Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 28339

State City/town/county Source of flooding Location

#Depth in feet

above ground.

*Elevation in

feet (NGVD)

Existing Modified

Maps available for inspection at the Borough of Tullytown Municipal Building, 500 Main Street, Tullytown, Pennsylvania.

Send comments to Mr. Edward Czyczk, Tullytown Borough Council President, Tullytown Municipal Building, 500 Main Street, Tullytown,

Pennsylvania 19007.

Pennsylvania ............... Upper Makefield

(Township), Bucks

County.

Delaware River ................. At downstream corporate limits ..... *48 *47

Approximately 1,700 feet downstream of confluence with

Pidcock Creek.

*62 *63

Jericho Creek ................... At confluence with Delaware River *56 *58

Approximately 600 feet upstream

of River Road.

*57 *58

Pidcock Creek .................. Approximately 300 feet downstream of Windy Bush Road.None *107

At upstream corporate limit ........... None *108

Maps available for inspection at the Upper Makefield Township Building, 1076 Eagle Road, Newtown, Pennsylvania.

Send comments to Ms. Rose Marie Sauter, Chairperson of the Township of Upper Makefield Board of Supervisors, 1076 Eagle Road, Newtown, Pennsylvania 18940.

Pennsylvania ............... Yardley (Borough),

Bucks County.

Delaware River ................. Approximately 1,720 feet downstream of CONRAIL bridge.*36 *40

At upstream corporate limits ......... *42 *43

Brock Creek ...................... At confluence with Delaware River *41 *42

Approximately 355 feet upstream

of Main Stream.

*41 *42

Silver Creek No. 1 ............ At confluence with Pennsylvania

Canal.

*40 *41

Approximately 100 feet downstream of Main Street.*40 *41

Maps available for inspection at the Yardley Borough Hall, 56 South Main Street, Yardley, Pennsylvania.

Send comments to Mr. Joseph Hunter, Yardley Borough Council President, 56 South Main Street, Yardley, Pennsylvania 19067.

West Virginia ............... Monongalia County

(Unincorporated

Areas).

Aaron Creek ..................... Approximately 1,100 feet downstream of Route 64.*846 *845

Just downstream of Interstate 48 .. None *949

Maps available for inspection at the Monongalia County Office of Emergency Management, 74 Vandervort Drive, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Send comments to Mr. John W. Pyles, President of the Monongalia County Commission, 243 High Street, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’)

Dated: May 11, 1998.

Michael J. Armstrong,

Associate Director for Mitigation.

[FR Doc. 98–13736 Filed 5–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[CC Docket 96–45, 97–160; DA 98–848]

Forward-Looking Economic Cost

Mechanism For Universal Service

Support

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this Public Notice, we seek

to augment the record on certain issues

relating to the creation of a federal

forward-looking economic cost

mechanism, including the appropriate

input values for that mechanism and the

level of the revenue benchmark.

DATES: Comments from interested

parties are due on May 26, 1998, and

reply comments are due on June 9,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties must file

an original and five copies of their

comments with the Office of Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Room 222, 1919 M Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20554. Parties should

send three copies of their comments to

Sheryl Todd, Common Carrier Bureau,

Federal Communications Commission,

2100 M. St, NW., 8th Floor, Washington,

DC 20554. Parties should send one copy

of their comments to the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Service, 1231 20th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad

Wimmer, Accounting Policy Division,

Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418–

7400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. On May 8, 1997, the Commission

released a Universal Service Order on

Universal Service CC Docket No. 96–45,

FCC 97–157 (released May 8, 1997) 62

FR 32862 (June 17, 1997). In the

Universal Service Order, the

Commission adopted a plan for

universal service support for rural,

insular, and high cost areas that will

replace existing implicit federal

subsidies with explicit, competitively

neutral federal universal service support

mechanisms. The Commission adopted

the Joint Board’s recommendation that

an eligible carrier’s level of universal

service support should be based upon

the forward-looking economic cost of
28340 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

1Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,

Forward-Looking Mechanism for High Cost Support

for Non-Rural LECs, Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, CC Docket Nos. 96–45, 97–160, 12 FCC

Rcd 18,514 (rel. July 18, 1997) 62 FR 42457 (Aug.

