        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 90
        [WT Docket No. 96-86; FCC 01-10]
        Public Safety Communications

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Commission proposes to establish rules governing the migration to a 6.25 kHz technology on the 700 MHz public safety band General Use channels. By establishing such rules, the Commission will increase the efficiency of that spectrum, with the potential of allowing additional public safety use of that band.

          DATES:
          Comments are due March 19, 2001, Reply Comments are due April 2, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St., SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. Comments may also be filed using the Commission's Electronic Filing System, which can be accessed via the Internet at www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Connelly, Policy and Rules Branch, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at (202) 418-0132.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        1. The Commission's Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule Making (5th NPRM), WT Docket No. 96-86, FCC 01-10, was adopted January 11, 2001, and released on January 17, 2001. The full text of this 5th NPRM is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/releases/fcc0110.doc. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Martha Contee at (202) 418-0260 or TTY (202) 418-2555.
        Summary of the 5th NPRM
        2. The Commission seeks comment on proposals regarding implementing to a voice efficiency standard of one voice channel per 6.25 kHz bandwidth for the General Use channels in the 700 MHz public safety band. Based on comments received from public safety entities, communication directors, and equipment manufacturers, the Commission believes that there are two broad groups proposing different “migration paths” to a more spectrum-efficient standard. The first, which includes Com-Net Ericsson, Nokia, and the North American TETRA Forum (NATF), urges immediate adoption of the concept of one voice channel per 6.25 kHz. The second, which includes the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials—International (APCO), the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), Motorola, the Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group, and the Project 25 Steering Committee, set forth a migration path consisting of five stages and spanning a total of twenty-one years.

        3. Com-Net Ericsson, Nokia, and NATF recommend immediate adoption of a 6.25 kHz efficiency standard, i.e., one voice path per 6.25 kHz of occupied bandwidth, for voice operations on the General Use channels. Com-Net Ericsson, for example, asserts that compliant technologies are available today, and further technological advances are anticipated between now and when 700 MHz-band public safety equipment becomes available. Nokia and NATF recommend that in 2005, the Commission evaluate equipment deployed in the 700 MHz band and the progress of the technical development and, based on this information, consider a formal migration path to 6.25 kHz interoperability. Nokia contends that equipment utilizing 6.25 kHz efficiency is already fully developed and available for general use from a wide array of manufacturers, including leading U.S manufacturers, and believes that adopting this efficiency standard will encourage equipment manufacturers to devote their research and development resources to 6.25 kHz conventional technology.
        4. Under the five-step, twenty-one year plan put forth by APCO and IACP, step one is immediate adoption of Project 25 Phase I as the Interoperability standard. Step two requires that as of December 31, 2006, or within six months following Commission notice that at least fifteen of the Top twenty metropolitan areas have been cleared of relevant television stations, whichever is later, all newly type-accepted radios for use in the band must have the capability to provide one voice channel per 6.25 kHz and must still meet the Project 25 Phase I standard for the Interoperability channels. Within ten years after the date established in step two, all General Use operations must be at 6.25 kHz in the Top fifty metropolitan areas for step three. Step four requires that all General Use operations must be at 6.25 kHz by fifteen years after the date established in Step two. Finally, as of the date established in step two, the Commission must re-examine technological and marketplace developments and determine whether it is possible to develop a migration path for the subsequent transition.

        5. The Commission seeks comment on the proper approach for achieving a 6.25 kHz standard for the General Use channels. At the same time, in order to facilitate the prompt use of the 700 MHz Band spectrum, the Commission had determined in the Fourth Report and Order in this proceeding that it will not require new systems to use 6.25 kHz technology before December 31, 2005. The Commission has also concluded that any 12.5 kHz-based systems constructed and placed in operation prior to December 31, 2005, will be able to continue to purchase and deploy 12.5 kHz equipment for system expansion or maintenance. The Commission has also concluded that such 12.5 kHz systems will not be required to cease operations and convert to 6.25kHz technology prior to December 31, 2015, at the earliest. While nothing in the Commission's Rules would prohibit the use of 6.25 kHz technology now, the Commission is concerned that mandating the use of 6.25 kHz technology would only serve to delay the use of the 700 MHz Band spectrum. Commenters should address the advantages and disadvantages associated with various approaches that are consistent with this “safe harbor” provision.
        6. The Commission seeks comments to identify such factors and the potential impact that they would have on the duration of a migration period and to discuss what would be an appropriate length for migration and the reasoning therefore. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should adopt different migration paths for rural and urban markets, given their different needs. Given the differing needs of public safety entities in rural and urban areas, as well as possible differences in timing when the 700 MHz public safety spectrum may be available to those entities, it may be appropriate to establish multiple migration paths for different types of entities. The Commission encourages commenters that would urge the Commission to adopt multiple migration paths to offer specific proposals.
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

