9682 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules

requirements, generated a great deal of

controversy among the parties. In

particular, significant concerns were

raised by state regulatory commissions,

consumer groups, and industry

participants about the effect that the

proposed above-the-line accounting

treatment would have on local and

interstate rates, unbundled network

element (UNE) and interconnection

rates, and universal service support.

Many parties commenting on this issue

generally disagreed with an accounting

treatment that would permit above-theline amortization of the regulatory-tofinancial book differential over a fiveyear period. They also argued that the

proposed non-recovery commitment

included as part of the proposed

alternative did not provide adequate

assurance that a significant amount of

costs would be excluded from recovery

in customers’ rates and did not protect

against carriers’ potential

understatement of earnings and rates of

return. In addition, many parties raised

issues about the potential impact of the

proposed above-the-line accounting

treatment on state cost issues and

argued that the non-recovery

commitment proposed by the ILECs was

not sufficient to assure that the

amortized costs, particularly the

intrastate portion, would be excluded

from cost recovery.

Our review of the record finds that the

parties have raised sufficient concerns

that warrant our taking a cautious

approach in this matter. We are

concerned about assertions that the

proposed accounting alternative set

forth in the April 2000 FNPRM, along

with the ILECs’ non-recovery

commitment, lacks the inherent

protections that are provided for in the

waiver process we approved in the

December 1999 Order (which was not

published in Federal Register). In light

of the concerns expressed by various

parties, particularly our state colleagues,

we decline to adopt the proposed

alternative set forth in the April 2000

FNPRM and instead maintain the status

quo.

In making a decision here we weigh

the concerns expressed by the states

heavily in the balance. We are reluctant

to take action that could unfairly burden

state proceedings, particularly when our

December 1999 Order provides a waiver

process whereby carriers may seek

additional relief from our depreciation

prescription rules in the future without

raising such concerns. In 1997, the

Common Carrier Bureau’s auditors

began an audit of the CPRs of the largest

ILECs, the RBOCs, to determine if their

records were being maintained in

compliance with the Commission’s

rules and to verify that property

recorded in their accounts represented

equipment used and useful for the

provision of telecommunications

services.

We note that the audits of the carriers’

CPRs were initiated more than three

years ago. The telecommunications

landscape has changed significantly

since that time. Among other things, in

a recent decision issued on May 31,

2000, we adopted reforms intended to

accelerate competition in the local and

long distance telecommunications

markets and set the appropriate level of

interstate access charges for the next

five years (‘‘May 2000 Access Reform

Order’’) (which was not published in

the Federal Register). Specifically, we

provided for an immediate reduction in

access charges paid by long distance

companies and removed implicit

subsidies found in interstate access

charges by converting them into

explicit, portable, universal service

support. In earlier actions to implement

the 1996 Act, we took steps to move the

price of long distance companies’ access

to local telephone networks towards

levels that reflect costs. These actions

have brought about significant

reductions in access charges and major

changes in the interstate rate structure

that resolve historically complex issues

(some dating back nearly two decades),

in a manner that benefits consumers.

In light of these recent reform

measures, which in large part are only

beginning to get underway, and the fact

that the CPR audits were conducted

prior to our implementation of these

various reforms, we now decide not to

pursue further investigation into the

CPR audits and close the proceeding

with regard to whether the CPRs

reflected assets that were not purchased

or used by the RBOCs in accordance

with our rules. Further, we note that

although we have made no decision

concerning the findings stated in the

CPR audits, we recognize that further

investigation into the CPR audit matter

will require a great deal of time and

effort, and could prove to be a lengthy

and costly proceeding for all

participants. We wish to make clear,

however, that our decision in this order

does not preclude the states from

investigating relevant state issues raised

by the CPR audits.

Finally, while we decline here to

further pursue investigation into the

CPR audits with regard to whether the

CPRs reflected assets that were not

purchased or used by the RBOCs in

accordance with our rules, we remain

concerned about the poor record

keeping that these audits revealed. The

Commission’s auditors found, and the

RBOCs did not seriously challenge, that

the CPRs were not well maintained.

