35312 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Commodity Parts per million

Pineapples ............................ 1

Potatoes ................................ 0.1

Pumpkins .............................. 1

Quinces ................................. 1

Radish (with or without tops) 1

Radish (tops) ........................ 1

Rape, seed ........................... 0.2

Raspberries .......................... 1

Rice ....................................... 1

Safflower seed ...................... 0.1

Sorghum ............................... 0.1

Sorghum, fodder ................... 3

Sorghum forage .................... 3

Soybeans .............................. 0.1

Soybean hay ......................... 1

Squash .................................. 1

Strawberries .......................... 1

Summer squash ................... 1

Sunflower seed ..................... 0.2

Sweet potatoes ..................... 0.1

Swiss chard .......................... 1

Walnuts ................................. 0.1

Wheat ................................... 1

Youngberries ........................ 1

(2) Tolerances are established for

residues of the insecticide parathion

(O,O-Dimethyl-O-p-nitrophenyl

thiophosphate) the methyl homolog of

parathion in or on the following raw

agricultural commodities:

Commodity Parts per

million

Guar beans ............................... 0.2

Parsley ...................................... 1

(3) Tolerances are established for

residues of the insecticide parathion

(O,O-Dimethyl-O-p-nitrophenyl

thiophosphate) (ethyl parathion) in or

on the following raw agricultural

commodities:

Commodity Parts per

million

Apples ....................................... 1

Artichokes ................................. 1

Beet greens (alone) .................. 1

Beets (with or without tops) ...... 1

Broccoli ..................................... 1

Brussels sprouts ....................... 1

Carrots ...................................... 1

Cauliflower ................................ 1

Celery ....................................... 1

Cherries .................................... 1

Collards ..................................... 1

Grapes ...................................... 1

Kale ........................................... 1

Kohlrabi ..................................... 1

Lettuce ...................................... 1

Mustard greens ......................... 1

Nectarines ................................. 1

Peaches .................................... 1

Pears ........................................ 1

Plums (fresh prunes) ................ 1

Rutabagas (with or without

tops) ...................................... 1

Rutabaga tops .......................... 1

Spinach ..................................... 1

Commodity Parts per

million

Tomatoes .................................. 1

Turnips (with or without tops) ... 1

Turnip greens ........................... 1

Vetch ......................................... 1

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.

[Reserved]

(c) Tolerances with regional

registrations. [Reserved]

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues.

[Reserved]

(e) Revoked tolerances subject to the

channel of trade provisions. The

following table lists commodities for

which methyl parathion use was

unlawful after December 31, 1999, and

the revoked tolerances. Commodities

with residues of methyl parathion

resulting from lawful use are subject to

the channels of trade provisions of

section 408(1)(5) of the FFDCA.

Commodity Parts per million

Apples ................................... 1

Artichokes ............................. 1

Beet greens (alone) .............. 1

Beets (with or without tops) .. 1

Birdsfoot trefoil (forage) ........ 1.25

Birdsfoot trefoil (hay) ............ 5

Broccoli ................................. 1

Brussels sprouts ................... 1

Carrots .................................. 1

Cauliflower ............................ 1

Celery ................................... 1

Cherries ................................ 1

Collards ................................. 1

Grapes .................................. 1

Kale ....................................... 1

Kohlrabi ................................. 1

Lettuce .................................. 1

Mustard greens ..................... 1

Nectarines ............................. 1

Peaches ................................ 1

Pears .................................... 1

Plums (fresh prunes) ............ 1

Rutabagas (with or without

tops) .................................. 1

Rutabaga tops ...................... 1

Spinach ................................. 1

Tomatoes .............................. 1

Turnips (with or without tops) 1

Turnip greens ....................... 1

Vegetables leafy Brassica

(cole) ................................. 1

Vetch ..................................... 1

[FR Doc. 00–13311 Filed 6–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket No. 00–99; FCC 00–186]

Availability of INTELSAT Space

Segment Capacity To Direct Access

Users

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission requests information and

comment on whether users or service

providers of telecommunications

services have sufficient opportunity to

access INTELSAT space segment

capacity directly from INTELSAT to

meet their service and capacity

requirements. The Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking also seeks comment on

potential Commission action should it

conclude that sufficient opportunity

does not exist for users and service

providers to access INTELSAT directly.

