Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33281

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Today’s rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, entitled

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership. Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This proposed rule will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of

the Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Clean Air Act,

preparation of flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

proposed action does not require the

public to perform activities conducive

to the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: May 9, 2000.

Keith Takata,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–12786 Filed 5–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 94–129; DA 00–1093]

Common Carrier Bureau Asks Parties

To Refresh Record and Seek

Additional Comment on Proposal To

Require Resellers To Obtain Carrier

Identification Codes

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Solicitation of supplemental

comments.

SUMMARY: In a Further Notice in this

proceeding released on December 23,

1998, the Commission sought comment

on three proposals to address ‘‘soft

slamming’’ and carrier identification

problems arising from the shared use of

carrier identification codes (CICs) by

facilities-based carriers and switchless

resellers of their services. The first

proposal—requiring resellers to obtain

their own CICs—garnered both strong

support and opposition among

commenters. Supporters view it as a

33282 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules

cost-effective and administratively

simple solution to the problems

identified by the Commission, whereas

opponents raise a number of concerns

regarding its potential impact on

carriers. In order to focus the record, we

invite interested parties to refresh the

record and to submit additional

comments on a number of specific

issues regarding the proposal that

resellers obtain their own CICs.

DATES: Submit comments on or before

June 6, 2000 and reply comments on or

before June 13, 2000.

ADDRESSES: See Supplementary

Information section for where and how

to file comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William J. Scher or Dana WaltonBradford (202) 418–7400 TTY: (202)

418–0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a

Further Notice, 64 FR 7763 (February

16, 1999), in this proceeding released on

December 23, 1998, the Commission

sought comment on three proposals to

address ‘‘soft slamming’’ and carrier

identification problems arising from the

shared use of carrier identification

codes (CICs) by facilities-based carriers

and switchless resellers of their

services. The first proposal—requiring

resellers to obtain their own CICs—

garnered both strong support and

opposition among commenters.

Supporters view it as a cost-effective

and administratively simple solution to

the problems identified by the

Commission, whereas opponents raise a

number of concerns regarding its

potential impact on carriers. In order to

focus the record, we invite interested

parties to refresh the record and to

submit additional comments on a

number of specific issues regarding the

proposal that resellers obtain their own

CICs.

First, we seek comment on what it

would cost resellers to purchase

translations access alone, as

distinguished from Feature Group D

access, and on whether the Commission

should require that this functionality be

offered separately. We encourage

commenters to provide specific

estimates of costs on both a per-LATA

and a nationwide basis.

Second, we request information on

whether there are functionallyequivalent services that, in conjunction

with elimination of the current NANPA

requirement that carriers must purchase

Feature Group D access to obtain a CIC,

would make it possible for switchless

resellers to use CICs without also

purchasing translations access directly.

If so, can and should the Commission

require the purchase of such services by

underlying carriers? To what extent are

underlying carriers and resellers already

taking advantage of any such services,

and how are the costs allocated between

them? What are the potential drawbacks

of such an approach?

Third, we request additional comment

on the network, operations support

systems, and/or other modifications that

underlying carriers and LECs would

have to make to accommodate the use

of switchless reseller CICs, the likely

costs of any such modifications, and the

time required to carry them out. We

seek comment on whether the

Commission should require any such

modifications if it adopts the proposed

CIC requirement, or whether market

incentives are sufficient to encourage

carriers to make them of their own

accord. Again, we encourage

commenters to submit empirical data

with their comments, and to provide

specific estimates of costs on both a perLATA and a nationwide basis.

Fourth, we seek additional comment

on whether the proposed CIC

requirement would be affordable for

switchless resellers. We seek comment

on whether there are specific measures

that would mitigate the financial burden

of the proposed CIC requirement on

switchless resellers. We also ask

commenters to address whether the

subject proposal would create

additional competitive benefits or

disadvantages for resellers, such as

giving them greater parity with

facilities-based carriers in the timing of

customer access to long distance

services, or making it more expensive

and time-consuming for them to change

underlying carriers.

