        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
        [Docket No. 0911231415-0052-01]
        RIN 0648-XT12
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Notice of 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 83 Species of Corals as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

          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 83 species of corals as threatened or endangered under the ESA. We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted for 82 species; we find that the petition fails to present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for Oculina varicosa. Therefore, we initiate status reviews of 82 species of corals to determine if listing under the ESA is warranted. To ensure these status reviews are comprehensive, we solicit scientific and commercial information regarding these coral species.

          DATES:
          Information and comments must be submitted to NMFS by April 12, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments, information, or data, identified by the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN), 0648-XT12, by any of the following methods:

          Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

          Mail: Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814 (for species occurring in the Pacific Ocean); or Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701 (for species occurring in the Atlantic Ocean).
          Facsimile (fax): (907) 586-7012 (for species occurring in the Pacific Ocean); (727) 824-5309 (for species occurring in the Atlantic Ocean).

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Interested persons may obtain a copy of this coral petition from the above addresses or online from the NMFS HQ website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebrates/.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Lance Smith, NMFS Pacific Islands Region, (808) 944-2258; Jennifer Moore, NMFS Southeast Region, (727) 824-5312; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 713-1401.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        On October 20, 2009, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list 83 species of coral as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The petitioner also requested that critical habitat be designated for these corals concurrent with listing under the ESA. The petition asserts that synergistic threats of ocean warming, ocean acidification, and other impacts affect these species, stating that immediate action is needed to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations to levels that do not jeopardize these species. The petition also asserts that the species are being affected by dredging, coastal development, coastal point source pollution, agricultural and land use practices, disease, predation, reef fishing, aquarium trade, physical damage from boats and anchors, marine debris, and aquatic invasive species. The petition briefly summarizes the description, taxonomy, natural history, distribution, and status for each petitioned species, and discusses the status of each oceanic basin's coral reefs. It also describes current and future threats that the petitioners assert are affecting or will affect these species.
        The 83 species included in the petition are: Acanthastrea brevis, Acanthastrea hemprichii, Acanthastrea ishigakiensis, Acanthastrea regularis, Acropora aculeus, Acropora acuminate, Acropora aspera, Acropora dendrum, Acropora donei, Acropora globiceps, Acropora horrida, Acropora jacquelineae, Acropora listeri, Acropora lokani, Acropora microclados, Acropora palmerae, Acropora paniculata, Acropora pharaonis, Acropora polystoma, Acropora retusa, Acropora rudis, Acropora speciosa, Acropora striata, Acropora tenella, Acropora vaughani, Acropora verweyi, Agaricia lamarcki, Alveopora allingi, Alveopora fenestrate, Alveopora verrilliana, Anacropora puertogalerae, Anacropora spinosa, Astreopora cucullata, Barabattoia laddi, Caulastrea echinulata, Cyphastrea agassizi, Cyphastrea ocellina, Dendrogyra cylindrus, Dichocoenia stokesii, Euphyllia cristata, Euphyllia paraancora, Euphyllia paradivisa, Galaxea astreata, Heliopora coerulea, Isopora crateriformis, Isopora cuneata, Leptoseris incrustans, Leptoseris yabei, Millepora foveolata, Millepora tuberosa, Montastraea annularis, Montastraea faveolata, Montastraea franksi, Montipora angulata, Montipora australiensis, Montipora calcarea, Montipora caliculata, Montipora dilatata, Montipora flabellata, Montipora lobulata, Montipora patula, Mycetophyllia ferox, Oculina varicosa, Pachyseris rugosa, Pavona bipartite, Pavona cactus, Pavona decussate, Pavona diffluens, Pavona venosa, Pectinia alcicornis, Physogyra lichtensteini, Pocillopora danae, Pocillopora elegans, Porites horizontalata, Porites napopora, Porites nigrescens, Porites pukoensis, Psammocora stellata, Seriatopora aculeata, Turbinaria mesenterina, Turbinaria peltata, Turbinaria reniformis, and Turbinaria stellula. Eight of the petitioned species are in the Caribbean and belong to the following families: Agaricidae (1); Faviidae (3); Meandrinidae (2); Mussidae (1); Oculinidae (1). Seventy-five of the petitioned species are in the Indo-Pacific region, represented by five families (nine species) in Hawaii: Acroporidae (4); Agaricidae (1); Poritidae (1); Faviidae (2); Siderastreidae (1); and 11 families and one order in the rest of the Indo-Pacific region: Acroporidae (31); Agaricidae (7); Poritidae (6); Faviidae (2); Dendrophylliidae (4); Euphyllidae (4); Oculinidae (1); Pectiniidae (1); Mussidae (4); Pocilloporidae (3); Milleporidae (2); Order Helioporacea (1). All 83 species can be found in the United States, its territories (Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Navassa, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Pacific Remote Island Areas), or its freely associated states (Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Republic of Palau), though many occur more frequently in other countries.

        The petition states that all of these species are classified as vulnerable (76 species), endangered (six species: Acropora rudis, Anacropora spinosa, Montipora dilatata, Montastraea annularis, M. faveolata, Millepora tuberosa), or critically endangered (one species: Porites pukoensis) by the World Conservation Union (IUCN). Montipora dilatata and Oculina varicosa are also on our Species of Concern list.
        ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy Considerations

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (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 (Secretary) make a finding on whether that petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). Joint ESA-implementing regulations issued by NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define “substantial information” in this context as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted.

        In making a finding on a petition to list a species, the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (i) clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved; (ii) 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; (iii) provides information regarding the status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range; and (iv) is accompanied by the 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)). To the maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days of the date the petition was received, and the finding is to be published promptly in the Federal Register. When it is found that substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted is presented in the petition, 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, within 1 year of receipt of the petition, we shall conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted. 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, a distinct population segment which interbreeds when mature (DPS) (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Because corals are invertebrate species, we are limited to assessing the status of species or subspecies of corals. A species or subspecies 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)).
        Biology of Coral Species