Thus, we find that the RBOCs’ CPRs

were not maintained in accordance with

our rules. Accordingly, we direct the

Common Carrier Bureau to work with

the RBOCs to evaluate and improve the

accuracy of their property records and

accounts to ensure compliance with our

requirements going forward.

Conclusion

The alternative proposal set forth in

the April 2000 FNPRM has generated

substantial controversy over whether it

provides the same protections as

provided in the December 1999 Order

given the expressed concerns of our

state colleagues, we decline to adopt it.

Carriers remain free to seek relief under

the waiver approach adopted in the

December 1999 Order to obtain freedom

from the Commission’s depreciation

requirements. Moreover, we have

determined not to pursue further

investigation into whether the RBOCs’

CPRs reflected assets that were not

purchased or used by the RBOCs in

accordance with our rules and hereby

close the CPR audit proceedings in this

respect.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–3117 Filed 2–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01–193; MM Docket No. 00–155; RM–

9924]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Las

Vegas and Rowe, NM

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; denial.

SUMMARY: The Commission denies the

request of Meadows Media, LLC,

permittee of Station KTRL, Las Vegas,

New Mexico, to substitute Channel

275C3 for Channel 275C2 at Las Vegas,

the reallotment of Channel 275C3 to

Rowe, as its first local aural service, and

the modification of Station KTRL’s

construction permit accordingly. The

Commission found that petitioner did

not show that Rowe has sufficient

community indicia to find that it is a

community for allotment purposes. In

addition, even if it were found to be a

community for allotment purposes, the

Commission found that the reallotment

would not result in a preferential

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules 9683

arrangement of allotments because it

would result in a substantially larger

number of people remaining

underserved with only one fulltime

reception service than would receive a

first local aural service but already

receive at least two fulltime aural

services. See 65 FR 54192, September

15, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 00–155,

adopted January 17, 2001, and released

January 26, 2001. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01–3412 Filed 2–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01–186; MM Docket No. 01–18; RM–

10026]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Arriba,

CO

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition for rule making

filed by Alan Olson, requesting the

allotment of Channel 297A to Arriba,

Colorado, as that community’s first local

aural transmission service. This

proposal requires a site restriction 2.4

kilometers (1.5 miles) southeast of

Arriba, utilizing coordinates 39–16–05

NL and 103–15–38 WL.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before March 19, 2001, and reply

comments on or before April 3, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission,

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the FCC,

interested parties should serve the

petitioner, as follows: Alan Olson, 934

E. Vermijo Ave., Colorado Springs, CO

80903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed RuleMaking, MM Docket No.

01–18, adopted January 17, 2001, and

released January 26, 2001. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC’s

Reference Information Center (Room

CY–A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR

part 73 as follows:

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST

SERVICES

1. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Colorado, is amended

by adding Arriba, Channel 297A.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01–3413 Filed 2–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AH61

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of Comment

Period and Notice of Availability of the

Draft Economic Analysis for Proposed

Critical Habitat for the Bay

Checkerspot Butterfly

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

comment period and notice of

availability of draft economic analysis.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, announce the

availability of the draft economic

analysis for the proposed designation of

critical habitat for the bay checkerspot

butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis).

We are also providing notice of the

reopening of the comment period for the

proposal to designate critical habitat for

the bay checkerspot butterfly to allow

all interested parties to comment

simultaneously on the proposed rule

and the associated draft economic

analysis. Comments previously

submitted need not be resubmitted as

they will be incorporated into the public

record as part of this reopened comment

period and will be fully considered in

the final rule.

DATES: We will accept public comments

until March 12, 2001. In addition, we

are planning on holding one public

information meeting during this time.

Refer to the Public Information Meeting

section for the date, time, and location

of this meeting.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

information should be submitted to

Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and

Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W–

2605, Sacramento, California 95825. For

electronic mail address and further

instructions on commenting, refer to

Public Comments Solicited section of

this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information, contact David

Wright, Stephanie Brady or Patricia

Foulk, at the above address (telephone

916/414–6600; facsimile 916/414–6710).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The bay checkerspot butterfly

(Euphydryas editha bayensis) is a

medium-sized butterfly with a wing

span of about 5 centimeters (2 inches).