Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 5373

holidays. The public record is located in

Room 1132 of the Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA 22202.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption.

The official record for this

rulemaking, as well as the public

version, as described above will be kept

in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will

transfer all comments received

electronically into printed, paper form

as they are received and will place the

paper copies in the official rulemaking

record which will also include all

comments submitted directly in writing.

The official rulemaking record is the

paper record maintained at the address

in ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the beginning of

this document.

V. Regulatory Assessment

Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

and, since this action does not impose

any information collection requirements

as defined by the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., it is not

subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget. In addition,

this action does not impose any

enforceable duty or contain any

unfunded mandate as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–4), or require prior

consultation with State officials as

specified by Executive Order 12875 (58

FR 58093, October 28, 1993), or special

considerations as required by Executive

Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16,

1994).

Pursuant to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–

354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601–612),

the Administrator has determined that

regulations establishing new tolerances

or raising tolerance levels or

establishing exemptions from tolerance

requirements do not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. A certification

statement explaining the factual basis

for this determination was published in

the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46

FR 24950).

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) of the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (Title II of Pub. L. 104–121, 110

Stat. 847), EPA submitted a report

containing this rule and other required

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.

House of Representatives and the

Comptroller General of the General

Accounting Office prior to publication

in today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2) of the APA as amended.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: January 28, 1997.

Janet L. Anderson,

Director, Biopesticides and Pollution

Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide

Programs.

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR

Chapter I be amended as follows:

PART 180— [AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

2. By adding new § 180.1178 to read

as follows:

§ 180.1178 Formic acid; exemption from

the requirement of a tolerance.

The biochemical pesticide formic acid

is exempted from the requirement of a

tolerance in or on honey and beeswax

when used to control tracheal mites in

bee colonies, and applied in accordance

with accepted apiarian practices.

[FR Doc. 97–2712 Filed 2–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Parts 3500, 3510, 3520, 3530,

3540, 3550, 3560, and 3570

RIN 1004–AC49

[WO–130–1820–00 24 1A]

Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than

Coal and Oil Shale

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed regulations, reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: On October 18, 1996, the

Bureau of Land Management (‘‘BLM’’)

published a document in the Federal

Register announcing a proposed rule to

reorganize the solid minerals

regulations in 43 CFR parts 3500, 3510,

3520, 3530, 3540, 3550, 3560, and 3570

(61 FR 54384). The purpose of the

proposed rule is to eliminate redundant

language, streamline the regulations,

and clarify the responsibilities of

interested parties. The 60-day comment

period for the proposed rule expired on

January 16, 1997. After receiving

requests for more time to comment,

BLM is re-opening the comment period

for 30 days.

DATES: Submit comments by March 7,

1997.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment,

you may:

(a) Hand-deliver comments to the

Bureau of Land Management,

Administrative Record, Room 401, 1620

L St., NW., Washington, DC.;

(b) Mail comments to the Bureau of

Land Management, Administrative

Record, Room 401LS, 1849 C Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20240; or

(c) Send comments through the

Internet to WOComment@wo.blm.gov.

Please include ‘‘attn: AC49’’, and your

name and return address in your

Internet message. If you do not receive

a confirmation from the system that we

have received your Internet message,

please contact us directly at (202) 452–

5030.

You will be able to review comments

at BLM’s Regulatory Affairs Group

office, Room 401, 1620 L Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C., during regular

business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.)

Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Erica Petacchi, (202) 452–5084, or

Annetta Cheek, (202) 452–5099.

Dated: January 30, 1997.

Ted Hudson,

Acting Regulatory Affairs Group Manager.

[FR Doc. 97–2767 Filed 2–4– 97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 36, 51, 61 and 69

[CC Docket Nos. 96–45, 96–262, and 96–

98; DA 97–56]

Implementation of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Request for comment on staff

analysis of economic cost proxy models.

SUMMARY: The Common Carrier Bureau

of the Federal Communications

Commission here seeks comment on
5374 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1Note: This document was received at the Office

of the Federal Register on January 28, 1997.

issues raised by its January 9, 1997 Staff

Analysis of economic cost computer

models submitted in connection with

several pending proceedings

implementing the Telecommunications

Act of 1996.

DATES: Comments in response to the

Public Notice are due February 3, 1997,1

and replies are due February 14, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Commenters must file an

original and four copies of their

comments with the Office of the

Secretary, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 222, 1919 M Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David A. Konuch, 202–418–0199 or

Brad Wimmer, 202–418–1847.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Released:

January 9, 1997.

Commission Staff Releases Analysis of

Forward-Looking Economic Cost Proxy

Models

Comment Date: February 3, 1997.