        Stony corals (Class Anthozoa, Order Scleractinia) are marine invertebrates that secrete a calcium carbonate skeleton. Stony corals can be hermatypic (significant contributors to the reef-building process) or ahermatypic, and may or may not contain endosymbiotic algae (zooxanthellae) (Schumacher and Zibrowius, 1985). The largest colonial members of the Scleractinia help produce the carbonate structures known as coral reefs in shallow tropical and subtropical seas around the world. The rapid calcification rates of these organisms have been linked to the mutualistic association with single-celled dinoflagellate algae, zooxanthellae, found in the coral tissues (Goreau et al., 1979). Massive and branching stony corals are the major framework builders of shallow tropical reefs. Some stony corals occur in deep water and are azooxanthellate, but typically do not form extensive reefs, with few exceptions (e.g., Oculina varicosa; Reed, 1981). Corals provide substrate for colonization by benthic organisms, construct complex protective habitats for myriad other species, including commercially important invertebrates and fishes, and serve as food resources for a variety of animals.
        Analysis of Petition
        Of the 83 petitioned species, eight species occur in the U.S. waters of the Caribbean, and 75 occur in the U.S. waters of the Indo-Pacific. The petition includes species accounts (i.e., description of the species' morphology, life history, habitat, distribution, and loss estimates over 30 years (20 years into the past and 10 years into the future)) of each of the 83 species, threats facing each species, and descriptions of the status of coral reef ecosystems of the wider Caribbean and Indo-Pacific areas. The petition asserts that all of the petitioned species have suffered population reductions of at least 30 percent over a 30-year period, relying on information from the IUCN.
        The majority of coral species included in this petition belongs to either the wider Caribbean or Indo-Pacific areas and occur in similar habitats and face the same threats. Eight of the petitioned species occur in the Caribbean, and 75 in the Indo-Pacific.

        The Caribbean, according to the petitioner, has the largest proportion of corals classified as being in one of the high extinction risk categories by the IUCN. The petitioner asserts that the region suffered massive losses of corals in response to climate-related events of 2005, including a record-breaking series of 26 tropical storms and elevated ocean water temperatures. Further, the petitioner asserts that the U.S. Virgin Islands lost 51.5 percent of live coral cover, and that Florida, Puerto Rico, the Cayman Islands, St. Maarten, Saba, St. Eustatius, Guadeloupe, Martinique, St. Barthelemy, Barbados, Jamaica, and Cuba suffered bleaching of over 50 percent of coral colonies, citing Carpenter et al. (2008). The petitioner cites Gardner et al. (2003) in asserting that, over the three decades prior to the 2005 events, Caribbean reefs had already suffered an 80 percent decline in hard coral cover, from an average of 50 percent to an average of 10 percent throughout the region.

        The abundance and trend information presented by the petitioner for each species is limited to an estimate of the percentage loss of its habitat and/or population over a 30-year period (including 20 years into the past and 10 years into the future), as assessed by the IUCN. However, the petition also asserts that these corals face significant threats. To support this assertion, the petitioner cites Alvarez-Filip et al. (2009) in noting the dramatic decline of the three-dimensional complexity of Caribbean reefs over the past 40 years, resulting in a phase shift from a coral-dominated ecosystem to fleshy macroalgal overgrowth in reef systems across the Caribbean. The petitioner notes that, in our 2008 critical habitat designation for elkhorn (Acropora palmata) and staghorn (A. cervicornis) corals, we identified chronic overfishing of herbivorous species and the die-off of 95 percent of the regions' long-spined sea urchins (Diadema antillarum) in the early 1980s as primary factors in this ecological shift (73 FR 72210; November 26, 2008). The petitioner cites the same source in concluding that, in the absence of grazing pressure from herbivorous fish and urchins, fast-growing algae, macroalgae, and other epibenthic organisms easily out-compete coral larvae by preempting available space, producing toxic metabolites that inhibit larval settlement, and trapping excess sediment in algal turfs. The petitioner cites Gledhill et al. (2008) in asserting that ocean acidification led to a decrease in mean sea surface aragonite saturation state in the Greater Caribbean Region between 1996 and 2006. The petitioner states that Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2007) found marked reductions in resilience accompanied by increased grazing requirements to facilitate reef recovery after modeling the impacts of a 20 percent decline in coral growth rate in response to ocean acidification on a Caribbean forereef.

        Seventy-five percent of the world's coral reefs can be found in the Indo-Pacific, which stretches from the Indonesian island of Sumatra in the west to French Polynesia in the east (Bruno and Selig (2007), as cited by the petitioner). As recently as 1,000 to 100 years ago, this region averaged about 50 percent coral cover, but 20-50 percent of that total has been lost, according to the petitioner. The petitioner cites Bruno and Selig (2007), stating that regional total coral cover averaged 42.5 percent during the early 1980s, 36.1 percent in 1995, and 22.1 percent in 2003. The petitioner asserts, citing Bruno and Selig (2007), that this reduced coral cover was relatively consistent across 10 subregions of the Indo-Pacific in 2002-2003. Although these corals have recovered in the past (Colgan, 1987, as cited by the petitioner), anthropogenic stressors are increasing the frequency and intensity of mortality events and interfering with the natural ability of coral communities to recover (McClanahan et al., 2004; Pandolfi et al., 2003, as cited by the petitioner). The future of Indian Ocean reefs is a particular concern to the petitioner because over 90 percent of corals on many shallow water reefs died in 1998 in response to elevated sea surface temperatures, and average temperatures in the Indian Ocean are expected to rise above 1998 levels within a few decades (Sheppard, 2003, as cited by the petitioner). As elevated sea surface temperatures and associated climate-induced mass mortality events occur more frequently, it becomes less likely that there will be enough time between events for Indian Ocean reefs to recover (Sheppard, 2003, as cited by the petitioner).
        The ESA requires us to determine whether species are threatened or endangered because of any of the following section 4(a)(1) factors: the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). The petition describes factors which it asserts have led to the current status of these corals, as well as threats which it asserts the species currently face, categorizing them under the section 4(a)(1) factors. The petition focuses on habitat threats, asserting that the habitat of the petitioned coral species, and indeed all reef-building coral species, is under threat from several processes linked to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, including increasing seawater temperatures, increasing ocean acidification, increasing storm intensities, changes in precipitation, and sea-level rise. The petition also asserts that these global habitat threats are exacerbated by local habitat threats posed by ship traffic, dredging, coastal development, pollution, and agricultural and land use practices that increase sedimentation and nutrient-loading. The petition asserts that this combination of habitat threats has already impacted coral reef ecosystems on a global scale, and that these threats are currently accelerating in severity such that the quantity and quality of coral reef ecosystems are likely to be greatly reduced in the next few decades.
        Petition Finding
        We have reviewed the petition, the literature cited in the petition, and other literature and information available in our files. Based on that literature and information, we find that the petition meets the aforementioned requirements of the ESA regulations under 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2) for most of the species which are the subject of the petition. Specifically, we determine that the petition presents substantial information indicating that the requested listing actions may be warranted for 82 of the 83 subject species. As required by 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2), for the 82 species, the petition:
        (1) clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended (listing as threatened or endangered) and gives the scientific and any common names 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 the appropriate supporting documentation for 82 of the 83 species in the form of bibliographic references and maps.
        Further, it is reasonable to conclude, after reviewing the information presented in this petition, that these species may be threatened or endangered. A population decline of at least 30 percent throughout the Caribbean and Indo-Pacific regions, combined with large-scale threats of increased abundance of macroalgae (which compete for available space, produce toxins that inhibit larval settlement, and trap excess sediment), ocean acidification, decreased resilience of corals, and elevated sea surface temperatures (which cause mass mortalities of corals), could cause coral populations to collapse and make it difficult for them to recover.

