41404 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules

D. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

27. There currently are no

recordkeeping or other compliance

requirements associated with the subject

rule. The NPRM proposes no new

recordkeeping or other compliance

requirements.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant

Impact on Small Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered

28. 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.

29. As indicated above, the NPRM

proposes to eliminate the subject rule

and to allow licensees to have more

than a single experimental broadcast

license irrespective of their reason for

seeking such multiple licenses.

Significant alternatives were recently

considered in the Commission’s 1998

biennial review of its broadcast

ownership rules (MM Docket No. 98–

35). Those alternatives were: (1)

Retention of the current rule; (2)

modification of the current rule; (3)

elimination of the current rule. In that

proceeding the Commission determined

that elimination of the subject provision

would be in the public interest. The

Commission considered the results of

this top-to-bottom review of the subject

rule in its consideration of alternatives

to the course proposed herein in the

instant proceeding. Under the proposal

in this NPRM, small entities will be able

to obtain multiple experimental

broadcast station licenses, as will all

broadcast licensees.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rules

30. None.

31. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act

Analysis. This NPRM may contain either

proposed or modified information

collections. As part of our continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we

invite the general public to take this

opportunity to comment on the

information collections contained in

this NPRM, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996.

Public and agency comments are due at

the same time as other comments on the

NPRM. Comments should address: (a)

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) ways to enhance the quality, utility,

and clarity of the information collected;

and (c) ways to minimize the burden of

the collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

In addition to filing comments with the

Secretary, a copy of any comments on

the information collections contained

herein should be submitted to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,

Room C–1804, Washington, DC 20554,

or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and

to Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk

Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to

Edward.Springer@omb.eop.gov.

32. Additional Information. For

additional information on this

proceeding, please contact Roger

Holberg, Policy and Rules Division,

Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418–2134,

(202) 418–1169 TTY.

IV. Ordering Clauses

33. Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority contained in sections 1, 2(a),

4(i), 303, 307, 309, and 310 of the

Communications Act, as amended, 47

U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 303, 307, 309,

and 310, and Section 202(h) of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996, this

NPRM is adopted.

34. The Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, Reference

Information Center, shall send a copy of

this NPRM, including the Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration in accordance

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 74

Radio broadcasting, Television

broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–16821 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AF92; RIN 1018–AF95

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Extension of Comment

Periods on Proposed Critical Habitat

for the Spectacled Eider and Steller’s

Eider

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of

extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), provide

notice that we are extending the

comment periods on the proposed rules

designating critical habitat for the

spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri)

and the Alaska-breeding population of

the Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri).

We are extending these comment

periods to allow the public the

opportunity to comment simultaneously

on the proposed rules and the

associated economic analyses, which we

anticipate will be available for public

review in August 2000. All interested

parties are invited to submit comments

on these proposed rules.

DATES: The comment periods for the

proposed rules concerning spectacled

eiders and Steller’s eiders, which

previously closed on June 30, 2000, now

close on August 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit written data or

comments on the spectacled eider to the

Field Supervisor, Ecological Services

Field Office, Anchorage, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 605 W. 4th Ave. Rm

G–62, Anchorage, AK 99501; fax: 907/

271–2786. Submit written data or

comments on the Steller’s eider to Ted

Swem, Northern Alaska Ecological

Services, 101 12th Ave., Rm 110,

Fairbanks, AK 99701.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

the proposed rule concerning spectacled

eiders, contact Ann G. Rappoport, Field

Supervisor, Ecological Services Field

Office, Anchorage (see ADDRESSES

above), phone: 907/271–2787 or toll-free

800/272–4174; fax: 907/271–2786. For

the proposed rule concerning Steller’s

eiders, contact Ted Swem, Endangered

Species Branch, at Northern Alaska

Ecological Services (see ADDRESSES

above), phone: 907/456–0441; fax: 907/

456–0208.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The spectacled eider is a large

seaduck found in marine waters and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules 41405

coastal areas from the Nushagak

Peninsula of southwestern Alaska north

to Barrow and east nearly to the

Canadian Border. The species is

threatened by habitat degradation, lead

poisoning, increased predation rates,

and hunting and other human

disturbance. The Steller’s eider is a

seaduck found in coastal and marine

waters from the eastern Aleutian Islands

around the western and northern coasts

of Alaska to the Canada border. The

Alaska-breeding population of this

species is thought to have decreased

significantly, but the causes of the

suspected decline are unknown. On

February 8, 2000, the Service published

a proposed rule (65 FR 6114) to

designate critical habitat for the

spectacled eider, and on March 13,

2000, the Service published a proposed

rule (65 FR 13262) to designate critical

habitat for the Alaska-breeding

population of the Steller’s eider.

