        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 20
        [WT Docket No. 10-4; FCC 18-35]
        Improvement of Wireless Coverage Through the Use of Signal Boosters

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Federal Communications Commission proposes additional steps to enhance the usefulness of signal boosters in improving access to wireless service while continuing to guard against unacceptable interference to the operations of wireless providers. The proposals are intended to extend additional benefits to users of both Provider-Specific and Wideband Consumer Signal Boosters. Thus, the Commission proposes to expand the service bands on which all Consumer Signal Boosters may operate, develop consumer advisory requirements suitable for any embedded Consumer Signal Boosters (whether Provider-Specific or Wideband), and facilitate enterprise use of both Provider-Specific Consumer Signal Boosters and Wideband Consumer Signal Boosters.

          DATES:
          Interested parties may file comments on or before May 18, 2018, and reply comments on or before June 18, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 10-4, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS): http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
          • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Generally, 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. 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 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes 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 must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington DC 20554.

            People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           Amanda Huetinck at Amanda.huetinck@fcc.gov, of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, (202) 418-7090. For additional information concerning the PRA information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918 or send an email to PRA@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second Further Notice) in WT Docket No. 10-4, FCC 18-35, released on March 23, 2018. The complete text of the Second Further Notice, including all Appendices, is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A157, Washington, DC 20554, or by downloading the text from the Commission's website at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-18-35A1.pdf.

        Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or calling the Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
        I. Second Further Notice
        A. Additional Spectrum Bands
        1. In the Report and Order, adopted on February 20, 2013 (WT Docket No. 10-4) (Report and Order), the Commission authorized the use of Consumer Signal Boosters in the wireless radio service spectrum bands that were being used for the provision of commercial wireless services at the time: Cellular (824-849 MHz and 869-894 MHz), Broadband PCS (1850-1915 MHz and 1930-1995 MHz), AWS-1 (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz), 700 MHz Lower A through E (698-746 MHz) and Upper C (746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz) Blocks, and 800 MHz Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) (817-824 MHz and 862-869 MHz). Recognizing that “subscriber-based services may be offered in additional bands in the future,” the Commission also stated that, “[a]s consumer demand for signal boosters in these bands arises,” it would seek comment on “how best to expand our signal booster framework to accommodate such additional bands.”
        2. To ensure that Consumer Signal Boosters continue to meet the needs of American telecommunications users, no matter what type of mobile device they use or on what band(s) that device operates, the Commission seeks comment on whether and how the Commission can expand the number of spectrum bands for which Consumer Signal Boosters are authorized. The Commission specifically seeks comment on whether to permit the operation of Consumer Signal Boosters in certain additional wireless radio service spectrum bands and how its technical rules would need to be amended to accommodate the additional bands.

        3. In determining which, if any, new bands are appropriate for use with Consumer Signal Boosters, the Commission considers: (1) Whether the band is used to provide services to consumers or other non-licensee users such as public safety responders (assuming they are using commercial spectrum rather than spectrum specifically designated for public safety); (2) whether a meaningful number of the licensees in the band will consent to Consumer Signal Booster operation; (3) the impact of other technologies and operations both within the band and in adjacent bands and whether Consumer Signal Booster operation would harm other users within the band or in adjacent bands (and vice versa); and (4) whether the current technical rules for signal boosters must be adjusted to accommodate any such new service bands.
        4. With this criteria in mind, the Commission specifically seeks comment on whether it should authorize the operation of Consumer Signal Boosters in the 600 MHz (617-652 MHz and 663-698 MHz), WCS (2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz), and BRS/EBS (2495-2690 MHz) bands. Commenters should address how each consideration identified above weighs for or against including any of the proposed bands in its Consumer Signal Booster rules. Are there any other considerations that the Commission should take into account in determining whether new bands are appropriate for use with Consumer Signal Boosters? Are there other bands it should consider adding to its Consumer Signal Booster rules? To the extent that commenters support adding other bands to its Consumer Signal Booster rules, they should address the above listed considerations, and any others that commenters demonstrate are relevant, in relation to those specific band(s) as well.
        5. Further, are there costs associated with adding additional spectrum bands to the signal booster regime? What would be the benefits, quantifiable and otherwise, of permitting operation of Consumer Spectrum Boosters on additional bands? Are there any changes the Commission would need to make to its Consumer Signal Booster requirements and technical specifications to accommodate any additional bands that may be added to the rules? How can it balance the risk of releasing into the market Consumer Signal Boosters with the ability to operate on bands for which not all licensees have consented with the benefit to consumers of using the devices on the networks for which there is consent? Finally, the Commission also urges commenters to provide suggestions for other ways to expand the use of safe and reliable Consumer Signal Boosters.
        B. Embedded Consumer Signal Boosters
        6. Despite the success of the Consumer Signal Booster regulatory regime, it appears that businesses that wish to embed Consumer Signal Boosters within vehicles have been stymied by section 20.21(f)(1)'s requirement that advisories be placed on the outside packaging of the device and on a label affixed to the device. Because these Consumer Signal Boosters are embedded within a vehicle, and the consumer neither has access to nor sees the device or its packaging, these businesses, as a practical matter, are unable to comply with section 20.21(f)(1).