7, 1997) (Further Notice).

2Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,

CC Docket No. 96–45, Order, DA 97–1433 (rel. July

9, 1997) (Data Request).

3See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal

Service, Report to Congress, CC Docket No. 96–45

(April 10, 1998) at para. 197 (‘‘We are committed

to issuing a reconsideration order in response to the

petitions filed asking the Commission to reconsider

the decision to fund 25 percent of the required

support amount.’’); Proposals to Revise the

Methodology for Determining Universal Service

Support, Public Notice, DA 98–715 (rel. April 15,

1998) (‘‘We seek to augment the record by

encouraging interested parties to submit additional

proposals for modifying the Commission’s

methodology (for determining the appropriate level

of federal universal service support for non-rural

carriers).’’).

4 Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 18,536, 18,579–

80 paras. 44, 176.

5 Guidance To Proponents Of Cost Models In

Universal Service Proceeding: Customer Location

and Outside Plant, Public Notice, CC Docket Nos.

96–45, 97–160, DA–2372 (rel. Nov. 13, 1997) 62 FR

65389 (Dec.12, 1997).

6HAI was submitted by AT&T and MCI. See

Letter from Richard N. Clarke, AT&T, to Magalie

Roman Salas, FCC, dated Dec. 11, 1997). Versions

of HAI filed before February 3, 1998, were known

as the Hatfield Model.

7 In filings with the Common Carrier Bureau,

several incumbent LECs have represented that they

have geocoded a relatively large percentage of their

customers. See, e.g., Letter from Ted Hackman,

Cincinnati Bell, to Secretary, FCC, dated April 24,

1998 (99.8%,99.6%, and 99.2% of its customer

accounts for Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana,

respectively); Letter from W. Scott Randolph, GTE,

to Secretary, FCC, dated April 27, 1998.

8A GPS device can associate the physical

structure to which a carrier provides services, such

as a house, with coordinates identified by satellite

technology. Letter from David Porter, WorldCom, to

William Caton, FCC, dated Oct. 16, 1997 (World

Com Oct. 16 ex parte) at 3.

constructing and operating the network

facilities and functions used to provide

the services that will be supported by

the federal universal service support

mechanisms. The Commission

determined that, beginning January 1,

1999, non-rural carriers will receive

support based on the forward-looking

economic cost of providing the

supported services. The Commission

further determined that high cost

support for rural carriers should

continue essentially unchanged and

should not be based on forward-looking

costs until further review has been

completed, but no sooner than 2001.

2. Consistent with the Joint Board’s

recommendation, the Commission

concluded in the Universal Service

Order that it would need to determine

costs based on a careful analysis of

efficient network design, engineering

practices, available technologies, and

current technology costs. That is, to

determine forward-looking costs, the

Commission decided to look at all of the

costs and cost-causative factors that go

into building a network. The

Commission decided to do this in two

stages: First, it would look at the

network design, engineering, and

technology issues relevant to designing

a network to provide the supported

services. Second, the Commission said

that it would look at the costs of the

components of the network, such as

cabling and switch costs, and various

capital cost parameters, such as debtequity ratios and depreciation rates

(‘‘input values’’).