DATES: Submit comments on or before

June 23, 2000; submit reply comments

on or before July 6, 2000; and submit

responses to reply comments on July 11,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

445 Twelfth Street, SW, Washington, DC

20554. Comments 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). Comments

filed through the ECFS can be sent as an

electronic file via the Internet to http:/

/www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html.

Generally, only one copy of an

electronic submission must be filed. If

multiple docket or rulemaking numbers

appear in the caption proceeding,

however, commentors must transmit

one electronic copy of the comments to

each docket or rulemaking number

referenced in the caption. In completing

the transmittal screen, commentors

should include their full name, 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 for e-mail

comments, commentors 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Ball, 202–418–0427

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules 35313

1 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., has

been amended by the Contract with America

Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law. 104–121,

110 Stat. 847 (1996) (‘‘CWAAA’’). Title II of the

CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (‘‘SBREFA’’).

Michael McCoin, 202–418–0774

Alexandria Field, 202–418–2064

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. The Commission is required to

conduct this rulemaking pursuant to the

recently enacted Open-Market

Reorganization for the Betterment of

International Telecommunications Act

(the ORBIT Act). Section 641(b) of the

ORBIT Act requires the Commission to

determine whether ‘‘sufficient

opportunity’’ exists for users and service

providers ‘‘to access INTELSAT space

segment capacity directly from

INTELSAT to meet their service and

capacity requirements.’’ If the

Commission finds that ‘‘sufficient

opportunity’’ does not exist, the

Commission is required to ‘‘take

appropriate action to facilitate direct

access,’’ and otherwise ‘‘to take such

steps as may be necessary to prevent

circumvention of the intent’’ of the

section. Section 641(c) of the Act states

that ‘‘nothing in this section shall be

construed to permit the modification or

abrogation of any contract.’’

2. In 1999, the Commission permitted

users and service providers in the

United States to obtain Level 3 direct

access to INTELSAT space segment

capacity. Direct Access to the

INTELSAT System (Report and Order),

64 FR 54561 (October 7, 1999), 14 FCC

Rcd 15703 (1999). Level 3 access

permits non-signatory users and service

providers to enter into contractual

agreements with INTELSAT for space

segment capacity at the same rates that

INTELSAT charges its Signatories. The

subsequently enacted ORBIT Act

mandates that users and providers of

telecommunications services shall be

permitted to obtain Level 3 direct access

to INTELSAT and requires the

Commission to conduct this rulemaking.

3. The Notice requests comment on

whether users and service providers

have sufficient opportunity to access

INTELSAT capacity directly to meet

their service or capacity requirements.

There are two parts to this issue: (1) The

impact of INTELSAT’s current

distribution procedures on users and

service providers seeking direct access,

and (2) the availability of INTELSAT

existing and planned space segment

capacity to satisfy the needs of users

and service providers. The Notice

reviews INTELSAT’s current

distribution arrangements and

tentatively concludes that these

arrangements could disadvantage new

direct access users in obtaining

capacity. The Notice also seeks

comment on the effect of postprivatization distribution arrangements

on the ability of U.S. users and service

providers to access INTELSAT directly.

4. Additionally, the Notice identifies

those existing and planned satellites

capable of serving the United States. It

requires Comsat Corporation, the U.S.

Signatory to INTELSAT, to provide

information both as to what capacity on

these satellites is uncommitted and

what capacity has been committed,

either to Comsat or other Signatories

under INTELSAT’s current distribution

arrangements. The Notice requests users

and service providers to comment on

whether uncommitted capacity on

existing and planned satellites will give

them sufficient opportunity to access

INTELSAT directly to meet their service

and capacity requirements.