        7. In light of the evolving use of Consumer Signal Boosters and the Commission's desire to encourage technological innovation, the Commission proposes to amend section 20.21(f)(1) for embedded Consumer Signal Boosters to provide alternative advisory language to that now found in section 20.21(f)(1)(iv)(A)(1) as well as an alternative to providing the advisory on the device and its packaging, as required by section 20.21(f)(1)(iii)-(iv). The Commission seek to strike a balance between providing flexibility in the Consumer Signal Booster marketplace and retaining the protections offered by the labeling requirement.
        8. To achieve this goal, the Commission proposes that in lieu of placing the required advisory on the device and its packaging, vehicle manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of embedded Consumer Signal Boosters instead be required to provide an alternative advisory to consumers in any materials provided at vehicle delivery, as well as to consumers when they register their vehicle with the vehicle manufacturer. The Commission emphasizes that these manufacturers, distributors, and retailers would remain responsible for ensuring that the alternative advisory is provided in any on-line, point-of-sale marketing materials and in any print or on-line owner's manual, as required by section 20.21(f)(1)(i)-(ii).
        9. Under the proposal, the alternative advisory would provide all the same warnings to consumers, including that they must register the embedded signal booster with and receive the consent of the appropriate wireless provider(s), and it additionally would include instructions for the consumer on how to disable the device for the specific vehicle. To provide maximum flexibility to manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of vehicles with embedded signal boosters, the Commission proposes to permit them both to craft their own processes for their customers to disable the device and to insert a description of that process into the advisory but would expect that the chosen mode be one that the average consumer easily can undertake.
        10. The Commission seeks comment on the above approach and asks commenters to provide information on the costs of complying with such a requirement. Do the benefits of providing an alternative delivery method for the advisory language for embedded Consumer Signal Boosters justify the costs that would be involved? Is the alternative advisory language sufficient to provide adequate notice to consumers? Is the method of delivery—via materials at vehicle delivery and in response to consumer registration of their vehicle with the vehicle manufacturer—a sufficient means of ensuring that consumers receive the advisory? Is this approach the best way the Commission can reduce the burden on businesses that wish to embed signal boosters in vehicles while ensuring consumers receive all necessary information? Is there a better way that the Commission can achieve this goal? If so, what is that approach and why is it superior? Commenters should discuss the costs and benefits of any proposals.
        11. In addition, how can the Commission address the situation where a vehicle owner who has complied with all obligations associated with the embedded Consumer Signal Booster in his vehicle sells the vehicle to a third party in a private transaction? Would a new signal booster registration be required for this new user? How can the Commission ensure that the new owner will satisfy the requirements for signal booster operation? What would be the responsibilities of a manufacturer, distributor, and/or retailer that has complied with all of its associated obligations for the original sale in such a scenario? Are there any other rules that the Commission would need to revise to achieve its goal of balancing the limitations faced in connection with providing sufficient information about operation in connection with embedded signal boosters with ensuring that the owner of the vehicle meets all the applicable obligations? Are there other types of embedded uses that the Commission should consider? If so, what other considerations are there? Finally, are there any other considerations regarding embedded Consumer Signal Boosters for which the Commission has not accounted and should?

        12. The Commission also seeks comment on how to treat waivers of section 21.20(f)(1) that it has granted to several companies for this purpose (WT Docket No. 10-4) (Labeling Waivers) following any rule change it adopts based upon the record compiled in response to the Second Further Notice. The Commission recognizes that its proposed rules differ from the waiver conditions, and, if the rules are adopted, the manufacturers party to the Labeling Waivers would need to alter their practices as a result. The Commission seeks comment on how it should handle the transition from the requirements of the Labeling Waivers to those of the proposed rules. How can the Commission best balance the importance of timely compliance with the rule changes with the realities of their business? For example, should it require compliance by the production year following the rules' adoption so manufacturers are not forced to alter their manufacturing parameters mid-production?
        C. Enterprise Use
        13. The rules adopted in the Report and Order were designed specifically to benefit the general consumer, and they have worked well to that end. In the associated Second Report and Order, released March 23, 2018 (WT Docket No. 10-4) (Second Report and Order), the Commission provided flexibility for enterprise (i.e., any non-individual, such as a small business, public safety entity, school, hospital, or governmental organization) and individual subscribers of a wireless provider to operate a Provider-Specific Consumer Signal Booster for non-personal use on that provider's spectrum. In the Second Further Notice, the Commission considers whether and how to expand that flexibility to permit different types of enterprise entities to take advantage of the benefits of both Provider-Specific and Wideband Consumer Signal Boosters, while continuing to ensure that all signal boosters function safely on those networks and without causing harmful interference. Specifically, the Commission examines whether and how to enable enterprises (and individuals) to operate either type of Consumer Signal Booster—Provider-Specific or Wideband—on a provider's spectrum without subscribing to the provider's service. The Commission generally seeks comment on whether it should expand access to Consumer Signal Boosters in this way.
        14. The Commission observes that, to effect such a change and achieve the related public interest benefits, it would need to amend its Consumer Signal Booster rules both to: (1) Eliminate the personal use restriction on Wideband Consumer Signal Boosters, and (2) prescribe a method for non-subscribers to register a Consumer Signal Booster (whether Provider-Specific or Wideband) with and receive the consent of all relevant wireless providers.
        1. Wideband Consumer Signal Booster Personal Use Restriction
        15. The personal use restriction guards against unauthorized operation of a signal booster on a wireless provider's network, while also providing a streamlined consent and registration process for consumers. This risk of unauthorized operation is present for Wideband Consumer Signal Boosters because they can operate on spectrum licensed to multiple wireless providers. While the personal use restriction was devised to stem this risk while providing convenience to consumers, it also effectively prevents enterprise use of Wideband Consumer Signal Boosters, thereby denying a crucial tool for improving wireless service access to a range of entities—including businesses of all sizes, public safety entities (using commercial spectrum), educational institutions, and others.

        16. On December 21, 2016, Wilson Electronics, LLC, filed a Petition for Further Rulemaking asking the Commission to eliminate the personal use restriction on the operation of Wideband Consumer Signal Boosters and adopt a multi-provider registration requirement for Wideband Consumer Signal Boosters (WT Docket No. 10-4). On March 3, 2017, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau sought comment on the Wilson Petition (WT Docket No. 10-4) (Wilson Public Notice). Commenters responding to the Wilson Public Notice almost uniformly supported elimination of the personal use restriction for both types of boosters. They argued that Consumer Signal Boosters offer enterprises a cost-effective way to boost signal coverage for employees and customers, that expanding access to these devices will promote public safety, and that the NPS has negated any potential interference concerns.
        17. Based upon the success of the Consumer Signal Booster rules thus far and the record before it, the Commission proposes to eliminate the personal use restriction on Wideband Consumer Signal Boosters and requests comment on this proposal. What are the potential benefits of eliminating the personal use restriction on Wideband Consumer Signal Boosters? Are there quantifiable economic benefits associated with this proposal? Would removal of this restriction on Wideband Consumer Signal Boosters increase the likelihood of harmful interference to wireless providers' networks? Are there, as one commenter claims, different and possibly more extensive technical and performance issues? Are there other possible costs associated with the possible removal of the personal use restriction on Wideband Consumer Signal Boosters? How might any costs or adverse effects balance against any benefits resulting from this proposed rule change? The Commission requests that commenters provide as much documentation and detail as possible in their comments on this proposal so that it can fairly evaluate the issues.
        2. Subscriber Relationship
        18. Under the current rules, operators must be subscribers of the wireless provider on whose spectrum they use a Consumer Signal Booster and may register only with said provider. To use a Wideband Consumer Signal Booster for multiple providers under its current rules, a subscriber of each provider must register that same device with each respective provider.
        19. Accordingly, even if the Commission eliminates the personal use restriction for Wideband Consumer Signal Boosters as proposed, enterprise users still would be unable to operate a Wideband booster across multiple providers' spectrum unless they subscribed to each provider. The Commission therefore considers whether and how to permit non-subscribers to operate Provider-Specific or Wideband Consumer Signal Boosters and proposes a means for non-subscribers to register with and receive consent from providers to which they do not subscribe, while ensuring that providers maintain control over their networks.