3. In a Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (Further Notice) 62 FR

42457 (Aug. 7, 1997), the Commission

established a multi-phase plan to

develop a federal mechanism that

would send the correct signals for entry,

investment, and innovation.1 In

particular, the Commission sought

comment on the platform design and

input values that it should adopt in a

federal mechanism to estimate the cost

of each of the elements of the telephone

network necessary for non-rural carriers

to provide the supported services to

high cost areas. On July 9, 1997, the

Bureau sought information through a

‘‘Data Request’’ from certain non-rural

local exchange carriers (LECs) and

holding companies to assist the

Commission in evaluating the models

and selecting a federal mechanism.2

Issues for Comment

4. We have already received

significant comment in response to the

Further Notice and Data Request. In

light of the passage of time, however, we

wish to give parties the opportunity to

update their comments regarding the

input values that should be used in the

federal mechanism and in setting the

level of the revenue benchmark. We also

seek further comment on certain issues

that may not have been adequately

addressed by commenters in response to

the Further Notice or Data Request. We

note that parties’ arguments for and

against specific input values are

significantly more persuasive when

accompanied by supporting empirical

data, including the assumptions on

which those data are based. If empirical

data are unavailable, we encourage

parties to explain how proposed input

values are otherwise verifiable and

appropriate. By seeking additional

comments on specific input values, we

are not prejudging the outcome of issues

raised in the Report to Congress or in

the Public Notice on Proposals to Revise

the Methodology for Determining

Universal Service Support.3 We

emphasize that we are not seeking

comment in this Public Notice on the

network design, engineering and

technology issues.

5. The issues relating to input values

were outlined in the Further Notice and

Data Request, and parties are

encouraged to review the Further Notice

and Data Request closely before

preparing any comments concerning

inputs. Parties that have already filed

thorough comments concerning inputs

in response to the Further Notice and

Data Request should not reiterate those

comments; the Commission will

consider inputs comments filed in

response to the Further Notice and Data

Request, as well as comments filed in

response to this Public Notice, in

selecting the input values for the federal

mechanism.

A. Inputs Issues

i. Customer Location Data

6. In the Further Notice, the

Commission requested comment on the

use of data that associate the location of

each customer with latitudinal and

longitudinal coordinates (geocode data)

in a forward-looking economic cost

mechanism.4 In a Public Notice released

on November 13, 1997 (62 FR 65389

(Dec.12, 1997)), the Common Carrier

Bureau (Bureau) recommended that

‘‘models be capable of accepting and

using geocode data to the extent that

such data are available and reliable.’’ 5

7. The only geocode data currently on

the record are those provided by the

proponents of the HAI model.6 The

Metromail database on which HAI’s

residential geocodes are based is a

commercial database developed

primarily for the purpose of direct

marketing. HAI’s geocodes for

businesses are based on a database of

business addresses compiled by Dun &

Bradstreet.

8. We seek comment on any

alternative source of geocode data, or

databases that could be used to develop

geocodes for use in 1999, including

information on the openness, reliability,

and cost of the data.7 For example,

WorldCom notes the availability of

global positioning satellite (GPS)

devices, which they contend can

provide latitude and longitude

coordinates that are more precise than

geocoding methods utilized by HAI.8

We seek comment on whether the

benefits of geocoding using a GPS

device outweigh the burdens associated

with developing the data, compared to
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 28341

9BCPM is sponsored by BellSouth, U S West, and

Sprint Local Telephone Company. See Submission

to CC Docket Nos. 96–45 and 97–160 by Bellsouth,

U S West, and Sprint dated Dec. 11, 1997.

10Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8915

para. 250.

11See the Census Bureau’s website at http://

www.census.gov/population/estimates/housing/

prhuhht1.txt (defining a housing unit as ‘‘a house,

an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms or

a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is

intended for occupancy) as a separate living

quarters.’’). See also the Census Bureau’s website at

http://www.census.gov/population/methods/

sthhmet.txt (‘‘A housing unit is classified as vacant

if no one is living in it, unless its occupants are only

temporarily absent * * *. Vacant units are

excluded if they are open to the elements; that is,

the roof, walls, windows, and/or doors no longer

protect the interior from the elements, or if there is

positive evidence that the unit is condemned or is

to be demolished.’’)

12BCPM December 11 submission, Model

Methodology at 8.

13AT&T and MCI ex parte, December 23, 1997.

