62690 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

would simplify the process of providing

requested information. This

simplification would significantly

reduce the time licensees, including

small broadcast television station

licensees, need to locate information

requested by the public. The NPRM

specifically asks for cost information

associated with the requirement that

broadcasters, especially small

broadcasters, provide public interest

information in a standardized format.

By definition, the standardized

disclosure form would ask questions

about defined categories of

programming. Accordingly, the NPRM

seeks comment on what categories

should be included on the form. While

categories should be defined, the

Commission believes it is not necessary

to define what type of programming

would fall within any category, leaving

it to the broadcasters’ discretion to

determine which programs belong

under which categories. The NPRM also

seeks comment on the Commission’s

tentative view only to require that

licensees certify on the standardized

form compliance with the minimum

requirements for closed captioning and

video description.

The NPRM invites further comment

on whether licensees should provide a

narrative description on the

standardized form of the actions taken,

in the normal course of business, to

assess a community’s programming

needs and interests. This requirement

would be much less burdensome than

the Commission’s former ascertainment

requirements, which included detailed

methodologies for ascertaining the

problems, needs and interests of the

public within the station’s service area.

Finally, the NPRM seeks comment on

whether a licensee’s activities in its

community, including supporting and

organizing community events and

promoting and organizing awareness

campaigns, should be considered in

assessing whether a licensee has served

the public interest under the

Communications Act and whether they

should be listed on an attachment to the

standardized form. The alternative to

this requirement would be to leave the

rule as is. Based on our experience and

the comments to the NOI, we believe

that it serves an important public

interest to make the information

available in a clear and easy to

understand format.

The NPRM also requests comment on

the Commission’s tentative conclusion

to require licensees each quarter to

place a paper copy of the standardized

form in their public inspection files and

to make their public inspection files,

including the standardized forms,

available on the Internet until final

action has been taken on the station’s

next renewal license. As an alternative

to posting the information on each

station’s website, the Commission has

proposed allowing licensees to make the

public inspection file available on state

broadcasters associations’ websites. The

Commission has asked for cost

information on creating new websites as

well as using a licensee’s state

broadcasters association’s website. The

NPRM seeks comment on whether

television broadcasters should be

encouraged or required to make

websites on which they post the

proposed form and public file accessible

to persons with disabilities and

proposes not to require licensees to file

the proposed form with the

Commission. One alternative that the

Commission considered was a

requirement to mandate this type of

interaction with the public. As the

NPRM states, however, the Commission

is disinclined to mandate interaction

with the public through Internet

websites, but encourages broadcasters to

use their websites to conduct

discussions with members of the public.

The Commission is seeking comment on

these proposed alternatives so as to

minimize the effect of the proposed

rules on small businesses.

Federal Rules That May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rules

None.

Ordering Clauses

32. This Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking is issued pursuant to the

authority contained in Sections 4(i),

303, 307, 309, and 336 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, 307,

309, and 336, and Sections 1.412, 1.413,

and 1.415 of the Commission’s rules, 47

CFR 1.412, 1.413, and 1.415.

33. 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.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Television broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–26785 Filed 10–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AG32

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Extending of Comment

Period on Proposed Determination of

Critical Habitat for the California RedLegged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii).

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) gives notice of the

extension of the comment period on the

proposed rule to designate critical

habitat for the California Red-Legged

Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). The

extension of the comment period will be

for 30 additional days. The extension of

the comment period will allow all

interested parties to submit written

comments on the proposal. We are

seeking comments or suggestions from

the public, other concerned

governmental agencies, the scientific

community, industry, or any other

interested parties concerning the

proposed rule. Comments already

submitted on the proposed rule need

not be resubmitted as they will be fully

considered in the final determination.

DATES: The comment period for this

proposal now closes on November 20,

2000. Any comments received by the

closing date will be considered in the

final decision on this proposal.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials

concerning this proposal should be sent

to the Field Supervisor, Sacramento

Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way,

Suite W–2605, Sacramento, California

95825. Comments and materials

received will be available for public

inspection, by appointment, during

normal business hours at the above

address.

If you wish to comment, you may

submit your comments and materials

concerning this proposal by any one of

several methods.

1. You may submit written comments

and information to the Field Supervisor,

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800

Cottage Way, Suite W–2605,

Sacramento, California 95825.

2. You may also send comments by

electronic mail (e-mail) to

fw1crfch@fws.gov. See the Public

Comments Solicited section below for

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62691

file format and other information about

electronic filing.

3. You may hand-deliver comments to

our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

2800 Cottage Way, Suite W. 2605,

Sacramento, California 95825.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Curt

McCasland or Stephanie Brady, at the

above address, phone 916–414–6600,

facsimile 916–414–6710.