        20. Section 301 of the Communications Act requires a valid FCC license to operate a radio frequency transmitting device, such as a signal booster. The Commission in the Report and Order noted that wireless providers must retain sufficient control over Consumer Signal Boosters to avoid violating Section 310(d) of the Act and thus authorized Consumer Signal Boosters under wireless providers' blanket licenses and required that signal booster operators be subscribers who must obtain the consent of their wireless provider and register their Consumer Signal Booster with that provider. By all accounts, this framework has worked as intended, and wireless providers have retained required control of their operations, with interference to wireless networks being almost nonexistent.

        21. The Commission proposes to extend this paradigm so that a non-subscriber may operate a Consumer Signal Booster under the provider's blanket license subject to an arrangement with the provider. This arrangement would serve as a substitute for the subscriber relationship while retaining the consent and registration components of its framework. Similar to a subscriber agreement, such an arrangement could include any appropriate rights, restrictions, and obligations the provider believes it must impose on the non-subscriber. In this way, wireless providers would continue to maintain control over their licensed spectrum in compliance with section 310(d) while enterprise users and individuals would have the flexibility to operate boosters across wireless networks, including taking advantage of any alternative approaches to facilitating the operation of Consumer Signal Boosters by non-subscribers.
        22. The Commission also proposes that non-subscriber registrants would have to agree to and accept certain terms established by the wireless provider on whose spectrum the Consumer Signal Booster would operate. The details of the arrangement between the wireless provider and a non-subscriber registrant generally would be left to the wireless providers to implement, but at minimum the Commission proposes that any such arrangement must require that the registrant:
        • Prior to operation, obtain the consent of the licensee for any network operating in the range of the signal booster;
        • Prior to operation, register the signal booster with the licensee for any network on which the booster will be operated;
        • Operate the Consumer Signal Booster only with approved antennas, cables, and/or coupling devices as specified by the manufacturer of the booster;
        • Operate the signal booster only on frequencies used for the provision of subscriber-based services, as specified in section 20.21(e)(3);
        • Because operation of Consumer Signal Boosters is on a secondary, non-interference basis to primary services licensed for the frequency bands on which they transmit, upon request of an FCC representative or a licensee experiencing harmful interference,
        ○ Cooperate in determining the source of the interference, and
        ○ If necessary, deactivate the signal booster immediately, or as soon as practicable, if immediate deactivation is not possible;
        • Use a signal booster that meets the Network Protection Standard in Section 20.21(e);
        • Use a signal booster that is appropriately labeled as required by Section 20.21(f); and
        • Not deactivate any features of the signal booster that are designed to prevent harmful interference to wireless networks. These features must be enabled and operating at all times that the signal booster is in use.
        23. The Commission seeks comment on these proposed terms. Are they adequate to achieve its goals? More specifically, is the requirement that operators receive consent of all providers “operating in the range of the signal booster” feasible? What costs would this requirement entail for the purchasers/operators of Consumer Signal Boosters? The Commission seeks comment on whether wireless providers may charge a registration fee to non-subscribers. Should it set up a system for registrants to determine which providers are in range of their signal booster? Should the providers themselves set up such a system? Should the Commission include any additional protections for consumers? How could these arrangements be enforced against a non-subscriber? Are there other ways in which the Commission can ease the registration and consent requirements for small businesses? If a commenter suggests alternative or additional terms, or a different approach to the establishment of an arrangement between a wireless provider and a non-subscriber Consumer Signal Booster registrant, its comments should explain the purpose and feasibility of such different or additional terms, and should also address how any arrangement meets the requirements of sections 301 and 310(d) of the Communications Act.
        24. As with the current subscriber framework, the Commission intends that this registration process (which also would include the establishment of the relationship between the wireless provider and the non-subscriber Consumer Signal Booster operator) would constitute the provider's consent to the non-subscriber registrant's operation of the signal booster. To be clear, the signal booster's operator would need to register with each and every provider on whose network the signal booster might operate. The registered operator would remain responsible for the signal booster as defined by the Commission's rules, while other users could utilize the signal booster without registering. If an individual chose to operate a booster for his personal use on his subscribing provider's network, however, the individual simply would follow the current framework and register only with that provider. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed framework. Does it achieve the goals of expanding access to Consumer Signal Boosters while adequately providing licensees with control over their networks? Is there a better way to achieve this goal?

        25. If the Commission allows individuals and enterprises to register with and seek consent from wireless providers other than those to which they subscribe, it observes it also must alter the required advisory language for Consumer Signal Boosters, specifically the statement that “BEFORE USE, you MUST REGISTER THIS DEVICE with your wireless provider and have your provider's consent. Most wireless providers consent to the use of signal boosters. Some providers may not consent to the use of this device on their network. If you are unsure, contact your provider.” The Commission proposes to alter this language to make clear to purchasers that any Consumer Signal Booster must be registered with one or more wireless providers and that it may not be used with any provider in the absence of their prior consent. The Commission also proposes to include language directing signal booster purchasers/operators to an FCC web page that will guide them to determine with which provider(s) they must register and from whom they must receive consent before initiating any operation of the signal booster. The Commission preliminarily anticipates that the FCC web page would include tools so that a Consumer Signal Booster purchaser/operator could determine whether it needed to register with only one, or with multiple providers and to assist the purchaser/operator in identifying which providers might be within range of the signal booster when operated. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Is it likely to promote compliance with its requirements for Consumer Signal Boosters or might it instead lead to purchasers, particularly individuals, ignoring the requirements? Is there a simpler way to include the required information in an advisory that accompanies the Consumer Signal Boosters? Is there a more efficient way for signal booster purchasers/operators to obtain this information?

        26. The Commission also considers what action it should take with respect to Mobile Consumer Signal Boosters if it moves forward with its overall proposal. While Mobile Consumer Signal Boosters generally are used by consumers for their personal use and only on their own provider's mobile network (e.g., in their personal car), other non-personal uses across multiple wireless providers' spectrum are possible as well. For example, commercial bus or train lines that travel across multiple markets may choose to deploy a mobile booster for their passengers' use. The Commission proposes that such enterprises would be required to register their Mobile Consumer Signal Boosters with all providers within range of the signal booster, even though the number of such wireless providers may well be larger than those for a fixed signal booster, as the bus or train would be moving through multiple markets. Would imposing this registration requirement for mobile signal boosters be burdensome on entities like bus and train lines, or would it simply be considered a requirement of doing business? Is there an alternative way to address the need for registration of mobile signal boosters that would maintain the integrity of its registration and consent requirement?
        27. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether either or both of its proposals above (to eliminate the personal use restriction for Wideband Consumer Signal Boosters and to allow non-subscribers to operate Consumer Signal Boosters on the networks of all wireless providers) require any additional rule changes. For example, would either proposal require any technical rule changes? Are enterprise users likely to place their Consumer Signal Boosters in locations that are more prone to causing interference, for example, outdoors or on top of tall buildings? Should the Commission consider placing restrictions on where Consumer Signal Boosters may be operated? Is there a technical reason to limit how many Consumer Signal Boosters one operator may deploy? Sprint, for example, points out that using multiple Consumer Signal Boosters to cover a large industrial, retail, or other facility is not ideal, “as the performance of the boosters is not optimized for such deployments.” Are there any other considerations?
        II. Procedural Matters
        A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
        28. The Second Further Notice contains proposed modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

        29. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) is in Appendix D of the Second Further Notice.