14We note that the question of which

‘‘households’’ and business locations should be

included for purposes of estimating the forwardlooking cost of providing the supported services is

distinct from the question of which lines should be

supported. Indeed, we specified that the model

must estimate the costs incurred to provide multiline business services, special access, private lines

and multiple residential connections. Universal

Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8915 para. 250. Cf.

Recommended Decision, 12 FCC Rcd 87, 132–134,

paras. 89–92 (1996) (recommending that support

should be provided only for primary residential

connections and single-line business connections,

and that business connections should receive a

lower level of support).

15 In determining the number of customers in a

Census Block (CB) or wire center, HAI utilizes the

PNR National Access Line Model (NALM). The PNR

NALM uses PNR survey information, the Local

Exchange Routing Guide (LERG), Business Location

Research (BLR) wire center boundaries, a Dun &

Bradstreet business database, the Metromail

household database, the Claritas 1996 demographic

database, and U.S. Census Bureau estimates to

calculate both the number of residential and

business locations and access lines in each CB, and

in each wire center in the United States.

16BCPM also uses U.S. Census Bureau data and

business line data obtained from PNR.

17A census block group is a collection of census

blocks. The Bureau of the Census defines a ‘‘census

block group’’ as ‘‘generally contain[ing] between

250 and 550 housing units, with the ideal size being

400 housing units.’’ U.S. Census Bureau, 1990

Census of Population and Housing, at App. A,

‘‘Area Classifications’’ (issued Mar. 1992).

18We note that our request for a source of

accurate and reliable data about the number of

residential and business customers in a geographic

area is related to our request for accurate, reliable,

and extensive geocode data.

19Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8914

para. 250.

alternative methods of obtaining

geocoded data. We also request

comment on other possible methods and

technologies for geocoding business and

residential locations, and their

associated costs, in particular for partial

use in determining support for 1999.

Commenters suggesting alternative

sources of data should include

empirical evidence documenting and

verifying the accuracy of these data

sources, including how these data are

typically used, who is currently using

the data, the extent to which these data

would be available for determining

support in 1999, and the criteria used to

develop these data.

ii. Maximum Copper Loop Length

9. In addition, we seek to augment the

record on the appropriate maximum

loop length that the federal mechanism

should assume is permissible without

the use of significantly more expensive

electronics. The proponents of the

BCPM model 9 assert that copper loops

longer than 12,000 feet would require

the use of a substantially more

expensive extended-range card in the

digital loop carrier (DLC), while the HAI

proponents assert that copper lengths

can extend to 18,000 feet using only a

slightly more expensive card in the

DLC. The resolution of this question has

a significant effect on cost estimates

because the maximum copper length

constrains the maximum size of a

serving area. We seek comment on this

issue. In particular, we seek comment

on the type and cost of line cards

required to serve loops between 12,000

and 18,000 feet from a DLC remote

terminal.

iii. Defining ‘‘Households’’

10. We also seek further comment on

the appropriate input value to measure

the number of households used in the

federal mechanism. The sixth criterion

identified in the Universal Service

Order specifies that a ‘‘model must

estimate the cost of providing service for

all businesses and households within a

geographic region.’’ 10 It appears that the

Census Bureau uses the term

‘‘households’’ as a term of art to refer to

occupied housing units.11 Different

parties have advocated alternative

interpretations of the sixth criterion.

BCPM identifies the cost of outside

plant that would serve all housing

units,12 occupied or not, while HAI

identifies the cost of serving Censusdefined households with telephones.13

11. We encourage parties to submit

additional comment on the appropriate

universe of ‘‘households’’ that should be

assumed for purposes of calculating the

forward-looking cost of providing the

supported services: total housing units

(occupied and unoccupied), total

households (housing units that are

occupied), or households with

telephones.14 We also seek comment on

the HAI proponents’ assumption that

uninhabited housing units or

households without telephones are

more likely to be located in remote areas

than households with telephones.