5. The Notice also requests comment

on what alternatives exist for taking

‘‘appropriate action’’ if the Commission

finds that ‘‘sufficient opportunity’’ does

not exist for users and service providers

to access INTELSAT directly. The

Notice tentatively concludes that the

first option for resolving capacity

shortage problems should be

commercial solutions between Comsat

and users or service providers. The

Notice further requests comment on

regulatory actions that may be

appropriate if commercial solutions

appear unattainable. It requests

comment on whether such actions may

be necessary. Comsat has tied up future

capacity on planned and yet-to-be

launched satellites that is unique to the

needs of a particular user or service

provider because of operational

requirements of its foreign

correspondent or other operational,

commercial, technical or economic

considerations. The burden would be on

the user or service provider to

demonstrate that capacity is unique and

regulatory action required.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA),1 the Commission

has prepared this present Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

of the possible significant economic

impact on small entities by the policies

and rules proposed in this Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (Notice). Written

public comments are requested on the

IRFA. Comments must be identified as

responses to the IRFA and must be filed

by the deadlines for comments on the

Notice provided in paragraphs 34

through 38. The Commission will send

a copy of the Notice, including this

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy

of the Small Business Administration. 5

U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the Notice

and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be

published in the Federal Register.

I. Need for, and Objectives of, the

Proposed Rules

The purpose of the Notice is to

comply with the Orbit Act requirement

that the Commission initiate a notice

and comment proceeding to determine

whether sufficient opportunity exists for

users and service providers to access

INTELSAT space segment capacity

directly to meet their service or capacity

requirements. If commentors believe

that the proposals discussed in the

Notice require additional RFA analysis,

they should include a discussion of this

in their comments.

II. Legal Basis

The authority for the Notice is

pursuant to the authority contained in

sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 214 and

Title III and 403 of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,

154(i) and (j), 201, 202, 214, 301 et seq.

and 403, and sections 102(c), 201(c)(2),

and c(11), of the Communications

Satellite Act of 1962, as amended, 47

U.S.C. 721(c), 741(c)(12) and (11),

section 641 of the Open-Market

Reorganization for the Betterment of

International Telecommunications Act,

Public Law 106–180, 114 Stat. 48 (2000)

641, the applicable procedures set forth

in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and

1.419, and 5 U.S.C. 553 of the

Administrative Procedures Act.

III. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities to Which

Proposed Rule Will Apply

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. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The

RFA defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as

having the same meaning as the terms

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization’’

and ‘‘small business concern’’ under

Section 3 of the Small Business Act. A

‘‘small business concern’’ is one which

is (1) independently owned and

operated; (2) not dominant in its field of

operation; (3) satisfies any additional

criteria established by the Small

Business Administration (‘‘SBA’’). 15

U.S.C. 632.

The Commission has not developed a

definition of small entities applicable to

satellite service licensees. Therefore, the

applicable definition of small entity is

the definition under the Small Business

Administration (‘‘SBA’’) rules

applicable to Communications Services

35314 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules

2U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation,

Communications, and utilities, UC92–S–1, Subject

Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table D,

Employment size of Firms: 1992, SIC Code 4899

(May 1995).

‘‘Not Elsewhere Classified.’’ This

definition provides that a small entity is

one with $11 million or less in annual

receipts. 13 CFR 121.201, Standard

Industrial Classification (SIC) Code

4899. According to the SBA, the Census

Bureau estimates that there are

approximately 631 entities providing

communications services, not elsewhere

classified. Of those, between 401 and

631 reported annual receipts of less than

$9.999 million or less and would qualify

as small entities subject to the proposed

rules.2 More precise data is not

available.

