Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 69895

1 5 U.S.C. 603(c).

gross revenues of $15 million or less in

the three preceding calendar years);

second, offer real-time, two-way

switched voice or data service that is

interconnected with the public switched

network; and third, use an in-network

switching facility that enables the

provider to reuse frequencies and

accomplish seamless hand-offs of

subscriber calls. These criteria greatly

restrict the number of SMR providers

who could be affected by this new rule.

Although there may be SMR carriers

who provide such services it is high

unlikely that they will be small entities

or small businesses given the nature of

the SMR providers and the development

of that industry. Consequently, even

though there may be no licensees that

satisfy these criteria, we err on the sake

of caution and conclude that 25 small

entities may fall into this category.

D. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other

Compliance Requirements

31. We anticipate that any rules that

may be adopted pursuant to this NPRM

will impose no reporting or

recordkeeping requirements. The only

compliance costs likely to be incurred,

as a result, are administrative costs to

ensure that an entity’s practices are in

compliance with the rule. The only

compliance requirement of the new

rules is that licensees subject to any

automatic roaming requirement (i.e.,

cellular licensees, broadband PCS

licensees, and geographic area 800 MHz

and 900 MHz SMR licensees that offer

real-time, two-way, interconnected

switched voice and data service) would

have to provide non-discriminatory

access to their wireless systems via

automatic roaming once they had

reached an agreement with any carrier

to permit automatic roaming. As noted

above in this Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, and in the text of

the NPRM, we seek comment on the

potential costs of implementing an

automatic roaming requirement in this

context, including such potential costs

on small business.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered

32. 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 (among

others): (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.1

33. As noted, the possible sunset of

the manual roaming rule, if adopted,

would be expected to reduce any

existing economic impact on small

business. Therefore, the only possible

negative economic impacts that might

arise from this NPRM are those that

would be associated with an

‘‘automatic’’ roaming rule.

34. As indicated in the NPRM, were

the Commission to propose an

‘‘automatic’’ roaming rule, the

subscribers of any carrier requesting that

another carrier enter a

nondiscriminatory automatic roaming

arrangement would have the burden of

ensuring that its subscribers were using

equipment that is technically capable of

accessing the roamed-on carrier’s

network. Thus, to the extent the

roamed-on carrier’s network were that

of a smaller carrier, the economic

burden of having equipment technically

capable of accessing the network would

not fall on the smaller carrier. Also, we

note that an automatic roaming rule, if

adopted, would not require a small

business to modify its network to

accommodate automatic roaming.

35. In this NPRM, the Commission

also specifically has requested

comments from small businesses that

would provide information on the

extent to which such a rule would

impose costs and administrative

burdens on them. For instance, we

inquire whether the costs of such a rule

would impact smaller carriers

disproportionately, such that we should

fashion the rule to reach only the larger

providers. The Commission will draw

on this information when considering

whether a rule should be promulgated,

and if so, how it can best be drafted to

minimize any costs placed on small

businesses. Furthermore, we inquire

whether adoption of an ‘‘automatic

roaming’’ rule would in fact be in the

best interests of small businesses.

Specifically, in considering whether or

not to adopt an ‘‘automatic roaming’’

rule, we inquire of smaller carriers

whether such a rule would be most

beneficial to such carriers to the extent

they may have difficulty obtaining

agreements from larger carriers absent

such a rule.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rules

None.

Ordering Clauses

36. Pursuant to the authority of

Sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 251(a),

253, 303(r), and 332(c)(1)(B) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i),

154(j), 201(b), 251(a), 253, 303(r), and

332(c)(1)(B), and §§ 1.411 and 1.412 of

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.411

and 1.412, this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking is Adopted.

37. The Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, Reference

Information Center, shall send a copy of

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

including the Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20

Communications common carriers,

Communications equipment.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–29773 Filed 11–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Part 215

Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement; Profit Policy

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Director of Defense

Procurement is sponsoring a public

meeting to discuss the proposed Defense

Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DFARS) rule on changes to

profit policy published in the Federal

Register at 65 FR 45574 on July 24,

2000. The Director of Defense

Procurement would like to hear the

views of interested parties on what they

believe to be the key issues pertaining

to the proposed rule and potential

alternatives. A listing of some of the

possible issues is included on the

Internet Home Page of the Office of Cost,

Pricing, and Finance at http://

www.acq.osd.mil/dp/cpf.

Subsequent to the discussions at the

public meeting, the Director of Defense

Procurement intends to publish a

revised proposed rule for additional

public comment.

DATES: The public meeting will be

conducted at the address shown below

on December 12, 2000, from 9 a.m. to 12

p.m., local time.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be

conducted at Crystal Square 4, Suite

69896 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

200A, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob

Bemben, Office of Cost, Pricing, and

Finance, by telephone at (703) 695–

9764; by FAX at (703) 693–9616; or by

e-mail at bembenrj@acq.osd.mil.

Michele P. Peterson,

Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition

Regulations Council.

[FR Doc. 00–29776 Filed 11–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AG27

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Notice of Availability of

Draft Economic Analysis for Proposed

Critical Habitat Determination for the

Morro Shoulderband Snail

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability of draft

economic analysis.

