23258 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

for the no-action decision. First, further

action to control the source of

contamination (installation of a landfill

cover, clay liner, leachate collection

system, etc.) and to address

contaminated ground water would be

conducted under the facility’s operating

permit, such that no further action

under CERCLA would be necessary.

Second, completion of Operable Unit 1,

under which residents in the area were

connected to a municipal water supply,

reduced the risk posed by contaminated

ground water.

U.S. EPA is now proposing to delete

PBSL from the NPL for one of the same

reasons that it signed a no-action ROD

in 1995: work that might otherwise be

required under CERCLA will be

accomplished under the facility’s RCRA

permit. The Site is an active Treatment,

Storage, and Disposal facility, owned

and operated by Browning Ferris

Industries (‘‘BFI’’). BFI clearly has the

resources to conduct the work required.

In accordance with the operating permit

issued by MPCA, BFI placed a final

cover on portions of the landfill that are

filled to final elevation, installed a

combustible gas collection system,

installed a clay liner and leachate

collection system in an expansion area,

and installed a surface drainage control

system. Under the terms of an Amended

Order issued by MPCA on October 23,

1990, BFI will monitor ground water in

accordance with the Minnesota Solid

Waste Landfill Compliance Program.

A five-year review pursuant to

OSWER Directive 9355.7–02 ‘‘Structure

and Components of Five-Year Reviews’’)

will be conducted at the Site. The FiveYear review is scheduled for December

1999.

EPA, with concurrence from the State

of Minnesota, has determined that all

appropriate Fund-financed responses

under CERCLA at the Pine Bend

Sanitary Site have been completed, and

no further CERCLA response actions by

responsible parties are appropriate in

order to provide protection of human

health and environment. Therefore, EPA

proposes to delete the Site from the

NPL.

Dated: April 7, 1998.

Michelle D. Jordan,

Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA,

Region V.

[FR Doc. 98–10978 Filed 4–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[DA 98–715]

Common Carrier Bureau Seeks

Comment on Proposals To Revise the

Methodology for Determining

Universal Service Support

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice; seeking comment on

proposals in rulemaking proceeding.

SUMMARY: In this Public Notice, the

Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau)

describes certain proposals by outside

parties to alter the methodology for

determining high cost universal service

support based on forward-looking

economic costs. Some parties have filed

petitions for reconsideration or judicial

appeals of the methodology announced

in the May 8, 1997 Universal Service

Order and the Commission has

committed to complete the

reconsideration of its methodology

before it is implemented for non-rural

carriers. This Public Notice seeks

additional proposals to modify the

methodology, as well as comment on

the existing proposals.

DATES: Comment date for filing

additional proposals is April 27, 1998,

comments are due May 15, 1998, and

reply comments are due May 29, 1998.

ADDRESSES: One original and five copies

of all filings must be sent to Magalie

Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street, N.W., Room 222, Washington,

D.C. 20554. Parties must also send

copies to the individuals listed on the

attached Service List and to the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chuck Keller at (202) 418–7380 or

<ckeller@fcc.gov>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Universal Service Order, Federal State

Joint Board on Universal Service, Report

& Order, CC Docket No. 96–45, 12 FCC

Rcd 8776 (1997), 62 FR 32862 (June 17,

1997), as corrected by Federal State

Joint Board on Universal Service, CC

Docket 96–45, Errata, FCC 97–157

(released June 4, 1997), appeal pending,

Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v.

FCC, No. 97–60421 (5th Cir. filed June

25, 1997), the Commission adopted a

four-step methodology for determining

the appropriate level of federal

universal service support that non-rural

carriers will receive beginning January

1, 1999. As part of that methodology,

the Commission determined that the

federal fund will provide at least 25

percent of the total support necessary

for non-rural carriers (25/75 decision).

The Commission also concluded that

rural carriers will receive support based

on forward-looking costs no sooner than

January 1, 2001. Several parties have set

forth proposals to modify the

Commission’s approach to determining

support for non-rural and rural carriers.

