Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules 41401

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–16820 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–1394; MM Docket No. 00–55; RM–

9836]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Falconer

and Fredonia, NY

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal.

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the

request of North Country Broadcasting,

Inc., licensee of Station WCQA,

Fredonia, NY, dismisses its petition to

reallot Channel 243A from Fredonia to

Falconer, NY, and modify Station

WCQA’s license accordingly. See 65 FR

17618, April 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 00–55,

adopted June 14, 2000, and released

June 23, 2000. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–16868 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 74

[MM Docket No. 00–105; FCC 00–203]

Broadcast Services; Radio Stations,

Television Stations

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

eliminate the Commission rule that

prohibits an entity from controlling

more than one experimental broadcast

station license absent a showing of

need. As a result of the preliminary

determination in the Commission’s

biennial review proceeding that this

rule is no longer necessary in the public

interest as a result of competition, this

document proposes to eliminate the

subject provision.

DATES: Comments are due by September

1, 2000 , and reply comments are due

by October 2, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roger Holberg, Mass Media Bureau,

Policy and Rules Division, (202) 418–

2134.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in MM

Docket No. 00–105, FCC 00–203,

adopted June 5, 2000, and released June

20, 2000. The complete text of this

NPRM is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center, Room CYA257, 445 12th Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. and may also be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service (202)857–3800, 445 12th Street,

S.W., Room CY–B402, Washington, D.C.

The NPRM is also available on the

Internet at the Commission’s website:

http://www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule

Making

1. By this NPRM the Commission

proposes to eliminate the multiple

ownership rule for experimental

broadcast stations which now provides

that no entity may control more than

one experimental license absent a

showing of need (47 CFR 74.134). We

seek comment on whether this rule

remains necessary to achieve goals of

competition and diversity in the

broadcast market. The Commission

stated in the Biennial Review Notice of

Inquiry (Notice of Inquiry, In the Matter

of 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review,

Review of the Commission’s Broadcast

Ownership Rules and Other Rules

Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996, 13

F.C.C.R. 11276, 11293–94 (1998) (NOI))

a tentative belief that this rule has a

negligible impact on these goals and

sought comment on whether this rule

remains necessary in the public interest.

Accordingly, this NPRM seeks comment

on the repeal of § 74.134. Commenters

advocating less than the outright repeal

of the rule are encouraged to propose

alternatives to the current restriction.

I. Background

2. The multiple ownership rule for

experimental broadcast stations was

adopted in 1946 and generally limited

ownership to one station. In 1963 this

rule was redesignated as part 74

(74.134) with no changes. In 1984 the

Commission combined parts 74 A

(Experimental TV), 74 B (Experimental

Facility) and 74 C (Developmental

Broadcast Stations) into the present

subpart 74 A (Experimental Broadcast

Stations) without changing the

ownership limit.

3. By Section 202(h) of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996

(Public Law 104–104, 110 Stat. 56

(1996)), Congress directed the

Commission to review its broadcast

ownership rules as part of the biennial

ownership review. That section requires

the Commission to review its broadcast

ownership rules biennially and to

determine whether any of these rules

are necessary in the public interest as

the result of competition. Furthermore,

it requires the Commission to ‘‘repeal or

modify any regulation it determines to

be no longer in the public interest.’’

4. Subpart A of part 74 of the

Commission’s Rules 1 sets forth the rules

for licensing ‘‘experimental broadcast

stations,’’ which are defined as stations

‘‘licensed for experimental or

developmental transmission of radio

telephony, television, facsimile, or other

types of telecommunication services

intended for reception and use by the

general public.’’ Experimental broadcast

facilities are used to carry on ‘‘research

and experimentation for the

development and advancement of new

broadcast technology, equipment,

systems or services which are more

extensive or require other modes of

transmission than can be accomplished

by using a licensed broadcast station

under an experimental authorization.’’

The rules governing experimental

broadcast stations encourage innovation

while protecting existing services from

interference. Licensees are subject to

operating and reporting requirements

and are prohibited from using the

experimental broadcast facility in a

commercial manner.

5. Currently, § 74.134 states that ‘‘[n]o

persons (including all persons under

common control) shall control, directly

or indirectly, two or more experimental

broadcast stations unless a showing is

made that the program of research

requires a licensing of two or more

separate stations.’’ This NPRM proposes

41402 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules

the repeal of this limitation on

ownership.

II. Discussion

6. It appears that § 74.134 was

intended to limit experimental licensees

to the minimum spectrum use necessary

and to prevent them from aggregating a

sufficient number of stations under the

guise of experimentation to enable them

to operate a commercial service on these

stations. We believe, however, that other

rules and requirements will adequately

assure these ends and that the

ownership limitation may, therefore, no

longer be necessary. Because licensees

are prohibited from commercial use of

experimental broadcast stations, such a

licensee may not charge, directly or

indirectly, for the production or

transmission of any programming or

information used for experimental

broadcast purposes. Nor may it transmit

program material unless it is necessary

to the experiments being conducted,

and no regular program service may be

broadcast unless specifically authorized.