Reply Comment Date: February 14,

1997

1. This past year, the Commission has

undertaken proceedings on universal

service, interstate access charge reform,

and local exchange competition to

overhaul our current regulations in light

of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

In each proceeding the Commission has

examined the use of cost proxy models

as a regulatory tool to estimate forwardlooking economic costs of providing

telephone service. Today the

Commission Staff released a staff

analysis intended to stimulate

discussion of criteria for the evaluation,

and use, of forward-looking cost proxy

models in determining universal service

support payments, cost-based access

charges, and interconnection and

unbundled network element pricing.

The Common Carrier Bureau (‘‘Bureau’’)

here is seeking comment on the issues

raised in the paper. The record gathered

in response to this paper may at a future

date be associated with the official

record of certain pending rulemakings

to which it may be relevant and may be

used to support Commission

determinations in those rulemakings.

These rulemakings are Federal-State

Joint Board on Universal Service, CC

Docket No. 96–45, Access Charge

Reform, CC Docket No. 96–262, and

Implementation of the Local

Competition Provisions of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC

Docket No. 96–98.

2. The staff’s analysis begins with a

methodological discussion of the

criteria for evaluating an economic cost

model. These criteria include: (1)

Adherence to a forward-looking costing

methodology; (2) the ability to measure

the cost of a narrowband network; (3)

consistency with independent cost

evidence; (4) potential for independent

evaluation of model algorithms and

input assumptions; and (5) flexibility to

vary user input choices. The Bureau

seeks comment on these design criteria,

and other issues, including whether a

proxy model should estimate the cost of

a network capable of delivering

broadband services as well as traditional

narrowband services. In commenting on

the above issues and any others that

commenters regard as useful in

evaluating the models, commenters

should identify the criteria they believe

are the most important and the basis for

their position. Further, commenters

should discuss whether and to what

extent the models in the record, or any

models submitted subsequently, satisfy

these criteria.

3. The paper also contains a detailed

analysis of the structure and input

requirements of existing proxy models.

With regard to model structure, the

paper examines various issues

including: (1) The use of existing local

exchange carrier wire centers; (2) the

geographic unit of analysis used by

model proponents in designing their

networks; (3) the specification of

demand for business and special access

lines; and (4) the specification of

network elements included in a model

and the services those elements are

capable of providing. The paper also

analyzes the engineering assumptions

made by existing models submitted in

one or more of the rulemakings listed

above in determining levels of forwardlooking investment, with particular

attention directed to feeder and

distribution routes, fill factors,

investment in structures, and switching

investment. Finally, the paper considers

those models’ treatment of capital

expenses, operating expenses, and joint

and common costs. Commenters should

use this analysis as a basis for their

comments on existing proxy models.

For instance, do the models include

loop plant investment sufficient to meet

demand? In addition, based on its

analysis thus far, the Commission staff

believes that varying any one of a

number of input factors of the models,

such as the cost of capital or the

depreciation rate, may greatly affect the

resulting prices or support payment

amounts. The Bureau seeks comment on

this view, and on which inputs are most

critical to the soundness of the prices

generated by the models. Should the

Commission take steps to set specific

inputs such as depreciation rates,

capital costs, treatment of taxes, joint

and common costs, and expenses, and,

if so, how?

4. The staff’s analysis attempts to

identify the modeling assumptions and

inputs that are most likely to have a

significant impact on estimated costs.

Where appropriate, commenters should

indicate whether they agree or disagree

with this analysis. In the case of model

input choices, commenters can, if

desired, recommend either specific

input values or specific methodologies

that could be used to select an

appropriate input. In some cases, the

staff analysis indicates areas in which

alternative modeling approaches would

be desirable, and commenters are asked

to describe in detail such alternatives

whenever possible. While commenters

are invited to address any aspect of

existing or future proxy models,

particular attention should be paid to

the following areas identified in the staff

analysis: (1) The appropriate choice of

fill factors and the treatment of structure

costs; (2) methodologies for determining

the appropriate forward-looking cost of

capital and rate of depreciation; (3)

alternative methodologies that models

could use to estimate forward-looking

operating expenses; and (4) sources of

independent evidence that could be

used to choose model inputs and verify

model outputs.