        B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

        30. As required by the RFA, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the rule revisions proposed in the Second Further Notice. The analysis is found in Appendix D of the Second Further Notice. The Commission requests written public comment on the analysis. Comments must be filed in accordance with the same deadlines as comments filed in response to the Second Further Notice, and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of the Second Further Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with the RFAs.
        C. Ex Parte Presentations

        31. This proceeding shall continue to be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
        32. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
        III. Ordering Clauses
        33. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7, 301, 302, and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157, 301, 302, and 303, that the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 10-4 is adopted.
        34. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before 30 days after publication in the Federal Register and reply comments on or before 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
        35. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20
          Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Katura Jackson,
          Federal Register Liaison. Office of the Secretary.

        Proposed Rules
        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 20 as follows:

          PART 20—COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

        1. The authority citation for Part 20 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:

           47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a) 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 610, 615, 615a, 615b, 615c, unless otherwise noted.

        2. Amend § 20.21 by revising paragraphs (a), (f), (g), and (h) to read as follows:

          § 20.21
          Signal boosters.
          (a) Operation of Consumer Signal Boosters.—(1) For personal use by a subscriber. A subscriber in good standing of a commercial mobile radio service system may operate a Consumer Signal Booster under the authorization held by the licensee providing service to the subscriber, provided that the subscriber complies with paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(vi) of this section. Failure to comply with all applicable rules in this section and all applicable technical rules for the frequency band(s) of operation voids the authority to operate the Consumer Signal Booster.
          (i) Prior to operation, the subscriber obtains the consent of the licensee providing service to the subscriber;
          (ii) Prior to operation, the subscriber registers the Consumer Signal Booster with the licensee providing service to the subscriber;
          (iii) The subscriber only operates the Consumer Signal Booster with approved antennas, cables, and/or coupling devices as specified by the manufacturer of the Consumer Signal Booster;
          (iv) The subscriber operates the Consumer Signal Booster on frequencies used for the provision of subscriber-based services as specified by paragraph (e)(3) of this section;
          (v) The Consumer Signal Booster complies with paragraphs (e), (f), (g), and (h) of this section and § 2.907 of this chapter; and
          (vi) The subscriber may not deactivate any features of the Consumer Signal Booster that are designed to prevent harmful interference to wireless networks. These features must be enabled and operating at all times the signal booster is in use.
          (2) For non-personal use. An individual or non-individual may operate a Consumer Signal Booster under the authorization held by the licensee(s) of the spectrum on which the Consumer Signal Booster operates, provided that the operator complies with paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(vi) of this section. Failure to comply with all applicable rules in this section and all applicable technical rules for the frequency band(s) of operation voids the authority to operate the Consumer Signal Booster.
          (i) Prior to operation, the operator obtains the consent of the licensee(s) of the spectrum on which the Consumer Signal Booster operates;
          (ii) Prior to operation, the operator registers the Consumer Signal Booster with the licensee(s) of the spectrum on which the Consumer Signal Booster operates;
          (iii) The operator only operates the Consumer Signal Booster with approved antennas, cables, and/or coupling devices as specified by the manufacturer of the Consumer Signal Booster;
          (iv) The operator operates the Consumer Signal Booster on frequencies used for the provision of subscriber-based services as specified by paragraph (e)(3) of this section;
          (v) The Consumer Signal Booster complies with paragraphs (e), (f), (g), and (h) of this section and § 2.907 of this chapter; and
          (vi) The operator may not deactivate any features of the Consumer Signal Booster that are designed to prevent harmful interference to wireless networks. These features must be enabled and operating at all times the signal booster is in use.

          (f) Signal Booster Labeling Requirements.

          (1) Consumer Signal Boosters.
          (i) Consumer Signal Booster manufacturers, distributors, and retailers must ensure that all signal boosters include the following advisory:
          This is a CONSUMER device.

          BEFORE USE, you MUST REGISTER THIS DEVICE with the appropriate wireless provider(s) and have that provider's consent. Most wireless providers consent to the use of signal boosters. Some providers may not consent to the use of this device on their network. Please visit www.fcc.gov/X to determine the provider(s) with which you must register and from which you must receive consent.
          You MUST operate this device with approved antennas and cables as specified by the manufacturer. Antennas MUST be installed at least 20 cm (8 inches) from any person.
          You MUST cease operating this device immediately if requested by the FCC or a licensed wireless service provider.
          WARNING. E911 location information may not be provided or may be inaccurate for calls served by using this device.
          (ii) The label for Consumer Signal Boosters certified for fixed indoor operation also must include the following language:
          This device may be operated ONLY in a fixed location for in-building use.
          (iii) These advisories must be included:
          (A) In on-line, point-of-sale marketing materials,
          (B) In any owner's manual and installation instructions (whether in print or on-line),
          (C) On the outside packaging of the device, and
          (D) On a label affixed to the device.
          (iv) In lieu of the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(i), and (f)(1)(iii)(C and (D) of this section, vehicle manufacturers, vehicle distributors, and vehicle retailers of vehicles with embedded Consumer Signal Boosters must use the following alternative advisory in any materials provided at vehicle delivery and when the consumer registers the vehicle with the vehicle manufacturer:
          This vehicle contains a CONSUMER SIGNAL BOOSTER device.

          BEFORE USE, you MUST REGISTER THIS SIGNAL BOOSTER DEVICE with the appropriate wireless provider(s) and have that provider's consent. Most wireless providers consent to the use of signal boosters. Some providers may not consent to the use of this device on their network. Please visit www.fcc.gov/X to determine with which provider(s) you must register and from which you must receive consent.

