Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 225 / Friday, November 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 65669

approved waterfowl hunting blinds area in Kuluk Bay, Adak, Alaska. No will not be significantly and uniquely along the shorelines of Bloodsworth comments were received in response to affected by this rulemaking. Island range complex, provided that all the proposed rule. e. Submission to Congress and the necessary licenses and permits have Pursuant to its authorities in Section General Accountability Office. Pursuant been obtained from the Maryland 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 to Section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Department of Natural Resources and (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C.1) and Chapter Administrative Procedure Act, as the completed copy of the permit has XIX, of the Army Appropriations Act of amended by the Small Business been submitted to the Conservation 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C.3), the Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of Division Director at NAS Patuxent Corps is amending the restricted area 1996, the Corps has submitted a report River. Waterfowl hunters must observe regulations in 33 CFR 334 by adding all warnings and range clearances, as § 334.1325 as a restricted area within containing this rule to the U.S. Senate, noted herein. Kuluk Bay, Adak, Alaska as described the U.S. House of Representatives, and (10) The regulations in this section below. The restricted area is completely the Comptroller General of the General shall be enforced by the Commander, within an existing restricted area for the Accountability Office. This rule is not a Naval Air Station Patuxent River, United States Navy in Kuluk Bay, Adak, major rule within the meaning of Maryland, and such agencies as he/she Alaska, which was established at 33 section 804(2) of the Administrative may designate. CFR 334.1320 and designated on NOAA Procedure Act, as amended. Dated: November 16, 2007. chart 16475. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334 Lawrence A. Lang, Procedural Requirements Deputy, Operations, Directorate of Civil Danger zones, Marine safety, Works. a. Review under Executive Order Navigation (water), Restricted areas, 12866. This rule is issued with respect [FR Doc. E7–22845 Filed 11–21–07; 8:45 am] Waterways. to a military function of the Defense BILLING CODE 3710–92–P Department and the provisions of I For the reasons set out in the Executive Order 12866 do not apply. preamble, the Corps amends part 334 as follows: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE b. Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule has been Department of the Army, Corps of reviewed under the Regulatory PART 334—DANGER ZONE AND Engineers Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354) which RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS requires the preparation of a regulatory I 33 CFR Part 334 flexibility analysis for any regulation 1. The authority citation for 33 CFR that will have a significant economic part 334 continues to read as follows: United States Army Restricted Area, impact on a substantial number of small Authority: 40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and Kuluk Bay, Adak, AK entities (i.e., small businesses and small 40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3). governments). The Corps has AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, determined that the establishment of I 2. Add § 334.1325 to read as follows: DoD. this restricted area would have ACTION: Final rule. practically no economic impact on the § 334.1325 United States Army Restricted Area, Kuluk Bay, Adak, Alaska. SUMMARY: The Corps of Engineers is public and no anticipated navigational issuing a final rule establishing a hazard or interference with existing (a) The area. The area within a radius restricted area within Kuluk Bay, Adak, waterway traffic. Accordingly, the Corps 1,000 yards around the Sea Base Radar Alaska. The purpose of this restricted certifies that this regulation will have no mooring site in all directions from area is to ensure the security and safety significant economic impact on small latitude 51°53′05.4″ N, longitude of the Sea Based Radar, its crew, and entities. 176°33′47.4″ W (NAD 83). c. Review under the National other vessels transiting the area. The (b) The regulation. (1) No vessel, Environmental Policy Act. Due to the restricted area is within an established person, or other craft shall enter or administrative nature of this action and moorage restriction area for the U.S. remain in the restricted area except as Navy. The restricted area will be marked because there is no intended change in the use of the area, the Corps has may be authorized by the enforcing on navigation charts to ensure security agency. and safety for the public. determined that this regulation will not DATES: Effective Date: December 24, have a significant impact to the quality (2) A ring of eight lighted and marked 2007. of the human environment and, navigation buoys marking the perimeter therefore, preparation of an of the mooring anchor system will ADDRESSES: U.S. Army Corps of environmental impact statement is not provide a visible distance reference at a Engineers, Attn: CECW–CO (David B. required. An environmental assessment radius of approximately 800 yards from Olson), 441 G Street, NW, Washington, has been prepared. It may be reviewed latitude 51°53′05.4″ N, longitude DC 20314–1000. at the district office listed at the end of 176°33′47.4″ W (NAD 83). Each buoy FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, has a white light, flashing at 3 second David Olson, Headquarters, Operations above. intervals with a 2 nautical mile range. and Regulatory Community of Practice, d. Unfunded Mandates Act. This rule Vessels, persons or other craft must stay Washington, DC at (202) 761–4922, or does not impose an enforceable duty at least 200 yards outside the buoys. Mr. Leroy Phillips, Corps of Engineers, among the private sector and, therefore, Alaska District, Regulatory Branch, at it is not a Federal private sector (3) The regulation in this section shall (907) 753–2828. mandate and it is not subject to the be enforced by personnel attached to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the July requirements of either Section 202 or Missile Defense Agency and/or by such 30, 2007, issue of the Federal Register Section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates other agencies as the Director, MDA– (72 FR 41470), the Corps published a Act. We have also found under Section AK, Fort Richardson, Alaska, may proposed rule to establish a restricted 203 of the Act, that small Governments designate.