The comment period for the proposed

rule designating critical habitat for

spectacled eiders originally closed on

May 8, 2000. The comment period for

the proposed rule designating critical

habitat for Steller’s eiders originally

closed on May 12, 2000. We

subsequently extended the comment

periods for both species to June 30,

2000, in response to concerns expressed

by several parties that the original

comment periods did not allow

adequate time for review and comment

by affected individuals and

communities. Additionally, we

anticipated that the comment periods

for the economic analyses associated

with the proposed critical habitat

designations would be open during June

2000, and we wished to solicit

comments on the proposed rules and

their respective economic analyses

simultaneously. The development of the

economic analyses for the proposed

critical habitat designations was

unexpectedly delayed, and we now

anticipate that the economic analyses

will be available for public review and

comment during August 2000.

Accordingly, to ensure simultaneous

comment on proposed critical habitat

and the associated economic analyses,

the Service is extending the comment

periods for both proposed rules until

August 31, 2000. Written comments

may be submitted to the appropriate

Service office as specified in the

ADDRESSES section.

Our practice is to make comments,

including names and home addresses of

respondents, available for public review

during regular business hours.

Individual respondents may request that

we withhold their home address from

the rulemaking record, which we will

honor to the extent allowable by law. In

certain circumstances, we would

withhold from the rulemaking record a

respondent’s identity, as allowable by

law. If you wish for us to withhold your

name and/or address, you must state

this request prominently at the

beginning of your comment. However,

we will not consider anonymous

comments. We will make all

submissions from organizations or

businesses, and from individuals

identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public inspection in their entirety.

The deadline for requesting public

hearings on the proposed rule regarding

critical habitat for the spectacled eider

was March 24, 2000. The deadline for

requesting public hearings for the

proposed rule regarding critical habitat

for Steller’s eider was April 27, 2000.

We have not extended these deadlines.

In order to be considered valid, requests

for public hearings must have been

submitted in writing and received at the

appropriate office by the relevant

deadline.

Author: The primary author of this

notice is Susan Detwiler, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Division of

Endangered Species, 1011 E. Tudor Rd.,

Anchorage, AK 99503.

Authority: The authority for this action is

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: June 27, 2000.

Gary Edwards,

Acting Regional Director, Region 7, Fish and

Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 00–16923 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AG17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Determination of

Critical Habitat for the Peninsular

Bighorn Sheep

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), propose

designation of critical habitat for the

Peninsular bighorn sheep pursuant to

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act). The proposed critical

habitat boundary encompasses

approximately 354,343 hectares (ha)

(875,613 acres (ac)) of Peninsular

bighorn sheep habitat in Riverside, San

Diego, and Imperial Counties,

California.

Critical habitat identifies specific

areas that have physical and biological

features that are essential to the

conservation of a listed species, and that

may require special management

considerations or protection. The

primary elements for the bighorn are

those habitat components that are

essential for the primary biological

needs of feeding, sheltering,

reproduction, dispersal, and genetic

exchange.

If this proposed rule is made final,

section 7 of the Act would prohibit

destruction or adverse modification of

critical habitat by any activity funded,

authorized, or carried out by any

Federal agency.

Section 4 of the Act requires us to

consider economic and other impacts of

specifying any particular area as critical

habitat. We solicit data and comments

from the public on all aspects of this

proposal, including data on economic

and other impacts of the designation.

We may revise this proposal to

incorporate or address new information

received during the comment period.

DATES: Comments from all interested

parties must be received by August 31,

2000. A public hearing is scheduled to

be held on July 20, 2000, in Palm

Springs, Riverside County, California

(see ADDRESSES section below for

details).

ADDRESSES:

Comments: You may submit your

comments and materials concerning this

proposal by any one of several methods.

1. You may mail written comments

and information to the Field Supervisor,

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, 2730 Loker

Avenue West, Carlsbad, California

92008.

2. You may hand-deliver written

comments to our Carlsbad Fish and

Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 2730 Loker Avenue West,

Carlsbad, California 92008.

3. You may send comments by

electronic mail (e-mail) to

FW1PBSH@fws.gov. Please submit

comments in ASCII file format and

avoid the use of special characters and

encryption. Please include ‘‘Attn: [RIN

number]’’ and your name and return

address in your e-mail message. If you

do not receive a confirmation from the

system that we have received your email message, contact us directly by

calling our Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife

Office at phone number 760–431–9440.