        7. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Fifth Notice). Written public comments are requested regarding this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Fifth Notice provided in paragraph 103. The Commission will send a copy of the Fifth Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
        A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
        8. In the Fifth Notice, we continue our evaluation of rules applicable to the use of public safety spectrum in the frequencies at 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz (the 700 MHz band). Specifically, the Fifth Notice seeks comment on a “migration path” to a more spectrum-efficient technology standard for public safety general use frequencies in the 700 MHz band. We seek comment on only the issue of what path the Commission should adopt. Adopting such a path should provide for the prompt entry of public safety entities onto the 700 MHz band when that band is cleared of its present occupants.
        B. Legal Basis
        9. Authority for issuance of this item is contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 7, 301, 302, 303, and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157, 301, 302, 303, 337.
        C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply
        10. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small business concern” under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated, (2) is not dominant in its field of operation, and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration. Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations. “Small governmental jurisdiction” generally means “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000.” As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United States. This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or ninety-six percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000. The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (ninety-one percent) are small entities. Below, we further describe and estimate the number of small entity licensees and regulatees that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
        11. Public Safety Radio Pool Licensees. As a general matter, Public Safety Radio Pool licensees include police, fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical services. Spectrum in the 700 MHz band for public safety services is governed by 47 U.S.C. 337. Non-Federal governmental entities, as well as private businesses, are licensees for these services. As indicated above, all governmental entities with populations of less than 50,000 fall within the definition of a small entity. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small businesses directed specifically toward public service licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of small business is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone (wireless) companies. This provides that a small business is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons. According to the Bureau of the Census, only twelve radiotelephone firms from a total of 1,178 such firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees. Therefore, even if all twelve of these firms were public safety licensees, nearly all would be small businesses under the SBA's definition, if independently owned and operated.
        12. Radio and Television Equipment Manufacturers. We anticipate that at least six radio equipment manufacturers will be affected by our decisions in this proceeding. According to the Small Business Administration's regulations, a radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment manufacturer must have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business concern. Census Bureau data indicate that there are 858 U.S. firms that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and would therefore be classified as small entities. We do not have information that indicates how many of the six radio equipment manufacturers associated with this proceeding are among these 778 firms. Motorola and Ericsson, however, are major, nationwide radio equipment manufacturers, and thus, we conclude that they would not qualify as small businesses.
        D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
        13. The Fifth Notice does not propose a rule that will entail reporting, recordkeeping, and/or third-party consultation.
        E. Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Economic Impact on Small Entities
        14. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603. In this proceeding, we have several options for migrating from 12.5 kHz technology to 6.25 kHz technology. We seek to determine the most efficient, cost effective, and quickest migration path for the public safety community.
        F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules
        None.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 90
          Communications equipment, Radio requirements.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Magalie Roman Salas,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 01-4028 Filed 2-15-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
        Internal Revenue Service
        26 CFR Part 1
        [REG-131478-02]
        RIN 1545-BB25
        Guidance Under Section 1502: Suspension of Losses on Certain Stock Dispositions; Correction

          AGENCY:
          Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

          ACTION:
          Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:

          This document corrects a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register March 14, 2003 (68 FR 12324). The proposed regulations redetermine the basis of stock of a subsidiary member of a consolidated group immediately prior to certain transfers of such stock and certain deconsolidations of a subsidiary member and suspend certain losses recognized on the disposition of stock of a subsidiary member.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Aimee K. Meacham, (202) 622-7530 (not a toll-free number).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The proposed regulations that are the subject of these corrections are under section 1502 of the Internal Revenue Code.
        Need for Correction
        As published, the proposed regulation contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.
        Correction of Publication
        Accordingly, the publication of the proposed regulations (REG-131478-02) that were the subject of FR Doc. 03-6118, is corrected to read as follows:

        On page 12325, column 1, in the preamble under the caption “SUMMARY”, third line from the bottom of the caption, the language “regulations. This document also” is corrected to read “regulations. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register are technical corrections to § 1.1502-35T. The technical corrections supply text omitted from § 1.1502-35T(b)(3)(i)(C), (b)(3)(ii)(C), and clarify § 1.1502-35T(f)(1). This document”.

          Cynthia E. Grigsby,
          Chief, Regulations Unit, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).

      [FR Doc. 03-8313 Filed 4-3-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4830-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
        [Docket No. PHMSA-2019-0199]
        Pipeline Safety: Midstream Facilities Frequently Asked Questions

          AGENCY:
          Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notification and request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          PHMSA is making available for comment a set of draft frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding federal oversight of midstream processing facilities. Specifically, this guidance will delineate where PHMSA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will each perform inspection and enforcement activities for midstream processing facilities where there is overlapping authority. The proposed guidance consists of a set of seven FAQs that were developed by the Midstream Processing Working Group (Working Group) established by the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, also known as the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee (GPAC), and the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, also known as the Liquid Pipeline Advisory Committee (LPAC).

          DATES:
          Persons interested in submitting comments on the draft FAQs must do so by January 4, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, which should be identified by docket number PHMSA-2019-0199, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Comments may be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov. Please follow the online instructions to submit comments.
          • Mail: Comments may be submitted by mailing them to the Dockets Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery: Comments may be submitted by hand-delivering them to 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Comments may be delivered between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays.
          • Fax: Comments may be faxed to 202-493-2251.
          • Instructions: Identify docket number PHMSA-2019-0199 at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, you must submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, you must include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users should submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Privacy Act: DOT may solicit comments from the public regarding certain general notices. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

          • Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this document contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this document, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Pursuant to 49 CFR 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to give confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) Mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information you are submitting is CBI. Unless you are notified otherwise, PHMSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this notification. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Sayler Palabrica at sayler.palabrica@dot.gov. Any commentary PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
          • Docket: The docket containing background documents and received comments is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Once on this site, please follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. Alternatively, you may review these documents in person at the street address listed above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           Sayler Palabrica, Transportation Specialist, at 202-366-0559.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        PHMSA provides written clarification regarding the pipeline safety regulations found at 49 CFR parts 190-199 in the form of FAQs and other guidance materials. PHMSA is requesting public comment on a set of draft FAQs that were developed by the Working Group that was established by the GPAC and LPAC. These draft FAQs are intended to clarify when each of PHMSA or OSHA intends to exercise its respective regulatory inspection and enforcement authority over midstream processing facilities involved in pipeline transportation of energy products. The intent of this guidance is to ensure that there is no confusion or unnecessary gaps or overlaps in Federal oversight of midstream processing facilities. All guidance, including these draft FAQs, is intended to be explanatory in nature. FAQs are provided to help the regulated community understand how to comply with the regulations, but they are not substantive rules themselves and do not create legally enforceable rights, assign duties, or impose new obligations not otherwise contained in the existing regulations and standards. However, an operator who is able to demonstrate compliance with the FAQs is likely to be able to demonstrate compliance with the relevant regulations. If a different course of action is taken by an operator, the operator must be able to demonstrate that its conduct is in accordance with the regulations.

        The draft FAQs are included in this document. Comments submitted in response to this document and other supporting documents may be found in Docket No. PHMSA-2019-0199 at https://www.regulations.gov. Before finalizing the FAQs, PHMSA will consider all substantive comments received on or before the comment closing date. Comments received after the closing date will be considered to the extent practicable. Once finalized, the FAQs will be posted on PHMSA's public website at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/about-phmsa/phmsa-faqs.