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:51 Nov 21, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM 23NOR1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with RULES 65670 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 225 / Friday, November 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: November 16, 2007. (Documents will be available of cable services. The record in the First Lawrence A. Lang, electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ Report and Order showed that new Deputy, Operations, Directorate of Civil or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text entrants eager to provide video service Works. may be purchased from the are often delayed, and in some cases [FR Doc. E7–22876 Filed 11–21–07; 8:45 am] Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th derailed, by the unreasonable demands BILLING CODE 3710–92–P Street, SW., Room CY–B402, made by local franchising authorities Washington, DC 20554. To request this (LFAs) during the franchising process. document in accessible formats The First Report and Order found that FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS (computer diskettes, large print, audio these delays contravened the dual COMMISSION recording, and Braille), send an e-mail congressional goals of enhancing cable to [email protected] or call the competition and accelerating broadband 47 CFR Part 76 Commission’s Consumer and deployment. As such, the Commission Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) found that the operation of the local [MB Docket No. 05–311; FCC 07–190] 418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 franchising process in many Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of (TTY). jurisdictions constituted an the Cable Communications Policy Act unreasonable barrier to entry. Summary of the Report and Order 4. To eliminate unreasonable barriers of 1984 as Amended by the Cable to entry into the cable market, and to Television Consumer Protection and I. Introduction encourage investment in broadband Competition Act of 1992 1. In this Second Report and Order, facilities, we found in the First Report we provide further guidance on the AGENCY: Federal Communications and Order that: (1) An LFA’s failure to operation of the local franchising issue a decision on a competitive Commission. process. To promote the federal goals of ACTION: Final rule. application within the timeframes enhanced cable competition and specified in the order constitutes an SUMMARY: In this document, the accelerated broadband development, we unreasonable refusal to award a Commission adopts rules and provides extend a number of the rules competitive franchise within the guidance to implement section 621(a)(1) promulgated in this docket’s preceding meaning of section 621(a)(1); (2) an of the Communications Act. The First Report and Order (First Report and LFA’s refusal to grant a competitive Commission solicited and reviewed Order), 72 FR 13189, March 21, 2007, to franchise because of an applicant’s comments on this section and found incumbents as well as new entrants. We unwillingness to agree to unreasonable that to promote the federal goals of also decline to preempt state or local build-out mandates constitutes an enhanced cable competition and customer service laws that exceed the unreasonable refusal to award a accelerated broadband development, the Commission’s standards. competitive franchise within the Commission’s rules regarding the local II. Background meaning of section 621(a)(1); (3) an franchising process should be extended LFA’s refusal to grant a competitive to incumbent cable operators. The 2. New competitors are entering franchise because of an applicant’s Commission adopts measures to address markets for the delivery of services unwillingness to agree to a variety of a variety of means by which local historically offered by monopolists: franchise fee requirements that are franchising authorities are unreasonably traditional phone companies are impermissible under section 622 of the refusing to award competitive entering the multichannel video market, Act constitutes an unreasonable refusal franchises. The rules and guidance will while traditional cable companies are to award a competitive franchise within facilitate enhanced cable competition competing in the telephone market. the meaning of section 621(a)(1); (4) it and accelerated broadband Ultimately, both types of companies are would be an unreasonable refusal to development. projected to offer customers a ‘‘triple award a competitive franchise if the play’’ of voice, high-speed Internet LFA denied an application based upon DATES: The rules contained in this access, and video services over their a new entrant’s refusal to undertake Second Report and Order (Second respective networks. These entities also certain obligations relating to public, Report and Order) will become effective face competition from other new educational, and government channels December 24, 2007. providers of bundled services, including (PEG) and institutional networks FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For overbuilders and utility companies. We (I–Nets); and (5) it is unreasonable additional information on this believe this competition for the delivery under section 621(a)(1) for an LFA to proceeding, contact Holly Saurer, of bundled services will benefit refuse to grant a franchise based on [email protected] or Brendan consumers by reducing prices and issues related to non-cable services or Murray, [email protected] of the improving the quality of service facilities. Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) offerings. In the First Report and Order, 5. Some of the Commission’s findings 418–2120. we stated our concerns that competitive in the First Report and Order relied, in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a applicants seeking to enter the video part, on statutory provisions that do not summary of the Commission’s Second market faced unreasonable regulatory distinguish between incumbent Report and Order, FCC 07–190, adopted obstacles, to the detriment of providers and new entrants; however, in on October 31, 2007, and released on competition generally and cable light of the fact that the NPRM in this November 6, 2007. The full text of this subscribers in particular. proceeding focused on competitive document is available for public 3. Specifically, in the First Report and entrants, the findings were made inspection and copying during regular Order, we adopted rules and provided applicable only to new entrants. At the business hours in the FCC Reference guidance to implement section 621(a)(1) same time that we adopted the First Center, Federal Communications of the Communications Act of 1934, as Report and Order, we therefore issued a Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY– amended (the Act), which prohibits Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A257, Washington, DC 20554. These franchising authorities from (FNPRM), 72 FR 13230, March 21, 2007, documents will also be available via unreasonably refusing to award to provide interested parties with the ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). competitive franchises for the provision opportunity to provide comment on

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:51 Nov 21, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM 23NOR1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with RULES