          If a wireless provider does not consent to the use of this device on its network, or if you are directed to cease operating the device by the FCC or a licensed wireless service provider, you MUST [manufacturer, distributor, and/or retailer insert instruction to consumer].
          WARNING. E911 location information may not be provided or may be inaccurate for calls served by using this device.
          (v) A Consumer Signal Booster label may contain an acknowledgement that particular provider(s) have given their consent for all consumers to use the device. Such an acknowledgement shall be inserted prior to, “Some providers may not consent to the use of this device on their network.” The remaining language of the advisory shall remain the same.
          (2) Industrial Signal Boosters. (i) Industrial Signal Booster manufacturers, distributors, and retailers must ensure that all signal boosters, include the following advisory:
          WARNING. This is NOT a CONSUMER device. It is designed for installation by FCC LICENSEES and QUALIFIED INSTALLERS. You MUST have an FCC LICENSE or express consent of an FCC Licensee to operate this device. Unauthorized use may result in significant forfeiture penalties, including penalties in excess of $100,000 for each continuing violation.
          (g) Marketing and Sale of Signal Boosters. Except as provided in § 2.803 of this chapter, no person, manufacturer, distributor, or retailer may market (as defined in § 2.803 of this chapter) any Consumer Signal Booster that does not comply with the requirements of this section to any person in the United States or to any person intending to operate the Consumer Signal Booster within the United States.
          (h) Registration. (1) Each licensee consenting to the operation of a Consumer Signal Booster must establish a free registration mechanism for subscribers and register all, including non-subscriber, Consumer Signal Boosters to which it consents. A licensee must establish a registration mechanism within 90 days of consenting to the operation of a Consumer Signal Booster. At a minimum, a licensee must collect:
          (i) The name of the Consumer Signal Booster owner and/or operator, if different individuals;
          (ii) The make, model, and serial number of the device;
          (iii) The location of the device; and
          (iv) The date of initial operation. Licensee consent is voluntary and may be withdrawn at the licensee's discretion.
          (2) In addition, for any non-subscriber registration, at a minimum, the registrant must:
          (i) Prior to operation, obtain the consent of the licensee for any network operating in the range of the signal booster;
          (ii) Prior to operation, register the signal booster with the licensee for any network on which the booster will be operated;
          (iii) Operate the Consumer Signal Booster only with approved antennas, cables, and/or coupling devices as specified by the manufacturer of the booster;
          (iv) Operate the signal booster only on frequencies used for the provision of subscriber-based services, as specified by paragraph (e)(3) of this section;
          (v) Because operation of Consumer Signal Boosters is on a secondary, non-interference basis to primary services licensed for the frequency bands on which they transmit, upon request of an FCC representative or a licensee experiencing harmful interference,
          (A) Cooperate in determining the source of the interference, and
          (B) If necessary, deactivate the signal booster immediately, or as soon as practicable, if immediate deactivation is not possible;
          (vi) Use a signal booster that meets the Network Protection Standard as required by paragraph (e) of this section;
          (vii) Use a signal booster that is appropriately labeled as required by paragraph (f) of this section; and
          (viii) Not deactivate any features of the signal booster that are designed to prevent harmful interference to wireless networks. These features must be enabled and operating at all times the signal booster is in use.

      [FR Doc. 2018-08030 Filed 4-17-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
        [Docket No. 160413329-6329-01]
        RIN 0648-XE571
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Taiwanese Humpback Dolphin as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act

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

          ACTION:
          90-day petition finding, request for information.

          SUMMARY:

          We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the Taiwanese humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis taiwanensis) range-wide as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition and information in our files present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Taiwanese humpback dolphin. We will conduct a status review of the species to determine if the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information pertaining to the species from any interested party.

          DATES:
          Information and comments on the subject action must be received by July 11, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments, information, or data on this document, identified by the code NOAA-NMFS-2016-0041, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0041. Click the “Comment Now” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Chelsey Young, NMFS Office of Protected Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may 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, address, etc.), 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).

          Copies of the petition and related materials are available on our Web site at http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/dolphins/indo-pacific-humpback-dolphin.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Chelsey Young, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8403.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        On March 9, 2016, we received a petition from the Animal Welfare Institute, Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians to list the Taiwanese humpback dolphin (S. chinensis taiwanensis) as threatened or endangered under the ESA throughout its range. This population of humpback dolphin was previously considered for ESA listing as the Eastern Taiwan Strait distinct population segment (DPS) of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis); however, we determined that the population was not eligible for listing as a DPS in our 12-month finding (79 FR 74954; December 16, 2014) because it did not meet all the necessary criteria under the DPS Policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). Specifically, we determined that while the Eastern Taiwan Strait population was “discrete,” the population did not qualify as “significant.” The petition asserts that new scientific and taxonomic information demonstrates that the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is actually a subspecies, and states that NMFS must reconsider the subspecies for ESA listing. Copies of the petition are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
        ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions and Evaluation Framework

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a “positive 90-day finding”), we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species concerned, during which we will conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the 12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day stage, a “may be warranted” finding does not prejudge the outcome of the status review.
        Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (jointly, “the Services”) policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment” for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether a species is threatened or endangered based on any of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
        ESA implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define “substantial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
        At the 90-day finding stage, we evaluate the petitioners' request based upon the information in the petition including its references and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioners' sources and characterizations of the information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports the petitioners' assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone negates a positive 90-day finding if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests an extinction risk of concern for the species at issue.

        To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species faces an extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1).
        Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.

        Many petitions identify risk classifications made by nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union on the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species' conservation status do “not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act” because NatureServe assessments “have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide” (http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/pdf/NatureServeStatusAssessmentsListing-Dec%202008.pdf). Additionally, species classifications under IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent; data standards, criteria used to evaluate species, and treatment of uncertainty are also not necessarily the same. Thus, when a petition cites such classifications, we will evaluate the source of information that the classification is based upon in light of the standards on extinction risk and impacts or threats discussed above.
        Species Description and Taxonomy
        The petitioned population of dolphin (Sousa chinensis taiwanensis) is thought to be a subspecies of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin, Sousa chinensis. The Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin is a broadly distributed species within the genus Sousa, family Delphinidae, and order Cetacea. It is easy to distinguish from other dolphin species in its range, as it is characterized by a robust body, long distinct beak, short dorsal fin atop a wide dorsal hump, and round-tipped broad flippers and flukes (Jefferson and Karczmarski, 2001). The Taiwanese population also has a short dorsal fin with a wide base. However, the base of the fin measures 5-10 percent of the body length, and slopes gradually into the surface of the body; this differs from individuals in the western portion of the range, which have a larger hump that comprises ca. 30 percent of body width and forms the base of an even smaller dorsal fin.