12. In particular, we seek comment on

alternative sources of data to those used

in HAI 15 and BCPM 16 for determining

the number of residential and business

customers located in either the wire

center, Census Block Group (CBG),17 or

CB.18 Any such information should

include empirical evidence

documenting and verifying the

accuracy, cost, and current availability

of these data sources. We ask

commenters to address whether we

should require incumbent LECs to

provide the universal service

administrator with wire center

boundary data and the number of

residential, multi-line and single-line

business lines served in each wire

center.

iv. Depreciation

13. In the Universal Service Order, the

Commission articulated a set of criteria

that acceptable cost studies or models

must meet in order to be used to

determine federal high-cost support.

These criteria were adopted to ensure

consistency in the calculations of

federal universal service support. In

criterion five, the Commission noted

that ‘‘(e)conomic lives and future net

salvage percentages used in calculating

depreciation expense should be within

the FCC-authorized range and use

currently authorized depreciation

lives.’’ 19

14. We seek comment on the

particular values of depreciation lives

and future net salvage percentages we

should use to determine the forwardlooking cost of providing supported

services in a competitive environment.

Commenters submitting specific

proposals should submit the data and a

description of the methodologies used

to derive their estimates of depreciation

lives and future net salvage values for

all classes of assets. Because economic

lives may differ from physical lives for

a variety of reasons, we ask commenters

to identify all of the factors used to

derive their estimates. Commenters

should discuss and quantify the impact

all factors considered in their analysis

have on projected economic lives and

salvage values. For example,

commenters should address the effect

potential or actual competition, changes

in asset prices, or the desire to introduce

new services may have on asset lives.

Commenters should also explain fully

why their approach is appropriate for a

model being used to estimate the

forward-looking cost of providing

supported services in high-cost areas

and whether determining the cost of

supported services requires the use of

depreciation lives and salvage rates
28342 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

20HAI Dec. 11 submission, Model Description at

67.

21BCPM Dec. 11 submission, Model Methodology

at 80.

22See Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 18,541–

18,544, paras. 60–69.

23 Dr. Gabel’s paper is available on the World

Wide Web at http://www.nrri.ohio-state.edu/, and

also via a link from the Commission’s Universal

Service home page.

24Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8925–

8926 para. 270. See also Federal-State Joint Board

on Universal Service, Report to Congress, CC

Docket No. 96–45, FCC 98–67, paras. 219–231 (rel.

April 10, 1998). See also Common Carrier Bureau

Seeks Comment on Proposals to Revise the

Methodology for Determining Universal Service

Support, Public Notice, DA 98–715 (rel. April 15,

1998).

25The Joint Board stated that ‘‘[d]iscretionary

services include services that are added on to basic

local service, e.g., call waiting, call forwarding or

caller ID.’’ Recommended Decision, 12 FCC Rcd at

246 n.1002.

26Recommended Decision, 12 FCC Rcd at 246–47.

27Recommended Decision, 12 FCC Rcd at 247.

28Second State Proxy Models Report at 14.

29Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8919–

20, 8923–24 paras. 259, 266.

30Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8924

para. 267. Specifically, for purposes of determining

support, a revenue benchmark could be considered

consistent with forward-looking cost estimates if all

of the facilities used to deliver services included in

the revenue benchmark are included in the cost

estimates.

31Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8924

para. 267.

32Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8921

para. 262.

33Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8921

para. 262.

34Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8924

para. 267.

specifically designed for that purpose.

Commenters recommending asset lives

and salvage values that fall outside of

Commission ranges should explain fully

why such lives are appropriate. Finally,

we note that BCPM and HAI use

different methodologies for computing

depreciation expenses. HAI uses

straight-line depreciation,20 while

BCPM incorporates many different

methodologies,21 to compute

depreciation and capital expenses. We

seek comment on the specific

advantages of the different

methodologies available for calculating

rates of economic depreciation

(including those used in BCPM and

HAI), the use of different methodologies

for different assets, and the effect of

their use on calculated costs.