        Background
        Natural gas, crude oil, and associated fluids typically go through a number of processing steps before they can be delivered to end users as refined petroleum products, natural gas liquids, natural gas, and other products. Some of the facilities where these processes take place are midstream processing facilities downstream of initial production but upstream of end users.
        For the purposes of this guidance document, a “midstream processing facility” is a processing facility that receives products being transported by PHMSA-jurisdictional pipelines and re-injects those products for continued transportation by pipeline. In other words, a midstream processing facility is a processing facility with piping or storage that is engaged in the transportation of gas or hazardous liquids by pipeline, and is therefore a pipeline facility subject to PHMSA jurisdiction. The pipeline systems within or associated with midstream processing facilities may be subject to regulation by one or more Federal agencies, depending on the facility's purpose and configuration. PHMSA regulates the safety of transportation-related pipeline systems associated with midstream processing facilities in 49 CFR parts 190-199, while OSHA regulates safety within midstream processing facilities using the Process Safety Management (PSM) regulations (29 CFR 1910.119). Uncertainty regarding where each of these respective regulatory authorities begins and ends in connection with midstream processing facilities has led to confusion among regulated entities and unnecessary duplication of regulatory efforts by the Federal Government.
        To address these issues, the GPAC and LPAC established the Working Group in 2014. The Working Group consisted of members representing PHMSA, OSHA, and the midstream processing industry. The goal of the Working Group was to better understand and improve the safety of midstream processing facilities by increasing clarity and eliminating unnecessary gaps and overlaps in Federal safety oversight. In particular, the Working Group was tasked with evaluating the equivalency of PHMSA and OSHA midstream processing facility safety requirements; identifying means to delineate exercise of inspection and enforcement responsibilities (“regulatory oversight activities”) between the two agencies by clarifying the inlet and outlet boundaries of midstream processing facilities; and addressing the oversight of midstream processing facilities with pass-through, bypass, and storage configurations, including storage-related piping.

        The Working Group met on several occasions in 2014 and 2015. During that time, the Working Group found that PHMSA's pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR parts 190-199 and OSHA's PSM requirements at 29 CFR 1910.119 provide equivalent safety for midstream processing facilities. However, the enforcement of both their regulatory regimes to the same facilities created unnecessary contradictions and confusion, potentially decreasing safety. Therefore, in the interest of improving safety, ensuring effective government oversight, and reducing regulatory redundancy, PHMSA and OSHA agreed to delineate where they each would perform regulatory oversight activities for midstream processing facilities based on the predominate use of the facilities in question. As discussed during the Working Group's presentation to the GPAC and the LPAC on August 26, 2015, in order to apply the FAQs, an operator will be expected to make records and documentation that prove the predominate use of a facility available to PHMSA and OSHA for review and verification. See pages 71-75 of the transcript for the second day of the meeting, available in the docket for this document and at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=105&nocache=8221.

        These FAQs reflect agreement by PHMSA and OSHA to prioritize safety and regulatory clarity in regulatory oversight activities; however, nothing in these FAQs changes the agencies' statutory authority with respect to midstream processing facilities. For example, PHMSA may still issue a corrective action order under 49 U.S.C. 60112 or a safety order under 49 U.S.C. 60117(l) if a safety issue is identified.
        The Working Group proposed seven draft FAQs to help clarify the delineation of regulatory oversight activities between PHMSA and OSHA for the regulated industry and Federal and State pipeline safety inspection and enforcement staff. PHMSA is soliciting public comments on these draft FAQs, which address the following issues:
        • Defining the terms “processing” and “processing facility.”
        • Addressing oversight issues associated with bypass configurations, complex facilities with multiple processing units, and gas storage systems.
        • Identifying the upstream and downstream demarcation points between pipeline transportation facilities that will be subject to regulatory oversight activities under PHMSA's pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR parts 190 through 199, and processing facilities that will be subject to regulatory oversight activities by OSHA under its PSM requirements in 29 CFR 1910.119.

        Historically, PHMSA and OSHA have coordinated efforts to ensure that there are no gaps in oversight over any individual facility and this cooperation will continue after this guidance is finalized.
        The proposed definitions contained within these FAQs are limited in use for applying these FAQs for the purpose of delineation between PHMSA and OSHA exercise of their respective regulatory oversight authorities. The proposed FAQ definitions will not be codified in Parts 190 through 199, and are not intended to be used for purposes other than to help the public interpret the application of PHMSA and OSHA's regulations to a pipeline facility.
        Executive Order 13891 and DOT Guidance Procedures
        This draft guidance document has been reviewed and cleared by the PHMSA Office of Chief Counsel in accordance with the Department's guidance procedures in 49 CFR 5.25-5.51. It has been determined to be non-significant and, as defined in 49 CFR 5.37, not otherwise of importance to the Department's interest. This draft guidance document will be posted on PHMSA's website in accordance with 49 CFR 5.31 and Executive Order 13891.
        Draft Midstream Processing Facilities FAQs
        This draft guidance document is intended to provide clarity to the public regarding existing pipeline safety standards. The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way, but pipeline operators must comply with the underlying safety standards.
        Q 1: Definitions
        Q 1-A: What is Processing?
        For the purposes of this guidance document, “processing” is defined as the treatment of products including, but not limited to dehydration, removal of contaminants by separation or filtration, blending with other products, and heating or cooling units that separate or purify products and remove condensates by distillation.

