16518 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

that are small businesses by examining

the number of applicants in similar

services that qualified as small

businesses. For example, MDS

authorizes non-common carrier services

similar to what may be developed

through LMDS. The MDS rules provide

a similar definition of a small business

as an entity that, together with its

affiliates, has annual gross revenues for

the three proceeding years not in excess

of $40 million. A total of 154

applications were received in the MDS

auction, of which 141, or 92 percent,

qualified as small businesses.

29. We plan to issue 2 licenses for

each of the 492 BTAs, excluding New

York, that are the geographic basis for

licensing LMDS. Thus, 984 licenses will

be made available for authorization in

the LMDS auction. Inasmuch as 92

percent of the applications were

received in the MDS auction were from

entities qualifying as small businesses,

we anticipate receiving at least the same

from LMDS applicants interested in

providing non-common carrier services.

30. There is only one company,

CellularVision, that is currently

providing LMDS video services.

Although the Commission does not

collect data on annual receipts, we

assume that CellularVision is a small

business under both the SBA definition

and our proposed auction rules.

31. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and

Other Compliance Requirements: Under

the proposal contained in the Fifth

NPRM: (1) acquisitions by partitioning

or disaggregation will be treated as

assignments of a license and will

require the parties to seek prior

approval of the Commission; (2) the

parties will be required to identify

which of them will be responsible for

complying with the construction

requirements set forth in the Second

Report and Order we have adopted

today, and to submit a certification to

that effect, signed by both parties, (3)

parties failing to meet their construction

requirement obligations will be subject

to forfeiture of their license; and (4)

licensees afforded bidding preferences

and other benefits available to small

entities will be subject to the

Commission’s unjust enrichment rules

should they partition or disaggregate to

entities that are not small businesses. If

adopted, this proposal would apply to

all LMDS licensees and all entities that

attempt to acquire an LMDS license by

means of partitioning or disaggregation.

We request comment on how these

requirements can be modified to reduce

the burden on small entities and still

meet the objectives of the proceeding.

32. Significant Alternatives

Minimizing the Significant Economic

Impact on a Substantial Number of

Small Entities Consistent with the

Stated Objectives: We have not

identified any significant alternatives

that would minimize the significant

economic impact on small entities that

are consistent with the stated objectives

to allow a flexible approach to

partitioning and disaggregation of

LMDS. We tentatively conclude that a

flexible approach affords providers,

including small businesses, the ability

to respond to market forces and

demands for service relevant to their

particular locations and service

offerings.

The regulatory burdens we have

imposed on LMDS licensees with

respect to assignments and buildout

certifications, as well as unjust

enrichment, are necessary in order to

ensure that the public receives the

benefits of innovative new services in a

prompt and efficient manner. We seek

comment on any significant alternatives

that are consistent with the objectives in

the NPRM.

33. Federal Rules That Overlap,

Duplicate, or Conflict with These

Proposed Rules: None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 101

Communications common carriers,

Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–8775 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AB73

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants, Notice of Reopening of

Comment Period on Proposed

Endangered Status for the Peninsular

Ranges Population of the Desert

Bighorn Sheep

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule, notice of

reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service), pursuant to the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),

provides notice of reopening of the

comment period for the proposed

endangered status for the Peninsular

Ranges population of desert bighorn

sheep (Ovis canadensis). The comment

period has been reopened to acquire

additional information from interested

parties, and to resume the proposed

listing action. In addition, the Service is

seeking public comment on various

articles and reports concerning the

distinctiveness and status of bighorn

sheep in the Peninsular Ranges.

DATES: The public comment period

closes May 7, 1997. Any comments

received by the closing date will be

considered in the final decision on this

proposal.

ADDRESSES: Written comments,

materials and data, and available reports

and articles concerning this proposal

should be sent directly to the Field

Supervisor, Carlsbad Field Office, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, 2730 Loker

Avenue West, Carlsbad, California

92008. Comments and materials

received will be available for public

inspection, by appointment, during

normal business hours at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter Sorensen, at the address listed

above (telephone 760/431–9440,

facsimile 760/431–9618).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Peninsular Ranges population of

the desert bighorn sheep occurs along

desert slopes of the Peninsular Ranges

from the vicinity of Palm Springs,

California, into northern Baja California,

Mexico. Depressed recruitment, habitat

loss and degradation, disease, loss of

dispersal corridors, and random events

(e.g., drought) affecting small

populations threaten the desert bighorn

sheep in the Peninsular Ranges.

On May 8, 1992, the Service

published a rule proposing endangered

status for the Peninsular Ranges

population of the desert bighorn sheep

(57 FR 19837). The original comment

period closed on November 4, 1992. The

Service was unable to make a final

listing determination regarding the

bighorn sheep because of a limited

budget, other endangered species

assignments driven by court orders, and

higher listing priorities. In addition, a

moratorium on listing actions (Public

Law 104–6), which took effect on April

10, 1995, stipulated that no funds could

be used to make final listing or critical

habitat determinations. Now that

funding has been restored, the Service is

proceeding with a final determination

for the Peninsular Ranges population of

the desert bighorn sheep.

Due to the length of time that has

elapsed since the close of the initial

comment period, changing procedural
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 16519

and biological circumstances and the

need to review the best scientific

information available during the

decision-making process, the comment

period is being reopened. Moreover, this

proposed listing of a population of

desert bighorn sheep must be consistent

with Service policy published on

February 7, 1996, regarding the

recognition of distinct vertebrate

population segments (61 FR 4722). This

policy requires that distinct population

segments be discrete from other

populations of the species, be

biologically and/or ecologically

significant to the species, and meet the

standards of a endangered or threatened

species under section 4(a) of the Act. In

this regard, the following recent articles

and reports contained in Service files,

including other non-cited information,

are available for public review:

Berger, J. 1990. Persistence of

different-sized populations: An

empirical assessment of rapid

extinctions. Conservation Biology 4:91–

98.