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 Morro shoulderband snail

(Helminthoglypta walkeriana). We are

opening the comment period to allow

all interested parties to submit written

comments on the draft economic

analysis. Comments will be

incorporated into the public record as a

part of this comment period and will be

fully considered in the final rule.

DATES: The comment period is opened

and we will accept comments until

December 6, 2000. Comments must be

received by 5:00 p.m. on the closing

date. Any comments that are received

after the closing date may not be

considered in the final decision on this

proposal.

ADDRESSES: All written comments

should be sent to the Field Supervisor

at the above address. You may also send

comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to

‘‘fw1morrosnail@r1.fws.gov.’’ Please

submit electronic comments in ASCII

file format and avoid the use of special

characters and encryption. Please

include ‘‘Attn: RIN 1018–AG27’’ 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 e-mail message,

contact us directly by calling our

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at

phone number 805–644–1766.

Comments and materials received will

be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above Service address.

Copies of the draft economic analysis

are available on the Internet at

‘‘www.r1.fws.gov’’ or by writing to the

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife

Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B,

Ventura, California 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and

Wildlife Office, at the above address

(telephone 805–644–1766; facsimile

805–644–3958).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Morro shoulderband snail was

first described as Helix walkeriana by

Hemphill based on collection made

‘‘near Morro, California.’’ He also

described a subspecies, based on

sculptural features of the shell, Helix

walkeriana, Helix var. morroensis, that

was collected ‘‘near San Luis Obispo

City.’’ The Morro shoulderband snail is

also commonly known as the banded

dune snail and belongs to the Class

Gastropoda and Family

Helminthoglyptidae.

The shell of the Morro shoulderband

snail has 5–6 whorls. Its dimensions are

18 to 29 millimeters (mm) (0.7 to 1.1

inches (in.)) in diameter and 14 to 25

mm (0.6 to 1.0 in.) in height. The Morro

shoulderband snail can be distinguished

from the Big Sur shoulderband snail

(Helminthoglypta umbilicata), another

native snail in the same area, by its

more globose (globe shaped) shell and

presence of incised (deeply cut) spiral

grooves. The shell of the Big Sur

shoulderband snail tends to be flatter

and shiner. The brown garden snail

(Helix aspersa) also occurs in Los Osos

with the Morro shoulderband snail and

has a marbled pattern on its shell,

whereas the Morro shoulderband snail

has one narrow dark brown spiral band

on the shoulder. The Morro

shoulderband’s spire is low-domed, and

half or more of the umbilicus (the cavity

in the center of the base of a spiral shell

that is surrounded by the whorls) is

covered by the apertural (small opening)

lip.

The Morro shoulderband snail is

found only in western San Luis Obispo

County. At the time of its addition to the

List of Endangered and Threatened

Wildlife on December 15, 1994 (59 FR

64613), the Morro shoulderband snail

was known to be distributed near Morro

Bay. Its currently known range includes

areas south of Morro Bay, west of Los

Osos Creek, and north of Hazard

Canyon. Historically, the species has

also been reported near the city of San

Luis Obispo (type locality for

‘‘morroensis’’) and south of Cayucos.

The Morro shoulderband snail occurs

in coastal dune and scrub communities

and maritime chaparral. Through most

of its range, the dominant shrub

associated with the snail’s habitat is

mock heather (Ericameria reicoides).

Other prominent shrub and succulent

species are buckwheat (Eriogonum

parvifolium), eriastrum (Eriastrum

densifolium), chamisso lupine (Lupinus

chamissonis), dudleya (Dudleya sp.) and

in more inland locations, California

sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and

black sage (Salvia mellifera).

Away from the immediate coast,

immature scrub in earlier successional

stages may offer more favorable shelter

sites than mature stands of coastal dune

scrub. The immature shrubs provide

canopy shelter for the snail, whereas the

lower limbs of larger older shrubs may

be too far off the ground to offer good

shelter. In addition, mature stands

produce twiggy litter that is low in food

value. The Morro shoulderband snail is

not a garden pest and is essentially

harmless to gardens.

The Morro shoulderband snail is

threatened by destruction of its habitat

due to increasing development and by

degradation of its habitat due to

invasion of nonnative plant species

(e.g., veldt grass (Ehrharta calycino)),

structural changes to its habitat due to

maturing of dune vegetation, and

recreational use (e.g., heavy off-highway

vehicle activity). In addition to the

known threats, possible threats to the

snail include competition for resources

with the nonnative brown garden snail

(although no assessment has been made

of possible dietary overlap between the

species); the isolated nature of the

remaining populations; the use of

pesticides (including snail and slug

baits); and the introduction of nonnative

predatory snails.

Pursuant to the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, as amended (Act), the

species was federally listed as

endangered on December 15, 1994 (59

FR 64613). On July 12, 2000, we

published in the Federal Register (65

FR 42962) a determination proposing

critical habitat for the Morro

shoulderband snail. Approximately

1,040 hectares (2,565 acres) fall within

the boundaries of the proposed critical

habitat designation. Proposed critical

habitat is located in the community of

Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County,

California, as described in the proposed

determination.