        These FAQs do not cover facilities used for the chemical conversion of crude oil into refined petroleum products (i.e. refining facilities).
        Q 1-B: What is a Processing Facility?
        A “processing facility” comprises one or more individual units that perform a processing operation (see Q 1-A) and meets the criteria for applicability of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA) process safety management regulations (29 CFR 1910.119).
        Q 2: How does one delineate the boundary between pipeline transportation and a processing facility?
        PHMSA policy indicates that, in deference to OSHA's exercise of its authority, it will not conduct inspection and enforcement activities (“regulatory oversight activities”) under 49 CFR part 192 and 195 for pipelines downstream of the first pressure control device entering a processing facility, and upstream of the last pressure control device leaving that processing facility, except as described in provisions of FAQ 4.
        Q 3: How does PHMSA's policy apply to regulatory oversight of a pipeline entering a processing facility that bypasses a pressure control device?
        A pipeline that predominantly (more than 50% of the time during the preceding calendar year) bypasses a pressure control device will be subject to PHMSA regulatory oversight activities under 49 CFR part 192 or 195. Further, if a pipeline bypasses a pressure control device that is permanently no longer in service, the pipeline will be subject to PHMSA regulatory oversight activities under 49 CFR part 192 or 195.
        Q 4: How does PHMSA's policy apply to regulatory oversight of piping that bypasses processing downstream of the first pressure control device?
        Piping that is downstream of the first pressure control device that is not predominately (more than 50% of the time during the previous calendar year) used to bypass processing will be subject to regulatory oversight activities by OSHA under its's process safety management regulations. Piping that is downstream of the first pressure control device that is predominantly (more than 50% of the time during the previous calendar year) used to bypass processing will be subject to PHMSA regulatory oversight activities under 49 CFR part 192 or 195.
        Q 5: What if a given section of piping located on the grounds of a processing facility served by PHMSA-regulated pipelines connects two processing units or is otherwise used for a processing function?
        If the piping is located downstream of the first pressure control device entering the facility and upstream of the last pressure control device leaving the facility, it would be subject to regulatory oversight activities by OSHA under its process safety management regulations. PHMSA policy indicates that in deference to OSHA's exercise of its authority, this section of piping would not be subject to PHMSA regulatory oversight activities under 49 CFR part 192 or 195.
        Q 6. How is underground storage and associated piping located on the grounds of a processing facility regulated?
        Piping associated with underground storage used for the “purpose of managing processing facility inventory” will be subject to regulatory oversight activities by OSHA under its process safety management regulations. Piping associated with storage caverns used for transportation will be subject to PHMSA regulatory oversight activities under 49 CFR part 192 or 195. Additionally, underground natural gas storage facilities, as defined in § 192.3, must comply with the applicable reporting requirements in 49 CFR part 191 and underground natural gas storage safety requirements in § 192.12.
        Q 7. How are pipelines connecting storage or processing facilities regulated when traversing public or private lands (outside the grounds of storage or processing facilities)?
        Pipelines exiting a pressure control device of storage or processing facilities and traversing public or private lands outside the grounds of storage or processing facilities will be subject to PHMSA regulatory oversight activities under 49 CFR part 192 or 195.

          Issued in Washington, DC, on September 1, 2020, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
          Alan K. Mayberry,
          Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

      [FR Doc. 2020-24011 Filed 11-3-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 54
        [WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45; FCC 10-155]
        High-Cost Universal Service Support and Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) undertakes important steps for fiscally responsible universal service fund reform. The Commission seeks comment on permanently amending our rules to facilitate efficient use of reclaimed excess high-cost support. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on a proposal to modify our rules to reclaim legacy support surrendered by a competitive ETC when it relinquishes ETC status in a particular state.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rules are due on or before October 7, 2010 and reply comments are due on or before October 21, 2010. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 05-337 and CC Docket No. 96-45, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

          For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ted Burmeister, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, (202) 418-7389 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 05-337, CC Docket No. 96-45, FCC 10-155, adopted August 31, 2010, and released September 3, 2010. This NPRM was also released with a companion Final Rule document that is published elsewhere in this Federal Register issue. The complete text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via the Internet at http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

        Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
        • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments.
        • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

        Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

        • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
        • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
        • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

          In addition, one copy of each pleading must be sent to each of the following:

        • The Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; Web site: http://www.bcpiweb.com; phone: 1-800-378-3160;

        • Theordore Burmeister, Telecommunications, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5-A5360, Washington, DC 20554; e-mail: Theodore.Burmeister@fcc.gov; and

        • Charles Tyler, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5-A452, Washington, DC 20554; e-mail: Charles.Tyler@fcc.gov.

          People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations for filing comments (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: fcc504@fcc.gov; phone: (202) 418-0530 or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

        Filings and comments are also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Copies may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, BCPI, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC. 20554. Customers may contact BCPI through its Web site: http://www.bcpiweb.com, by e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com, by telephone at (202) 488-5300 or (800) 378-3160 (voice), (202) 488-5562 (TTY), or by facsimile at (202) 488-5563.
        1. In the Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we undertake important steps for fiscally responsible universal service fund reform. Verizon Wireless and Sprint Nextel, in separate transactions in 2008, each committed to surrender their high-cost universal service support over five years, but those commitments have yet to be implemented. Corr Wireless Communications, LLC (Corr Wireless) has asked that any support reclaimed from Verizon Wireless and Sprint Nextel be redistributed to other competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs).
        2. In the NPRM, we seek comment on permanently amending our rules to facilitate efficient use of reclaimed excess high-cost support. In addition, we seek comment on a proposal to modify our rules to reclaim legacy support surrendered by a competitive ETC when it relinquishes ETC status in a particular state.
        Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