        However, we have determined that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information that the petitioned action may be warranted as to Oculina varicosa. The petition cited only three references in the section addressing O. varicosa. The petition relied on the Species Account from the IUCN Redlist of Threatened Species for information on the population status and threats regarding this species. Read as a whole, however, the IUCN Species Account presents conflicting information and does not ultimately support the petition, as is discussed further below. The other two references included a general corals text describing morphology and habitat and a NMFS' Species of Concern fact sheet for O. varicosa, dated November 2007, which is also discussed further below.

        The IUCN Species Account presents conflicting information on the threats affecting O. varicosa and ultimately does not support the petition. The Species Account states that deep-water populations off the coast of Florida to North Carolina (Oculina Banks) have undergone declines exceeding 50 percent since the 1970s due to destructive fishing practices, but also recognizes that there is no evidence of extensive declines beyond those areas or throughout the species' entire range, which includes shallow-water populations and deeper populations in the Gulf of Mexico in addition to the populations where declines have been observed (Aronson et al., 2008). The IUCN Species Account also states that the species is “relatively common” throughout its range, but also states that there is “no species specific population information available” (Aronson et al., 2008). Also, while many of the IUCN Species Accounts for species of corals that are found in other shallow tropical waters infer population information from habitat decline (a practice that is reasonable for species that actually occur within the declining habitat), the O. varicosa Species Account attempts to draw inappropriate inferences on this point. In particular, the Species Account infers that the shallow-water populations of O. varicosa have undergone population declines as a result of the threats that are affecting those other shallow-water coral reefs, even though the species does not occur in the same habitats as those other shallow-water tropical coral species. Similarly, while the IUCN Species Account states clearly that O. varicosa is not affected by disease and bleaching, it also appears to rely on the fact that the main threat to reefs is global climate change (in particular, temperature extremes leading to bleaching and increased susceptibility to disease). However, the only threat identified in the Species Account to actually affect O. varicosa is destructive fishing practices. NMFS identified O. varicosa as a Species of Concern in 1991 based on the documented declines of the species in the deep-water Oculina Banks, off the Southeast United States (NMFS, 2007). A Species of Concern is defined as “species about which [NMFS] has some concerns regarding status and threats, but for which insufficient information is available to indicate a need to list the species under the ESA” (71 FR 61022; October 17, 2006). We maintain a fact sheet on our website for each Species of Concern, and these sheets are updated periodically. The O. varicosa fact sheet was updated, most recently on November 1, 2007 (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/ivorytreecoral_detailed.pdf).
        The petition presents no new information to indicate that O. varicosa meets the definition of endangered or threatened or that better information has become available since we last updated the fact sheet. While we acknowledge that the largest known population of O. varicosa, in the Oculina Banks, has undergone extensive decline compared to 1970's levels (as the IUCN Species Account notes), we also note that this area has been protected as the Oculina Habitat Area of Particular Concern since 1984, prohibiting trawling, dredging, bottom longlines, and anchoring (NMFS, 2007). These are the only documented threats to O. varicosa; there are no known threats to the shallow-water populations. Id. While destructive fishing practices have resulted in a 50% decline in the deep-water populations, this threat has not been shown to affect the shallow-water populations throughout the species' range. Therefore, it is inappropriate to extrapolate the decline in the deep-water populations to a 30% decline throughout the species' range.

        Viewing all the information cited by the petitioner in its entirety, we conclude that the petition fails to present substantial scientific or commercial information to suggest that the petitioned action may be warranted for O. varicosa. In particular, we note the species' wide distribution, the lack of rangewide declines, and the existing protections for the deep-water populations, alleviating our concerns stemming from the declines that occurred following the 1970s.
        Information Solicited
        Information on Status of the Species

        As a result of this finding, we are commencing status reviews on all of the petitioned species (except O. varicosa) to determine whether listing any of these coral species under the ESA is in fact warranted. We intend that any final action resulting from these reviews be as accurate and as effective as possible, and consider the best available scientific and commercial information. Therefore, we open a 60-day public comment period to solicit information from the public, government agencies, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties on the status of these 82 coral species throughout their range, including:
        (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance of these species throughout their ranges (U.S. and foreign waters);
        (2) historic and current condition of these species and their habitat;
        (3) population density and trends;
        (4) the effects of climate change on the distribution and condition of these coral species and other organisms in coral reef ecosystems over the short- and long-term;
        (5) the effects of other threats including dredging, coastal development, coastal point source pollution, agricultural and land use practices, disease, predation, reef fishing, aquarium trade, physical damage from boats and anchors, marine debris, and aquatic invasive species on the distribution and abundance of these coral species over the short- and long-term; and
        (6) management programs for conservation of these coral species, including mitigation measures related to any of the threats listed under (5) above.
        We will base our findings on a review of the best scientific and commercial information available, including all information received during the public comment period.
        Information Regarding Protective Efforts
        Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary to make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of a species and after taking into account efforts being made to protect the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)). Therefore, in making its listing determinations, we first assess the status of the species and identify factors that have led to its current status. We then assess conservation measures to determine whether they ameliorate a species' extinction risk (50 CFR 424.11(f)). In judging the efficacy of conservation efforts, we consider the following: the substantive, protective, and conservation elements of such efforts; the degree of certainty that such efforts will reliably be implemented; the degree of certainty that such efforts will be effective in furthering the conservation of the species; and the presence of monitoring provisions to determine effectiveness of recovery efforts and that permit adaptive management (Policy on the Evaluation of Conservation Efforts; 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003). In some cases, conservation efforts may be relatively new or may not have had sufficient time to demonstrate their biological benefit. In such cases, provision of adequate monitoring and funding for conservation efforts is essential to ensure that the intended conservation benefits will be realized. We encourage all parties to submit information on ongoing efforts to protect and conserve any of these 82 coral species, as well as information on recently implemented or planned activities and their likely impact(s).
        Information Regarding Potential Critical Habitat
        Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5) of the ESA as: (1) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)). Once critical habitat is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to ensure that they do not fund, authorize or carry out any actions that are likely to destroy or adversely modify that habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). This requirement is in addition to the section 7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species.
        Section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) of the ESA requires that, to the extent prudent and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a species(16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)(i)). Designations of critical habitat must be based on the best scientific data available and must take into consideration the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)). In advance of any determination to propose listing any of the petitioned coral species as threatened or endangered under the ESA, we solicit information that would assist us in developing a critical habitat proposal.