The proposed Notice requires Comsat

Corporation (‘‘Comsat’’) to provide

information concerning existing and

future capacity in the INTELSAT system

necessary for us to make the

determination required by the ORBIT

Act. The Commission also may seek

information directly from INTELSAT if

necessary and appropriate. Comsat’s

1999 revenues were in excess of $11

million. Thus, Comsat does not qualify

as a small entity under the SBA’s

definition. U.S. carriers and users,

including any small entities, that may

be affected indirectly, would likely

benefit from the proposed action.

IV. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping or Other Compliance

Requirements

The proposals in the Notice are not

expected to result in any additional

reporting, recordkeeping and other

compliance.

V. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant

Economic Burden on Small Entities,

and Significant Alternatives Considered

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: (1) The

establishment of differing compliance or

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 any part thereof,

for small entities.

Without prejudgment as to whether it

will determine that ‘‘sufficient

opportunity’’ exists, the Commission is

seeking comment on alternatives for

‘‘appropriate action’’ should it

determine that sufficient opportunity

does not exist for users and service

providers to access INTELSAT directly.

The Commission tentatively concludes

that the first option for resolving this

problem should be commercial

solutions between Comsat and users and

service providers. It also seeks comment

on possible regulatory action should

commercial negotiations fail to yield a

solution. The intent of any regulatory

action would be to permit users and

service providers, including small

entities, to benefit from the availability

of direct access to INTELSAT space

segment capacity to meet service or

capacity requirements. We do not

expect the proposals to cause any

economic burden to small entities, and

seek comment on any issues pertinent to

this.

VI. Federal Rules That Overlap,

Duplicate, or Conflict With These

Proposed Rules

None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25

Satellites.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–13759 Filed 6–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 16

Injurious Wildlife; Review of

Information Concerning Black Carp

(Mylopharyngodon piceus)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service is reviewing available economic

and biological information on the black

carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) for

possible addition to the list of injurious

wildlife under the Lacey Act. The

importation and introduction of M.

piceus into the natural ecosystem of the

United States may pose a threat to

native mollusk and fish populations.

Listing M. piceus as injurious would

prohibit its importation into, or

transportation between, the continental

United States, the District of Columbia,

Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico, or any territory or possession of

the United States, with limited

exceptions. This notice seeks comments

from the public to aid in determining if

a proposed rule is warranted.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before August 1, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

or sent by fax to the Chief, Division of

Fish and Wildlife Management

Assistance, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Mail Stop

840 ARLSQ, Washington, DC 20240, of

FAX (703) 358–2044.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Mangin, Division of Fish and

Wildlife Management Assistance at

(703) 358–1718.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a

February 24, 2000, letter to the Director

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

the Mississippi Interstate Cooperative

Resource Association (MICRA)

expressed concern that

Mylopharyngodon piceus posed a threat

to native fish and mollusk populations.

MICRA requested that the Director take

the necessary steps to list M. piceus as

an injurious species of wildlife.

M. piceus is a freshwater fish that

inhabits lakes and lower reaches of

rivers. It is native to most major Pacific

drainages of eastern Asia and highly

esteemed as a food fish in China. M.

piceus was introduced into the United

States in the early 1970s as a

‘‘contaminant’’ in imported grass carp

stocks. A second introduction occurred

in the 1980s for yellow grub control and

as a food fish.

M. piceus larvae and fingerlings feed

on zooplankton, while larger M. piceus

feed on benthic organisms with shells.

Because the species commonly feeds on

mollusks, M. piceus is considered an

effective method of biological control of

snails.

M. piceus spawn in rivers, and their

eggs are pelagic or semipelagic and drift

downstream. They are annual spawners,

with spawning triggered by water

temperature, rising water levels, and

availability of food. Research has

indicated that pond-cultured females

can produce an average of 65,000 eggs

per kg (29,000 per lb.) of body weight.

The Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42) and

implementing regulation in 50 CFR part

16 restrict the importation into or the

transportation of live wildlife or eggs

thereof between the continental United

States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii,

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or

any territory or possession of the United

States of any nonindigenous species of

wildlife determined to be injurious or

potentially injurious to certain interests,

including those of agriculture,

horticulture, forestry, the health and