        In general, the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin is medium-sized, with lengths up to 2.8 m, and weighs approximately 250-280 kg (Ross et al., 1994). They form social groups of about 10 animals, but groups of up to 30 animals have been documented (Jefferson et al., 1993).
        The petition identifies the Taiwanese humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis taiwanensis) as eligible for listing under the ESA as a “subspecies” of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis). The taxonomy of the genus Sousa is unresolved and has historically been based on morphology, but genetic analyses have recently been used. Current taxonomic hypotheses identify Sousa chinensis as one of two (Jefferson et al., 2001), three (Rice, 1998), or four (Mendez et al., 2013) species within the genus. Each species is associated with a unique geographic range, though the species' defined ranges vary depending on how many species are recognized. Rice (1998) recognizes Sousa teuzii in the eastern Atlantic, Sousa plumbea in the western Indo-Pacific, and Sousa chinensis in the eastern Indo-Pacific. Mendez et al. (2013) recently identified an as-yet unnamed potential new species in waters off of northern Australia. Currently, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and International Whaling Commission (IWC) Scientific Committee recognize only two species, Sousa chinensis in the Indo-Pacific, and Sousa teuzii in the eastern Atlantic. Most recently, Wang et al. (2015) revised the taxonomy of Sousa chinensis and concluded that the Taiwanese humpback dolphin (S. chinensis taiwanensis) is a valid subspecies. Specifically, Wang et al. (2015) expanded upon a previous study (Wang et al., 2008) regarding the pigmentation differences between the Taiwanese humpback dolphin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin populations inhabiting the Jiulong River and Pearl River estuaries from Hong Kong and Fujian in China. In the 2008 study, Wang et al. showed that the pigmentation of the Taiwanese population is significantly different from that of other populations within the taxon (Wang et al., 2008); however, the study did not examine the degree of differentiation for purposes of determining whether subspecies recognition was warranted. Thus, to remedy this oversight, Wang et al. (2015) examined the taxonomy of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin by comparing spotting densities on the bodies and dorsal fins of these adjacent populations and performing a discriminant analysis. The study determined that the differentiation in pigmentation patterns revealed nearly non-overlapping distributions between the dolphins from Taiwanese waters and those from the Jiulong River and Pearl River estuaries of mainland China (i.e., the nearest known populations). The study stated that the Taiwanese dolphins were clearly diagnosable from those of mainland China under the most commonly accepted 75 percent rule for subspecies delimitation, with 94 percent of one group being separable from 99 percent of the other. Based on this information, as well as additional evidence of geographical isolation and behavioral differences, the authors concluded that the Taiwanese humpback dolphin qualifies as a subspecies, and revised the taxonomy of Sousa chinensis to include two subspecies: The Taiwanese humpback dolphin (S. chinensis taiwanensis) and the Chinese humpback dolphin (S. chinensis chinensis). As a result of this new information, the Taxonomy Committee of the Society for Marine Mammalogy officially revised its list of marine mammal taxonomy to include the Taiwanese humpback dolphin as a subspecies.

        While pigmentation of the Taiwanese population is significantly different from other populations within the taxon (Wang et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2015), whether the pattern is adaptive or has genetic underpinnings is still uncertain. In other cetacean species, differences in pigmentation have been hypothesized to relate to several adaptive responses, allowing individuals to hide from predators, communicate with conspecifics (promoting group cohesion), and disorient and corral prey (Caro et al., 2011). However, the differences in Taiwanese humpback dolphin pigmentation may be a result of a genetic bottleneck from the small size of this population (less than 100 individuals) and it's possible that the Taiwanese humpback dolphin represents a single social and/or family group. Such small populations are more heavily influenced by genetic drift than large populations (Frankham, 1996). However, Wang et al. (2015) concluded that the differences between the Taiwanese dolphins and their nearest neighbors are not clinal, but are diagnosably different; the characters examined are not those that may be environmentally induced, but instead are likely a reflection of genetic and developmental differences. Thus, based on the information presented in the petition, which provides evidence that the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is indeed a subspecies (i.e., a listable entity under the ESA), we will proceed with our evaluation of the information in the petition to determine whether S. chinensis taiwanensis (referred henceforth as the Taiwanese humpback dolphin) may be warranted for listing throughout all or a significant portion of its range under the ESA.
        Range, Distribution and Movement

        The Taiwanese humpback dolphin has an extremely small, restricted range, and is distributed throughout only 512 square km of coastal waters off western Taiwan, from estuarine waters of the Houlong and Jhonggang rivers in the north, to waters of Waishanding Jhou to the South (about 170 km linear distance), with the main concentration of the population between the Tongsaio River estuary and Taisi, which encompasses the estuaries of the Dadu and Jhushuei rivers, the two largest river systems in western Taiwan (Wang et al., 2007b). Overall, confirmed present habitat constitutes a narrow region along the coast, which is affected by high human population density and extensive industrial development (Ross et al., 2010). Rarely, individuals have been sighted and strandings have occurred in near-shore habitat to the north and south of its current confirmed habitat; some of these incidents are viewed as evidence that the historical range of the population extended farther than its current range (Dungan et al., 2011).

        The Taiwanese humpback dolphin is thought to be geographically isolated from mainland Chinese populations, with water depth being the primary factor dictating their separation. The Taiwan Strait is 140-200 km wide, and consists of large expanses of water 50-70 m deep (the Wuchi and Kuanyin depressions). Despite extensive surveys, Taiwanese humpback dolphins have never been observed in water deeper than 25-30 meters, and thus deep water is thought to be the specific barrier limiting exchange with Chinese mainland populations (Jefferson and Karczmarski, 2001). The species as a whole experiences limited mobility and its restriction to shallow, near-shore estuarine habitats is a significant barrier to movement (Karczmarski et al., 1997; Hung and Jefferson, 2004).
        Life History

        Little is known about the life history and reproduction of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin as a species, let alone the Taiwanese humpback dolphin as a subspecies. In some cases, comparison of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin with other populations may be appropriate, but one needs to be cautious about making these comparisons, as environmental factors such as food availability and habitat status may affect important rates of reproduction and generation time in different populations. A recent analysis of life history patterns for individuals in the Pearl River Estuary (PRE) population of mainland China may offer an appropriate proxy for understanding life history of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin population. Life history traits of the PRE population are similar to those of the South African population, suggesting that some general assumptions of productivity can be gathered, even on the genus-level (Jefferson and Karczmarski, 2001; Jefferson et al., 2012). Maximum longevity for the PRE and South African populations are 38 and 40 years, respectively; thus, it can be assumed that the Taiwanese humpback dolphin experiences a similar life expectancy. In general, it is assumed that the population experiences long calving intervals, between 3 and 5 years (Jefferson et al., 2012), with gestation lasting approximately 10-12 months. It has been suggested that weaning may take up to 2 years, and strong female-calf association may last 3-4 years (Karczmarski et al., 1997; Karczmarski, 1999). Peak calving activity most likely occurs in the warmer months, but exact peak calving time may vary geographically (Jefferson et al., 2012). Age at sexual maturity is late, estimated between 12 and 14 years.
        Analysis of Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS Files
        The petition contains information on the Taiwanese humpback dolphin, including its taxonomy, description, geographic distribution, habitat, population status and trends, and factors contributing to the species' decline. According to the petition, all five causal factors in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA are adversely affecting the continued existence of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors.