Some of these proposals were presented

in the Commission’s proceeding to

prepare a Report to Congress on

Universal Service, required by statute,

Departments of Congress, Justice, and

State, the Judiciary, and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act, 1988,

Pub. L. 105–119, 111 Stat. 2440, 2521–

2522, § 623. Federal-State Joint Board on

Universal Service, Report to Congress,

CC Docket No. 96–45, FCC 98–67,

(released April 10, 1998) (Report to

Congress), and, in particular, in the en

banc hearing on universal service issues

held on March 6, 1998. In this Public

Notice, we seek to augment the record

by encouraging interested parties to

submit additional proposals for

modifying the Commission’s

methodology, or updates to those on the

record, by April 27, 1998. Comments

from interested parties on these

proposals are due on May 15, 1998, and

reply comments are due on May 29,

1998. In the Report to Congress, the

Commission states that, prior to

implementing the Commission’s

methodology for determining high cost

support for non-rural carriers, the

Commission will complete a

reconsideration of its 25/75 decision

and of the method of distributing high

cost support. Report to Congress at para.

224. The Commission also states that it

will continue to work closely on these

issues with the state members of the

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal

Service (Joint Board), including holding

an en banc hearing with participation

by the Joint Board Commissioners. See

Report to Congress at paras. 224, 228,

231.

Background

In the Universal Service Order and the

accompanying Access Charge Reform

Order, Access Charge Reform, Price Cap

Performance Review for Local Exchange

Carriers, Transport Rate Structure and

Pricing and End User Common Line

Charges, CC Docket Nos. 96–262, 94–1,

91–213, and 95–72, First Report and

Order, 62 FR 31868 (June 11, 1997), 12

FCC Rcd 15982 (1997) (Access Charge

Reform Order); Order on

Reconsideration, 62 FR 40460 (July 29,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 23259

1997), 12 FCC Rcd 10119 (1997); Second

Order on Reconsideration, 62 FR 56121

(October 29, 1997), 12 FCC Rcd 16606

(1997); Third Order on Reconsideration,

62 FR 65619 (December 15, 1997), 12

FCC Rcd 22430 (1997); See also Fourth

Report and Order and Second Report

and Order, CC Docket Nos. 94–1, 96–

262, 62 FR 59340 (June 11, 1997), 12

FCC Rcd 16642 (1997), the Commission

set in place rules that will identify and

convert existing mechanisms for

providing federal universal service

support to explicit, competitivelyneutral federal universal service support

mechanisms. In particular, the

Commission adopted a methodology for

universal service support for rural and

non-rural carriers that will replace the

following existing programs: the

interstate high cost fund, Long Term

Support, and Dial-Equipment-Minute

(DEM) weighting programs. Universal

Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8889, para.

204. The Commission determined that

non-rural carriers serving rural, insular,

and high cost areas (collectively referred

to as ‘‘high cost areas’’) would begin to

receive support based on forwardlooking economic cost beginning

January 1, 1999, while rural carriers

serving high cost areas would move to

a forward-looking methodology no

sooner than January 1, 2001. In the

meantime, rural carriers will continue to

receive support based on their

embedded cost. As encouraged by the

Commission in the Universal Service

Order, the Joint Board has sought

nominations for a Rural Task Force that

will study the establishment of a

forward-looking economic cost

mechanism for rural carriers. FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service,

Public Notice, FCC 97J–1 (released

September 17, 1997). The Commission

also determined that it would assess and

permit recovery of contributions to high

cost support mechanisms based only on

interstate revenues because such an

approach would continue the historical

method for recovering universal service

support contributions and promote

comity between the federal and state

governments. Universal Service Order,

12 FCC Rcd at 9198–9203, paras. 824–

836. Thus, the Commission concluded

that carriers may recover their

contributions through interstate access

and interexchange revenues. Universal

Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9199–

9200, paras. 829–830. (Price cap LECs

may treat their contributions as

exogenous changes to their price cap

indices. Access Charge Reform Order,

FCC Rcd at 16147, para. 379.) Finally,

the Commission directed that

incumbent LECs use high cost support

to reduce or satisfy the interstate

revenue requirement otherwise

collected through interstate access

charges. Access Charge Reform Order,

12 FCC Rcd at 16148, para. 381. That

decision was based on the decision in

the Universal Service Order to fund only

the federal share, or 25 percent, of high

cost support from the federal

mechanism, discussed below.