Commenters should provide studies

supporting the methodologies

advocated.

v. Cost of Installing Outside Plant

15. In the Further Notice, the

Commission noted that a carrier’s

outside plant consists of a mix of aerial,

underground, and buried cable. The cost

of installing each type of outside plant

depends on terrain conditions, line

density, and other factors. For example,

depending on the situation, cable can be

placed in trenches dug by hand or with

a backhoe, or it may be plowed directly

into the ground. The total cost of

construction depends upon the cost of

each of these activities and the

percentage of cable that is placed in

each manner. In the Further Notice, the

Commission tentatively concluded that

installation costs for cable should vary

based on terrain and line density and

reached other tentative conclusions

about the cost of installing outside

plant.22 The model proponents have

filed default values for the cost of each

of these activities and the percentage of

cable that would be installed in each

manner. We seek comment on the

tentative conclusions in the Further

Notice and the model proponents’

default values. Additionally, Dr. David

Gabel of Queens College has analyzed

data from the Rural Utilities Service

regarding the cost of installing cables.

We seek comment on Dr. Gabel’s

analysis and whether it is applicable to

non-rural carriers.23 Parties supporting

or refuting the appropriateness of the

default values, or proposing alternate

values, should provide documentation

in support of their position. For

example, parties may provide

information on labor and capital tools

rates, along with the quantity of inputs

needed to construct the plant.

Commenters should also address

whether it is appropriate to use a

composite rate for the nation or whether

these rates should differ by state or

region.

B. Revenues to be Included and Level of

the Benchmark

16. In the Universal Service Order, the

Commission determined that the level

of federal high cost support that eligible

non-rural carriers will receive will be 25

percent of the difference between the

estimated forward-looking economic

cost of providing the supported services

and a revenue benchmark.24 The Joint

Board recommended that the

Commission adopt a nationwide

revenue benchmark to calculate such

support. Because the ‘‘cost estimated by

the proxy models includes the cost of

the facilities used to provide (local,

discretionary, access, and other)

services,’’ 25 the Joint Board concluded

that the benchmark should include

revenues generated by all of the services

provided over the network being

modeled.26 Further, the Joint Board

recommended that the Commission

adopt separate benchmarks for

residential and business services.27 In

April 1997, a majority of the state

members of the Joint Board concluded

that the Commission should establish a

benchmark based on cost—specifically,

the national average proxy cost—rather

than revenue against which to compare

costs in a given area in order to

determine support for that area.28

17. In the Universal Service Order, the

Commission adopted the Joint Board’s

recommendation to establish a revenuebased benchmark, but indicated its

intention to seek comment on the

specific benchmark or benchmarks that

should be used.29 In the Universal

Service Order, the Commission found

that the calculation of the revenue

benchmarks must be consistent with the

method of calculating the forwardlooking cost of constructing and

operating the network.30 In particular, it

indicated in the Universal Service Order

that the Commission would clarify the

appropriate amount of access charge

revenue that should be included in the

revenue benchmark.31 We seek

comment generally on the amount of

access revenues that should be included

in the benchmark. Also, in the Universal

Service Order, the Commission noted

that the models filed in this proceeding

do not include estimates of the costs of

all the elements used in the delivery of

access services.32 Because access

charges currently are above cost,

however, the Commission concluded

that ‘‘unless and until both interstate

and intrastate access charges have been

reduced to recover only per-minute

switch and transport costs, access

revenues should be included in the

benchmark.’’ 33 Similarly, the

Commission also stated that ‘‘(w)e will

seek further information to clarify the

appropriate amount of * * * intraLATA

toll revenue that should be included in

the revenue benchmark.’’ 34 We,

therefore, seek comment on whether we

should exclude from the revenuebenchmark estimates, for purposes of

determining universal service support,

the incremental costs associated with

the provision of services that are not

supported by universal service but

which contribute to the revenue

benchmark. We seek comment on this

issue and ask commenters to provide

estimates of the amount that should be

deducted from the benchmark. We note

that the models exclude the costs of

switching and transport for intraLATA

toll and interstate and intrastate access

services. Alternatively, we seek

comment on whether the models should

be altered to include the incremental

costs associated with the provision of

services that are not supported by
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 28343

35Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8924

para. 267.

36Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9219–

9260 paras. 870–983.

37See 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).

universal service but which contribute

to the revenue benchmark.

18. We also encourage parties to

provide further information about the

services that can be provided over the

network that the universal service

mechanism is designed to support, and

the revenues related to those services,

because such information will enable us

to set the benchmarks accurately. Based

on 1994 data received in response to our

earlier data request in CC Docket No.

80–286, the Commission suggested in

the Universal Service Order that the

benchmarks might be set at

approximately $31 for residential

service and $51 for business service.35

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

19. In the Universal Service Order we

conducted a Final Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (FRFA),36 as required by the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).37 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.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–13654 Filed 5–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AC13

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of Comment

Period on Proposed Endangered

Status for the San Xavier Talussnail

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of

reopening of public comment period.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) provides notice that the public

comment period for the proposal to list

the San Xavier talussnail (Sonorella

eremita) is reopened. This land snail is

known to occur at a single site near

Tucson, Arizona, in an area of limestone

talus about 50 by 100 feet in size.

DATES: The comment period originally

closed on May 24, 1994. This notice

reopens the public comment period,

which now closes on July 21, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

materials should be sent to the Field

Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services

Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road,

Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona 85021.

Comments and materials received will

be available for public inspection during

normal business hours, by appointment,

at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Debra Bills, Arizona Ecological Services

Field Office, at the above address or

telephone (602) 640–2720.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The San Xavier talussnail was first

proposed as endangered on March 23,

1994 (59 FR 13691). At that time, a 60-

day public comment period was opened

until May 23, 1994, and all interested

parties were requested to submit factual

reports or information that might

contribute to the development of a final

rule. A final determination of whether

to list the San Xavier talussnail has not

yet been made.

Following a recent examination of

property boundaries, the Service

discovered that the owner of the habitat

occupied by the San Xavier talussnail is

not the entity previously believed to be

the owner. In consideration of the new

information concerning ownership of

the species’ habitat and the length of

time that has elapsed since the initial

proposal, the Service has determined

that reopening the comment period is

necessary. The Service is seeking

comments or suggestions from the

public, other concerned governmental

agencies, the scientific community,

industry, or any other interested party

concerning this proposed rule. The

Service is seeking any new information

that may have been developed since the

proposal was published, and that may

expand the current knowledge

concerning the status, distribution, or

threats surrounding the San Xavier

talussnail.

Author: The primary author of this

document is Jennifer Fowler-Probst,

Arizona Ecological Services Field Office

(see ADDRESSES section).

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1532

et seq.).

Dated: May 13, 1998.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 98–13795 Filed 5–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018–AD74

Extension of Comment Period:

Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations

Regarding Baiting and Baited Areas

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: The Service is extending the

comment period on the Federal Register

rule dated March 25, 1998 (63 FR

14415) that invites public comments on

proposed changes to the migratory bird

hunting regulations regarding baiting

and baited areas.

DATES: The deadline for receipt of

comments will be extended form May

25, 1998 to October 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding this

proposed rulemaking should be

addressed to: Director, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Post Office Box 3247,

Arlington, Virginia 22203–3247, or sent

via electronic mail to: R9LE—

WWW@FWS.GOV. Comments may be

hand delivered to 4401 North Fairfax

Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia

22203. The public may inspect

comments during normal business

hours at 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Suite

500, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Keven Adams, Chief, Division of Law

Enforcement, telephone 703/358–1949,

or Paul Schmidt, Chief, Office of

Migratory Bird Management, telephone

703/358–1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) has authority (16 U.S.C. 703–

712 and 16 U.S.C. 742a-j) to regulate

activities involving the hunting and

other taking of migratory game birds.

The Service has promulgated

regulations (50 CFR part 20) for the

hunting of migratory game birds that