        In the following sections, we summarize and evaluate the information presented in the petition and in our files on the status of S. chinensis taiwanensis and the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors that may be affecting this species' risk of global extinction. Based on this evaluation, we determine whether a reasonable person would conclude that an endangered or threatened listing may be warranted for the species.
        Status and Population Trends

        There have been two formal estimates of abundance for the Taiwanese humpback dolphin. The first is based on surveys conducted between 2002 and 2004 using line transects to track and count animals, which resulted in an estimated population size of 99 individuals (coefficient of variation (CV) = 52 percent, 95 percent confidence interval = 37-266) (Wang et al., 2007a). However, the 2007 international workshop on the conservation and research needs of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin population suggested that the true number of individuals may actually be lower than this estimate (Wang et al., 2007b). A re-analysis of population abundance conducted on data collected between 2007 and 2010 used mark-recapture methods of photo identification, permitting higher-precision measurements. Yearly population estimates from this study ranged from 54 to 74 individuals (CV varied from 4 percent to 13 percent); these estimates were 25 percent to 45 percent lower than those from 2002-2004 (Wang et al., 2012). Jefferson (2000) estimated that mature individuals comprise 60 percent of the population. Based on this proportion, and the largest estimate of population size from the most recent study (74 individuals), the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is most likely comprised of less than 45 mature individuals.

        Given the extremely small and isolated nature of the population, even a small number of mortalities could potentially have significant negative population-level effects. For the Taiwanese humpback dolphin, Wang et al. (2012) measured survivorship for the population, which was used to determine a mortality rate of 1.5 percent (±0.022) (Wang et al., 2012; Araújo et al., 2014). Carrying capacity for the Taiwanese humpback dolphin has been estimated at 250 individuals (a conservative estimate, higher than the highest point estimate of abundance from Wang (Wang et al., 2012)), as extrapolated from the mean density estimate for the population (Araújo et al., 2014); this estimate suggests that the population abundance has been reduced from historical levels. Additionally, a recent population viability analysis (PVA) suggests that the population is declining due to the synergistic effects of habitat degradation and detrimental fishing interactions (Araújo et al., 2014). Araújo et al., (2014) modeled population trajectory over 100 years using demographic factors combined with different levels of mortality attributed to bycatch, and loss of carrying capacity due to habitat loss/degradation. The model predicted a high probability of ongoing population decline under all scenarios. Ultimately, strong evidence suggests that the population is small, and rates of decline are high, unsustainable, and potentially even underestimated. Further, it is clear that loss of only a single individual within the population per year would substantially reduce population growth rate (Dungan et al., 2011).
        Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors
        While the petition presents information on each of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors, we find that the information presented, including information within our files, regarding habitat destruction and overutilization of the species as a result of fisheries interactions is substantial enough to make a determination that a reasonable person would conclude that this species may warrant listing as endangered or threatened based on these two factors alone. As such, we focus our discussion below on the evidence of habitat destruction and overutilization of the species, and present our evaluation of the information regarding these factors and their impact on the extinction risk of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin. The remaining factors discussed in the petition will be thoroughly evaluated in a comprehensive status review of the species.
        Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range

        The Taiwanese humpback dolphin habitat best compares with that of populations located off the coast of mainland China. Taiwanese humpback dolphins are thought to be restricted to water <30 m deep, and most observed sightings have occurred in estuarine habitat with significant freshwater input (Wang et al., 2007a). The input of freshwater to S. chinensis taiwanensis habitat is thought to be important in sustaining estuarine productivity, and thus supporting the availability of prey for the dolphin (Jefferson, 2000). Across the Taiwanese humpback dolphin habitat, bottom substrate consists of soft sloping muddy sediment with elevated nutrient inputs primarily influenced by river deposition (Sheehy, 2010). These nutrient inputs support high primary production, which fuels upper trophic levels contributing to the dolphin's source of food.

        The petition states that the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is threatened by habitat destruction and modification and lists multiple causes, including reduction of freshwater outflows to estuaries, seabed reclamation, coastal development, and pollution (including chemical, biological, and noise pollution). Information in our files indicates that much of the preferred habitat of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin has been altered or may become altered. The near-shore marine and estuarine environment in Taiwan is intensively used by humans for fishing, sand extraction, land reclamation, transportation, and recreation, and is a recipient of massive quantities of effluent and runoff (Wang et al., 2007b). However, we do not have sufficient information to evaluate what effects many of the activities discussed in the petition (e.g., reduced freshwater flows, seabed reclamation) are having on the species' status. For example, while several of the rivers in western Taiwan have already been dammed or diverted for agricultural, municipal, or other purposes (Ross et al., 2010), there are no data or information in the petition or our files to indicate how reduced water flows to the estuaries are specifically impacting the Taiwanese humpback dolphins or their prey.

        In terms of pollution, we do have some information in our files indicating that these dolphins are exposed to toxic PCBs and are likely negatively affected through ingestion of contaminated prey. The Taiwanese humpback dolphin's exposure to land-based pollution and other threats is relatively high all along the central western coast of Taiwan, because these dolphins are thought to inhabit only a narrow strip of coastal habitat. Further, these dolphins have not been observed in waters deeper than 25-30 m and are typically sighted in waters 15 m deep and within 3 km from shore (Reeves et al., 2008). Given the restricted coastal range of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin and the extensive industrial and agricultural development in the region, food web contamination is likely, with sub-lethal and/or cumulative toxic effects having the potential to adversely impact small populations (Sheehy, 2010). By measuring PCB concentrations of known prey species, Riehl et al. (2011) constructed a bioaccumulation model to assess the risk PCBs may be posing to the Taiwanese humpback dolphins. Their results indicated that the Taiwanese humpback dolphins are at risk of immunotoxic effects of PCBs over their lifetime (Riehl et al., 2011). In addition, surveys of 97 Taiwanese humpback dolphins conducted from 2006 to 2010 showed that 73 percent had at least one type of skin lesion and that 49 percent of the surveyed dolphins were diseased (Yang et al., 2011). In another recent study documenting skin conditions of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin, 37 percent of individuals showed evidence of fungal disease, various lesions, ulcers, and nodules. The authors suggest that the high prevalence of compromised skin condition may be linked to high levels of environmental contamination (Yang et al., 2013). These data suggest the dolphins may have weakened immune systems and are consequently more susceptible to disease. Overall, evidence suggests that widespread habitat contamination may be leading to the bioaccumulation of toxins within Taiwanese humpback dolphin individuals; these toxins are known to compromise marine mammal reproduction and immune response, and may be negatively impacting the health and viability of the population.