In the first step of the Commission’s

four-step methodology for determining

support for non-rural carriers, a

forward-looking economic cost

mechanism selected by the Commission,

in consultation with the Joint Board,

will be used to calculate the forwardlooking economic cost to non-rural

carriers for providing the supported

services in high cost areas.

(Alternatively, states may submit cost

studies that, if consistent with the

criteria established by the Commission

in the Universal Service Order, will be

used to compute the forward-looking

cost. The Commission will select a

forward-looking mechanism by August

1998. Universal Service Order, 12 FCC

Rcd at 8890, 8910, 8912–16, paras. 206,

245, 248–50.) Second, the Commission

will establish nationwide revenue

benchmarks calculated on the basis of

average revenue per line. Without

adopting a precise method for

calculating the benchmarks, the

Commission stated in the Universal

Service Order that it appears that the

benchmarks should be approximately

$31 for residential services and

approximately $51 for single-line

businesses. Universal Service Order, 12

FCC Rcd at 8924, para. 267. The

Commission intends to make a formal

determination on the appropriate

revenue benchmark before it

implements a high cost support

mechanism based on forward-looking

costs. Third, the difference between the

forward-looking economic cost and the

benchmark will be calculated. Fourth,

federal support will be 25 percent of

that difference, corresponding to the

percentage of loop costs allocated to the

interstate jurisdiction. In the Universal

Service Order, the Commission stated

that, once states have taken steps to

identify the subsidies implicit in

intrastate rates, the Commission may

reassess the amount of federal support

that is necessary to ensure affordable

rates. A number of parties have sought

reconsideration of the Commission’s

decision to initially fund only 25

percent of total high cost support. See,

e.g., the petitions filed on July 17, 1997

in CC Docket No. 96–45 by the

following parties: Alaska Public Utilities

Commission at 5–6; Alaska Telephone

Association at 1–2; Arkansas Public

Service Commission at 1–3; GVNW Inc.

at 2, 8; Rural Telephone Coalition at 3–

4; Sprint Corporation at 1–3; United

Utilities at 3–4; US WEST at 6; Vermont

Public Service Board at 2–3; Western

Alliance at 18–19; and Wyoming Public

Service Commission at 2. Several parties

have also appealed that decision. Texas

Office of Public Utility Counsel et al. v.

FCC, No. 97–60421 (5th Cir. filed June

25, 1997). Since the period for filing

comments on those reconsideration

petitions closed, several parties have

proposed specific alternatives to the

Commission’s 25/75 funding decision.

All of the proposals described in this

Public Notice will be available on the

Commission’s web page at http://

www.fcc.gov under the heading

‘‘Universal Service.’’ The proposals that

calculate forward-looking cost use a

forward-looking economic cost model.

For demonstration purposes, fund

estimates are based on two industryproposed models under consideration

by the Commission, the Benchmark Cost

Proxy Model (BCPM) and the HAI

model (HAI), however the versions of

the models and the inputs used may

vary across proposals. BCPM was

submitted by BellSouth Corporation,

BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., U

S WEST, Inc., and Sprint Local

Telephone Company. Submission to CC

Docket Nos. 96–45 and 97–160 by

BCPM proponents, dated December 11,

1997. HAI was submitted by AT&T and

MCI. Letter from Richard N. Clarke,

AT&T, to Magalie Roman Salas, FCC,

dated December 11, 1997. Versions of

HAI filed before February 3, 1998, were

known as the Hatfield Model.

Proposals to Modify the Commission’s

Methodology. Upon recommendation by

the Joint Board, the Commission

adopted a nationwide revenue

benchmark based on average revenues

per line. Federal-State Joint Board on

Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96–45,

Recommended Decision, 12 FCC Rcd

246 (1996); Universal Service Order, 12

FCC Rcd at 8919, para. 259. Subsequent

to the Joint Board’s recommendation, a

majority of state members of that Joint

Board endorsed a nationwide

benchmark based on the nationwide

average cost of service, as determined by

a forward-looking cost model. In light of

the recommendation of the Joint Board’s

majority state members and the

proposals described in this Public

Notice, we seek additional comment

regarding the use of a cost-based

benchmark.

U S WEST proposes to modify the

second step of the Commission’s

forward-looking methodology for nonrural carriers by creating a second
23260 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

revenue benchmark (Interstate High

Cost Affordability Plan or IHCAP).