        3. In the NPRM, we seek comment on modifying our rules to better enable the Commission to reclaim certain high-cost support, and to use that support to help fund broadband universal service programs, consistent with the recommendations of the National Broadband Plan. First, we seek comment on amending the interim cap rule so that a state's interim cap amount would be adjusted if a competitive ETC serving the state relinquishes its ETC status. In the Interim Cap Order, the Commission capped high-cost support for voice service provided to competitive ETCs serving each state at the level of support such carriers were eligible to receive in March 2008, on an annualized basis. This cap amount does not change even if the number of competitive ETCs serving the state changes. We propose amending the interim cap rule so that, if a competitive ETC relinquishes its ETC status in a state, the cap amount for that state is reduced by the amount of support that the competitive ETC was eligible to receive in its final month of eligibility, annualized.
        4. The goal of the Interim Cap Order was to rein in high-cost universal service disbursements, and additional support would not necessarily result in future deployment of expanded service. Reducing the total amount of support available to competitive ETCs in a state when a competitive ETC relinquishes its ETC status in that state will not reduce support flowing to any individual competitive ETC. Reducing the pool of support in a state also would enable excess funds from the legacy high-cost program to be used more effectively to advance universal service broadband programs, as recommended by the National Broadband Plan. We invite comment on this proposal.
        5. Second, we seek comment on amending § 54.709(b) to permit the Commission to provide the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) alternate instructions for implementing prior period adjustments. In the accompanying order, we adopt an interim waiver of § 54.709(b) to enable us to direct USAC to reserve reclaimed funds as we consider broadband universal service reform. Amending the rule as proposed would serve this same purpose, on a permanent basis. In addition, it would enable the Commission to provide USAC with alternate instructions regarding future excess funds in other situations without having to adopt a rule waiver.
        6. We seek comment on how to develop a streamlined, administratively workable process for providing such instruction to USAC, if we amended § 54.709(b). We seek comment regarding the form that the instructions must take, including whether the instructions must be provided in an order, public notice, or other form. We also seek comment on a process by which the Wireline Competition Bureau or Office of the Managing Director would issue a public notice providing instruction to USAC that would become effective absent action by the Commission within fourteen days. We note that, for the purpose of calculating the contribution factor, the Commission already has the authority to set demand and administrative expenses at levels other than those shown in USAC's quarterly demand projections. The modification we propose here would permit the Commission, or the Wireline Competition Bureau or Office of the Managing Director on delegated authority, to instruct USAC to modify the prior period adjustments in the quarterly demand projections. We request comment on this proposal.
        Procedural Matters
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        7. This notice of proposed rulemaking does not contain new, modified, or proposed information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new, modified, or proposed “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

        8. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, see 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this NPRM, of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

        Need for, and Objectives of, the Notice
        9. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on a proposal to modify its interim cap on support for competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) so that if a competitive ETC relinquishes its ETC status, the amount of support it receives would be removed from the cap amount. The Commission is considering this action so that support removed from the cap may be reserved as a potential down payment on proposed broadband universal service reforms as recommended by the National Broadband Plan, including to index the E-rate funding cap to inflation to enhance broadband opportunities for children, teachers, schools, and libraries; support a Mobility Fund to provide wireless broadband service in areas that lack coverage; improve utilization of the Rural Health Care program to advance telemedicine in rural areas across the country, including Tribal lands; and, in the long term, directly support broadband Internet services for all Americans.
        10. The Commission also seeks comment on a proposal to modify its rules governing the calculation of the universal service fund contribution factor. Specifically, we seek comment on amending § 54.709(b) to enable the Commission to provide USAC with alternate direction regarding the application of excess contributions from prior quarters. The current rule requires that excess contributions be applied in the next quarter, effectively reducing the contribution factor in that quarter. In the associated Order, the Commission waives the rule on an interim basis and directs USAC to reserve reclaimed funds as a potential down payment on proposed broadband universal service reforms. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on amending the rule to permit it to do so permanently. In addition, amending the rule as proposed would enable the Commission to provide USAC with alternate instructions regarding future excess funds in other situations without having to adopt a rule waiver.
        Legal Basis
        11. This legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the NPRM is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 214, 220, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 214, 220, and 254 and 1.411 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.411.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply
        12. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
        13. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 29.6 million small businesses, according to the SBA.
        14. Small Organizations. Nationwide, as of 2002, there are approximately 1.6 million small organizations. A “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”
        15. Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