Fifth, we request additional comment

on the specific dimensions of soft

slamming and the carrier identification

problems involving resellers identified

in the Further Notice. In particular, we

request commenters to address—and to

submit empirical data, to the greatest

extent possible—concerning the

percentage of slamming complaints that

involve soft slams and the percentage

that involve consumers whose preferred

carrier freeze protections have been

bypassed.

Finally, we seek additional comment

on whether this proposal would create

a significant threat of CIC exhaustion,

and whether modifications to existing

Commission policy restricting CIC

assignments may be necessary to

accommodate the assignment of CICs to

resellers.

Filing Procedures

This will continue to be a permit-butdisclose proceeding for purposes of the

Commission’s ex parte rules. Pursuant

to § 1.1200 and § 1.1206 of the

Commission’s rules, interested parties

may file supplemental filings on or

before June 6, 2000, and replies to

supplemental filings on or before June

13, 2000. Rules pertaining to oral and

written ex parte presentations in permitbut-disclose proceedings are set forth in

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

Such filings may be filed using the

Commission’s Electronic Comment

Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper

copies. See Electronic Filing of

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,

63 FR 24121 (May 1, 1998).

Filings submitted through the ECFS

can be sent as an electronic file via the

Internet to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/

ecfs.html>. Only one copy of an

electronic submission must be filed. In

completing the transmittal screen,

commenters should include their full

name, Postal Service mailing address,

and the applicable docket or rulemaking

number. Parties may also submit

electronic filings by Internet e-mail. To

receive e-mail filing instructions,

commenters should send an e-mail to

ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the

following words in the body of the

message, ‘‘get form <your e-mail

address.’’ A sample form and directions

will be sent in reply.

Parties who choose to file by paper

must file an original and four copies of

each filing with the Commission’s

Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office

of the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, 445 12th

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

Parties also must send a paper copy of

their filings to Sheryl Todd, Accounting

Policy Division, Common Carrier

Bureau, Federal Communications

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street S.W.,

Room 5–B540, Washington, D.C. 20554.

In addition, parties filing supplemental

filings must send diskette copies to the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20037.

The full text of this document is

available for public inspection and

copying during regular business hours

at the FCC Reference Information

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW,

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC,

20554. This document may also be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc. (ITS), 1231 20th Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20036, telephone

202–857–3800, facsimile 202–857–3805.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33283

Dated: May 18, 2000.

Irene M. Flannery,

Chief, Accounting Policy Division.

[FR Doc. 00–12981 Filed 5–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AF90

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Rule To List the

Mississippi Gopher Frog Distinct

Population Segment of Dusky Gopher

Frog as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife

Service, propose to list the Mississippi

gopher frog distinct population segment

of the dusky gopher frog (Rana capito

sevosa) as an endangered species under

the authority of the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, as amended (Act).

Historically, the Mississippi gopher frog

occurred in at least nine counties or

parishes across Louisiana, Mississippi,

and Alabama, ranging from east of the

Mississippi River in Louisiana to the

Mobile River delta in Alabama. Today,

it is known from only one site in

Harrison County, Mississippi. This last

surviving population is threatened by

habitat destruction and degradation

from a proposed housing development

on property within 200 meters (m) (656

feet (ft)) of its only remaining breeding

pond; the construction and expansion of

two highways in the vicinity of the

pond; and a proposed reservoir. These

actions pose threats to the terrestrial

habitat of adult frogs and their ability to

offset mortality rates with reproduction

and recruitment. This proposed rule, if

made final, would extend the Act’s

protection to the Mississippi gopher frog

distinct population segment.