Exhibit of James D. Smiley, U S WEST,

for FCC En Banc Hearing, Universal

Service (March 6, 1998) (IHCAP

Proposal). U S WEST does not specify

different benchmark levels for different

types of lines, e.g., residential, singleline business, or multi-line business

lines. Under the IHCAP, the federal

mechanism would provide support for

25 percent of the costs between a

‘‘Primary Benchmark’’ and a ‘‘Super

Benchmark,’’ and 100 percent of the

costs above the Super Benchmark. For

demonstration purposes, the IHCAP

assumes a Primary Benchmark of $30

and a Super Benchmark of $50.

An Ad Hoc Working Group convened

through the National Association of

Regulatory Utility Commissioners

proposes an alternative approach for

determining and distributing high cost

support for both rural and non-rural

carriers (Ad Hoc Proposal). Letter from

Peter Bluhm, Vermont Public Service

Board, to Magalie Roman Salas, FCC,

dated April 10, 1998, at att. High Cost

Support: An Alternative Distribution

Proposal (Ad Hoc Proposal); see also

Statement of Thomas Welch, Maine

Public Utilities Commission, at March 6,

1998 en banc Commission meeting,

transcript at 24–25. In lieu of the

forward-looking cost methodology

established by the Commission, a draft

of the Ad Hoc Proposal filed with the

Commission on April 10, 1998

calculates federal support for each state

in five steps. First, the Ad Hoc Proposal

uses a forward-looking economic cost

model selected by the Commission to

calculate the average forward-looking

cost per line for each state, as well as

the average forward-looking cost per

line for the nation. The difference

between these amounts is calculated for

each state and multiplied by a

composite state separations factor which

the proposal assumes to be 75 percent.

Second, the above process is repeated

using embedded cost. Specifically, the

difference between each state’s average

embedded cost and 105 percent of the

national average embedded cost is

calculated for each state and multiplied

by a composite state separations factor.

Third, the lesser amount resulting from

the first two steps is determined.

Fourth, a ‘‘hold-harmless’’ level is

calculated for each state equal to federal

support received by carriers in that state

under existing mechanisms. For those

states with above-average embedded

costs that also currently make a net

contribution to federal support

mechanisms, the hold-harmless level is

increased to ensure that a state’s net

contribution does not increase. Finally,

the federal support for each state is set

at either the hold-harmless amount or

the amount determined in step 3,

whichever is greater. Federal support

below the hold-harmless level is

distributed by state commissions to

carriers that receive support under the

current system. Federal support above

the hold-harmless level is distributed to

other eligible telecommunications

carriers (ETCs) according to a state

distribution plan reviewed by the

Commission. The Ad Hoc Working

Group and the Telecommunications

Industry Analysis Project (TIAP) also

examine possible modifications to the

Ad Hoc Proposal.

TIAP proposes four alternatives to the

federal forward-looking methodology.

One proposal increases federal support

to 40 percent of the difference between

forward-looking cost and the revenue

benchmark (40/60 Proposal). In another

proposal, the federal fund supports 100

percent of the difference between the

forward-looking economic cost and the

benchmark only in one or two of the

lowest density zones served by nonrural carriers (Density Zone Proposal).

Assuming a $30 benchmark, TIAP

estimates that federal support for the

lowest density zone calculated by the

models (0 to 5 lines per square mile)

would result in a fund of $3,965

million, based on BCPM, or $2,410

million, based on HAI. TIAP states that

federal support for the two lowest

density zones (0 to 5 lines per square

mile and 5 to 1000 lines per square

mile) ‘‘would increase the federal fund

by 312% for BCPM and 277% for HAI.’’

TIAP Proposals at 24. A third proposal

applies one nationwide surcharge to

each telephone number per month

(Telephone Number Proposal). Based on

the assumption that the federal fund

will provide 100 percent of the

necessary support, the surcharge is

calculated by dividing the fund by the

number of phone numbers in service,

and by twelve months. A fourth

proposal applies one nationwide

surcharge to each customer’s bill based

on a percentage of the total (interstate

and intrastate) revenues on the bill

(Percentage of Retail Revenues

Proposal). Based on the assumption that

the federal fund will provide 100

percent of the necessary support, the

surcharge is calculated by dividing the

fund by total annual retail revenues.