        16. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
        17. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (“CLECs”), Competitive Access Providers (“CAPs”), “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers.” Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 1005 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 1005 carriers, an estimated 918 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 87 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 16 carriers have reported that they are “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and all 16 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 89 carriers have reported that they are “Other Local Service Providers.” Of the 89, all have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers” are small entities that may be affected by our action.
        18. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category. Prior to that time, such firms were within the now-superseded categories of “Paging” and “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.” Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Because Census Bureau data are not yet available for the new category, we will estimate small business prevalence using the prior categories and associated data. For the category of Paging, data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. For the category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms are small.
        19. 2.3 GHz Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission defined “small business” for the wireless communications services (“WCS”) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a “very small business” as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved these definitions. The Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, which was conducted in 1997, there were seven bidders that won 31 licenses that qualified as very small business entities, and one bidder that won one license that qualified as a small business entity.
        20. 1670-1675 MHz Services. An auction for one license in the 1670-1675 MHz band was conducted in 2003. One license was awarded. The winning bidder was not a small entity.
        21. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio telephony carriers. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Under the SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Trends in Telephone Service data, 434 carriers reported that they were engaged in wireless telephony. Of these, an estimated 222 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 212 have more than 1,500 employees. We have estimated that 222 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard.
        22. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband personal communications services (“PCS”) spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission has created a small business size standard for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an additional small business size standard for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These small business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 “small” and “very small” business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. In 1999, the Commission reauctioned 155 C, D, E, and F Block licenses; there were 113 small business winning bidders.
        23. In 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in Auction 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as “small” or “very small” businesses. Subsequent events, concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant. In 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 188 C block licenses and 21 F block licenses in Auction 58. There were 24 winning bidders for 217 licenses. Of the 24 winning bidders, 16 claimed small business status and won 156 licenses. In 2007, the Commission completed an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction 71. Of the 14 winning bidders, six were designated entities. In 2008, the Commission completed an auction of 20 Broadband PCS licenses in the C, D, E and F block licenses in Auction 78.
        24. Advanced Wireless Services. In 2008, the Commission conducted the auction of Advanced Wireless Services (“AWS”) licenses. This auction, which as designated as Auction 78, offered 35 licenses in the AWS 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (“AWS-1”). The AWS-1 licenses were licenses for which there were no winning bids in Auction 66. That same year, the Commission completed Auction 78. A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceeded $15 million and did not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (“small business”) received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid. A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that did not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (“very small business”) received a 25 percent discount on its winning bid. A bidder that had combined total assets of less than $500 million and combined gross revenues of less than $125 million in each of the last two years qualified for entrepreneur status. Four winning bidders that identified themselves as very small businesses won 17 licenses. Three of the winning bidders that identified themselves as a small business won five licenses. Additionally, one other winning bidder that qualified for entrepreneur status won 2 licenses.
        25. 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits. The Commission defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (“MSA/RSA”) licenses. The third category is “entrepreneur,” which is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. The Commission conducted an auction in 2002 of 740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)). Of the 740 licenses available for auction, 484 licenses were sold to 102 winning bidders. Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small business or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. The Commission conducted a second auction in 2003 that included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 Cellular Market Area licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses. In 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 5 licenses in the lower 700 MHz band (Auction 60). There were three winning bidders for five licenses. All three winning bidders claimed small business status.
        26. In 2007, the Commission adopted the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. The Order revised the band plan for the commercial (including Guard Band) and public safety spectrum, adopted services rules, including stringent build-out requirements, an open platform requirement on the C Block, and a requirement on the D Block licensee to construct and operate a nationwide, interoperable wireless broadband network for public safety users. In 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73 which offered all available, commercial 700 MHz Band licenses (1,099 licenses) for bidding using the Commission's standard simultaneous multiple-round (“SMR”) auction format for the A, B, D, and E block licenses and an SMR auction design with hierarchical package bidding (“HPB”) for the C Block licenses. Later in 2008, the Commission concluded Auction 73. A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that did not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) qualified for a 25 percent discount on its winning bids. A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceeded $15 million, but did not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years, qualified for a 15 percent discount on its winning bids. There were 36 winning bidders (who won 330 of the 1,090 licenses won) that identified themselves as very small businesses. There were 20 winning bidders that identified themselves as a small business that won 49 of the 1,090 licenses won. The provisionally winning bids for the A, B, C, and E Block licenses exceeded the aggregate reserve prices for those blocks. However, the provisionally winning bid for the D Block license did not meet the applicable reserve price and thus did not become a winning bid.
        27. 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, the Commission adopted size standards for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. A small business in this service is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. In 2000, the Commission conducted an auction of 52 Major Economic Area (“MEA”) licenses. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses commenced and closed in 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a total of two licenses.
        28. Specialized Mobile Radio. The Commission awards “small entity” bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the three previous calendar years. The Commission awards “very small entity” bidding credits to firms that had revenues of no more than $3 million in each of the three previous calendar years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards for the 900 MHz Service. The Commission has held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction was completed in 1996. Sixty bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won 263 geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR auction for the upper 200 channels was conducted in 1997. Ten bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won 38 geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR band. A second auction for the 800 MHz band was conducted in 2002 and included 23 BEA licenses. One bidder claiming small business status won five licenses. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the General Category channels was conducted in 2000. Eleven bidders won 108 geographic area licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard. In an auction completed in 2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were awarded. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed small business status and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all three auctions, 40 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed status as small business.
        29. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in the 800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. In addition, we do not know how many of these firms have 1500 or fewer employees. We assume, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that small business size standard is approved by the SBA.
        30. Cellular Radiotelephone Service. Auction 77 was held to resolve one group of mutually exclusive applications for Cellular Radiotelephone Service licenses for unserved areas in New Mexico. Bidding credits for designated entities were not available in Auction 77. In 2008, the Commission completed the closed auction of one unserved service area in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, designated as Auction 77. Auction 77 concluded with one provisionally winning bid for the unserved area totaling $25,002.
        31. Private Land Mobile Radio (“PLMR”). PLMR systems serve an essential role in a range of industrial, business, land transportation, and public safety activities. These radios are used by companies of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories, and are often used in support of the licensee's primary (non-telecommunications) business operations. For the purpose of determining whether a licensee of a PLMR system is a small business as defined by the SBA, we use the broad census category, Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This definition provides that a small entity is any such entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. The Commission does not require PLMR licensees to disclose information about number of employees, so the Commission does not have information that could be used to determine how many PLMR licensees constitute small entities under this definition. We note that PLMR licensees generally use the licensed facilities in support of other business activities, and therefore, it would also be helpful to assess PLMR licensees under the standards applied to the particular industry subsector to which the licensee belongs.

        32. As of March 2010, there were 424,162 PLMR licensees operating 921,909 transmitters in the PLMR bands below 512 MHz. We note that any entity engaged in a commercial activity is eligible to hold a PLMR license, and that any revised rules in this context could therefore potentially impact small entities covering a great variety of industries.
        33. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (“BETRS”). In the present context, we will use the SBA's small business size standard applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by the rules and policies proposed herein.
        34. 1.4 GHz Band Licensees. The Commission conducted an auction of 64 1.4 GHz band licenses in 2007. In that auction, the Commission defined “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, had average gross revenues that exceed $15 million but do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years, and a “very small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Neither of the two winning bidders sought such designated entity status.
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
        35. The NPRM does not propose any reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
        Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
        36. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives, among others: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
        37. The NPRM proposes reducing the size of the interim cap on competitive ETC support when any competitive ETC relinquishes its ETC designation. Under certain circumstances, this may have a significant economic impact on other competitive ETCs that are small entities. For example, as described in footnote 31 of the Order, the reduction in size of a state interim cap amount could negatively affect a competitive ETC that is a small entity if another competitive ETC is later designated and receives a share of the smaller interim cap amount. While the designation of another competitive ETC would have an impact on the support received by the small entity even without the adoption of the proposed rule, the proposed rule could magnify that impact. The Commission is seeking comment on this rule, in part to consider its necessity and any alternatives. Because, however, the purpose of the proposed rule is to reduce the amount of high-cost universal service support received by competitive ETCs, it is not likely that a significant alternative could be chosen that would minimize the effect of the proposed rule if it is, in fact, adopted.
        38. The NPRM also seeks comment on a proposed rule that would give the Commission the ability to provide the universal service administrator alternate instructions with regard to the use of extra or unused funds. The current rules require that the administrator use such funds to reduce the need for universal service contributions in the next quarter. The proposed rule would permit the Commission to instruct the administrator to reserve the funds for later use. Because the later use of the funds would also require universal service contributions, the overall effect of this proposed rule would be to shift the time of the contributions' collection, not to change the long-term amount contributed. Accordingly, we do not believe there is a significant economic impact, on small entities or otherwise, associated with this proposed rule.
        Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules
        39. None.
        Ex Parte Presentations

        40. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. Other requirements pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.
        Comment Filing Procedures
        41. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS); (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal; or (3) by filing paper copies.
        • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments.