Bleich, V. C., J. D. Wehausen, and S.

A. Holl 1990. Desert-dwelling mountain

sheep: Conservation implications of a

naturally fragmented distribution.

Conservation Biology 4:383–390.

Bleich, V. C., J. D. Wehausen, R. R.

Ramey II, and J. L. Rechel 1997.

Metapopulation theory and mountain

sheep: Implications for conservation.

Pages 353–373 in D. R. McCullough,

editor. Metapopulations and Wildlife

Conservation, Island Press, Washington

D.C.

Bighorn Institute 1996. Summary of

the San Jacinto Mountains helicopter

survey of Peninsular bighorn sheep.

unpublished report, 2 pp.

Bighorn Institute 1996. Summary of

the Santa Rosa Mountains helicopter

survey of Peninsular bighorn sheep.

unpublished report, 3 pp.

Boyce, W. M., P. W. Hedrick, N. E.

Muggli-Cockett, S. Kalinowski, M. C. T.

Penedo, and R. R. Ramey II 1997.

Genetic variation of major

histocompatibility complex and

microsatellite loci: A comparison in

bighorn sheep. Genetics 145:421–433.

DeForge, J. R., E. M. Barrett, S. D.

Ostermann, M. C. Jorgensen, and S. G.

Torres 1995. Population dynamics of

Peninsular bighorn sheep in the Santa

Rosa Mountains, California. Desert

Bighorn Council Trans. 39:50–57.

R. R. Ramey II 1995. Mitochondrial

DNA variation, population structure,

and evolution of mountain sheep in the

south-western United States and

Mexico. Molecular Ecology 4:429–439.

Rubin, E., and W. Boyce 1996. Results

of helicopter survey conducted in AnzaBorrego Desert State Park, unpublished

memo to Steve Torres (CDFG Bighorn

Sheep Coordinator) and project

collaborators. 6 pp.

Wehausen, J. D., and R. R. Ramey II

1993. A morphometric reevaluation of

the Peninsular bighorn subspecies.

Desert Bighorn Council Trans. 37:1–10.

Regarding the above articles and

reports, the Service particularly seeks

information concerning:

(1) The biological and ecological

distinctiveness of bighorn sheep in the

Peninsular Ranges from other

populations of bighorn sheep;

(2) other biological, commercial, or

other relevant data on any threat (or lack

thereof) to bighorn sheep in the

Peninsular Ranges; and

(3) the current size, number, or

distribution of bighorn sheep

populations in the Peninsular Ranges.

Written comments may now be

submitted until [May 7, 1997] to the

Service office in the ADDRESSES section.

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

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

Dated: April 1, 1997.

Thomas J. Dwyer,

Regional Director, Region 1.

[FR Doc. 97–8779 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 229

[Docket No. 970129015–7072–02; I.D.

031997B]

RIN 0684–AI84

Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental

to Commercial Fishing Operations;

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction

Plan Regulations

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS by this action proposes

a take reduction plan and implementing

regulations to reduce serious injury and

mortality of four large whale stocks that

occur incidental to certain fisheries. The

whales stocks consist of the North

Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena

glacialis), Western North Atlantic stock,

humpback whale (Megaptera

novaeangliae), Western North Atlantic

stock, fin whale (Balaenoptera

physalus), Western North Atlantic stock,

and minke whale (Balaenoptera

acutorostrata), Canadian East Coast

stock. Covered by the proposed plan are

fisheries: for multiple species, including

monkfish and dogfish in the New

England Multispecies sink gillnet

fishery; for multiple species in the U.S.

mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fisheries; for

lobster in the Gulf of Maine and U.S.

mid-Atlantic trap/pot fisheries; and for

sharks in the Southeastern U.S. Atlantic

driftnet fishery. NMFS seeks comments

on this proposed plan and the proposed

regulations to implement the plan.

DATES: Comments on the proposed plan

and proposed regulations to implement

the plan must be received by May 15,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Chief,

Marine Mammal Division, Office of

Protected Resources, National Marine

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910–

33226. Copies of the Team Report and

draft Environmental Assessment (EA)

may be obtained by written request from

the Office of Protected Resources, or by

telephoning one of the contacts listed

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim

Thounhurst, NMFS, Northeast Region,

508/281–9368; Bridget Mansfield,

NMFS, Southeast Region, 813/570–

5312; or Michael Payne, NMFS, Office

of Protected Resources, 301/713–2322.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Since it was first passed in 1972, one

of the underlying goals of the Marine

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) has

been to reduce the incidental serious

injury and mortality of marine mammals

permitted in the course of commercial

fishing operations to insignificant levels

approaching a zero mortality and

serious injury rate (section 101(a)(2) of

the MMPA). The 1994 Amendments to

the MMPA reaffirm this Zero Mortality

Rate Goal (ZMRG) (section 118 (b)(1)).

To facilitate reduction of incidental

serious injury and mortality to high

priority marine mammal stocks, section

118(f) requires NMFS to develop and

implement a take reduction plan to

assist in the recovery or to prevent the

depletion of each strategic stock that

interacts with a Category I or II fishery.

Category I or II fisheries are fisheries

that have frequent or occasional

incidental mortality and serious injury

of marine mammals, respectively. A

strategic stock is a stock: (1) For which

the level of direct human-caused