5. The staff’s analysis also considers

several questions about the potential

uses of models in pending proceedings

on universal service, access reform and

element pricing. For instance, could a

single model, or combination of models,

be used for multiple regulatory

objectives, i.e., in determining costbased access charges as part of a

prescriptive approach to access reform

and in setting both interconnection and

unbundled element prices and universal

service support levels? The FederalState Universal Service Joint Board has

already recommended that the models

before it undergo refinement before they

may be used to set universal service

support levels. Similarly, the staff’s

analysis suggests that each of the

models would need to be modified

before it alone could be used to set costbased access charges or to estimate

network facilities’ costs, and the Bureau

seeks comment on this view. As an

alternative to choosing a single model or

set of models, could a hybrid model be

developed that would employ the most

successful features and assumptions

contained in individual models? The

Bureau also seeks comment on the

different design assumptions that

commenters believe can or should be
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 5375

used in models used for different

purposes. For instance, commenters that

believe the modeling of the economic

cost of providing network facilities or

access costs can or should differ from

the modeling of the economic costs of

providing the services receiving

universal service support should

describe their reasons, including in part

the differences in network investments

required. Specifically, they should

identify any costs included in

unbundled elements that are directly

attributable to unsupported services.

More broadly, the Bureau seeks

comment on whether the various inputs

to the models, such as rate of return and

depreciation, can or should differ for

these different purposes.

6. The Bureau looks forward to

receiving comments and working with

all interested parties in developing

reasonable approaches to using

economic cost models as tools in

resolving the various critical

telecommunications policy issues

described above. The comments should

be filed on or before February 3, 1997,

with reply comments due February 14,

1997. Commenters must file an original

and four copies of their comments with

the Office of the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, Room

222, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20554. Comments should reference

CPD Docket No. 97–2. Commenters

should send one copy of their comments

to the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Room 140, 2100 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20037. Comments will

be available for public inspection during

regular business hours in the FCC

Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M

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

7. Parties are also asked to submit

comments on diskette. Such diskette

submissions would be in addition to

and not a substitute for the formal filing

requirements addressed above. Parties

submitting diskettes should submit

them to Wanda M. Harris, Competitive

Pricing Division, Common Carrier

Bureau, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 518,

Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a

submission should be on a 3.5 inch

diskette in an IBM compatible format

using WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows

software in a ‘‘read only’’ mode. The

diskette should be clearly labelled with

the party’s name, proceeding, and date

of submission. The diskette should be

accompanied by a cover letter.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 36

Communications common carriers,

Telephone, Uniform System of

Accounts.

47 CFR Part 51

Communications common carriers,

Telephone.

47 CFR Part 61

Communications common carriers,

Tariffs, Telephone.

47 CFR Part 69

Access charges, Communications

common carriers, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–2502 Filed 2–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 960805216–7013–04; I.D.

121796B]

RIN 0648–AH06

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Regulatory Amendment to the

Fishery Management Plan for the

Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black

Sea Bass Fisheries

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed

rule and request for comments to

implement a regulatory amendment to

the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for

the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black

Sea Bass Fisheries. This proposed

regulatory amendment would revise the

allocation and management of the

commercial scup quota.

DATES: Public comments must be

received on or before March 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed

rule should be sent to Dr. Andrew A.

Rosenberg, Regional Administrator,

National Marine Fisheries Service,

Northeast Regional Office, One

Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

Mark the outside of the envelope,

‘‘Comments on Scup Regulatory

Amendment.’’

Comments regarding burden-hour

estimates for collection-of-information

requirements contained in this proposed

rule should be sent to the Regional

Administrator, Northeast Region,

NMFS, at the address above, and the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget (OMB), Washington, D.C. 20502

(Attention: NOAA Desk Officer).

Copies of the regulatory amendment

are available upon request from David

R. Keifer, Executive Director, MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council,

Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South

New Street, Dover, DE 19901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Regina L. Spallone, Fishery Policy

Analyst, 508–281–9221.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council (Council) and the

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission (Commission) adopted an

FMP for the Scup Fishery for NMFS

review in November 1995. To reduce

the number of separate regulations

issued by the Federal Government,

however, the proposed scup FMP was

incorporated into the Summer Flounder

FMP as Amendment 8 to that FMP.

Amendment 8 was approved by NMFS

on July 29, 1996 (61 FR 43420, August

23, 1996). The Commission then

adopted a plan with measures that are

identical to those in Amendment 8. The

Commission plan would confer to States

responsibility of managing their quota

for the scup industry in their state and

can implement and enforce landing

limits. In addition, quota monitoring

and closures upon quota attainment

would be state compliance measures

under the Commission plan, as stated in

the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries

Cooperative Management Act.

Due to the seriously overfished status

of the stock, the Council had requested,

and the Secretary of Commerce

(Secretary) implemented, emergency

regulations to enact a minimum mesh

requirement and minimum fish size for

the fishery. These measures were in

effect from March 22, 1996, until

regulations implementing Amendment 8

were published on September 23, 1996.

Amendment 8 established target

annual exploitation rates for rebuilding

the stock that are to be reached through

a total allowable catch (TAC) for the

scup fishery that includes both landings

and discards. The TAC is divided into

a commercial TAC and a recreational

TAC. Discard estimates are then

subtracted from each of those

allocations. The result is an annual