Thus, repeal of the multiple ownership

rule would not appear to affect the

Commission’s ability to ensure that

experimental stations are used solely for

bona fide experimental purposes.

Furthermore, because a license for an

experimental broadcast station does not

grant the exclusive use of a frequency,

no licensee is able to control multiple

frequencies. The Commission believes

that these other sections of our

experimental broadcast station rules

provide sufficient protection to prevent

entities from operating on a commercial

basis while functioning under the guise

of an experimental authorization. Since

experimental broadcast facilities do not

exert influence on the competitive

market we believe ownership limits are

unduly restrictive. Allowing a party to

have more than one experimental

broadcast station license, however, may

permit efficiencies to be realized in the

operation of such stations, permitting

resources to be devoted to research more

efficiently. This will promote the

Commission’s statutory charge to

‘‘[s]tudy new uses for radio, provide for

experimental uses of frequencies, and

generally encourage the larger and more

effective use of radio in the public

interest.’’

7. In the only comment filed in

response to our NOI with regard to the

instant rule, the National Association of

Broadcasters (NAB) recommended

repeal of this rule. It contended that

broadcast auxiliary facilities are facing

regulatory change and dislocation and,

accordingly, there is now an even

greater need for responsible use of

experimental stations to develop

solutions to these problems. NAB

supported elimination of what it

characterized as an ‘‘arbitrary

restriction,’’ and urged the Commission

to ensure that such stations do not

endanger the interference-free service

provided by broadcasters. We

tentatively agree with the NAB’s

assessment of § 74.134.

8. Accordingly, we tentatively

conclude that elimination of § 74.134

will have no adverse impact on our

diversity and competition goals. We also

tentatively conclude that the protections

afforded by our operations, noninterference, and reporting rules are

sufficient to assure such stations are

used for the purposes for which they are

intended and use no more spectrum

than needed. Accordingly, we believe

that the multiple ownership rule

governing experimental broadcast

stations is no longer necessary in the

public interest and propose its repeal.

We invite comment on this matter.

III. Administrative Matters

11. Comments and Reply Comments.

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,

1.419, interested parties may file

comments on or before September 1,

2000, and reply comments on or before

October 2, 2000. 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 (1998).

12. Comments filed through 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.

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 an

electronic comment via e-mail. To get

filing instructions for e-mail comments,

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.

13. Parties who choose to file by

paper must file an original and four

copies of each filing. All filings must be

sent to the Commission’s Secretary,

Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the

Secretary, Federal Communications

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,

TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554.

14. Parties who choose to file paper

should also submit their comments on

diskette. These diskettes should be

addressed to: Wanda Hardy, Paralegal

Specialist, Mass Media Bureau, Policy

and Rules Division, Federal

Communications Commission, 445

Twelfth Street, SW., 2–C221,

Washington, DC 20554. Such a

submission should be on a 3.5 inch

diskette formatted in an IBM compatible

format using Word 97 or compatible

software. The diskette should be

accompanied by a cover letter and

should be submitted in ‘‘read only’’

mode. The diskette should be clearly

labeled with the commenter’s name,

proceeding (including the lead docket

number in this case (MM Docket No.

00–105), type of pleading (comment or

reply comment), date of submission,

and the name of the electronic file on

the diskette. The label should also

include the following phrase ‘‘Disk

Copy—Not an Original.’’ Each diskette

should contain only one party’s

pleadings, preferably in a single

electronic file. In addition, commenters

must send diskette copies to the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 445 Twelfth Street, SW., CY–B402,

Washington, DC 20554.

15. Comments and reply comments

will be available for public inspection

during regular business hours in the

FCC Reference Center, Federal

Communications Commission, 445

Twelfth Street, SW., CY–A257,

Washington, DC 20554. Persons with

disabilities who need assistance in the

FCC Reference Center may contact Bill

Cline at (202) 418–0270, (202) 418–2555

TTY, or bcline@fcc.gov. Comments and

reply comments also will be available

electronically at the Commission’s

Disabilities Issues Task Force web site:

www.fcc.gov/dtf. Comments and reply

comments are available electronically in

ASCII text, Word 97, and Adobe

Acrobat.

16. This document is available in

alternative formats (computer diskette,

large print, audio cassette, and Braille).

Persons who need documents in such

formats may contact Martha Contee at

(202) 4810–0260, TTY (202) 418–2555,

or mcontee@fcc.gov.

17. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding

will be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding, subject to the

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ requirements

under § 1.1206(b) of the rules. 47 CFR

1.1206(b), as revised. Ex parte

presentations are permissible if

disclosed in accordance with

Commission rules, except during the

Sunshine Agenda period when

presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are

generally prohibited. Persons making

oral ex parte presentations are reminded

that a memorandum summarizing a

presentation must contain a summary of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules 41403

the substance of the presentation and

not merely a listing of the subjects

discussed. More than a one or two

sentence description or the views and

arguments presented is generally

required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2), as

revised. Additional rules pertaining to

oral and written presentations are set

forth in § 1.1206(b).

18. Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C. 603, the

Commission has prepared an IRFA of

the possible economic impact on small

entities of the proposals contained in

this NPRM. Written public comments

are requested on the IRFA. In order to

fulfill the mandate of the Contract with

America Advancement Act of 1996

regarding the Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, we ask a number of

questions in our IRFA regarding the

prevalence of small businesses in the

television broadcasting industry.

Comments on the IRFA must be filed in

accordance with the same filing

deadlines as comments on the NPRM,

and must have a distinct heading

designating them as a response to the

IRFA. The Reference Information

Center, Consumer Information Bureau,

will send a copy of this Notice,

including the IRFA, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

19. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (‘‘RFA’’), 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

NPRM. Written public comments are

requested on this IRFA. Comments must

be identified as responses to the IRFA

and must be filed by the deadlines for

comments on the NPRM provided in

paragraph 11. The Commission will

send a copy of the Notice, including this

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy

of the Small Business Administration.

See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the

NPRM and the IRFA (or summaries

thereof) will be published in the Federal

Register. See id.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the

Proposed Rules

20. Section 202(h) of the Telecom Act

requires the Commission to review its

broadcast ownership rules every two

years, beginning in 1998, and to

‘‘determine whether any of such rules

are necessary in the public interest as

the result of competition.’’ It instructs

the Commission to repeal or modify any

regulation it determines to be no longer

in the public interest. In its first

Biennial Report, issued as a result of

Section 202(h) of the Telecom Act, the

Commission tentatively determined that

the experimental broadcast multiple

ownership rule appeared to no longer be

in the public interest. Accordingly, in

compliance with the provisions of

Section 202(h) of the Telecom Act, the

Commission is commencing this

proceeding in order to repeal or to

examine the need to retain § 74.134 of

its rules.

B. Legal Basis

21. This NPRM is adopted pursuant to

sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 303, 307, 309, 310,

of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.

151, 152(a), 154(i), 303, 307, 309, 310,

and Section 202(h) of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996.

C. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities to Which the

Proposed Rules Will Apply

22. 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. The

Regulatory Flexibility Act 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: (1) Is

independently owned and operated; (2)

is not dominant in its field of operation;

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria

established by the SBA.

23. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the

statutory definition of a small business

applies ‘‘unless an agency after

consultation with the Office of

Advocacy of the SBA and after

opportunity for public comment,

establishes one or more definitions of

such term which are appropriate to the

activities of the agency and publishes

such definition(s) in the Federal

Register. A ‘‘small organization’’ is

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise

which is independently owned and

operated and is not dominant in its

field.’’ Nationwide, as of 1992, there

were approximately 275,801 small

organizations. ‘‘Small governmental

jurisdiction’’ generally means

‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns,

townships, villages, school districts, or

special districts with a population of

less than 50,000.’’ As of 1992, there

were approximately 85,006 such

jurisdictions in the United States. This

number includes 38,978 counties, cities,

and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96

percent, have populations of fewer than

50,000. Thus, of the 85,006

governmental entities, we estimate that

81,600 (91 percent) are small entities.

24. The Small Business

Administration defines a radio

broadcasting station that has $5 million

or less in annual receipts as a small

business. A radio broadcasting station is

an establishment primarily engaged in

broadcasting aural programs by radio to

the public. Included in this industry are

commercial, religious, educational, and

other radio stations. The 1992 Census

indicates that 96 percent (5,861 of

6,127) radio station establishments

produced less than $5 million in

revenue in 1992. Official Commission

records indicate that 11,334 individual

radio stations were operating in 1992.

As of September 30, 1999, Commission

records indicate that 12,615 radio

stations (both commercial and

noncommercial) were operating of

which 2,066 were noncommercial

educational FM radio stations. Applying

the 1992 percentage of station

establishments producing less than $5

million in revenue (i.e., 96 percent) to

the number of radio stations in

operation, (i.e., 12,615) indicates that

12,109 of these radio stations would be

considered ‘‘small businesses’’ or ‘‘small

organizations.’’

25. The SBA defines small television

broadcasting stations as television

broadcasting stations with $10.5 million

or less in annual receipts. There are

currently 1,243 commercial television

stations and 373 non-commercial

educational television stations on the

air. According to Commission staff

review of the BIA Publications, Inc.,

Master Access Television Analyzer

Database, fewer than 800 commercial

TV broadcast stations (65%) have

revenues of less than $10.5 million

dollars. We note, however, that under

SBA’s definition, revenues of affiliates

that are not television stations should be

aggregated with the television station

revenues in determining whether a

concern is small. Our estimate may thus

overstate the number of small entities

since the revenue figure on which it is

based does not include or aggregate

revenues from non-television affiliated

companies. Accordingly, it appears that

the proposed revisions would affect no

more than 800 television stations that

might be considered ‘‘small businesses’’

or ‘‘small organizations.’’

26. The NPRM proposes to eliminate

the bar on the ability of licensees to

hold licenses for more than one

experimental broadcast station. We seek

comment and data regarding the number

of small entities that may be affected by

the proposed elimination of our

experimental broadcast station multiple

ownership.

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