        Overall, while we have insufficient information to evaluate some of the claims in the petition, we do have sufficient information to indicate that pollution is likely having a negative impact on the status of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin. Thus, we conclude that the information in the petition and in our files presents substantial information that the Taiwanese humpback dolphin may warrant listing as threatened or endangered because of threats to its habitat.
        Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

        Information from the petition and in our files suggests that the primary threat to the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is overutilization as a result of commercial fisheries interactions and bycatch-related mortality. Bycatch poses a significant threat to small cetaceans in general, where entanglement in fishing gear results in widespread injury and mortality (Read et al., 2006). The two fishing gear types most hazardous to small cetaceans are gillnets and trammel nets, thousands of which are set in coastal waters off western Taiwan (Dungan et al., 2011). Injury due to entanglement is evident in the Taiwanese humpback dolphin population, identified by characteristic markings on the body, including constrictive line wraps, and direct observation of gear wrapped around the dolphin (Ross et al., 2010; Slooten et al., 2013). In a study exploring the impact of fisheries on the Taiwanese humpback dolphin, 59.2 percent of injuries (lethal and non-lethal) observed were confirmed to have originated from fisheries interactions (Slooten et al., 2013). Even in non-lethal interactions, injuries sustained due to encounters with fishing gear may lead to mortality via immunosuppression, stress, and malnutrition, although these effects are not easily measured (Dungan et al., 2011). In total, one third of 32 photo-identified Taiwanese humpback dolphins had scars thought to have been caused by either collisions with ships or interactions with fishing gear (Wang et al., 2004). Further, while over 30 percent of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin population exhibits evidence of fisheries interactions, including wounds, scars, and entanglement (Wang et al., 2007b; Slooten et al., 2013), this measurement likely underestimates the full extent of the threat, and the prevalence of internal damage from ingestion of fishing gear cannot be determined using current survey methods (Slooten et al., 2013). There are also two unpublished reports of dead, stranded Taiwanese humpback dolphins suspected to have died as a result of a fisheries interaction (Ross et al., 2010). Thousands of vessels fish with gillnets and trammel nets in waters used by humpback dolphins along the west coast of Taiwan. In fact, as of 2009, a total of 6,318 motorized fishing vessels were operating inside the dolphins' habitat, corresponding to 32 vessels per km of coastline (Slooten et al., 2013). A recent progress report by Wang (2013) reports survey data from 2012 that documents individuals observed to have new injuries since last surveyed. Further, in an analysis of stranded individuals in the waters off Hong Kong, where coastal fishing activity is comparable to that off the west coast of Taiwan, the most commonly diagnosed causes of death were entanglement in fishing nets and vessel collision (Jefferson et al., 2006).

        In addition to direct mortality as a result of entanglement in fisheries gear, indirect effects of fishing activities may also be negatively impacting the Taiwanese humpback dolphin. Indirect effects of fishing include: Depletion of prey resources, pollution, noise disturbance, altered behavioral responses to prey aggregation in fishing gear, and potential changes to social structure arising from the deaths of individuals caused by fisheries activity. In fact, individual Taiwanese humpback dolphins have shown evidence of disturbance from all of these effects (Slooten et al., 2013), and injuries from fishing gear and boat collisions can compromise the health of individuals and their capacity to adjust to other stressors, or cause death (Dungan et al., 2011).

        While the petition provides insufficient evidence to quantify the impact of fishing activities on the population of Taiwanese humpback dolphin, the annual removal of even a few individuals from such a small population due to fisheries interactions can disproportionally reduce population viability and could eventually lead to the extinction of the subspecies (Ross et al., 2010; Dungan et al., 2011; Slooten et al., 2013). In fact, studies show that to ensure viability of the Taiwanese humpback dolphin population, mortality caused by fishing gear must be reduced to less than one individual every 7 years (Slooten et al., 2013). Therefore, based on the information presented in the petition and in our files, we conclude that overutilization may be a threat negatively impacting the Taiwanese humpback dolphin, such that it is cause for concern and warrants further investigation to see if the species warrants listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA.

        While the petition identifies numerous other threats to the species, including diseases, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and other natural or manmade factors (e.g., climate change and ocean acidification), we find that the petition and information in our files suggests that impacts from habitat destruction and overutilization, in and of themselves, may be threats impacting the Taiwanese humpback dolphin to such a degree that raises concern that this species may be in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Thus, when we consider the Taiwanese humpback dolphin across its restricted range, based on the available information in the petition and in our files, its status is likely in decline, it continues to face numerous impacts to its habitat as well as pressure from fisheries interactions, and it has significant biological vulnerabilities and demographic risks (i.e., extremely low productivity; declining abundance; small, isolated population). Therefore, we find that the information in the petition and in our files would lead a reasonable person to conclude that S. chinensis taiwanensis may warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
        Petition Finding

        After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well as information readily available in our files, and based on the above analysis, we conclude the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating the petitioned action of listing the Taiwanese humpback dolphin (S. chinensis taiwanensis) as a threatened or endangered species may be warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(3)), we will commence a status review of the species. During the status review, we will determine whether the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is in danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to become so (threatened) throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We now initiate this review, and thus, S. chinensis taiwanensis is considered to be a candidate species (69 FR 19975; April 15, 2004). Within 12 months of the receipt of the petition (March 9, 2017), we will make a finding as to whether listing the Taiwanese humpback dolphin as an endangered or threatened species is warranted as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. If listing is found to be warranted, we will publish a proposed rule and solicit public comments before developing and publishing a final rule.
        Information Solicited

        To ensure that the status review is based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information on whether the Taiwanese humpback dolphin is endangered or threatened. Specifically, we are soliciting information in the following areas: (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance of the species throughout its range; (2) historical and current population trends; (3) life history and habitat requirements; (4) population structure information, such as genetics analyses of the species; (5) past, current and future threats, including any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the species; (6) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and its habitat; and (7) management, regulatory, and enforcement information. We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.
        References Cited

        A complete list of references is available upon request to the Office of Protected Resources (see ADDRESSES).
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: May 4, 2016.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-11014 Filed 5-11-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P