        • For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.
        • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

        • Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

        • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
        • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
        • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

        42. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be sent to the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; website: www.bcpiweb.com; phone: 1-800-378-3160. Furthermore, three copies of each pleading must be sent to Charles Tyler, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5-A452, Washington, DC 20554; e-mail: Charles.Tyler@fcc.gov.

        43. Filings and comments are also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. Copies may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, BCPI, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI through its website: www.bcpiweb.com, by e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com, by telephone at (202) 488-5300 or (800) 378-3160 (voice), (202) 488-5562 (tty), or by facsimile at (202) 488-5563.

        44. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations for filing comments (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov; phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

        45. For further information regarding this proceeding, contact Ted Burmeister, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7389, or Theodore.Burmeister@fcc.gov.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54
          Communications common carriers, Health facilities, Infants and children, Libraries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Telecommunications, Telephone.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

        Proposed Rules
        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 54 as follows:

          PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE
          1. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201, 205, 214, and 254 unless otherwise noted.

          2. Section 54.709 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

            § 54.709
            Computations of required contributions to universal service support mechanisms.

            (b) If the contributions received by the Administrator in a quarter exceed the amount of universal service support program contributions and administrative costs for that quarter, the excess payments will be carried forward to the following quarter, unless otherwise instructed by the Commission. The contribution factors for the following quarter will take into consideration the projected costs of the support mechanisms for that quarter and the excess contributions carried over from the previous quarter.

      [FR Doc. 2010-23162 Filed 9-15-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
        42 CFR Parts 405, 412, 413, and 485
        [CMS-1655-CN]
        RIN 0938-AS77
        Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Proposed Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2017 Rates; Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers; Graduate Medical Education; Hospital Notification Procedures Applicable to Beneficiaries Receiving Observation Services; and Technical Changes Relating to Costs to Organizations and Medicare Cost Reports; Correction

          AGENCY:
          Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          This document corrects technical and typographical errors in the proposed rule that appeared in the Federal Register on April 27, 2016 titled “Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Proposed Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2017 Rates; Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers; Graduate Medical Education; Hospital Notification Procedures Applicable to Beneficiaries Receiving Observation Services; and Technical Changes Relating to Costs to Organizations and Medicare Cost Reports.”

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Charles Padgett, (410) 786-2811.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background
        In FR Doc. 2016-09120 of April 27, 2016 (81 FR 24946), there were a number of technical errors that are identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section of this correcting document.
        II. Summary of Errors
        A. Summary of Errors in the Preamble
        On pages 24958, 24959, and 25255 we made an inadvertent technical and typographical errors in referencing several quality measure titles.
        On page 25121, we erroneously referenced the incorrect date for the end of the FY 2019 Hospital-acquired condition (HAC) Reduction Program performance period.
        On page 25173, we made an error in referencing the Long-Term Care Hospital Quality Reporting Program (LTCH QRP).

        On page 25223, we made an error in specifying the units for the dollar amount in reference to expenditures. We also inadvertently omitted full reference to “Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Prevention Quality Indicators Overview. 2008” in the footnote.
        On page 25247, we erroneously referenced incorrect year regarding the Spring version of the Clinical Quality Measure (CQM) electronic specifications.
        B. Summary of Errors in the Addendum
        On page 25307, in table titled “Estimated Proportion of Hospitals in the Worst-Performing Quartile (75th Percentile) of the Total HAC Score for the FY 2017 HAC Reduction Program”, we made technical errors in the entries for the “By Teaching Status” hospital characteristic.
        On page 25319, we made an inadvertent technical and typographical errors in referencing several quality measure titles.
        On pages 25322, we made an error in referencing the Long-Term Care Hospital Quality Reporting Program (LTCH QRP).
        IV. Correction of Errors
        In FR Doc. 2016-09120 of April 27, 2016 (81 FR 24946), we are making the following corrections:
        A. Corrections of Errors in the Preamble
        1. On page 24958, first column, last paragraph, line 11, the phrase “PAC LTCH QRP.” is corrected to read “LTCH QRP.”.
        2. On page 24959, third column, last paragraph, line 8, the phrase “Issues-PAC” is corrected to read “Issues-PAC LTCH QRP”.
        3. On page 25121, third column, first full paragraph, line 18, the phrase “September 30” is corrected to read “June 30”.
        4. On page 25173, third column, fifth bulleted paragraph, lines 3 and 4, the phrase “(LTCH QRP) (also referred to as the LTCHQR Program);” is corrected to read as “(LTCH QRP);”.
        5. On page 25223:
        a. Second column, first full paragraph, line 29, the figure “$4.3B” is corrected as “$4.3 billion”.
        b. Third column, third footnote (footnote 232), line 1, the phrase “National Quality Forum:” is corrected to read “Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality:”.
        6. On page 25247, first column, sixth paragraph, line 19, the phrase “Spring 2017” is corrected to read “Spring 2016”.
        7. On page 25255, first column, first partial paragraph, lines 7 through 14, the sentence “We refer readers to section VIII.C.9.d. of the preamble of this this proposed rule for further details on the proposed expansion of data collection for this measures (NQF #0680), including data collection timeframes and associated submission deadlines.” is corrected to read “We refer readers to section VIII.C.9.d. of the preamble of this proposed rule for further details on the proposed expansion of data collection for this measure, Percent of Residents or Patients Who Were Assessed and Appropriately Given the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine (Short Stay) (NQF #0680), including data collection timeframes and associated submission deadlines.”.
        B. Corrections of Errors in the Addendum
        1. On page 25307, in the table titled “ESTIMATED PROPORTION OF HOSPITAL IN THE WORST-PERFORMING QUARTILE (75TH PERCENTILE) OF THE TOTAL HAC SCORE FOR THE FY 2017 HAC REDUCTION PROGRAM,” the entries for the hospital characteristic “By Teaching Status” are corrected to read as follows:

            Hospital characteristic
            Number of hospitals a

            Number of hospitals in the worst-performing quartile b

            Percent of hospitals in the worst-performing quartile c

            By Teaching Status: f

            Non-teaching
            2,189
            398
            18.2

            Fewer than 100 residents
            777
            230
            29.6

            100 or more residents
            245
            136
            55.5

        2. On page 25319, first column, first partial paragraph, line 13, the phrase “this measures (NQF #0680),” is corrected to read “this measure, Percent of Residents or Patients Who Were Assessed and Appropriately Given the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine (Short Stay) (NQF #0680),”.
        3. On 25322, second column, second full paragraph, line 12, the phrase “LTCHQR Program” is corrected to read “LTCH QRP”.

          Dated: June 6, 2016.
          Madhura Valverde,
          Executive Secretary to the Department, Department of Health and Human Services.

       [FR Doc. 2016-13685 Filed 6-6-16; 4:15 pm]
       BILLING CODE 4120-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 300
        [Docket No. 180202124-8124-01]
        RIN 0648-BH59
        International Fisheries; Eastern Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Area of Overlap Between the Convention Areas of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS is considering whether to continue, or to revise, the management regime for fishing vessels that target tuna and other highly migratory fish species (HMS) in the area of overlapping jurisdiction between the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPFC) in the tropical Pacific Ocean. To that end, we are issuing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking to seek public input about whether U.S. fishing vessels fishing in that area should be governed by conservation measures adopted by IATTC or conservation measures adopted by WCPFC.

          DATES:
          Comments on this advance notice of proposed rulemaking must be submitted in writing by July 12, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0049, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0049, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.
          • Fax: (808) 725-5215; Attn: Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, might not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name and address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The United States is a member of both the IATTC and WCPFC. The convention areas for the IATTC and WCPFC overlap in the Pacific Ocean waters within a rectangular area bounded by 50° S latitude, 150° W longitude, 130° W longitude, and 4° S latitude (“overlap area”). Historically, regulations implementing the conservation measures adopted by the IATTC (see 50 CFR part 300, subpart C) and the WCPFC (see 50 CFR part 300, subpart O) both applied to U.S. vessels fishing for HMS in the overlap area. In 2012, the IATTC and the WCPFC adopted recommendations/decisions that provide that each member belonging to both commissions is to decide, for a period of not less than 3 years, whether IATTC or WCPFC conservation and management measures will apply to vessels of that member listed in both WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels (record) and IATTC Regional Vessel Register List (register) while fishing in the overlap area.
        In accordance with the WCPFC decision and IATTC recommendation regarding the overlap area, NMFS issued a final rule on April 26, 2016 (see 81 FR 24501, effective May 26, 2016; hereafter “2016 final rule”), excluding the overlap area from the description of the IATTC Convention Area for the purpose of the regulations implementing conservation measures of the IATTC (50 CFR part 300, subpart C), except that IATTC Regional Vessel Register regulations at 50 CFR 300.22(b) continue to apply in the overlap area. Under the 2016 final rule regulations implementing conservation measures of the WCPFC continue to apply in the overlap area to vessels of all gear types listed in both WCPFC record and IATTC register. The requirement for U.S. vessels that fish for tuna and other HMS to be listed on the IATTC Regional Vessel Register continues to apply in the overlap area because the IATTC Regional Vessel Register is used to implement the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP), which is a separate international agreement that applies to purse seine vessels that fish in the eastern Pacific, including the overlap area. The AIDCP has not adopted a decision that would allow the United States to exempt vessels from AIDCP requirements even if only WCPFC requirements apply in the overlap area.
        Before the 2016 final rule was issued, NMFS evaluated the expected impacts of the rule by reviewing fishing activity in the overlap area and concluded that U.S. vessels did not often fish for HMS in the overlap area. The rule simplified regulations for U.S. vessels fishing in the area because, aside from the IATTC Regional Vessel Register requirements, affected vessels would be required to follow only the measures of the WCPFC rather than those of both the WCPFC and the IATTC.
        Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

        NMFS implements decisions of the WCPFC under the authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), and decisions of the IATTC under the authority of the Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.). In the preamble to the 2016 final rule, NMFS indicated that within the next 3 years, it may reevaluate the spatial distribution of fishing effort by U.S. fishing vessels fishing under the IATTC and WCPFC Conventions, especially with respect to the differences and similarities between fishing in the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) and the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO).
        NMFS seeks to better understand the effects of the 2016 final rule and the potential effects of applying the IATTC versus the WCPFC management measures for the overlap area. NMFS is interested in public comment on whether and, if so, how fishing effort by U.S. vessels fishing under the IATTC and WCPFC convention areas has changed since the 2016 final rule was issued and whether and how fishing effort might change in the foreseeable future. NMFS is interested in receiving any information, including but not limited to the impacts of the 2016 final rule on the fishing patterns of U.S.-flagged fishing vessels, their costs of fishing, the expected locations of fishing grounds in the foreseeable future, particularly with respect to the WCPO versus the EPO, and the expected costs to U.S. fishing businesses of applying IATTC versus WCPFC management measures to the overlap area.
        This advance notice of proposed rulemaking solicits information from the public that would be useful in evaluating the effects of the IATTC versus the WCPFC management measures for the overlap area. If warranted by the findings of this examination, NMFS may propose re-applying IATTC management measures in the overlap area while removing WCPFC management measures.
        Classification
        This advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.

          Dated: June 6, 2018.
          Samuel D. Rauch, III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2018-12554 Filed 6-11-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P