DATES: Send your comments to reach us

on or before July 24, 2000. We will not

consider comments received after the

above date in making our decision on

the proposed rule. We must receive

requests for public hearings by July 7,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments and

materials concerning this proposal to

the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Mississippi Field

Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway,

Jackson, Mississippi 39213. Comments

and materials received will be available

for public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Linda LaClaire at the above address,

telephone 601/965–4900, or facsimile

601/965–4340.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The gopher frog (Rana capito) is a

member of the large cosmopolitan

family, Ranidae (‘‘true frogs’’). The

genus Rana is the only North American

representative of this family. We define

the Mississippi gopher frog distinct

population segment as those

populations of gopher frogs in the lower

coastal plain ranging from the

Mississippi River in Louisiana to the

Mobile River delta of Alabama. Goin

and Netting (1940) described frogs from

this geographic range as a distinct

species of gopher frog, Rana sevosa. The

taxonomic history of gopher frogs is

complex (summary in Altig and

Lohoefener 1983). Subsequent to the

original description by Goin and

Netting, frogs of this population

segment were considered subspecies of

Rana capito (gopher frog) (R. c. sevosa)

(Wright and Wright 1942) and later

subspecies of R. areolata (crayfish frog)

(R. a. sevosa) (Viosca 1949). In 1991,

Collins challenged the taxonomic

arrangement that lumped crayfish frogs

and gopher frogs together as one species

and recommended their separation

based on biogeographical grounds. This

arrangement was followed by Conant

and Collins (1991), who again

recognized the name R. c. sevosa.

Wright and Wright (1942) first used the

common name of ‘‘dusky gopher frog’’

for this subspecies, and it has been used

in subsequent publications. The range of

the subspecies, as presently described,

also extends to the Gulf Coast of western

Florida and adjacent Alabama (Conant

and Collins 1991).

Young (1997) conducted the first

comprehensive biochemical analysis of

the relationships between gopher frogs

and crayfish frogs and among

subspecies of gopher frogs. She used

allozyme electrophoresis (an assay

(examination) of gene products) to

examine allelic (genetic) differences

between and among populations.

Allozyme data have been used

extensively to investigate the evolution

of genetic relationships among related

species. Young found strong support for

the species designations R. areolata

(crayfish frogs) and R. capito (gopher

frogs). Gopher and crayfish frogs varied

from each other by fixed differences at

four loci (specific locations on a gene).

In addition, she found that populations

of gopher frogs from Harrison County,

Mississippi, were genetically distinct

from other populations of gopher frogs

east of the Mobile River drainage in

Alabama. Young analyzed tissue from

gopher frogs across the range of the

species including populations in

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida,

and North Carolina. Although

Mississippi gopher frogs showed a fixed

difference at only a single locus (site for

a specific gene on a chromosome) from

all other gopher frogs, this difference is

considered by many taxonomists to be

significant enough to warrant elevation

of the frog to its own species (B. Crother,

Southern Louisiana University, pers.

comm. 1999). No other specific

taxonomic divisions could be

determined among the remaining

populations of gopher frogs sampled.

Since Harrison County is within the

range of the original specimens used to

describe R. sevosa, Young

recommended the resurrection of R.

sevosa as a distinct species. A

manuscript summarizing her findings

has been submitted for publication

(Young and Crother, unpublished

manuscript). If her recommendations

are accepted by the herpetological

scientific community, we will reflect

this taxonomic change in subsequent

publications in the Federal Register.

Researchers have recommended

‘‘Mississippi gopher frog’’ as the

common name for this population

segment to distinguish it from the other

populations of gopher frogs further east

(R. Seigel, pers. comm. 1998).

The Mississippi gopher frog has a

stubby appearance due to its short,

plump body, comparatively large head,

and relatively short legs (Conant and

Collins 1991). The coloration of its back

is dark and varies in individual frogs. It

ranges from an almost uniform black to

a pattern of reddish brown or dark

brown spots on a ground color of gray

or brown (Goin and Netting 1940).

Warts densely cover the back. The belly

is thickly covered with dark spots and

dusky markings from chin to mid-body

(Goin and Netting 1940, Conant and

Collins 1991). Males are distinguished

from females by their smaller size,

enlarged thumbs, and paired vocal sacs

on either side of the throat (Godley

1992). Richter and Seigel (1998b)

reported a mean snout-vent length of

67.7 millimeters (mm) (2.7 inches (in))

for males and 79.3 mm (3.2 in) for

females in the extant population.

Mississippi gopher frog tadpoles are

presently indistinguishable from those

of leopard frogs and other gopher frogs