We seek comment on the use of a

cost-based benchmark and the proposals

of U S WEST, the Ad Hoc Working

Group, and TIAP. In addition, we seek

comment on how to modify our rules in

the event such a proposal were adopted.

We also seek comment on the

appropriate method and revenues to

recover contributions for high cost

support.

Implementation of High Cost Support

Methodology. In the Universal Service

Order, the Commission established a

forward-looking economic cost

methodology for non-rural carriers that

will calculate support based on forwardlooking cost beginning January 1, 1999.

AT&T seeks to delay implementation of

the high cost support mechanism for

‘‘the Major ILECs * * * at the very least

until these companies have opened their

markets to robust and widespread local

competition.’’ Letter from Brian

Masterson, AT&T, to Magalie Roman

Salas, FCC, dated March 12, 1998, at att.

Presentation of Joel Lubin, AT&T, to

March 6, 1998 en banc Commission

meeting. In contrast, proponents of the

Ad Hoc Proposal support the

implementation of their proposal for

both rural and non-rural carriers on

January 1, 1999. Ad Hoc Proposal at 13.

U S WEST recommends that non-rural

carriers begin receiving support based

on the IHCAP on January 1, 1999, and

that a forward-looking methodology that

will best meet the needs of rural carriers

should be determined after several years

of experience of calculating support

based on IHCAP for the non-rural

carriers. IHCAP Proposal at 4. See also

letter to William E. Kennard, FCC, from

Solomon D. Trujillo, U S WEST, dated

April 2, 1998. We seek comment on

these implementation proposals. With

regard to AT&T’s petition, we seek

comment on the specific criteria that

should trigger implementation of the

forward-looking methodology for nonrural carriers.

Finally, in its Report to Congress, the

Commission commits to completing a

reconsideration of the issues raised in

this Public Notice prior to implementing

the new high cost mechanism for nonrural carriers. Report to Congress at

para. 224. The Commission specifies

that, in the course of reconsidering these

issues, it will work closely with the

state members of the Joint Board. The

Commission attests that, in the past two

years in particular, the ideas generated

by the formal and informal dialogue

among state members of the Joint Board

and the FCC Commissioners have

facilitated the shared objectives of

preserving and advancing universal

service as competition develops in local

markets.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

In the Universal Service Order we

conducted a Final Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (FRFA), Universal Service

Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9219–9260 paras.

870–983, as required by the Regulatory
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 23261

Flexibility Act (RFA). See 5 U.S.C. 604.

The RFA (see 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) has

been amended by the Contract With

America Advancement Act of 1996,

Pub. L. 104–121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996)

(CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). We

received no petitions for reconsideration

of that FRFA. In this present Public

Notice, the Commission promulgates no

additional final rules, and our action

does not affect the previous analysis. If

commenters believe that the proposals

discussed in this Public Notice require

additional RFA analysis, they should

include a discussion of these issues in

their comments.

Deadlines and Instructions for Filing

Proposals and Comments. Interested

parties may file additional proposals

regarding the Commission’s

methodology for determining universal

service support for rural and non-rural

carriers on or before April 27, 1998.

Interested parties may file comments in

support of or opposition to the

proposals on or before May 15, 1998.

Reply comments are due on or before

May 29, 1998. All filings should refer to

CC Docket Nos. 96–45 and 97–160, and

DA 98–715. One original and five copies

of all filings must be sent to Magalie

Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

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

Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties must

also send copies to the individuals

listed on the attached Service List and

to the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54

Universal service.

Federal Communications Commission.

James D. Schlichting,

Deputy Bureau Chief, Common Carrier

Bureau.

Attachment

The Honorable Susan Ness, Chair,

Commissioner, Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room

832, Washington, DC 20554

The Honorable Harold Furchtgott-Roth,

Commissioner, Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room

802, Washington, DC 20554

The Honorable Gloria Tristani,

Commissioner, Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room

826, Washington, DC 20554

The Honorable Julia Johnson, State Chair,

Chairman, Florida Public Service

Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Blvd.,

Gerald Gunter Building Tallahassee, FL

32399–0850

The Honorable David Baker, Commissioner,

Georgia Public Service Commission, 244

Washington Street, S.W., Atlanta, GA

30334–5701

The Honorable Laska Schoenfelder,

Commissioner, South Dakota Public

Utilities Commission, State Capitol, 500

East Capitol Street, Pierre, SD 57501–5070

The Honorable Patrick H. Wood, III,

Chairman, Texas Public Utility

Commission, 1701 North Congress Ave.,

Austin, TX 78701

Martha S. Hogerty, Missouri Office of Public

Council, 301 West High Street, Suite 250,

Truman Building, Jefferson City, MO 65102

Charles Bolle, South Dakota Public Utilities

Commission, State Capitol, 500 East

Capitol Street, Pierre, SD 57501–5070

Deonne Bruning, Nebraska Public Service

Commission, 300 The Atrium, 1200 N

Street, P.O. Box 94927, Lincoln, NE 68509–

4927

James Casserly, Federal Communications

Commission, Commissioner Ness’s Office,

1919 M Street, N.W., Room 832,

Washington, DC 20554

Rowland Curry, Texas Public Utility

Commission, 1701 North Congress Avenue,

P.O. Box 13326, Austin, TX 78701

Ann Dean, Maryland Public Service

Commission, 16th Floor, 6 Saint Paul

Street, Baltimore, MD 21202–6806

Bridget Duff, State Staff Chair, Florida Public

Service Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak

Blvd., Tallahassee, FL 32399–0866

Irene Flannery, Federal Staff Chair, Federal

Communications Commission, Accounting

and Audits Division, Universal Service

Branch, 2100 M Street, N.W., Room 8922,

Washington, DC 20554

Paul Gallant, Federal Communications

Commission, Commissioner Tristani’s

Office 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 826,

Washington, DC 20554

Lori Kenyon, Alaska Public Utilities

Commission, 1016 West Sixth Avenue,

Suite 400, Anchorage, AK 99501

Mark Long, Florida Public Service

Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Blvd.,

Tallahassee, FL 32399–0866

Sandra Makeeff, Iowa Utilities Board, Lucas

State Office Building, Des Moines, IA

50319

Kevin Martin, Federal Communications

Commission, Commissioner, FurchtgottRoth’s Office, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room

802, Washington, DC 20554

Philip F. McClelland, Pennsylvania Office of

Consumer Advocate, 1425 Strawberry

Square, Harrisburg, PA 17120

Barry Payne, Indiana Office of the Consumer

Counsel, 100 North Senate Avenue, Room

N501, Indianapolis, IN 46204–2208

James Bradford Ramsey, National Association

of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, 1100

Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., P.O. Box 684,

Washington, DC 20044–0684

Brian Roberts, California Public Utilities

Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San

Francisco, CA 94102

Tiane Sommer, Georgia Public Service

Commission, 244 Washington Street, S.W.,

Atlanta, GA 30334–5701

Sheryl Todd (plus 8 copies), Federal

Communications Commission, Accounting

and Audits Division, Universal Service

Branch, 2100 M Street, N.W., Room 8611,

Washington, DC 20554

[FR Doc. 98–11200 Filed 4–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 980414096–8096–01; I.D.

032698A]

RIN 0648–AJ99

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Gear Allocation of

Shortraker and Rougheye Rockfish in

the Aleutian Islands Subarea

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to

implement Amendment 53 to the

Fishery Management Plan for the

Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea

and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP).

Amendment 53 would allocate

shortraker rockfish and rougheye

rockfish (SR/RE) in the Aleutian Islands

subarea (AI) between vessels using trawl

gear and vessels using non-trawl gear.

This action is necessary to prevent the

incidental catch of SR/RE in trawl

fisheries from closing non-trawl

fisheries and is intended to further the

objectives of the FMP.

DATES: Comments must be received at

the following address by June 12, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to

Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O.

Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn:

Lori Gravel, or delivered to the Federal

Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau,

AK. Copies of the Environmental

Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review

prepared for this action may be obtained

from the same address or by calling the

Alaska Region, NMFS, at 907–586–7228.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan Kinsolving, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Management Background and Need for

Action

Fishing for groundfish by U.S. vessels

in the exclusive economic zone of the

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

management area (BSAI) is managed by

NMFS according to the FMP. The FMP