For information about Monterey, Los

Angeles, San Benito, San Luis Obispo,

Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Ventura

counties, contact Diane Noda, Ventura

Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 2394 Portola Road,

Suite B, Ventura, California 93003

(telephone 805/644–1766; facsimile

805/644–3958).

For information about areas in the San

Gabriel Mountains of Los Angeles

County or Riverside and San Diego

counties, contact Ken Berg, Carlsbad

Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 2730 Loker Avenue

West, Carlsbad, California 92008

(telephone 760/431–9440; facsimile

760/431–9624).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

from the public regarding the accuracy

of this proposed rule are sought,

especially regarding:

(1) The reasons why any habitat

should or should not be determined to

be critical habitat for California redlegged frogs as provided by section 4 of

the Act, including whether the benefits

of designation will outweigh any

benefits of exclusion;

(2) Specific information on the

distribution of California red-legged

frogs, the amount and distribution of the

species’ habitat, and what habitat is

essential to the conservation of the

species, and why;

(3) Land use practices and current or

planned activities in the subject areas

and their possible impacts on proposed

critical habitat;

(4) Any foreseeable economic or other

impacts resulting from the proposed

designation of critical habitat,

including, in particular, any impacts on

small entities or families; and

(5) Economic and other values

associated with designating critical

habitat for California red-legged frogs,

such as those derived from

nonconsumptive uses (e.g., hiking,

camping, bird-watching, enhanced

watershed protection, improved air

quality, increased soil retention,

‘‘existence values’’, and reductions in

administrative costs).

Background

On September 11, 2000, the Service

published a proposed rule to designate

critical habitat for the California Redlegged frog in the Federal Register (65

FR 54892). The original comment period

closed on October 11, 2000. The

comment period now closes on

November 20, 2000. Written comments

should be submitted to the Service (see

ADDRESSES section).

Approximately 2,175,000 hectares

(5,373,650 acres) of land fall within the

boundaries of the proposed critical

habitat designation. Specifically, aquatic

and upland areas where suitable

breeding and nonbreeding habitat is

interspersed throughout the landscape

and is interconnected by unfragmented

dispersal habitat are areas proposed as

critical habitat. Proposed critical habitat

is located in Alameda, Butte, Calaveras,

Contra Costa, El Dorado, Fresno, Kern,

Los Angeles, Marin, Mariposa, Merced,

Monterey, Napa, Plumas, Riverside, San

Benito, San Diego, San Joaquin, San

Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara,

Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sierra, Solano,

Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tehama,

Tuolumne, Ventura, and Yuba counties,

California. Critical habitat receives

protection from destruction or adverse

modification through required

consultation under section 7 of the Act

with regard to actions carried out,

funded, or authorized by a Federal

agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us

to consider economic and other relevant

impacts when specifying any particular

area as critical habitat.

The comment period on this proposal

now closes on November 20, 2000.

Written comments should be submitted

to the Service office listed in the

ADDRESSES section.

Author: The primary authors of this

notice are Curt McCasland and

Stephanie Brady (see ADDRESSES

section).

Authority: The authority for this action is

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

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

Dated: October 12, 2000.

Elizabeth H. Stevens,

Acting Manager.

[FR Doc. 00–26704 Filed 10–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AG17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of Comment

Period and Notice of Availability of

Draft Economic Analysis on Proposed

Critical Habitat Determination for the

Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. Notice of

Availability of Peninsular Bighorn

Sheep Distribution Map

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

comment period and notice of

availability of draft economic analysis

and notice of availability of Peninsular

bighorn sheep distribution map.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) announces the

availability of a draft economic analysis

for the proposed designation of critical

habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep

(Ovis canadensis). We also provide

notice of the reopening of the comment

period for the proposal to designate

critical habitat for the Peninsular

bighorn sheep to allow all interested

parties to submit written comments on

the proposed rule and on the draft

economic analysis. Comments

previously submitted need not be

resubmitted as they will be incorporated

into the public record as a part of this

reopening and will be fully considered

in the final rule. We also provide notice

of the availability of distribution map

for the Peninsular bighorn sheep.

DATES: The original comment period on

the critical habitat proposal closed on

August 31, 2000. The comment period

is again reopened and we will accept

comments until November 20, 2000.

Comments must be received by the

closing date. Any comments that are

received after the closing date may not

be considered in the final decision on

this proposal.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft

economic analysis are available on the

Internet at ‘‘http://pacific.fws.gov/

crithab/pbsh’’ or by writing to the Field

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife

Office, 2730 Loker Avenue West,

Carlsbad, California, 92008. Written

comments should be sent to the Field

Supervisor. You may also 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