        Joint NMFS/FWS regulations for listing endangered and threatened species and designating critical habitat (50 CFR 424.12(b)) state that the agency “shall consider those physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of a given species and that may require special management considerations or protection.” Pursuant to the regulations, such requirements include, but are not limited to the following: (1) space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species. Id.

        Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the Secretary to consider the “economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant impact” of designating a particular area as critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)). Section 4(b)(2) further authorizes the Secretary to exclude any area from a critical habitat designation if the Secretary finds that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless excluding that area will result in extinction of the species. Id. We seek information regarding the benefits of designating specific areas geographically throughout the range of these coral species as critical habitat. We also seek information on the economic impact of designating particular areas as part of the critical habitat designation. In keeping with the guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (2000, 2003), we seek information that would allow the monetization of these effects to the extent possible, as well as information on qualitative impacts to economic values. We also seek information on impacts to national security and any other relevant impacts of designating critical habitat in these areas.
        In accordance with our regulations (50 CFR 424.13) we will consult, as appropriate, with affected states, interested persons and organizations, other affected Federal agencies, and, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, with the country or countries in which the species concerned are normally found or whose citizens harvest such species from the high seas. Data reviewed may include, but are not limited to, scientific or commercial publications, administrative reports, maps or other graphic materials, information received from experts, and comments from interested parties.
        Peer Review
        On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with the FWS, published a series of policies regarding listings under the ESA, including a policy for peer review of scientific data (59 FR 34270). The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure listings are based on the best scientific and commercial data available. The Office of Management and Budget issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review on December 16, 2004. The Bulletin went into effect June 16, 2005, and generally requires that all “influential scientific information” and “highly influential scientific information” disseminated on or after that date be peer reviewed. Because the information used to evaluate this petition may be considered “influential scientific information,” we solicit the names of recognized experts in the field that could take part in the peer review process for this status review (see ADDRESSES). Independent peer reviewers will be selected from the academic and scientific community, tribal and other Native American groups, Federal and state agencies, the private sector, and public interest groups.

          Authority:

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

          Dated: February 4, 2010.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2010-2939 Filed 2-9-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 030314060-3060-01; I.D. 021003E]
        RIN  0648-AQ57
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 3

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement measures contained in Framework Adjustment 3 (Framework 3) to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP).  This action would extend the limited entry program for the Illex squid fishery for an additional year.  This action is intended to further the objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on April 10, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of Framework 3, including the Environmental Assessment (EA),  Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) are available upon request from Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE  19904-6790.  The EA/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/doc/com.htm.
          Comments on Framework 3 should be sent to:   Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Regional Office, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA  01930-2298.  Please mark the envelope, “Comments-SMB Framework Adjustment 3.”  Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 978-281-9135.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul H. Jones, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9273, fax 978-281-9135, e-mail Paul.H.Jones@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        In 1997, Amendment 5 to the FMP established a limited entry program for the Illex squid fishery in response to a concern that fishing capacity could otherwise expand to overexploit the stock.  At the time the program was established, there was a concern that the capacity of the limited entry vessels might prove, over time, to be insufficient to fully exploit the annual quota.  In response to this concern, a 5-year sunset provision was placed on the Illex squid limited entry program.  Framework 2 to the FMP extended the Illex squid moratorium for 1 year, and it is currently scheduled to end on July 1, 2003.  Since the implementation of the limited entry program, the Illex squid fishery's performance has demonstrated that the current fleet possesses the capacity to harvest the long-term potential yield from this fishery.  The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) must prepare an amendment to the FMP (Amendment 9) to evaluate whether or not the limited entry program should be made permanent.  This action would extend the Illex squid moratorium through July 1, 2004, to prevent overcapitalization while Amendment 9 is being prepared and considered by the Council.  This extension would comply with the criteria in section 303(b)(6) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  The extension would allow the Council additional time to consider long-term management for the Illex squid fishery, including the limited entry program.  Vessels that took small quantities of Illex squid in the past may continue to do so under the incidental catch provision of the FMP.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

        The Council prepared an IRFA that describes the economic impacts this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.  A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble.  This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.  There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action.  There are 73 vessels that have been issued moratorium permits, all of which would be impacted by this action.   Since per vessel costs are not available for vessels participating in the Illex moratorium fishery, individual vessel profitability could not be estimated.  Therefore, changes in gross revenue of the aggregate fleet is used as a proxy for changes in individual vessel profitability.  Furthermore, assumptions are made that revenue losses and gains are shared equally among these vessels.  NMFS' guidelines suggest consideration of disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities that may result from the proposed regulatory action.  Because there are no large entities (vessels) participating in this fishery, small vessels will not be placed at a competitive disadvantage to large vessels, thus rendering the issue of disproportionate impacts between these two classes moot.   A copy of the complete analysis can be obtained from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (see ADDRESSES) or via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/doc/com.htm.  A summary of the analysis follows.

        In addition to the preferred alternative 1, the Council considered three  non-preferred  alternatives.  Alternative 2 would extend the moratorium on entry to the Illex fishery for an additional 2 years (through July 1, 2005); Alternative 3 would extend the moratorium on entry to the Illex fishery for an additional 3 years (through July 1, 2006); and Alternative 4 would allow the moratorium on entry to the Illex fishery to expire on July 1, 2003 (no action).

        The preferred alternative and alternatives 2 and 3 would extend the moratorium on entry of new vessels into the Illex fishery; therefore, no impact is expected on vessels in the fishery in 2003 (and the first half of 2004), compared to individual vessel revenues in 2002.  The Council assumed that the market and prices would remain stable.  Therefore, any changes in individual vessel revenues would be the result of factors outside the scope of the moratorium (e.g., change in fishing practices for individual vessels, or changes in abundance and distribution of Illex squid).
        Under alternative 4, the no-action alternative,  the Illex fishery would revert to open access.  This would result in an increase in fishing effort in the Illex fishery.  New vessels entering the fishery would limit per vessel share of the Illex squid quota and reduce revenues for the present participants.  Computing the total  revenue losses for the existing moratorium vessels is impossible due to the unpredictability of redirection of effort into the Illex squid fishery.  Therefore, the Council developed a sensitivity analysis to determine the impact of the entry of additional vessels into the fishery on revenues earned by individual vessels already engaged in the fishery.  The sensitivity analysis examined three scenarios that presumed revenues derived from landings of Illex squid would be reduced by 75, 50, and 25 percent.  The analysis was based on 1998 data because in 1998 the Illex quota was completely harvested.  Therefore, those data would allow the greatest impact to be assessed.
        Under scenario 1, the review of revenue impacts examined the landings of vessels that landed at least one pound in 1998 and presumed that revenues derived from landing Illex for these vessels would be reduced by 75 percent.  The 109 impacted vessels were projected to be impacted by revenue losses that ranged from less than 5 percent for 79 vessels, to a maximum of 40-49 percent for 2 vessels.  There were no impacted vessels home-ported in Maryland, New Hampshire, or Virginia; a high of 15 vessels had home ports in New Jersey.  Other impacted vessels were home ported in Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, New York, and North Carolina.  Presumably, other vessels entering the fishery would experience gains in revenues.
        Under scenario 2, the review of revenue impacts presumed that vessel revenues derived from landing Illex would be reduced by 50 percent.  The 109 impacted vessels were projected to be impacted by revenue losses that ranged from less than 5 percent for 84 vessels, to a maximum of 30-39 percent for one vessel.  There were no impacted vessels home-ported in Maryland, New Hampshire, or Virginia; a high of 11 vessels had home ports in New Jersey.  Others were in Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, and North Carolina.  Presumably, other vessels entering the fishery would experience gains in revenues.
        Under scenario 3, the review of revenue impacts presumed that vessel revenues derived from landing Illex would be reduced by 25 percent.   The 109 impacted vessels were projected to be impacted by revenue losses that ranged from less than 5 percent, for 88 vessels, to a maximum of 10-19 percent for 8 vessels.  The number of impacted vessels by home state ranged from none in Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia, to a high of 11 in New Jersey.  Other impacted vessels were home ported in Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, and North Carolina.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated:  March 20, 2003.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

            PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

          1.  The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          2.  In § 648.4, the heading of paragraph (a)(5)(i) is revised to read as follows:

            § 648.4
            Vessel permits.
            (a) * * *
            (5) * * *
            (i) Loligo squid/butterfish and Illex squid moratorium permits (Illex squid moratorium is applicable from July 1, 1997, until July 1, 2004). * * *

      [FR Doc. 03-7252 Filed 3-25-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 110210132-1133-01]
        RIN 0648-BA65
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quotas and Atlantic Tuna Fisheries Management Measures; Correction

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          On March 14, 2011, NMFS published a proposed rule to modify Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) base quotas for all domestic fishing categories; establish BFT quota specifications for the 2011 fishing year; reinstate pelagic longline target catch requirements for retaining BFT in the Northeast Distant Gear Restricted Area (NED); amend the Atlantic tunas possession at sea and landing regulations to allow removal of Atlantic tunas tail lobes; and clarify the transfer at sea regulations for Atlantic tunas. This action is necessary to implement recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). In the proposed rule, NMFS announced the end of the comment period as April 14, 2011, which would allow an approximately 30-day comment period. In order to provide additional opportunities for the public and other interested parties to comment on the proposed rule, NMFS is extending the comment period for this action until April 28, 2011, allowing a 45-day comment period. Comments received by NMFS on the proposed rule will help NMFS determine whether and how to implement final management measures for the BFT and Atlantic tuna fisheries as described in the proposed action. In addition, NMFS has rescheduled the public hearing that was originally scheduled for March 21, 2011, 3 to 5 p.m., in Gloucester, MA. NMFS has rescheduled the public hearing to be held on April 1, 2011, 1 to 3 p.m. at the same location.

          DATES:

          The deadline for comments on the proposed rule regarding BFT quotas and Atlantic tuna fishery management measures has been extended from April 14, 2011, as published on March 14, 2011 (76 FR 13583), to April 28, 2011. The public hearing that was originally scheduled for March 21, 2011, in Gloucester, MA, has been rescheduled for April 1, 2011. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details.

          ADDRESSES:
          As published on March 14, 2011 (76 FR 13583), you may submit comments, identified by “0648-BA65”, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov

          • Fax: 978-281-9340, Attn: Sarah McLaughlin
          • Mail: Sarah McLaughlin, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1), NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930
          • Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. To be considered, electronic comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit electronic comments to individual NMFS staff.

          Supporting documents, including the draft Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, are available by sending your request to Sarah McLaughlin at the mailing address specified above. These documents and others, such as the Fishery Management Plans described below, also may be downloaded from the HMS Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/.

          The location of the rescheduled public hearing in Gloucester, MA, remains as follows: NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 978-281-9260.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Atlantic bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna, albacore tuna, yellowfin tuna, and skipjack tuna (hereafter referred to as “Atlantic tunas”) are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate, to implement ICCAT recommendations. The authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA).
        In the proposed rule, NMFS announced the end of the comment period as April, 14, 2011. NMFS has received several comments requesting a 15-day extension of the comment period. NMFS has determined that it is reasonable to extend the comment period to allow additional opportunities for public comment, and is extending the comment period until April 28, 2011. These comments will assist NMFS in determining final management measures to conserve and manage the Atlantic tunas fisheries, consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law.
        Need for Correction
        This Gloucester, MA, public hearing, originally scheduled for March 21, 2011, has been rescheduled to April 1, 2011, to provide additional advance notice of the hearing and allow attendees additional time to prepare their comments prior to the hearing. In the proposed rule that published March 14, 2011 (76 FR 13583):

        1. On page 13583, in the second column, the date and time of the first public hearing listed under the heading DATES should be corrected to read as follows:
        “1. April 1, 2011, 1 to 3 p.m., Gloucester, MA.”
        2. On page 13588, in the first column, the first paragraph under the heading “Request for Comments” should be corrected to read as follows:

        “NMFS solicits comments on this proposed rule through April 28, 2011. See instructions in ADDRESSES section above. NMFS intends to add additional hearings to allow for additional opportunities for public comment. NMFS will announce the dates and locations of those hearings in a future notice.”

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: March 16, 2011.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-6563 Filed 3-16-11; 4:15 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Parts 1 and 54
        [GN Docket No. 20-32; DA 20-594; FRS 16841]
        Office of Economics and Analytics and Wireline Competition Bureau Seek Comment on Adjustment Factor Values for the 5G Fund

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Office of Economics and Analytics (Office) and the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) propose and seek comment on specific adjustment factor values for purposes of bidding in the 5G Fund auction as well as for disaggregating legacy support. The Office and Bureau seek comment on these adjustment factor values and specifically on whether these values are appropriate to achieve the Commission's objective of distributing 5G Fund and legacy support to a range of areas across the country that are geographically and economically diverse, and to ensure that the 5G Fund supports those areas that absent such support would be unlikely to reap the benefits of 5G deployment.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before July 7, 2020; reply comments are due on or before August 6, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:

          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 identified by GN Docket No. 20-32 on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
          • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Except when the filer requests that materials be withheld from public inspection, any document may be submitted electronically through the Commission's ECFS. Persons that need to submit confidential filings to the Commission should follow the instructions provided in the Commission's March 31, 2020 public notice, DA 20-361, regarding the procedures for submission of confidential materials.
          • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent 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.
          • Commercial Overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Dr., Annapolis Junction, Annapolis, MD 20701.
          • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th St. SW, Washington, DC 20554.

          • Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.

          • During the time the Commission's building is closed to the general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Kate Matraves, Economic Analysis Division, Office of Economics and Analytics, (202) 391-6272 or Catherine.Matraves@fcc.gov, or Emily Burke, Auctions Division, Office of Economics and Analytics, (202) 418-1470 or Emily.Burke@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Adjustment Factor Comment Public Notice, GN Docket No. 20-32, DA 20-594, released on June 5, 2020. The complete text of this document and its appendices is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, except when FCC Headquarters is otherwise closed to visitors. See Public Notice, Restrictions on Visitors to FCC Facilities, March 12, 2020. The complete text of this document and its appendices are also available on the Commission's website at https://www.fcc.gov/document/bureau-seek-comment-adjustment-factor-values-5g-fund or by using the search function for GN Docket No. 20-32 on the Commission's ECFS web page at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Alternative formats (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) are available to persons with disabilities by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418 0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
        I. Introduction
        1. On April 23, 2020, the Commission adopted the 5G Fund NPRM and Order, 85 FR 31636, May 26, 2020, 85 FR 34525, Jun. 5, 2020, in which it proposed to adopt rules and a framework for establishing the 5G Fund for Rural America. Using multi-round reverse auctions, the 5G Fund would provide up to $9 billion to support 5G service in rural areas of the country that otherwise would be unlikely to see unsubsidized deployment. Every American, including those living in rural areas, should have access to high-speed, mobile wireless broadband networks that are capable of providing 5G service in order to facilitate the development of new technologies, foster economic growth, and ensure that educational opportunities are widely available. To account for the relative costs of serving areas that vary in terrain characteristics and potential business cases, the Commission proposed to apply an adjustment factor to make the most difficult areas to serve more attractive at auction in order to encourage more bidding for these areas. The adjustment factor also would be used to transition legacy high-cost support to 5G Fund support. The Office of Economics and Analytics (Office) and the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) seek comment on proposed adjustment factor values and on three economic analyses that have informed their proposed adjustment factor values.
        2. In the 5G Fund NPRM and Order, the Commission declared its commitment to bridging the digital divide and proposed to dedicate universal service funds to bring 5G mobile wireless service to the rural areas where there is likely insufficient financial incentive for mobile wireless carriers to invest in 5G-capable networks absent support. In proposing the 5G Fund as a replacement for Mobility Fund Phase II (which focused on 4G LTE), the Commission recognized that all American consumers, not just those living in urban areas, must have access to the most current and advanced technologies and services available in the marketplace in order to fully participate in today's society. By supporting the construction and operation of 5G mobile broadband networks in areas that may otherwise go unserved, the Commission stated that it can help Americans living, working, and traveling in rural communities gain access to communication options on par with those offered in urban areas.
        3. The Commission proposed in the 5G Fund NPRM and Order to use a multi-round, descending clock auction similar to the Connect America Fund Phase II for Phase I of the 5G Fund to identify: (1) The areas that will receive support; (2) the provider that will be assigned to receive support in each such area; and (3) the amount of support that each winning bidder will be eligible to receive. Further, the Commission proposed that bids for 5G Fund support would be accepted and winning bids would be determined based on a support price per adjusted square kilometer of the eligible area covered by the bid. To determine the adjusted square kilometers of the eligible areas, the Commission proposed to incorporate an adjustment factor into the auction design. This factor would assign a weight to be applied to the actual square kilometers of eligible areas that would reflect, among other things, the relative cost of serving areas with differing terrain characteristics, as well as the potential business case for serving each area. In the Mobility Fund Phase II Report and Order, 82 FR 154221 (Mar. 28, 2017), 82 FR 13413 (Mar. 13, 2017), the Commission acknowledged that terrain could affect the cost of deploying service, noting that more mountainous terrains with greater variations in slope are areas that tend to be more costly to serve than level plains. A terrain factor was adopted in Mobility Fund Phase II to weight the area of each square kilometer within a census block such that eligible areas in more mountainous areas would be allocated a greater amount of a competitive ETC's total legacy support to reflect the higher costs of serving such areas. The Commission explained in the 5G Fund NPRM and Order that the auction format proposed for the 5G Fund is one in which a uniform support rate is offered across all eligible areas, and carriers indicate which specific areas they would service at that rate. If the sum of all payments that would be made at a specific rate given carriers' expressed willingness to serve exceeds the 5G Fund budget, then the rate would decrease and carriers would express their willingness to serve at the lower rate. This process would continue until the payment is less than or equal to the 5G Fund budget. Under this process, carriers would be willing to serve fewer areas as the rate falls, but if the same rate is offered for all remaining areas, more support than is needed would flow to the less costly-to-serve and more profitable remaining areas. The adjustment factor would, therefore, allocate a multiple of any given support rate to more costly and less profitable areas, thereby making them more attractive to serve and increasing the support to such areas.
        4. In addition, for purposes of transitioning legacy high-cost support to 5G support, the Commission proposed to disaggregate legacy high-cost support. To account for the relative costs of providing mobile service, the Commission proposed to apply an adjustment factor to these disaggregation steps. This adjustment factor would determine how support will be treated during the transition across difference types of areas—for example, how support will be disaggregated across eligible and ineligible portions of the legacy support area, as well as in eligible portions of the legacy support area where a bidder wins support and where there is no winner. In other words, the Commission proposed to multiply the actual square kilometers of eligible areas and/or disaggregated areas of legacy support by an adjustment factor so as to increase the amount of support per actual square kilometer that goes to more costly or less profitable areas.
        5. In the 5G Fund NPRM and Order, the Commission directed the Office and Bureau to propose and seek comment on the appropriate adjustment factor values and the underlying methodologies that could be used to develop them, and recommended that they inform their proposals by using data from several sources, including the U.S. Geological Survey, historical coverage and infrastructure deployment data received by the Commission, data from the U.S. Census Bureau, spectrum holdings information, and Mobility Fund Phase I auction data. In the Adjustment Factor Comment Public Notice, the Office and Bureau propose specific adjustment factor values for purposes of bidding in the 5G Fund auction as well as for disaggregating legacy support. These proposed values reflect the Office and Bureau's evaluation of the costs and benefits of providing 5G services to different geographic areas, as informed and supported by three economic analyses developed by Commission staff and described in detail in Appendix B to the Adjustment Factor Comment Public Notice. The Office and Bureau seek comment on these adjustment factor values and specifically on whether these values are appropriate to achieve the Commission's objective of distributing 5G Fund and legacy support to a range of areas across the country that are geographically and economically diverse, and to ensure that the 5G Fund supports those areas that absent such support would be unlikely to reap the benefits of 5G deployment.
        II. Determination of an Adjustment Factor

        6. In this section, the Office and Bureau first describe the cost factors underlying the deployment of a 5G network in rural areas, as well as the potential expected revenues for each area, and then propose certain adjustment factor values and provide a summary of the three underlying economic analyses used to develop these values. In Appendix A to the Adjustment Factor Comment Public Notice, the Office and Bureau provide a terrain elevation map of the United States. In Appendix B to the Adjustment Factor Comment Public Notice, the Office and Bureau provide a detailed description of the three economic analyses under comment, which account for the expected variations in terrain and revenues across different geographic areas.
        A. Factors Underlying an Adjustment Factor
        7. Deploying 5G wireless networks in rural areas is a capital-intensive investment primarily driven by the costs of deploying base station cell sites. The costs of constructing, operating, and upgrading tower sites, or leasing tower sites, will vary depending on factors such as the location's remoteness, distance to the nearest road, access to backhaul, variance in terrain elevation, land cover, and the cost of local construction and installation labor. The potential coverage area of a site, and hence the number of sites needed, in turn will depend on the specific site location, antenna height above average terrain, terrain variation, foliage and the density of local structures, the spectrum band, and the number of subscribers served. Terrain variation can limit overall signal propagation and cell coverage depending on the specific location of the cell site due to the obstructions of the signal's path. For example, in a hilly area with terrain obstacles, signal propagation losses are more severe at higher frequencies, although a cell site would typically be located on higher ground in order to minimize terrain obstructions.
        8. Site Costs. The initial capital expenditure for deploying a wireless network base station includes site construction costs, such as site acquisition; site development; leasehold improvements; shelter, including the equipment shelter and installation services; structure cost including the tower structure, design, construction, and installation costs; radio frequency cost including the radio and baseband electronics, antennas, and cables; and backhaul cost including equipment and service to connect the site to the core network. Collocation on an existing tower generally should cost less than building a new tower site, but it is less likely that existing towers are available in more remote and unserved areas. In addition, deploying new sites in hillier terrain is likely to incur higher site costs due to the need to construct backhaul and leasehold improvement requirements such as constructing road and utility access, in addition to excavating a level space with proper drainage to construct a tower. Remote site development costs are largely dependent on the specific location and the leasehold improvements required can vary significantly. It is typically more expensive to provide service to rural subscribers due to the scarcity of utility and other services and the long distances required to travel to reach the sites in less densely populated areas, especially if terrain is more mountainous.
        9. Spectrum. Spectrum bands can be classified broadly as: Low-band (below 1 GHz), mid-band (between 1 GHz and 6 GHz), and high-band. Each band has unique coverage and capacity properties; low-band spectrum is better suited for wider coverage (both in terms of range as well as better indoor penetration) and higher-band spectrum is better suited for higher capacity and throughput. The wavelength of the signal, which is inversely proportional to frequency, impacts the signal's ability to propagate over and around obstacles and to penetrate various building materials and land cover such as trees and shrubs. A higher frequency signal is generally attenuated more at greater distances than a lower frequency signal due to antenna and atmospheric effects. Frequencies below 1 GHz experience lower propagation losses and therefore can provide coverage over a larger area which leads to cost advantages for network deployment in rural areas. Higher frequency bands, on the other hand, are typically available in larger channel bandwidths which lead to higher throughput speeds but the wavelength of the signal results in greater propagation losses. A higher frequency signal generally encounters higher penetration losses as it propagates through obstructions such as buildings or trees; larger amounts of contiguous spectrum are typically available in higher operating frequencies than in lower frequencies. The additional contiguous spectrum, however, allows for assignment of larger channel bandwidths, thereby making available more capacity as compared to lower frequencies. Mobile wireless carriers, depending on their spectrum holdings, may be able to simultaneously deploy low and mid-band spectrum in rural areas to take advantage of both propagation and capacity capabilities, respectively. If the cost of spectrum is lower in more rural areas, this could significantly offset many of the other higher site costs. In addition, 5G technology enables carrier aggregation to further optimize the desired coverage, throughput, and capacity. Carrier aggregation enables the use of two different channels within the same frequency spectrum or in different spectra, allowing, for example, the augmentation of low band propagation capabilities with mid band capacity advantages.

        10. The Office and Bureau propose to use various cost characteristics as outlined here and described in more detail in Appendices A and B to the Adjustment Factor Comment Public Notice—including terrain elevation, spectrum frequency and clutter—to capture the relative cost of serving areas with differing terrain characteristics. The Office and Bureau seek comment on this proposal.
        11. Business Case: Demand Factors. As well as being geographically diverse, the United States is economically diverse. As set out in the 5G Fund NPRM and Order, in addition to relative cost characteristics, the adjustment factor values the Office and Bureau propose should also capture the expected revenues that might be generated in each area. The Office and Bureau propose to use various economic characteristics—including income, GDP, and population density—as proxies for the demand factors in each of the economic analyses. The Office and Bureau seek comment on this proposal.

        B. Proposed Adjustment Factor Values
        12. The Commission proposed in the 5G Fund NPRM and Order to adopt an adjustment factor that would assign a weight to specific geographic areas. The proposed adjustment factor values would increase the likelihood that 5G Fund support is distributed to geographically and economically diverse areas by taking into account the differences among such areas in the costs and benefits of providing services. The Commission also proposed a process in the 5G Fund NPRM and Order to disaggregate legacy high-cost support. As the Commission explained, to disaggregate legacy support, it “would overlay the boundaries of eligible areas and the minimum geographic area for bidding over each legacy support recipient's service area[,]” in effect “subdivid[ing] the geographic boundary for each carrier's subsidized service area into the smallest constituent piece for which support must be disaggregated and transitioned separately” and then apply the adjustment factor to each such area. In this way, a larger portion of a carrier's disaggregated legacy high-cost support would be assigned to those portions of its subsidized service area that have a higher adjustment factor, using the same values calculated for bidding. For example, suppose that a carrier receives $100 in legacy high-cost support for its subsidized service area, the entirety of which is eligible for 5G Fund support. If 15 square kilometers of the service area falls within census tract A, which has an adjustment factor value of 2.0, and 70 square kilometers of the service area falls within census tract B, which has an adjustment factor value of 1.0, the Commission would disaggregate its legacy support and assign $30 to the portion of the service area in census tract A and $70 to the portion of the service area in census tract B. The 5G Fund NPRM and Order directs the Office and Bureau to propose specific values for the adjustment factor and to detail the underlying methodologies that could be used to develop the weights. The Office and Bureau accordingly seek comment on how to apply the adjustment factor to the disaggregation of legacy support.

        13. First, the Office and the Bureau seek comment on the adjustment factor values presented in Figure 1, which synthesize and are informed by the three economic analyses. Each of the economic analyses estimates one or more sets of adjustment factor values. To generate the values presented in Figure 1, essentially the Office and Bureau considered a middle ground of the three specific analyses so as to take all three analyses into account, and then rounded for administrative simplicity. The Office and Bureau believe this is the most reasonable way to integrate all the results generated by the Entry Model, the Cell Site Density Model and the Auction Bidding Model. The explanation of the three terrain categories and the demand factors listed in Figure 1 can be found in Appendix A and Appendix B to the Adjustment Factor Comment Public Notice, respectively. The Office and Bureau seek comment generally on their proposed adjustment factor values. The Office and Bureau recognize that the Commission does not intend that the adjustment factor that is ultimately adopted will capture the full differences between the costs and expected revenues of providing service to different types of geographic areas. In addition, the Commission stated in the 5G Fund NPRM and Order that, if necessary, the adjustment factor will be capped to ensure the funding allocation determined by the auction is both equitable and efficient. Commenters are invited to address whether the specific proposed adjustment factor values are consistent with the intentions of the Commission as stated in the 5G Fund NPRM and Order.

          EP17JN20.021

        14. The Office and Bureau seek comment also on the three economic analyses that inform their estimated adjustment factor values. The technical descriptions of the three economic analyses which informed the Office and Bureau's proposal are found in Appendix B to the Adjustment Factor Comment Public Notice. The Office and Bureau ask commenters to submit any analysis that alternatively or additionally might inform the adjustment factor values that the Office and Bureau propose. Further, the Office and Bureau seek comment on the data sources staff used, and ask that commenters submit alternative data sources to the extent that they might better inform the Office's and Bureau's analyses. In addition, the Office and Bureau seek comment on whether, in determining whether an area would be likely to receive 5G service, the Office and Bureau have identified appropriately the underlying factors that wireless carriers use in considering whether to deploy 5G service. Finally, the Office and Bureau ask commenters to submit any alternative methodological approaches and analyses for determining the appropriate adjustment factor values.
        15. Entry Model Adjustment Factor. In order to estimate how relative costs and revenues differ across geographic areas, the Office and Bureau's first analysis examines how geographic areas' physical and demographic characteristics affect carriers' network deployment decisions. The Office and Bureau assume that carriers only enter areas where their long-run incremental revenues are greater than their long-run incremental cost of deploying wireless mobile service; this implies those areas with high demand and low costs attract a greater number of carriers than those areas with low demand and high costs. To understand what makes an area attractive to carriers, the Office and Bureau estimate an ordered logistic regression of the number of carriers providing service. To proxy for the carriers' expected revenue generated by entering the area and providing service, the Office and Bureau include independent variables such as population, local GDP, and median household income. To proxy for network deployment costs, the Office and Bureau include independent variables such as terrain variation and the percentage of forested land. Finally, the Office and Bureau include a variable that accounts for past universal service support. To construct the adjustment factor, the Office and Bureau solve for the adjustments necessary to offset entry probability differences caused by variations in terrain and income. The Commission has proposed in the 5G Fund NPRM and Order that the adjustment factor would be applied in the auction bidding system as a multiplicative factor on the number of square kilometers associated with a biddable area, so the Office and Bureau estimate the adjustment factor values that, all else equal, would make the adjusted square kilometers in all areas equally attractive to bidders. To ensure that the model's estimated parameters and resulting adjustment factors are robust to alternative assumptions, the Office and Bureau report the estimation results and the accompanying factors from twelve different specifications of the model.
        16. Cell Site Density Model Adjustment Factor. In their second analysis, the Office and Bureau estimate the difference in the number of cell sites required to provide high-quality 5G service in hillier terrain areas compared to flat areas. Since more variability in the terrain of a cell site service area tends to reduce the received signal strength at a given location, wireless carriers must, all else equal, build more cell sites in mountainous rural areas compared to flat rural areas to provide the same quality of service (e.g., speed). Using county-level cell site locations and coverage data, the Office and Bureau's model estimates differences in the average coverage area of a site due to the terrain of the site service area, holding all other determinants of cell site coverage areas fixed. To predict cell site coverage areas by terrain category, the Office and Bureau first run a regression analysis of cell site coverage area on variables that account for network capacity, network load, signal propagation, and service quality. Then using the regression model estimates, the Office and Bureau predict the average coverage area of a site in a typical rural area for their three terrain categories (flat, hilly, and mountainous) to calculate an adjustment factor that estimates how many sites per square mile on average are required to deploy comparable 5G mobile service in rural areas within each terrain category. If cell site deployment costs are the same across terrain categories, the adjustment factor values estimate the cost differences in providing wireless service across terrain types. If sites cost more to deploy in more mountainous terrain, then the adjustment factor values are underestimated. The Office and Bureau do not have information on deployment cost variation by terrain, so these potential cost differences are not accounted for in the estimated adjustment factors in the Cell Site Density Model.
        17. Auction Bidding Model Adjustment Factor. In their third analysis, the Office and Bureau use Mobility Fund Phase I (Auction 901) sealed bid data (i.e., a firm's requested subsidy to provide mobile service to a specified unserved geographic area) to understand how terrain and other factors impact the bid amount requested by a carrier to deploy service. The Office and Bureau assume that a carrier's bid amount is a function of its expected revenues, expected competition in the auction, and expected costs. The Office and Bureau estimate adjustment factor values by applying a regression model that estimates the effect of terrain on the bid amount controlling for variables that determine revenues and costs. To calculate adjustment factor values, the Office and Bureau divide their measure of terrain into the same three categories and then predict the expected ratio of bid amounts in the hilly and mountainous terrain categories over the bid amount in flat terrain while holding all other factors fixed.
        III. Procedural Matters
        18. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose. Pursuant to § 1.1200(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1200(a), this document shall 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).
        19. 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 § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 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 electronic comment filing system 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.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Gary Michaels,
          Deputy Chief, Auctions Division, Office of Economics and Analytics.

      [FR Doc. 2020-12845 Filed 6-16-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P