on a per 

cable landing license basis, with higher 

fees for larger submarine cable systems 

and lower fees for smaller systems. In 

our FY 2008 regulatory fee Report and 

Order adopted on August 1, 2008 we 

agreed to evaluate further the issue of 

regulatory fees paid by submarine cable 

operators, which are a sub-set of carriers 

that pay International Bearer Circuit 

(‘‘IBC’’) fees, and release a Second 

Report and Order with a new regulatory 

fee methodology for submarine cable 

operators.2 The new methodology we 

adopt here is based on a proposal (the 

‘‘Consensus Proposal’’) by a large group 

of submarine cable operators, 

representing both common carriers and 

non-common carriers with both large 

and small submarine cable systems.3

The new methodology allocates IBC 

costs among service providers in an 

equitable and competitively neutral 

manner, without distinguishing between 

common carriers and non-common 

carriers, by assessing a flat per cable 

landing license fee for all submarine 

cable systems.4 In addition to being 

more equitable, we anticipate that the 

new methodology will encourage 

compliance with our regulatory fee 

requirements. 

II. Background 

2. For several years, submarine cable 

operators have asked the Commission to 

revise the historic per circuit regulatory 

fee methodology for submarine cable 

systems. We discussed this issue in our 

FY 2004 regulatory fee proceeding 

where Tyco Telecommunications (US), 

Inc. challenged the Commission’s 

regulatory fee methodology, arguing, 

inter alia, that our capacity-based 

methodology was favoring older lower 

capacity submarine cable systems and 

that non-common carrier submarine 

cable operators should have their own 

separate category and pay a per-cable 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES