31870 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such expenditure, we 

do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not cause a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

10. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under Executive Order 

13211, Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have determined that this action is one 

of a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves 

establishment of a temporary safety 

zone to protect persons and property 

from potential hazards associated with 

the scheduled Cincinnati Reds Season 

Fireworks displays taking place on or 

over the Ohio River. This rule is 

categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 

2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. An 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination and a 

Categorical Exclusion Determination are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6 and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. A new temporary safety zone 

§ 165.T08–0080 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T08–0080 Safety Zone; Cincinnati 

Reds Fireworks Displays Ohio River, Mile 

470.1–470.4, Cincinnati, OH. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

temporary safety zone: all waters of the 

Ohio River, surface to bottom, from mile 

470.1 to mile 470.4 on the Ohio River, 

extending 500 ft. from the State of Ohio 

shoreline at Cincinnati, Ohio. These 

markings are based on the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers’ Ohio River 

Navigation Charts (Chart 115 June 

2010). 

(b) Effective dates and enforcement 

periods. This safety zone is effective 

from April 2, 2014 through November 

15, 2014, and will be enforced from 9:00 

p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on the following 

dates: April 2 & 11; May 2, 9 & 23; June 

6 & 20; July 4, 11 & 25; August 8 & 22; 

September 5 & 26. Should the 

Cincinnati Reds make the playoffs and 

have additional home games, the Coast 

Guard will provide the game dates and 

enforcement periods as soon as 

practicable with advance notification 

via Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local 

Notices to Mariners, and/or Marine 

Safety Information Bulletins as 

appropriate. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23 of 

this part, entry into, movement within, 

or departure from this zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a 

designated representative. 

(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry 

into, departure from, or movement 

within a regulated area must request 

permission from the Captain of the Port 

Ohio Valley or a designated 

representative. They may be contacted 

on VHF–FM Channel 13 or 16, or 

through Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley 

at 1–800–253–7465. 

(3) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Captain of the Port Ohio Valley and 

designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard 

patrol personnel. On-scene U.S. Coast 

Guard patrol personnel includes 

Commissioned, Warrant, and Petty 

Officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. 

(d) Informational broadcasts. The 

COTP Ohio Valley or a designated 

representative will inform the public 

through Broadcast Notices to Mariners, 

Local Notices to Mariners, and/or 

Marine Safety Information Bulletins as 

appropriate of the enforcement period 

for each safety zone as well as any 

changes in the planned and published 

dates and times of enforcement. 

Dated: March 24, 2014. 

R.V. Timme, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Ohio Valley. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12822 Filed 6–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter VI 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OPE–0034] 

Final Priorities; Centers for 

International Business Education 

Program 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final priorities. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 31871 

[CFDA Number: 84.220A.] 

SUMMARY: The Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Postsecondary Education 

announces two priorities for the Centers 

for International Business Education 

(CIBE) program. The Assistant Secretary 

may use these priorities for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 

and later years. 

The first priority promotes projects 

that propose to collaborate with one or 

more professional associations or 

businesses to expand employment 

opportunities for international business 

students, for example, by creating 

internships and work-study 

opportunities. We intend for the first 

priority to improve the preparation of 

international business students to enter 

the workforce. The second priority 

promotes projects that propose 

collaborative activities with a MinorityServing Institution (MSI) or a 

community college. We intend for this 

priority to address a gap in the types of 

institutions, faculty, and students that 

have historically benefitted from the 

instruction, training, and outreach 

available at centers for international 

business education. 

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities 

are effective July 3, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Timothy Duvall, U.S. Department of 

Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 

6069, Washington, DC 20006. 

Telephone: (202) 502–7622 or by email: 

timothy.duvall@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the CIBE program is to provide funding 

to institutions of higher education or 

consortia of such institutions for 

curriculum development, research, and 

training on issues of importance to U.S. 

trade and competitiveness. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1130–1. 

Applicable Program Regulations: As 

there are no program-specific 

regulations, we encourage each 

potential applicant to read the 

authorizing statute for the CIBE program 

in section 612 of Title VI, Part B, of the 

Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (HEA), 20 U.S.C. 1130–1. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities (NPP) for this program in the 

Federal Register on March 18, 2014 (79 

FR 15084). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the particular priorities. 

There is a difference between the 

proposed priorities and these final 

priorities as discussed in the Analysis of 

Comments and Changes section 

elsewhere in this notice. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, five parties 

submitted comments. Three of the 

comments addressed the proposed 

priorities and two of the comments 

addressed the wording in the Purpose of 

Program section of the NPP. 

We discuss substantive issues under 

the priority to which they pertain. 

Generally, we do not address technical 

and other minor changes. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and any 

changes in the priorities since 

publication of the NPP follows. 

General 

Comment: Two commenters noted 

that the wording in the Purpose of 

Program section of the NPP does not 

accurately reflect the entities eligible for 

funding under the CIBE program. They 

stated that schools of business are not 

the only eligible entities and suggested 

broader wording. 

Discussion: We agree that the wording 

in the Purpose of Program section of the 

NPP is too narrow and does not 

accurately reflect the purpose of the 

program under the statute. Under the 

statute (20 U.S.C. 1130–1(a)(2)), the 

program is designed to support 

institutions of higher education or 

consortia of such institutions. 

Changes: We revised the Purpose of 

Program section in this notice of final 

priorities to specify that the CIBE 

program provides funding to 

institutions of higher education or 

consortia of such institutions, rather 

than just to schools of business. 

Comment: A commenter endorsed the 

proposed priorities and expressed 

appreciation for the Department of 

Education’s efforts to facilitate stronger 

participation of MSIs. In addition, the 

commenter urged us to use these 

priorities as absolute or competitive 

preference priorities. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s support. However, it is our 

practice to specify the priority types for 

each competition in the notice inviting 

applications, not in a notice of final 

priorities. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 1—Collaboration With a 

Professional Association or Business 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

that business education should include 

a study of labor laws to address 

inequalities in the workplace and the 

protection of workers values. 

Discussion: The CIBE program focuses 

on supporting institutions of higher 

education that operate centers for 

international business education. 

Nothing in the priority precludes an 

applicant from incorporating the study 

of labor laws and microinequities in the 

workplace into its curriculum. However, 

we do not wish to limit grantees in their 

project design by further specifying 

areas of study. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 2—Collaboration With MSIs or 

Community Colleges 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

the wording of the proposed priority 

implied that an applicant can meet the 

priority by proposing collaborative 

activities with only one MSI or 

community college and requested that 

we change the priority to allow 

collaboration with multiple MSIs or 

community colleges. 

Discussion: We agree that the 

proposed priority unnecessarily limited 

the scope of the priority and we are 

revising the final priority to include the 

option of collaborating with one or more 

MSIs or community colleges. We believe 

that a proposed project could benefit 

from collaboration with more than one 

MSI or community college, or a 

combination of MSIs and community 

colleges. 

In addition, in connection with a 

comment received on a similar priority 

under a different program, we 

considered whether, for an applicant 

that meets the definition of an MSI, we 

should allow that institution to meet the 

priority by conducting intra-campus 

collaborative activities instead of, or in 

addition to, collaborative activities with 

other MSIs or community colleges. After 

further review, we believe it is 

appropriate to permit an institution that 

is also an MSI the flexibility to focus on 

intra-campus collaborative activities as 

well as on collaborative activities with 

other MSIs and community colleges. 

Changes: We have revised the priority 

to clarify that an institution can 

collaborate with multiple MSIs or 

community colleges, or a combination 

of MSIs and community colleges. We 

have also clarified that an institution 

that is an MSI may meet the priority by 

proposing intra-campus collaborative 

activities as well as on collaborative 

activities with other MSIs and 

community colleges. 

Final Priorities 

Priority 1: Collaboration With a 

Professional Association or Business 

Applications that propose to 

collaborate with one or more 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
31872 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

professional associations and/or 

businesses on activities designed to 

expand employment opportunities for 

international business students, such as 

internships and work-study 

opportunities. 

Priority 2: Collaboration With MinorityServing Institutions (MSIs) or 

Community Colleges 

Applications that propose significant 

and sustained collaborative activities 

with one or more MSIs (as defined in 

this notice) and/or with one or more 

community colleges (as defined in this 

notice). These activities must be 

designed to incorporate international, 

intercultural, or global dimensions into 

the business curriculum of the MSI(s) 

and/or community college(s). If an 

applicant institution is an MSI (as 

defined in this notice), that institution 

may propose intra-campus collaborative 

activities instead of, or in addition to, 

collaborative activities with other MSIs 

or community colleges. 

For the purpose of this priority: 

Community college means an 

institution that meets the definition in 

section 312(f) of the Higher Education 

Act (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1058(f)); or an 

institution of higher education (as 

defined in section 101 of the HEA (20 

U.S.C. 1001)) that awards degrees and 

certificates, more than 50 percent of 

which are not bachelor’s degrees (or an 

equivalent) or master’s, professional, or 

other advanced degrees. 

Minority-Serving Institution means an 

institution that is eligible to receive 

assistance under sections 316 through 

320 of part A of Title III, under part B 

of Title III, or under Title V of the HEA. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational. The effect of 

each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these priorities, we 

invite applications through a notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this final 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these final priorities 

only on a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs. In 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that this regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 31873 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: May 29, 2014. 

Lynn B. Mahaffie, 

Senior Director, Policy Coordination, 

Development, and Accreditation Service, 

delegated the authority to perform the 

functions and duties of the Assistant 

Secretary for Postsecondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12847 Filed 6–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[FCC 14–24] 

Schedule of Application Fees; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: In this document, we correct 

an inadvertent omission of the last page 

of the FY 2014 Application Fee Order. 

The page that was omitted was a table 

of application fees involving charges for 

applications and other filings for the 

Homeland Services. 

DATES: Effective June 6, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing 

Director at (202) 418–0444. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

correction to the Order FCC 14–24 that 

was published in the Federal Register at 

79 FR 26175, May 7, 2014. Accordingly, 

this corrects the document by 

publishing the last page of the FY 2014 

Application Fee Order. 

• On page 26175, add the following 

amendatory instruction and regulatory 

text: 

■ 9. Section 1.1109 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.1109 Schedule of charges for 

applications and other filings for the 

Homeland services. 

Payment can be made electronically 

using the Commission’s electronic filing 

and payment system ‘‘Fee Filer’’ 

(www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Remit manual 

filings and/or payments for these 

services to: Federal Communications 

Commission, Homeland Bureau 

Applications, P.O. Box 979092, St. 

Louis, MO 63197–9000. 

Service FCC Form No. Fee 

amount 

Payment 

type 

code 

1. Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement (CALEA) Petitions .. Corres & 159 ................................... $6,575.00 CLEA 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12805 Filed 6–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1 and 63 

[IB Docket No. 12–299; FCC 14–48] 

Reform of Rules and Policies on 

Foreign Carrier Entry Into the U.S. 

Telecommunications Market 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) eliminates the effective 

competitive opportunities test (ECO 

Test) from its review of international 

section 214 authority and cable landing 

license applications, as well as foreign 

carrier affiliation notifications, filed by 

foreign carriers or their affiliates that 

have market power in countries that are 

not members of the World Trade 

Organization (WTO). The Commission 

found that elimination of outdated or 

unnecessary rules will reduce regulatory 

costs and enhance its ability to 

expeditiously review foreign entry that 

may be advantageous to U.S. consumers, 

while continuing to protect important 

interests related to national security, 

law enforcement, foreign policy, and 

trade policy. 

DATES: Effective July 3, 2014, except for 

amendments to §§ 1.767(a)(8), 

1.768(g)(2), 63.11(g)(2), and 63.18(k), 

which contain information collection 

requirements that require approval by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). The Commission will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing the effective date for those 

rule changes. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jodi 

Cooper or James Ball, Policy Division, 

International Bureau, FCC, (202) 418– 

1460 or via the Internet at Jodi.Cooper@

fcc.gov and James.Ball@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, IB Docket No. 12–299, FCC 

14–48, adopted April 22, 2014, and 

released April 22, 2014. The full text of 

the Report and Order is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. The document 

also is available for download over the 

Internet at http://transition.fcc.gov/

Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/

db0422/FCC-14-48A1.pdf. 

The complete text also may be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc. (BCPI), located in Room 

CY–B402, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. Customers may 

contact BCPI at its Web site, http://

www.bcpiweb.com or call 1–800–378– 

3160. 

Synopsis 

1. In the Report and Order, the 

Commission eliminates the formal ECO 

Test that applies to Commission review 

of applications filed by foreign carriers 

or affiliates of foreign carriers for entry 

into the U.S. market for international 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES